william.scherk

I suspect the Party Line has taken hold here, which is a grim thought. I hope I am wrong, but it seems that most folks who come out with an opinion contra anthropogenic global warming on OL have concluded that the whole thing is fraud on a major scale. I don't really know where to begin conversation, fruitful conversation, with such apparent fixed opinions. But -- you are a reasonable fellow, intelligent, thoughtful. I wonder what common ground we two might share on these matters, the basics, so we could elucidate the questions in your mind. I don't know if we have to go back all the way to definitions, yet there has to be some kind of starting point for what is reasonable skepticism in your mind. I will say that the one book out of the many from both sides that swayed me from agnosticism was Spencer Weart's book, The Discover Of Global Warming. Have you read this book, or taken a gander at the web version?

Thanks, Robert! Repaired.

Great. That makes three of us so far who have made their interest explicit -- Adam, me, and Robert. Any other takers? Let's give it a little time, like the weekend. Sounds good. I add this only to put the thread on the page again. Going once, going twice, and . . . the House wins. There is no need to 'debate' AGW.

From the Edge's 2011 World Question "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?" 158 Contributors gave answers to the question suggested by Steven Pinker. Many intriguing answers from thinkers ranging from Brian Eno to Donald Hoffman, from the ascerbicly cynical to the loopy, with much sense in between. Here is my favourite answer so far . . . from the science blogger PZ Myers. The Mediocrity Principle As someone who just spent a term teaching freshman introductory biology, and will be doing it again in the coming months, I have to say that the first thing that leapt to my mind as an essential skill everyone should have was algebra. And elementary probability and statistics. That sure would make my life easier, anyway — there's something terribly depressing about seeing bright students tripped up by a basic math skill that they should have mastered in grade school. But that isn't enough. Elementary math skills are an essential tool that we ought to be able to take for granted in a scientific and technological society. What idea should people grasp to better understand their place in the universe? I'm going to recommend the mediocrity principle. It's fundamental to science, and it's also one of the most contentious, difficult concepts for many people to grasp — and opposition to the mediocrity principle is one of the major linchpins of religion and creationism and jingoism and failed social policies. There are a lot of cognitive ills that would be neatly wrapped up and easily disposed of if only everyone understood this one simple idea. The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn't privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn't the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion. Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws — laws that apply everywhere and to everything, with no special exemptions or amplifications for your benefit — given variety by the input of chance. Everything that you as a human being consider cosmically important is an accident. The rules of inheritance and the nature of biology meant that when your parents had a baby, it was anatomically human and mostly fully functional physiologically, but the unique combination of traits that make you male or female, tall or short, brown-eyed or blue-eyed were the result of a chance shuffle of genetic attributes during meiosis, a few random mutations, and the luck of the draw in the grand sperm race at fertilization. Don't feel bad about that, though, it's not just you. The stars themselves form as a result of the properties of atoms, the specific features of each star set by the chance distribution of ripples of condensation through clouds of dust and gas. Our sun wasn't required to be where it is, with the luminosity it has — it just happens to be there, and our existence follows from this opportunity. Our species itself is partly shaped by the force of our environment through selection, and partly by fluctuations of chance. If humans had gone extinct 100,000 years ago, the world would go on turning, life would go on thriving, and some other species would be prospering in our place — and most likely not by following the same intelligence-driven technological path we did. And if you understand the mediocrity principle, that's OK. The reason this is so essential to science is that it's the beginning of understanding how we came to be here and how everything works. We look for general principles that apply to the universe as a whole first, and those explain much of the story; and then we look for the quirks and exceptions that led to the details. It's a strategy that succeeds and is useful in gaining a deeper knowledge. Starting with a presumption that a subject of interest represents a violation of the properties of the universe, that it was poofed uniquely into existence with a specific purpose, and that the conditions of its existence can no longer apply, means that you have leapt to an unfounded and unusual explanation with no legitimate reason. What the mediocrity principle tells us is that our state is not the product of intent, that the universe lacks both malice and benevolence, but that everything does follow rules — and that grasping those rules should be the goal of science.

