A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Recumbent Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old March 3rd 05, 05:53 PM
Freewheeling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Freewheeling wrote:





"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...





skip wrote:






"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...






"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
.. .






No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they
are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal
human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only
a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue
real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by
economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you
create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed
and avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or
wonder how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And
he won't budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any
success in moving him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards
the cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true
understanding of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but
then some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending
the illusion. At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after
the bovines have returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than
a century. People are better educated, better fed, better
entertained, more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests
actually smarter, than they ever have been before. There is less
poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
those places where the left still has its totalitarian
demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is
already happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving
the Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The
same is true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting
their policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.


Last I heard there was close to a consensus that the climate shift
that has taken place since the beginning of industrialization is well
within the bounds of natural climate change. This isn't tough to
verify.

Have you had your hearing checked?



For complete figures and graphs go to:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032403B.html

Excerpt from *Is the Arctic Melting?* by Willie Soon:

quote
The Basic Data



Figure 1: Arctic-wide temperature anomalies (in ?C) from 1875-2001
relative to the mean of 1961-1990 interval, with the number of stations
producing the temperature set in each decade. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov
of IARC at the University of Alaska)



Figure 1 shows the annual time series of the Arctic surface air
temperature from 1875 to 2001 as it was recently reconstructed by Igor
Polyakov and colleagues at the International Arctic Research Center
(IARC) in Fairbanks, Alaska and the Arctic and Antarctic Research
Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia.



The sources of this new temperature record include measurements from
land stations, floating buoys on the ocean and even drifting stations on
sea ice. Detailed documentations of the methodology and spatial sampling
strategy had been published in papers that appear in Geophysical
Research Letters, Journal of Climate and the American Geophysical
Union's EOS.



Figure 2: Distribution of surface air temperature stations on land,
ocean or sea-ice for the composite Arctic-wide temperature record in
Figure 1. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov of IARC at the University of
Alaska)



Figure 2 shows you all the locations poleward of about 62?N (with the
Arctic circle defined as the zonal ring around 66?N) where the air
temperatures are sampled to produce the Arctic-wide temperature history
shown in Figure 1.



What's Happening?



So what do we see in Figure 1?



First note that the maximum annual Arctic-wide temperature anomaly - the
difference from the mean temperature for 1961-90 as plotted by the blue
dash line - reached a maximum of 1.7?Celsius in 1938. That compares with
a maximum of 1.5?C in 2000.



Next, notice the blue solid curvy line. It gives a 6-year running
average of the annual temperature anomalies plotted as a dotted blue
line. This line helps focus on the climatic changes of longer
time-scales, instead of year-to-year weather "noise" in the dash-line.



Now, for a more interesting part: Just for the sake of discussion,
contrast two views of the record. Compare the red curve that was drawn
by a straight line from 1875 to 2001 versus the four green lines drawn
over four intervals in Figure 1.



The red curve describes the longest-term temperature variation
resolvable in this Arctic record, and it shows a change over the period
of about 1?C per century.



What does the trend mean? Some people take it and argue, "See, the
Arctic climate is warming; it's warmer today than 125 years ago. As CO2
from the burning of fossil fuels has increased during that period, that
likely has contributed to that warming."



But there's another way to look at the record than a relatively straight
line. That is to consider multi-decadal shifts of the temperature, as
seen in the four green lines, from a cooler condition in 1875-1920, to a
warmer condition in the period1921-1955, then returning to a cooler
condition for the years 1956-1985 and finally a warmer phase from the
mid-to-late 1980s onward.



This latter view is considered more natural. More than that, it is also
considered more consistent with our current understanding of how the sea
ice, ocean temperature, salinity and circulation, air circulation and
temperature, as well as many important land processes, including river
runoff and snow, interact and produce the responses of the Arctic
climate system.



From this perspective, one finds an Arctic climate that has a preferred
tendency to produce variability that oscillates in decadal and
multi-decadal periods. Several careful analyses of the sea ice changes
over the Arctic also point to the dominant role played by atmospheric
circulation. That component affecting the climate appears to be locked
in a 50-80 year cycle - a natural see-saw - that is both large in
amplitude and persistent in its timing. During these 50-80 years cycle,
certain regions in the Eastern Arctic will warm a lot (as in the 1990s),
while parts in the Western Arctic will cool, and vice-versa with the
alternating phases of the oscillation./quote



So basically the temperature oscillations are within the normal range
and periodicy.

