Frugal Living: Dec 7, 2009

Monday, December 7, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 19 new messages in 6 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* The healthcare bill is so bad - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/184b71b3f6f3da1f?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare" means what it says - 10 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* Krackpot Ray Keller gets caught in his lies, public records tell the tale -
3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/df30389fcba1b11e?hl=en
* Indoor diy barbeques - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c79a680d8ecce233?hl=en
* Who Knew Russia? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/04607aeffb4c3829?hl=en
* UGG Kids Classic Tall Chestnut Boots csboots.com Save: 34% off - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6d6bc4323ac4c967?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The healthcare bill is so bad
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/184b71b3f6f3da1f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 10:50 am
From: "Rod Speed"

sr wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dave C. wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dave C. wrote

>>>>> Then you will go to prison. I wish I'd made that up.
>>>>> But the penalty for not being able to afford the mandatory
>>>>> insurance coverage is stiff fines...and jail time.

>>>> Another lie, just like it is with the current manditory insurance for cars.

>>> It's not a lie.

>> Corse its a lie.

>>> That's actually in the bill that the House passed.

>> Pity that aint what the CONGRESS passed, so aint law.

>>> If you can't afford the new mandatory health insurance,
>>> you will pay a fine that you also can't afford.

>> Another lie. There is quite explicit provision for those who cannot afford to pay.

>>> Or you will go to jail.

>> Doesnt say that either, you silly little pathological liar.

> It does say in our news letter in big letters, Jail time .

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fool.

Thats just the HOUSE bill, it aint what will get thru congress, if anything does, fool.

And those who cannot afford the insurance DONT GO TO JAIL EVEN IN THE HOUSE BILL, FOOL.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 11:03 am
From: "sr"

"sr" <solos42@uninets.net> wrote in message
news:5dedf$4b19ec5c$ccb5843b$12380@ispn.net...
>

DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 2:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

sr wrote:
> "sr" <solos42@uninets.net> wrote in message
> news:5dedf$4b19ec5c$ccb5843b$12380@ispn.net...
>>
>
> DEADLY DOCTORS
> O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
> By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
>
>
>
> Read more:
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM#ixzz0Yw9H969g

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, stupid.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare" means what it says
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 11:35 am
From: Les Cargill

Day Brown wrote:
> Jim Jones wrote:
>>> The real danger is that a demagogue might arise using an Internet
>>> talent the power elites cannot control to sell a message to the
>>> increasing numbers who were formerly comfortable middle class.
>>
>> Not a chance. Have fun listing even a SINGLE example of the middle class
>> ever being that stupid even when their country had just lost a world war.
> The Junker family owned all the German newspapers, and thot they could, as
> Machiavelli suggests, use Hitler to renounce the reparations payments
> that were crippling the German economy. The Republic could not do that
> because they had signed the treaty. And than, as Mach said, after Hitler
> "had done what was necessary, expose his faults, sending him away, he
> taking the guilt for the action away with him."
>

It's curious you left out the elephant in *THAT* room, the
one named Otto von Bismarck. After all, the French largely
sought WWI to get out from under reparations from
the Franco-Prussian War, which von Bismarck actively
used to create a nation out of the various provinces of what
became Germany.

> Only problem was, they didnt see the powerful propaganda in film and
> radio that Hitler was so good at exploiting. Read Machiavelli to not
> sound like such a partisan fool.

Machiavelli was the original partisan. He was bound by the
fealty to the powerful for patronage. He works were attempts
to prop up his patrons to avoid the fate of others such
as Michelangelo.

Didn't work very well. Cosimo's death led to his undoing, and
he was vilified as antireligious, a narrow place in those times.

Also, the Mafia/Black Hand were the purest form of Machievellianism,
as Scorcese reminds us again and again, and Mafia did not mix with
Fascism *at all*. Indeed, the US government and the Mafia found common
cause in WWII.

Fascists always want the "shining city on the hill", not the
grubby world humans truly occupy ( which the Mafia and
Machievelli both believed in).

One can be a Christian or one can be a Stoic, which is where I'd
place Machiavelli. The Stoics were the natural enemies of the Christers
in Rome, extending through the Medici and beyond.

> Aristocracies have always jumped on
> bandwagons, did so with Mussolini and Franco as well, hoping to retain
> some influence with a tyrant after their corruption of the system led to
> the emergence of a demagogue in the first place.
>

Lenin correctly surmised that Fascism was a reaction to the
broader Socialism. Socialism's turn to demagoguery was simply
further synthesis away from Communism's anarchic roots ( and
was part of the transition from Marx/Engels to Lenin/Stalin ).