Here's the full text of the Kinsella letter to George Smith. This is from the same thread as cited above, and is contained in cc: to George's friend Tim Starr. I have removed inessential headers; the entire original can be found archived here. It looks like the charges of plagiarism were not repeated in public until yesterday. One thing to consider is that Kinsella and Rodriguez are actively monitoring this thread, and may be preparing to pursue the action contained in the ultimate paragraph: FROM: N. Stephan Kinsella TO: George H. Smith June 1, 1998 WITHOUT PREJUDICE VIA FEDEX VIA FEDEX Mr. George H. Smith c/o Sharon Presley c/o Ms. Laura Kroutil Resources for Independent Thinking 555 41st Avenue 484 Lake Park Avenue, #24 San Francisco, California 94121 Oakland, California 94610-2730 *VIA EMAIL* c/o Ms. Laura Kroutil <vam...@sj.bigger.net> Re: Defamation and Libel of Wendy McElroy Dear Mr. Smith: We represent Ms. Wendy McElroy, whom you know. You have recently transmitted via the Internet several email messages to Ms. McElroy and to various third parties. In these email messages, you have leveled serious accusations against Ms. McElroy. Copies of various of these email messages are attached hereto. Earlier this year, Ms. McElroy's book, *The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival* (Prometheus Books, 1998) ("TRW"), was published. Part of TRW was based on ideas Ms. McElroy had developed in a previous collaboration with you, which collaboration itself had resulted in a 1989 unpublished manuscript, "Fundamentals of Reasoning" ("FOR"), co-authored by you and Ms. McElroy. On May 17, 1998, you sent an email message to Ms. McElroy from the email account of Ms. Laura Kroutil, <vam...@sj.bigger.net>. You transmitted a second email message to Ms. McElroy on May 18, 1998, and a third on May 19, 1998 (copies of these three email messages are attached). In these email messages, you accused Ms. McElroy of "plagiarism," on the asserted grounds that portions of TRW were copied from "your" FOR manuscript. In your May 17, 1998 email message, you accused Ms. McElroy "of extensive and deliberate plagiarism." You also falsely stated that Ms. McElroy was not a co-author of FOR, and was instead a mere typist or transcriber, and based your charges of plagiarism on this false claim. In addition, you explicitly threatened to take various actions, including faxing a copy of your email message alleging plagiarism to Ms. McElroy's publisher, Prometheus Books ("Prometheus"), and instituting a lawsuit against Ms. McElroy and/or Prometheus, unless Ms. McElroy sent you a certified check for US$10,000 no later than May 26, 1998. Beginning on May 19, 1998, and continuing virtually until the present, you transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, email messages containing similar allegations and accusations to a large number of third parties. For example, on May 19, 1998, you faxed and emailed to various third parties, including Prometheus, a message entitled "On the Plagiarism of Wendy McElroy," in which you again accused Ms. McElroy of plagiarism (copies of exemplary email messages attached hereto). All of your transmitted or posted email messages regarding this matter, of which we are aware, have been transmitted by you, directly or indirectly, from the same email account <vamp97@ sj.bigger.net>. Some of these email messages were posted by you, or caused to be posted by you with your permission, to various listservs and newsgroups, such as the randian-feminism list and the newsgroups alt.politics.libertarian and talk.politics.libertarian. For example, Ms. Sharon Presley, of Resources for Independent Thinking, posted on the randian-feminism list email messages transmitted to her by you; and Tim Starr posted on his anarchism listserv email messages transmitted to him by you. Therefore, it is clear that you published and disseminated your accusations of plagiarism and other statements to a large number of third parties. Your actions and allegations in this regard are completely outrageous, inexcusable, and wholly groundless, for the following reasons. You and Ms. McElroy worked and lived together for an approximately ten-year period, from 1975 to 1985. During this period, you and Ms. McElroy were intellectual partners in developing material on "reasoning" that were presented in several eight-week courses, entitled "Fundamentals of Reasoning." The courses were given in Los Angeles from approximately 1975 to 1987, and Ms. McElroy participated with you in developing the courses and related course materials from 1975 to 1984. You and Ms. McElroy were thus co-authors of various course-related materials, which were developed for these classes. You two then converted materials and ideas developed by both of you related to the courses, into a co-authored manuscript on "reasoning," to-wit, the FOR manuscript. FOR is therefore a joint work which you and Ms. McElroy co-authored. Incontrovertible proof of this conclusion