A clever statistical analysis of one set of data that ignores many other
things that are happening.

I will be happy to laugh at the upcoming disasters and tell everyone, "I
told you so."



Right, it'll prove nature was on your side all along right? And this
doesn't strike you as even remotely perverse? You must be considerably
younger than I took you to be. Again, from the article:

quote
The association of the observed warming trend of about 1?C over 100-years
for the Arctic temperature, as seen in Figure 1, to CO2-global warming is
implausible for two important reasons.

First, 70 to 80 percent of the rise of man-made CO2 in the air to date
came after the 1960s. Yet, Figure 1 clearly shows that a large part of
the 100-year warming trend was contributed by a pre-1960s increase in
temperature. That was at a time when the air's CO2 content was still low.

Secondly, and this is a somewhat surprising fact for scientists, when the
long-term temperature trend was calculated in Figure 3 using at least the
100-year long record, both the Arctic- and Northern-Hemisphere-wide
warming trends have similar values.

What is so surprising about that? Well, it contradicts all the known
predictions in the amplification of the polar warming. Those predictions
from climate models that consider anthropogenic greenhouse gases -
primarily CO2 from burning fossil fuels - to be forcing global warming
say that the Arctic should warm by 1.5 to 4.5 times the global mean
warming. And that is not happening.

And there's no explanation for why it is not. One explanation typically
invoked to argue why there has been less rapid warming in the
mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere (Asia, Europe and America) in
previous decades is so-called man-made sulfate aerosols - soot and smog -
put out by industry provided a cooling factor. (Don't ask why or how the
greenhouse-warming promoters are so sure of this aerosol cooling
possibility while considering only one particular kind of aerosols out of
many more.) But that effect is expected to be minimal, and it isn't
present in the remote Arctic, thus offering no explanation to the lack of
warming amplification there.

The complaint the "Arctic is melting" as a result of fossil fuel use thus
has no basis from the climate records of that region and that for the
Northern Hemisphere. So, it is no wonder that reports purporting to prove
that are confusing and contradictory./quote

By the way, did you check out Owsley's site? His discussion is about a
non-human-produced global warming trend that could lead to a huge
ecological disaster, of global proportions... ironically producing
mega-cyclones that usher in an ice age. It has nothiing to do with human
pollution. And there are other purely natural disasters that dwarf
anything man can produce. So even if there is an ecological disaster,
that doesn't mean that we produced it.


What I want to know is what your agenda is in trying to discredit the
general consensus on global warming? Practicing for job interviews as a
right-wing pundit?


What I want to know is what difference my "agenda" makes? For all you know
I might very well be a leftist, concerned about the way the left is
undermining its own credibility by insisting on political correctness. The
point is that the "consensus" is manufactured out of that PC-ness, which if
you know anything about history you'll know is a legacy of Stalinism. I
think that in the wake of the delegitimation of the left that took place
after the fall of the Berlin Wall they settled on environmentalism as their
new religion. This, in spite of the fact that the biggest polluters on the
planet were in left-oriented economic systems.

Plus, I'm just an empiricist. If someone claims there's a tight correlation
between CO2 and global warming and the actual correlation is either small,
zero, or even negative then I can't help thinking that's relevant. There is
clearly a warming trend, but there's little evidence that it's related to
anything man is doing. And if the Owsley scenario is plausible, what we
need to do is completely different from what the global warming advocates
demand... because there's nothing we can do to stop the trend. What we need
to do is prepare to meet it. (This assumes that he's right, and that the
threat is imminent, which are both a long way from being proved.)


Ads
  #322  
Old March 3rd 05, 06:09 PM
Freewheeling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae92@t eranews...

"Freewheeling" wrote:

"Jon Meinecke" wrote

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).


You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology


Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.



I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a
pariah with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good
deal more raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish ads
on his blog, for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether Tom
follows Zuniga, but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does. You
may be surprised at the contention that Tom feels some of us our duped,
or remain willfully ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but this is
actually doctrinaire Marxism. It's called "alienation leading to false
consciousness." I don't know where he picked it up, and for all I know
he doesn't know it's Marxism, but there it is.