> And now, we have the Net. A new form of media that none of the earlier
> forms really know how to compete with, much less control. I'm not a
> prophet; there seem to be a few in the elites who have read Machiavelli
> and understand the risk. Which has something to do with the report of
> Wall Street bankers getting pistol packing permits.
>

The Net is a navel-gazer's paradise - up to and including Stimpson
J. Cat's disappearance into his own. Twitter is narcissism of the
most advanced order.

The bankers with guns are simply galloping along into apocalyptic
narcissism.

> Clearly, Global resources cannot support the modern middle class
> lifestyle for the numbers of highly trained professionals the colleges

Rot.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/econ-101-peak-oil-is-peak-idiocy.html
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-cheap-oil-is-here-to-stay-and-why.html

> have been turning out. So- is the standard in the US going to be lower,
> or is exploitation of other economies going to increase in order to
> support it? Either option has unpredictable downsides.
>

Can't place the graph just now, but as it turns out, China's share of
the pie comes out of *Europe's* hide, with the proportion of
global GDP accruing to the US remaining roughly constant.

That' the sort of empirical result Hayek would have
predicted....

>>> I've also read of cell phones being used to create demonstrations so
> >> fast cops cannot respond fast enuf to control them.
>>
>> Just because some fool claims something...
> You mite surf the question.
>> You can not list even a single example of that ever happening either.
> http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:NjxmhRKVkTUJ:web.media.mit.edu/~tad/pub/txtmob_chi05.pdf+cell+phone+organized+demonstrations+london&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>
> before this explanation of how it works makes you look like the fool.

Oh jeeez.... more "narratives", huh? Although it's a decent attempt
at trying to coopt emerging phenomena for... nefarious
purposes :)

--
Les Cargill

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 11:39 am
From: Les Cargill

Day Brown wrote:
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> Do you seriously think ANYBODY gives a shit what some civil servant
>> homo said HUNDREDS of years ago?
> If you had the attention span to deal with Machiavelli, you would not
> now so often appear an ignorant idiot.
>
> As for the depression, back then, kids were not raised on sugar cereals,
> junk food, and soda, so their academic performance was better and they
> grew to be more rational adults.

Not always. Diet had less to do with it than the realities of
what "labor" meant. People wore ties, because it meant
status, and distance from the operation of dangerous
industrial machinery.

Kids aren't stupid. They correctly surmise that learning
calculus may or may not make them any money in the
long haul. Although knowing calculus probably
knocks your chances of being unemployed back down to
sub-4% ( replacement/churn levels ).

> The system we have now could be made to
> work if the electorate was rational, but you know how many demagogues
> they support, and mite yet figure that will be disastrous.
>
> Which is what Machiavelli says.

I'd read of Cicero first....

--
Les Cargill

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 12:42 pm
From: Patriot Games

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:43:14 -0600, Day Brown <dayhbrown@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> Do you seriously think ANYBODY gives a shit what some civil servant
>> homo said HUNDREDS of years ago?
>As for the depression, back then, kids were not raised on sugar cereals,
>junk food, and soda, so their academic performance was better and they
>grew to be more rational adults.

I see... So, SINCE children back in the TIME OF the civil servant
homo Machiavelli "were not raised on sugar cereals, junk food, and
soda" HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN his observation?

OH! WAIT! I know... The civil servant homo Machiavelli ACTUALLY
WROTE about the FUTURE when children would be "raised on sugar
cereals, junk food, and soda" and YOU will NOW provide that CITE?

>Which is what Machiavelli says.

Nobody cares what he said...

As I have demonstrated, what he said was COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

As I have demonstrated, (with you unwitting help), HE was a TOTAL
PHONEY.

More importantly your attempt to change the subject has FAILED and
your justifications for STEALING MONEY from those who have EARNED it
have FAILED.

Try again...