is shown by the "Contract on Reasoning Book/Untitled" executed by both you and Ms. McElroy on November 29, 1989 (the "1989 Contract"; attached hereto; also available at <http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>). This contract, executed four years after your separation, explicitly provides that you and Ms. McElroy had "co-authored a book on reasoning." Despite your false assertions to the contrary, therefore, Ms. McElroy was a full co-author of FOR, and not a "mere typist" or transcriber. As explicitly acknowledged in TRW's text, TRW was based, in part, on ideas developed by Ms. McElroy in collaboration with you, which ideas were also the subject of FOR. (For example, in the "Acknowledgments" section on page 9 of TRW, Ms. McElroy explicitly states: "The philosopher George Smith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW and, over the ten years of our close association, we discussed many of the ideas expanded upon within." And on page 142 of TRW, Ms. McElroy states: "The next two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapy group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunate enough to participate.") Thus, selected portions of TRW of course may bear a similarity to some ideas expressed in FOR (it is difficult to verify this since you have refused to produce the original FOR manuscript, which Ms. McElroy no longer has in her possession). Indeed, because of the copyright doctrine of merger of ideas and expression, it is only natural that the expression of ideas in TRW similar to those in FOR would find similar expression (as Ms. McElroy has noted, how many ways are there to say "Put it in Writing" (TRW, p. 93)?); and neither you nor Ms. McElroy has a right to ideas per se. Nevertheless, Ms. McElroy *did not* copy any portion of FOR in the preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of her copies of FOR before beginning writing TRW in 1994. Any similarity in wording is easily explicable, given Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR and her intimate familiarity with the course material, having participated in the course five times to help improve and develop the course material, and having drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparing material for FOR and for the associated courses (e.g. *Thinking As A Science*, by Henry Hazlitt) (this is explained in detail by Ms. McElroy at <http://www.zetetics.com/ reason/similar.htm>). Ms. McElroy did not plagiarize your work--i.e., she did not publish "your" writings as if they were her own. The simple fact of the matter is that Ms. McElroy authored a new work, TRW, based in limited part on previous ideas co-developed by you and her and which were also the subject of her very own co-authored work, FOR. Therefore, your accusations of plagiarism are completely groundless and libelous. Moreover, even if Ms. McElroy *had* copied portions of FOR in writing TRW, your claims would be equally groundless and libelous. As noted, the 1989 Contract provides unassailable proof that Ms. McElroy was a co-author of FOR. She was thus also a co-owner of the copyright thereto, and is therefore entitled to use this material in any way she sees fit, without your permission or approval. Similarly, you yourself have used these co-authored materials without Ms. McElroy's permission (or objection). For example, some of these materials were apparently used by you in your book *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies* (Prometheus, 1991), and continue to be used in courses conducted by you and held under the auspices of Resources for Independent Thinking in Oakland, California. Just as it is your right to use your own co-authored material as you see fit, so with Ms. McElroy. Furthermore, if the co-authored, joint work FOR drew on or incorporated some previous work solely authored by you (such as your 1974 handout), then, since the entire, joint manuscript FOR was co-authored and co-owned by you and Ms. McElroy, it would be irrelevant if portions of TRW express ideas similar to those found in your previous work, since you and Ms. McElroy were co-authors and joint co-owners of everything in FOR, including particular portions drawing on either of your previous works. Similarly, if some of your subsequent works express ideas similar to those in FOR because you drew on FOR in creating the subsequent work, it would of course be irrelevant that these subsequent works express ideas similar to those expressed in portions of TRW. Therefore, even assuming *arguendo* that Ms. McElroy had directly incorporated portions of FOR into TRW, she was entitled to do this; she was entitled to create a new, derivative work, using her own co-authored work FOR. Thus, even if you are able to provide a manuscript entitled "Fundamentals of Reasoning" and to somehow prove that this is the same 1989 FOR manuscript co-authored by you and Ms. McElroy (which proof will be difficult as you apparently claim only to have a