I came up with it based on my own observations, thank you. I have no need
to behave like an academic and throw out all sorts of names.

It is just like all the academics that try to quantify quality of life,
but have no idea how much of a hell hole [1] many of the workplaces in the
US are, how middle class suburban society isolates people from proper
human relationships, and how the lack of a social safety net causes many
to feel that they are in an enforced economic servitude, with their
existence at the whim of the privileged.


So, we should just forget about trying to actually understand any of these
things from an empirical perspective, and just let our prejudices and
impressions rule? Gosh, it'd be great if work were like a party for
everyone, but not only is that rather unrealistic... it's probably the case
that human happiness isn't as simple as the *Theory of Alienation* makes it
out to be.

The bottom line, however, is that freedom from labor is achieved only
through ownership of capital... which replaces labor. And the left always
seems to stand on both sides of that issue, insisting that we somehow make
labor less objectionable while simultaneously creating more of it for the
sake of full employment. If you look at this carefully (as did F.A. Hayek)
it's the road to serfdom, for who would want to perpetuate such a system if
they knew its implications, other than a group who had decided to become the
"new elite?"


Get out of the damn ivory tower and experience the real world!

[1] I have worked in several of these, and have the long-term repetitive
motion injuries to show for it.


Like you're the only one, huh? I've also done farm work, having grown up on
a farm and cattle ranch, and it ain't no picnic either.


--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell



  #323  
Old March 4th 05, 01:33 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Meinecke wrote:

...
As I said, interesting tango.... There's no reason it need be unpleasant,
in my opinion, as that has its own destructive effect as civil discourse
suffers....


In words Ed Dolan would use, "Screw civil discourse!"

If people want to **** on the newsgroup, I will be happy to make the
pile higher.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

  #324  
Old March 4th 05, 01:36 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Freewheeling wrote:





"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...





Freewheeling wrote:






"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
.. .






skip wrote:







"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...







"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
. ..







No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they
are and how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal
human brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only
a small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue
real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by
economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you
create clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed
and avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or
wonder how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And
he won't budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any
success in moving him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards
the cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true
understanding of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but
then some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending
the illusion. At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after
the bovines have returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than
a century. People are better educated, better fed, better
entertained, more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests
actually smarter, than they ever have been before. There is less
poverty and misery with each passing year, not more, except in
those places where the left still has its totalitarian
demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is
already happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving
the Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The
same is true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting
their policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.


Last I heard there was close to a consensus that the climate shift
that has taken place since the beginning of industrialization is well
within the bounds of natural climate change. This isn't tough to
verify.

Have you had your hearing checked?



For complete figures and graphs go to:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032403B.html

Excerpt from *Is the Arctic Melting?* by Willie Soon:

quote
The Basic Data



Figure 1: Arctic-wide temperature anomalies (in ?C) from 1875-2001
relative to the mean of 1961-1990 interval, with the number of stations
producing the temperature set in each decade. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov
of IARC at the University of Alaska)



Figure 1 shows the annual time series of the Arctic surface air
temperature from 1875 to 2001 as it was recently reconstructed by Igor
Polyakov and colleagues at the International Arctic Research Center
(IARC) in Fairbanks, Alaska and the Arctic and Antarctic Research
Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia.



The sources of this new temperature record include measurements from
land stations, floating buoys on the ocean and even drifting stations on
sea ice. Detailed documentations of the methodology and spatial sampling
strategy had been published in papers that appear in Geophysical
Research Letters, Journal of Climate and the American Geophysical
Union's EOS.



Figure 2: Distribution of surface air temperature stations on land,
ocean or sea-ice for the composite Arctic-wide temperature record in
Figure 1. (Courtesy of Igor Polyakov of IARC at the University of
Alaska)



Figure 2 shows you all the locations poleward of about 62?N (with the
Arctic circle defined as the zonal ring around 66?N) where the air
temperatures are sampled to produce the Arctic-wide temperature history
shown in Figure 1.



What's Happening?



So what do we see in Figure 1?



First note that the maximum annual Arctic-wide temperature anomaly - the
difference from the mean temperature for 1961-90 as plotted by the blue
dash line - reached a maximum of 1.7?Celsius in 1938. That compares with
a maximum of 1.5?C in 2000.