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 12:50 pm
From: freeisbest

On Dec 6, 1:23 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:> Day Brown wrote:
> >> JonquilJan wrote:
> >>> Learn something new every day
> >>> As long as you are learning, you are living
> >>> When you stop learning, you start dying
> >> Therefore, as Nietzsche said- a concept of god that already knows
> >> everything, is dead.
>
> > When is a concept dead, you leftist still believe in the
Socialist
> > utopia that was never here.
>
> Look. I voted for Goldwater, the last REAL CONSERVATIVE. Only a right
> wing idiot thinks I am a "leftist" because I say something he dont
like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The rightwing true-believer's definition of acceptable thought
always gets smaller and smaller... until there's only room inside it
for that rightwinger and nobody else.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 2:54 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

No they did not.

and thot they
> could, as Machiavelli suggests, use Hitler to renounce the
> reparations payments that were crippling the German economy. The
> Republic could not do that because they had signed the treaty. And
> than, as Mach said, after Hitler "had done what was necessary, expose
> his faults, sending him away, he taking the guilt for the action away
> with him."

Nothing like that claim of yours at the top.

> Only problem was, they didnt see the powerful propaganda in film and
> radio that Hitler was so good at exploiting. Read Machiavelli to not
> sound like such a partisan fool.

He is not relevant to what happens in a decent democracy.

Aristocracies have always jumped on
> bandwagons,

There are no aristocracies that are at all relevant anymore.

did so with Mussolini and Franco as well, hoping to retain
> some influence with a tyrant after their corruption of the system led
> to the emergence of a demagogue in the first place.

Nothing like your stupid claim at the top.

> And now, we have the Net. A new form of media that none of the earlier
> forms really know how to compete with, much less control.

And which has had no effect whatever on the political process.

I'm not a
> prophet; there seem to be a few in the elites who have read
> Machiavelli and understand the risk. Which has something to do with
> the report of Wall Street bankers getting pistol packing permits.

Completely and utterly mindlessly silly.

Have fun explaining why they have not bothered in Britain.

> Clearly, Global resources cannot support the modern middle class
> lifestyle for the numbers of highly trained professionals the colleges
> have been turning out.

Even sillier. Have fun explaining the massive number of those in india and china doing fine.

So- is the standard in the US going to be
> lower, or is exploitation of other economies going to increase in
> order to support it?

It is not that binary.

> Either option has unpredictable downsides.

There are not just those two alternatives.

>>> I've also read of cell phones being used to create demonstrations so
>>> fast cops cannot respond fast enuf to control them.
>>
>> Just because some fool claims something...
> You mite surf the question.
>> You can not list even a single example of that ever happening either.
> http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:NjxmhRKVkTUJ:web.media.mit.edu/~tad/pub/txtmob_chi05.pdf+cell+phone+organized+demonstrations+london&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
> before this explanation of how it works makes you look like the fool.

Just because some fool claims something, does not make it gospel, fool.

And that is NOT an example of something happening so fast that the cops cannot respond fast enough to control them
anyway.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 8:07 pm
From: Day Brown

freeisbest wrote:
> The rightwing true-believer's definition of acceptable thought
> always gets smaller and smaller... until there's only room inside it
> for that rightwinger and nobody else.
Agreed, but I've seen Left wing zealots just the same.

As to the thread, who getsta say what the "general welfare" is?
I find it a distressingly complex question. Machiavelli noted how voters
consistently support near term policy, and favored long established
monarchs, who like the owners of a family business think what the
grandchildren will inherit, and make the current generation put aside
some portion for them.

Course, we've seen plenty of near sighted monarchs as well. And while
the kind of visionary "Prince" Mach had in mind was rare, visionary
electorates have been entirely non-existent.

The posts which get the most response are those which represent a
partisan position which the opposition thinks it understands and finds
easy to setup strawmen. Independent thinking falls outside group think,
and that seems to confuse most others.

GB Shaw has Caesar say, "You'll havta forgive the man... he is a
barbarian who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of Nature." I
had attributed this to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", and was taken to
task for that, without any understanding of the allegorical truth of the
line. Who wrote it didnt really matter. But some dont get allegorical
truth, and so exaggerate the importance of literal trivia.

But- just what are the "Laws of Nature" anyway? Hauser, "Moral Minds"
delves into the scientific study of the innate sense of morals, which
even at two, before any socialization has taken place, is there to be
observed. He sees how that sense, evident then, varies some according to
the DNA, and endures throughout life. One of the manifestations is, of
course, self righteous partisanship, utterly convinced they know what
the 'general welfare' is, but without ever studying the matter, either
in the historical documentation, or the recent scientific studies.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 8:23 pm
From: Day Brown

Les Cargill wrote:
> Oh jeeez.... more "narratives", huh? Although it's a decent attempt
> at trying to coopt emerging phenomena for... nefarious
> purposes :)
When printed books came in, the power elites lost some control. That
reshuffled the deck. Then, when film and radio came in, control was lost
again, with Hitler being the most obvious opportunist.