disk copy of FOR which can easily be altered and thus difficult to verify), and even if you can locate similar passages therebetween, your claims are still completely groundless and libelous, as this would show only that an author created a new work drawing on her own previous work. There can simply be no doubt that, under applicable principles of copyright law, Ms. McElroy was a co-author of FOR and that she is therefore the sole author of any new, derivative work authored by her incorporating portions of her previously co-authored work. Any claims that Ms. McElroy is not the sole author of TRW or that she was not a co-author of FOR are completely false. As you know, Ms. McElroy is a respected and prolific full-time author and independent scholar. Her works include the aforementioned TRW, as well as: *XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography* (St. Martin's Press, 1995); *Sexual Correctness* (McFarland, 1996); *19th Century Individualist Feminists: the Forgotten Roots of American Feminism* (McFarland, forthcoming); and *Freedom, Feminism and the State* (editor) (1st ed., Cato, 1983; 2nd ed., Holmes & Meier, 1991; 3rd ed., Independent Institute, forthcoming). Ms. McElroy has also written on women's and other issues for *National Review*, *Free Inquiry*, *Penthouse*, *Liberty*, *Reason*, and other fora, and was a 1997 nominee for the Mencken Award. (Information on these and other writings appears at her web site at <http://www.zetetics.com/mac>.) She has also worked as a scholar for a number of think tanks, including the Cato Institute. Through her dozens of articles and books published over more than sixteen years, Ms. McElroy has developed a valuable and well-deserved reputation as a serious, provocative, and thoughtful writer. Like other writers and scholars, therefore, Ms. McElroy's career and livelihood rest on her most precious assets: her scholarly and writing abilities and her reputation for integrity and honesty. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that your statements in email messages published to third parties in which you falsely accuse Ms. McElroy of plagiarism are injurious to Ms. McElroy's reputation, and are thus defamatory. In particular, since these statements were in written form, they are libelous; and any oral statements by you to third parties accusing Ms. McElroy of plagiarism are slanderous. Moreover, in addition to your libelous accusations of plagiarism, your various email messages published to third parties contain further libelous accusations. For example, you accused Ms. McElroy of "stealing seven years of [smith's] professional labor"; and of intentionally deceiving Prometheus and violating a contract with Prometheus. You also denied Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR, instead falsely relegating her to the status of a mere typist; and thereby impugned her honesty, integrity, and professional abilities. In addition, because your statements directly impugn Ms. McElroy's honesty and integrity, and detrimentally affect her professional reputation, they are libelous *per se*. In a lawsuit for libel *per se*, no actual damages need be proven by the plaintiff; instead, damages are presumed. Additionally, because you have taken these libelous actions *with malice* (as a review of your email messages transmitted May 17, 1998 *et seq.* clearly indicate), punitive damages may be available over and above any actual or presumed damages. Given the foregoing context and the fact that your emails drip with vitriol, insult, sarcasm, profanity, and cruelty, the malicious nature of your email messages, and your intention to inflict emotional distress, are apparent to any reader. Your deliberate and malicious acts of libel are therefore inexcusable, impermissible, and intolerable, and have very serious consequences. Please also note that your actions may have consequences beyond mere liability for defamation. For example, your initial email messages threatening to damage her reputation unless you received $10,000 from Ms. McElroy may involve state and/or federal criminal and/or civil liability for blackmail and extortion, as this is an attempt to obtain property by means of a threat to inflict injury to another's reputation. If you doubt this, by all means please feel welcome to show a copy of your initial email messages to Ms. McElroy to your local district attorney and solicit his opinion. In addition to your own liability in this regard, your actions may have unwittingly caused liability to be imposed on others. For example, your use of Ms. Kroutil's email account in taking the foregoing actions may implicate her with responsibility for some or all of the above-referenced liabilities. At the very least, your actions may cause Ms. Kroutil's ISP, @bigger.net, to cancel her email account, as they are in direct violation of the terms of @bigger.net's "Acceptable Usage Policy" (see <http://www.bigger.net/policy.html>). In particular, Section VI