Next, notice the blue solid curvy line. It gives a 6-year running
average of the annual temperature anomalies plotted as a dotted blue
line. This line helps focus on the climatic changes of longer
time-scales, instead of year-to-year weather "noise" in the dash-line.



Now, for a more interesting part: Just for the sake of discussion,
contrast two views of the record. Compare the red curve that was drawn
by a straight line from 1875 to 2001 versus the four green lines drawn
over four intervals in Figure 1.



The red curve describes the longest-term temperature variation
resolvable in this Arctic record, and it shows a change over the period
of about 1?C per century.



What does the trend mean? Some people take it and argue, "See, the
Arctic climate is warming; it's warmer today than 125 years ago. As CO2

from the burning of fossil fuels has increased during that period, that

likely has contributed to that warming."



But there's another way to look at the record than a relatively straight
line. That is to consider multi-decadal shifts of the temperature, as
seen in the four green lines, from a cooler condition in 1875-1920, to a
warmer condition in the period1921-1955, then returning to a cooler
condition for the years 1956-1985 and finally a warmer phase from the
mid-to-late 1980s onward.



This latter view is considered more natural. More than that, it is also
considered more consistent with our current understanding of how the sea
ice, ocean temperature, salinity and circulation, air circulation and
temperature, as well as many important land processes, including river
runoff and snow, interact and produce the responses of the Arctic
climate system.




From this perspective, one finds an Arctic climate that has a preferred

tendency to produce variability that oscillates in decadal and
multi-decadal periods. Several careful analyses of the sea ice changes
over the Arctic also point to the dominant role played by atmospheric
circulation. That component affecting the climate appears to be locked
in a 50-80 year cycle - a natural see-saw - that is both large in
amplitude and persistent in its timing. During these 50-80 years cycle,
certain regions in the Eastern Arctic will warm a lot (as in the 1990s),
while parts in the Western Arctic will cool, and vice-versa with the
alternating phases of the oscillation./quote



So basically the temperature oscillations are within the normal range
and periodicy.

A clever statistical analysis of one set of data that ignores many other
things that are happening.

I will be happy to laugh at the upcoming disasters and tell everyone, "I
told you so."



Right, it'll prove nature was on your side all along right? And this
doesn't strike you as even remotely perverse? You must be considerably
younger than I took you to be. Again, from the article:

quote
The association of the observed warming trend of about 1?C over 100-years
for the Arctic temperature, as seen in Figure 1, to CO2-global warming is
implausible for two important reasons.

First, 70 to 80 percent of the rise of man-made CO2 in the air to date
came after the 1960s. Yet, Figure 1 clearly shows that a large part of
the 100-year warming trend was contributed by a pre-1960s increase in
temperature. That was at a time when the air's CO2 content was still low.

Secondly, and this is a somewhat surprising fact for scientists, when the
long-term temperature trend was calculated in Figure 3 using at least the
100-year long record, both the Arctic- and Northern-Hemisphere-wide
warming trends have similar values.

What is so surprising about that? Well, it contradicts all the known
predictions in the amplification of the polar warming. Those predictions
from climate models that consider anthropogenic greenhouse gases -
primarily CO2 from burning fossil fuels - to be forcing global warming
say that the Arctic should warm by 1.5 to 4.5 times the global mean
warming. And that is not happening.

And there's no explanation for why it is not. One explanation typically
invoked to argue why there has been less rapid warming in the
mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere (Asia, Europe and America) in
previous decades is so-called man-made sulfate aerosols - soot and smog -
put out by industry provided a cooling factor. (Don't ask why or how the
greenhouse-warming promoters are so sure of this aerosol cooling
possibility while considering only one particular kind of aerosols out of
many more.) But that effect is expected to be minimal, and it isn't
present in the remote Arctic, thus offering no explanation to the lack of
warming amplification there.

The complaint the "Arctic is melting" as a result of fossil fuel use thus
has no basis from the climate records of that region and that for the
Northern Hemisphere. So, it is no wonder that reports purporting to prove
that are confusing and contradictory./quote

By the way, did you check out Owsley's site? His discussion is about a
non-human-produced global warming trend that could lead to a huge
ecological disaster, of global proportions... ironically producing
mega-cyclones that usher in an ice age. It has nothiing to do with human
pollution. And there are other purely natural disasters that dwarf
anything man can produce. So even if there is an ecological disaster,
that doesn't mean that we produced it.


What I want to know is what your agenda is in trying to discredit the
general consensus on global warming? Practicing for job interviews as a
right-wing pundit?



What I want to know is what difference my "agenda" makes? For all you know
I might very well be a leftist, concerned about the way the left is
undermining its own credibility by insisting on political correctness. The
point is that the "consensus" is manufactured out of that PC-ness, which if
you know anything about history you'll know is a legacy of Stalinism. I
think that in the wake of the delegitimation of the left that took place
after the fall of the Berlin Wall they settled on environmentalism as their
new religion. This, in spite of the fact that the biggest polluters on the
planet were in left-oriented economic systems.

Plus, I'm just an empiricist. If someone claims there's a tight correlation
between CO2 and global warming and the actual correlation is either small,
zero, or even negative then I can't help thinking that's relevant. There is
clearly a warming trend, but there's little evidence that it's related to
anything man is doing. And if the Owsley scenario is plausible, what we
need to do is completely different from what the global warming advocates
demand... because there's nothing we can do to stop the trend. What we need
to do is prepare to meet it. (This assumes that he's right, and that the
threat is imminent, which are both a long way from being proved.)


What I want to know is why you feel impelled to **** on the newsgroup,
by posting right-wing opinion, with a bunch of boring citations on the side?

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

  #325  
Old March 4th 05, 08:02 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae9 2@teranews...


"Freewheeling" wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote


Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).



You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology



Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.


I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a
pariah with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good
deal more raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish ads
on his blog, for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether Tom
follows Zuniga, but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does. You
may be surprised at the contention that Tom feels some of us our duped,
or remain willfully ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but this is
actually doctrinaire Marxism. It's called "alienation leading to false
consciousness." I don't know where he picked it up, and for all I know
he doesn't know it's Marxism, but there it is.


I came up with it based on my own observations, thank you. I have no need
to behave like an academic and throw out all sorts of names.

It is just like all the academics that try to quantify quality of life,
but have no idea how much of a hell hole [1] many of the workplaces in the
US are, how middle class suburban society isolates people from proper
human relationships, and how the lack of a social safety net causes many
to feel that they are in an enforced economic servitude, with their
existence at the whim of the privileged.



So, we should just forget about trying to actually understand any of these
things from an empirical perspective, and just let our prejudices and
impressions rule? Gosh, it'd be great if work were like a party for
everyone, but not only is that rather unrealistic... it's probably the case
that human happiness isn't as simple as the *Theory of Alienation* makes it
out to be.


I don't see anything being proved, just some people trying to show how
clever they are, or to promote an agenda.

The bottom line, however, is that freedom from labor is achieved only
through ownership of capital... which replaces labor. And the left always
seems to stand on both sides of that issue, insisting that we somehow make
labor less objectionable while simultaneously creating more of it for the
sake of full employment. If you look at this carefully (as did F.A. Hayek)
it's the road to serfdom, for who would want to perpetuate such a system if
they knew its implications, other than a group who had decided to become the
"new elite?"


How can ownership of capital replace labor (unless we invent robots to
do all the work)? Make some sense.

Of course, apologizing for the excesses of the elite can be quite
rewarding financially.

Get out of the damn ivory tower and experience the real world!

[1] I have worked in several of these, and have the long-term repetitive
motion injuries to show for it.



Like you're the only one, huh? I've also done farm work, having grown up on
a farm and cattle ranch, and it ain't no picnic either.


Unless your parents (or other relatives that owned the farm) acted in a
manner that would be considered abusive on a consistent basis, there is
no comparison at all.

Try working as a light industrial contract (officially known as
"temporary") worker or in a high-speed, repetitive job such as cleaning
the intestines from chickens.

I have never seen any farm work that required performing the same motion
20,000 times per day.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

  #326  
Old March 4th 05, 01:49 PM
Jon Meinecke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Jon Meinecke wrote:
...
As I said, interesting tango.... There's no reason it need be

unpleasant,
in my opinion, as that has its own destructive effect as civil discourse
suffers....


In words [D*l*n] would use, "Screw civil discourse!"