of the Acceptable Usage Policy provides that the subscriber agrees to comply with all applicable laws. Section VI.C specifically provides that the subscriber agrees not to transmit any material that is libelous or threatening. Section VIII.E also prohibits continued harassment of other individuals after being asked to stop doing so by those individuals and by @bigger.net. We hereby demand that you stop harassing Ms. McElroy, pursuant to this Section VIII.E, and hereby request @bigger.net via copy hereto, to also ask you to stop doing so, and to copy me on this request or otherwise confirm that such request has been or will be made. Note also that Section VI.E of the Acceptable Usage Policy provides that the subscriber will indemnify @bigger.net for expenses, such as liabilities and attorneys' fees, incurred by @bigger.net as a result of the actions of a subscriber in violation of the Acceptable Usage Policies. Thus, if @bigger.net were to become liable or a party to a lawsuit related to your above-described libelous and other actions, either you and/or Ms. Kroutil could be liable for various of @bigger.net's costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. (@bigger.net is hereby notified, however, that Ms. McElroy is *not* hereby threatening to institute litigation against @bigger.net for any past actions of Mr. Smith and/or Ms. Kroutil.) In addition, please note that under defamation law, not only is publication of certain false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be defamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamation and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action. Thus, for example, Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and others, in re-publishing your libelous comments, may also be implicated with liability for defamation and libel. We request that Mr. Starr and Ms. Presley, copied hereto, give careful consideration to this matter before participating in any further re-publication of your defamatory and libelous statements. (Mr. Starr, Ms. Presley, Ms. Kroutil, and other third parties are hereby notified, however, that Ms. McElroy is *not* hereby threatening to institute litigation against any such third parties for any past actions of Mr. Smith.) In sum, you transmitted email messages to Ms. McElroy in which you knowingly and falsely accused her of plagiarism and of not being a co-author of FOR, despite your explicit acknowledgment of her co-authorship thereof in the 1989 Contract. You also threatened to damage Ms. McElroy's reputation unless you received a cash payment. You then repeatedly libeled Ms. McElroy, by publishing to a large number of third parties similar accusations, in a deliberate and malicious attempt to harm Ms. McElroy's professional reputation, and you continue to do so. Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any other communication, in writing or orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy has plagiarized FOR or any work of yours. We further demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any other communication to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy did not co-author FOR, or that she has lied, breached contracts, stolen others' work, or engaged in any other unlawful or unethical activity that would adversely affect her career as a writer and professional reputation related thereto. In short, we demand that you immediately cease engaging in any acts defaming Ms. McElroy and injuring her professional reputation. We further demand that you immediately cease and desist from directly contacting Ms. McElroy in any form whatsoever, and that you also immediately cease threatening, extorting, blackmailing, or harassing Ms. McElroy. If you desire to communicate with Ms. McElroy, any such communication should be directed to and conducted through me. Please note that it is Ms. McElroy's intention to defend her reputation and to defend herself against any continuing threats or harassment, and to avail herself of all rights and remedies available under state and/or federal law. If there is any further action by you whatsoever in contravention of our demands set forth above, we will assume that you intend to continue violating Ms. McElroy's rights, and we will advise our client that it will be necessary to institute litigation to preserve her rights. Very truly yours, /s N. Stephan Kinsella for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP NSK:amh Encl. as stated (with hard copy only) cc: Ms. Laura Kroutil (via FEDEX; and text via email <vam...@sj.bigger.net>) Steven L. Mitchel, Prometheus Books (via FEDEX) @bigger.net (via FEDEX; and text via email <ab...@bigger.net>) Ms. Sharon Presley, Resources for Independent Thinking (via FEDEX) Mr. Tim Starr (via FEDEX) N. Stephan Kinsella Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP 600 Travis, Suite 6500 Houston, TX 77002 713-225-1633 (work) 713-225-1627 (fax) nskinse...@compuserve.com or nskinse...@duanemorris.com