If people want to **** on the newsgroup, I will be happy to make the
pile higher.


Choice.

Jon Meinecke
--

A Zen teacher saw five of his students returning from
the market, riding their bicycles. When they arrived
at the monastery and had dismounted, the teacher
asked the students, "Why are you riding your bicycles?"

The first student replied, "The bicycle is carrying the
sack of potatoes. I am glad that I do not have to carry
them on my back!" The teacher praised the first student,
"You are a smart boy! When you grow old, you will
not walk hunched over like I do."

The second student replied, "I love to watch the trees
and fields pass by as I roll down the path!" The teacher
commended the second student, "Your eyes are open,
and you see the world."

The third student replied, "When I ride my bicycle, I
am content to chant nam myoho renge kyo." The teacher
gave praise to the third student, "Your mind will roll
with the ease of a newly trued wheel."

The fourth student replied, "Riding my bicycle, I live in
harmony with all sentient beings." The teacher was
pleased, and said to the fourth student, "You are riding
on the golden path of non-harming."

The fifth student replied, "I ride my bicycle to ride my
bicycle." The teacher sat at the feet of the fifth student
and said, "I am your student!"

- attributed to Shawn Gosieski
New Cyclist, Fall 1988
(and other sources)



  #327  
Old March 4th 05, 04:40 PM
Freewheeling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jon Meinecke wrote:

...
As I said, interesting tango.... There's no reason it need be
unpleasant,
in my opinion, as that has its own destructive effect as civil discourse
suffers....


In words Ed Dolan would use, "Screw civil discourse!"

If people want to **** on the newsgroup, I will be happy to make the pile
higher.


I never thought it would be so easy to induce you to so accurately describe
the quality of your discourse. Kudos to Jon! You may have done a
disservice to Zach, however, who at least proposed a reasonable hypothesis.


  #328  
Old March 4th 05, 04:59 PM
Freewheeling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae 92@teranews...


"Freewheeling" wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote


Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).



You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology



Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with
"this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.


I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a
pariah with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good
deal more raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish
ads on his blog, for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether
Tom follows Zuniga, but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does.
You may be surprised at the contention that Tom feels some of us our
duped, or remain willfully ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but
this is actually doctrinaire Marxism. It's called "alienation leading
to false consciousness." I don't know where he picked it up, and for
all I know he doesn't know it's Marxism, but there it is.

I came up with it based on my own observations, thank you. I have no need
to behave like an academic and throw out all sorts of names.

It is just like all the academics that try to quantify quality of life,
but have no idea how much of a hell hole [1] many of the workplaces in
the US are, how middle class suburban society isolates people from proper
human relationships, and how the lack of a social safety net causes many
to feel that they are in an enforced economic servitude, with their
existence at the whim of the privileged.



So, we should just forget about trying to actually understand any of
these things from an empirical perspective, and just let our prejudices
and impressions rule? Gosh, it'd be great if work were like a party for
everyone, but not only is that rather unrealistic... it's probably the
case that human happiness isn't as simple as the *Theory of Alienation*
makes it out to be.


I don't see anything being proved, just some people trying to show how
clever they are, or to promote an agenda.

The bottom line, however, is that freedom from labor is achieved only
through ownership of capital... which replaces labor. And the left
always seems to stand on both sides of that issue, insisting that we
somehow make labor less objectionable while simultaneously creating more
of it for the sake of full employment. If you look at this carefully (as
did F.A. Hayek) it's the road to serfdom, for who would want to
perpetuate such a system if they knew its implications, other than a
group who had decided to become the "new elite?"


How can ownership of capital replace labor (unless we invent robots to do
all the work)? Make some sense.


I don't know what could possibly make more sense than the proposition that
capital is a replacement for labor, but in the sense of performing functions
formerly performed exclusively or prediminantly by labor, and in the sense
of replacing labor-related income for those who possess capital. Not only
is it obvious to me, it was also obvious to Karl Marx.


Of course, apologizing for the excesses of the elite can be quite
rewarding financially.

Get out of the damn ivory tower and experience the real world!

[1] I have worked in several of these, and have the long-term repetitive
motion injuries to show for it.



Like you're the only one, huh? I've also done farm work, having grown up
on a farm and cattle ranch, and it ain't no picnic either.