Deleted by author.

Deleted by author.

Deleted by author.

Stephan Kinsella's legal analysis.<br><BR>

McElroy's web page referenced as a refutation to charges of similar language.<br><br>

Deleted by author.

The 1989 Contract cited by McElroy.

From Wendy McElroy's internet page Co-author.

Ted, we appreciate your advocacy, and are thrilled that you are taking the time from your many household duties to prosecute George pro bono in the court of public opinion, but perhaps you might consider not issuing a judgement until you actually accede to the bench.

<br><br>

Wow, Bill, I didn't catch that the first time around. What was I thinking when I accepted you as a Facebook friend? :-) Yeah. It sounds mean and overwrought, doesn't it? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound mean and overwrought, so I apologize for the tone and the temper -- especially for the personal swipes in the first paragraph above. I frenzed you on Facebook to winnow out what Steve was responding to in the excerpts he posted up thread. Anyhow, I don't know what remains to be said in this thread, Neil. I have read your complete book twice online, and I have reviewed your posts here several times. I have put the time in to try to figure you out, to try to figure out how you gained your 'beliefs,' how you came to accept the whole personal cosmology, how you constructed the world you live in, how you defend your 'beliefs' and your stances and yourself. I strip away the unpleasant, ugly words in the bit you quote, and I can probably sum up my psychological findings. But, you know what? I don't have to share that (not that it's particularly dire). I do think this, for what it's worth -- I think you are talented, quite talented, and well-married to your pen. In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on. For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking. That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing. I'd like to leave this thread now, and meet you on other threads of interest, and help make sure that you find within this community great arguments and fellowship and learning. I set aside from here on any considerations of your personal cosmology. It doesn't matter to me, the god business. I set all that to one side, incorporate what I have learned, and move on. I hope we can have some great and rousing arguments in other places in the OL multiverse. I leave you the last words in this thread and wish you well in all your ventures, come what may.

Bob, Ted doesn't respond to questions with he is in 'a mood.' I think he had three points -- the first was that valourizing Eisenhower's speech (apart from his warning about the dangers of the power of a large military-industrial complex) is silly and that Ted is not. Neither Eisenhower nor Wilson 'got it' but Ted does, even though he doesn't give speeches. The second point I think is that Eisenhower was a 'useful idiot.' Ted leaves out the implied part of the phrase -- i.e., useful idiot for which large ugly group -- so we don't know who fooled Eisenhower into doing their bidding, or to which ugly ideology Eisenhower gave support unwittingly. The third point is that few but Ted 'grasp' the essentials of all issues and so are silly and dumb and off-base and generally uninformed. Everyone. Witness his bitchiness over the Cowculus thread. Everyone but Ted was wrong, you see. Fools. Ingrates. We all get exasperated with fools, of course, but most of us don't have our guts in knots over it, and we do try to explain why we think this or that word or action or policy or pronouncement is foolish. Ted is taller, more beautiful, more blessed with brains, more wise, more informed, more engaged, more -- well, more anything and everything. And it tires him to point out other people's mistakes, to expend the time, to have to explain himself. And the lack of fit between his natural superiority in almost everything and the world of we ugly stupid drones, well, it hurts. It twists up his guts. It gives him cramps. Of course I could have all this completely wrong, or mostly wrong and Ted just has cramps. Cramps make you cranky. I like Ted. I just can't figure out what has turned him into such a humourless bitchy wretch lately . . . he's even given up his blog. I think he is in pain.

Judi McLeod**, writer of the CFP story, received many kudos from her readers for her fine journalism, except for one commenter TX Griff, who forked up a dozen 'together we thrive' references from the web that had fuck all to do with Obama, including a Massachusetts public library and a Jewish youth group. He pointed out that the trope has been around since Jesus opened his first drive-in: "Together we thrive, alone we survive." He highlighted the connect-the-dots errors made by Judi and her kudommandos, he made not a dent. Here's how a TruePatriot responded to TX Griff, connecting all the dots in a farrago of righteousness, sounding a lot like Lindsay Perigo: ____ ** Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist, whose service in the war for truth and freedom is recounted in a lovely, dry, Wikipedia article. My favourite revelations of Judi's stupendous cognitive achievements are these, below, but the whole article is a treat, including the items on her penchant for publishing the addresses and photos of her 'opponents': In 2005, McLeod and David Hawkins wrote a series of articles on what they described as the United Nations' "radical socialist agenda executed across Intranets and virtual private networks, operated by the self-styled 'Global Custodians'." They alleged links between "$40 trillion hedge funds, via an online portal on the seventy-ninth floor of One World Trade Center, to 'disruptive technologies' developed by Canada for alleged use in the UN Oil-for-Food scam, 9/11 and Kyoto fraud." McLeod and Hawkins allege that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States may have been a Mafia plot and not the work of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Right. Look at the T-shirt. At the bottom. All the way down. See it? I admit it's small, very small. Okay, invisibly small. But it's there. CFP says and Adam re-says, so . . . it's gotta be sorta kinda almost true . . . That's okay, though. If you want a re-print, souvenir version, you can just go on Ebay and get one, sold by a knock-off vendor from Zephyrhills, Florida. The dude selling them has only sold three at last count, but claims on the Ebay page that he sold 30,000 Columbine shirts. Frigging Democrats, huh?

I shoulda known. Eu não vejo o seu ponto, Michael. Mas, eu lamento que eu trouxe até o "outing" de Neil nomeação de seu correspondente em seu web log. Se eu fiz a conexão certa, nós não estaremos vendo a estrela fivela aqui de novo, e isso é uma vergonha. O meu mau. If you know what I'm saying . . .

Yes. Here is the full hour and a half programme, as recorded from Fox News. I did not see a t-shit handout, but there were some extremely undignified hugs, very disturbing. There was also a round of cheering, loud applause and whistling when your President was announced. Totally disgusting. Rang a bell. Made flesh creep. The unseemliness is all over the place, pippi. Fast forward to 36:32 and have a big shudder. For those who enjoy critiquing funerals and memorials, here is Justin Trudeau eulogizing his father at the funeral mass in Montreal. If you make it to the end, you can hear the crowd erupt in applause. They clapped and clapped as he left the lectern and sobbed on the casket. Most people understood where the applause came from, but a small rump of folk preferred to tut-tut about decorum, talk about the younger Trudeau's showboating and speculated that he was using his grief to make a political point. So, don't think I single you out for odium, pippi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dBZOslTuxM&NR=1 I had thought Chris Baker's 'who gives a fuck' reaction to the massacre in Tucson was the worst example of sociopathy on OL, and it is, but the "let us loathe" petition by pippi rivals that reaction in partisan hatefulness and myopia.

Done. I did not insist she read anything, but noted you had drafted an apology and provided an excerpt and link to your post above.

Is this lawyerly output an instance of Italian barristoy? Or would hand gestures also be required? Both. Here is the feeble non-response in Google Italian: Si tratta di 13 anni fa. Vecchie notizie. Non posso rispondere per ovvi motivi - professionali. E 'ingiusto fare domande che non posso rispondere. (questo è privata). E la sigora McElroy già risposto. Questa è una notizia vecchia. As for Il giudice istruttore Renzulli, his 'but it's just paraphrase' beggars belief. Caro Renzulli, paraphrasing without a reference to the original author is plagiarism. Or, in your mother tongue, "Un caso di parafrasare senza un riferimento all'autore originale è plagio. Per parafrasare senza citazione si adatta la definizione giuridica del plagio." I hope this doesn't become Year Of The Dumbfuck here at Ol, but initial signs are dire . . .

I disagree. He blew his best critique of Obama, lack of experience, by nominating her. I took Michael to mean Obama would have crushed McCain had he nominated someone other than Palin -- so you are probably in agreement. A lot of things can change between now and the next presidential election, of course, but Palin has trended down for the last year, leaving her at present with numbers below any of the other prospective Republican candidates in a race against Obama in 2012. The newest McClatchy/Marist poll caps the trend to the bottom. See: Obama rebounding, would beat GOP rivals, crush Palin From the McClatchy story:

In case you haven't noticed, I have not been real cheery and upbeat today, so this may not be the best time to challenge me to a Death Match. Forgive Ted. He has not been his usual cheery, thoughtful, compassionate self since he was moderated at Rebirth of Reason. Though I must say his calling you a sour and silly drama queen is irony to the nth. Incidentally, I asked Kinsella backstage if McElroy will respond. He wrote (I paraphrase), "murk murk murk dodge murkity murk murk can't say murk old news murk murk murk." From the murk of his response I gather that McElroy has made some kind of murky private response somewhere, and that the matter is closed. McElroy can be reached via her email address: wendy (at) wendymcelroy (dot) com