Unless your parents (or other relatives that owned the farm) acted in a
manner that would be considered abusive on a consistent basis, there is no
comparison at all.

Try working as a light industrial contract (officially known as
"temporary") worker or in a high-speed, repetitive job such as cleaning
the intestines from chickens.


Oh yes, the poultry factory. I've tried it. Have also worked in a cannery,
and a factory that makes ice cream cones. You know, there are people who
actually like such work don't you? I have a friend, currently an elementary
school teacher, who recalls her days on the automotive factory floor very
fondly.


I have never seen any farm work that required performing the same motion
20,000 times per day.


This is getting silly. If there's a job that's this repetitive there's no
reason a machine couldn't do it. The only reason it is not done by a
machine is that workers can be found who will work for at least the same
cost as a machine, or less. And if a machine were installed to replace
them, they'd be out of work.

Which is, of course, happening all the time as sophisticated machines become
less expensive to produce. All I'm saying is that if this is the trend
(which it is) we probably ought to give a little consideration to who owns
the machines, and if possible expand such ownership to include those who may
be put out of work.

Otherwise, we're going to have quite a fine mess!

I recommend to you the book *Union Democracy*. It's about the International
Typographical Union, which was at one time the only democratic union. (Why
are most unions oligarchies or autocracies, I wonder?) It is now mostly
defunct, the industry that it once served having been replaced by... the
machine you're currently using to communicate with me.


  #329  
Old March 5th 05, 01:19 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Freewheeling wrote:

...
I have never seen any farm work that required performing the same motion
20,000 times per day.



This is getting silly. If there's a job that's this repetitive there's no
reason a machine couldn't do it. The only reason it is not done by a
machine is that workers can be found who will work for at least the same
cost as a machine, or less. And if a machine were installed to replace
them, they'd be out of work.

Which is, of course, happening all the time as sophisticated machines become
less expensive to produce. All I'm saying is that if this is the trend
(which it is) we probably ought to give a little consideration to who owns
the machines, and if possible expand such ownership to include those who may
be put out of work.

Otherwise, we're going to have quite a fine mess!...


NO, NO, NO! Labor must be smashed, people must be brought to obedience
by having their very existence depend on the largess of the rich and
powerful. NOTHING LESS WILL DO!

If you can not see that returning to a feudal society, with power based
on inherited class status is the goal of the rich and powerful, then you
are so naive that future discussion is pointless.

You of all people should be aware that this is how the rich and powerful
(with a few honorable exceptions) have always behaved. Of course,
stating that publicly would limit the employment opportunities in your
field significantly – it does not do to oppose the state religion.

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

  #330  
Old March 5th 05, 01:33 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Jon Meinecke wrote:


...
As I said, interesting tango.... There's no reason it need be
unpleasant,
in my opinion, as that has its own destructive effect as civil discourse
suffers....


In words Ed Dolan would use, "Screw civil discourse!"

If people want to **** on the newsgroup, I will be happy to make the pile
higher.



I never thought it would be so easy to induce you to so accurately describe
the quality of your discourse. Kudos to Jon! You may have done a
disservice to Zach, however, who at least proposed a reasonable hypothesis.


Just replying in kind to your original right-wing diatribe. Just because
it is academic language and has some citations does not give it any value.

I still want to know what your real agenda is – if you are hoping to
actually change people’s opinions by arguing on Usenet, you are either
naïve or full of overblown self-importance.

At least Ed Dolan was funny when he ranted. You are not. Sorry.

Zach Kaplan mentioned oil prices, You responded with the following
troll: “If we can't agree that it's time to end tyranny and
totalitarianism it's doubtful that we'll ever be able to coordinate
resolution of any of these other "wicked problems" that face us.”

--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ed Dolan tells A.R.B.R. my head is up Jim McNamaras ass Edward Dolan Recumbent Biking 10 February 15th 05 02:13 AM
Bear on a unicycle, Dead Leprechaun in a Tire-Swing [email protected] Unicycling 0 December 21st 04 09:21 PM
Dead Leprechauns down your chimney!!! [email protected] General 2 December 7th 04 11:11 PM
Revitalizing A.R.B.R - suggested methods War On Error Recumbent Biking 43 November 15th 04 10:24 PM
Headset Dead Spot marc UK 4 August 26th 03 04:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.