Carter had the CIA fund research into spread spectrum, phased array
antennas, and computer analysis and control of wave forms. This was
given to the VOA, but didnt come online til after Reagan took over.

The upshot was that the VOA were able to control the shape of the radio
wave form, negating the effect of Soviet jammers. With spread spectrum,
they were able to shift the frequency in ways Soviet transmitters could
not keep up with, and with phased array antennas mess with the homing
equipment the Soviets had so they could not tell where the signals were
coming from.

As a result, Solidarity was able to inform the Poles where and when the
next meeting would be, and the numbers that showed up were way beyond
the ability of the Communist boots on the ground to control. The wall
came down because of Carter, not Reagan. And it did so because their
elites could no longer control the flow of information.

I have no reliable source of info on which to judge the satisfaction
level of modern populations. But they seem to be increasingly affected
by uncontrollable forms of digital communication, and if they ever get
to feeling they no longer have any investment in the system to protect,
they will, as Machiavelli says, replace it. One way or other.

This has nothing to do with Mach's personal failures. His observations
of how systems work did not mean he had the means to take advantage of
what he understood. I've read the first thing anyone aspiring to great
leadership should do, is compose a refutation of Machiavelli. Which he
would agree would be expedient, even wise. "You want the truth?... You
cant handle the truth." And he knew people couldnt.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 8:34 pm
From: Day Brown

Les Cargill wrote:
>> As for the depression, back then, kids were not raised on sugar
>> cereals, junk food, and soda, so their academic performance was better
>> and they grew to be more rational adults.
>
> Not always. Diet had less to do with it than the realities of
> what "labor" meant. People wore ties, because it meant
> status, and distance from the operation of dangerous
> industrial machinery.
As may be. But diet is a grossly underestimated factor. Neurological
data is abundant to show how trace minerals and micronutrients in
"organic" soils are absorbed by the plants that then empower some of the
150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of new
neural pathways during learning. Which with kids is critical at certain
times during development. You dont get maximal mental development
raising kids on sugar cereals, junk food, and soda.

American wheat became the global quality standard in the 19th century.
Jared Diamond, "Collapse" reports that when they were able to test it in
the 1950's, hard red winter wheat had 26% protein. A few years ago, the
bag at the feed mill said it had 19%. This year and last, it dont even
say anymore.

Course, nobody wants to think of how their parents raised them, much
less what they've been doing to their own kids. But one clue: The
national posted autism rate is 1:155. The rate for Amish kids who never
see sugar cereals: 1:15,000.

>
> Kids aren't stupid. They correctly surmise that learning
> calculus may or may not make them any money in the
> long haul. Although knowing calculus probably
> knocks your chances of being unemployed back down to
> sub-4% ( replacement/churn levels ).
>
>> The system we have now could be made to work if the electorate was
>> rational, but you know how many demagogues they support, and mite yet
>> figure that will be disastrous.
>>
>> Which is what Machiavelli says.
>
> I'd read of Cicero first....
Good advice, but things didnt work out well for him either.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 9:51 pm
From: "Jim Jones"

Day Brown wrote:
> freeisbest wrote:
>> The rightwing true-believer's definition of acceptable thought
>> always gets smaller and smaller... until there's only room inside it
>> for that rightwinger and nobody else.
> Agreed, but I've seen Left wing zealots just the same.

> As to the thread, who getsta say what the "general welfare" is?

The supremes do.

> I find it a distressingly complex question. Machiavelli noted how
> voters consistently support near term policy, and favored long
> established monarchs,

And then the world moved on and they stopped doing that last.

who like the owners of a family business think
> what the grandchildren will inherit, and make the current generation
> put aside some portion for them.

Plenty do not do that either.

> Course, we've seen plenty of near sighted monarchs as well. And while
> the kind of visionary "Prince" Mach had in mind was rare, visionary
> electorates have been entirely non-existent.

That is very arguable, most obviously with social security and single payer medicine.

> The posts which get the most response are those which represent a
> partisan position which the opposition thinks it understands and finds
> easy to setup strawmen. Independent thinking falls outside group
> think, and that seems to confuse most others.

Or most of it is considered to be fringe loony raving and so is ignored.

> GB Shaw has Caesar say, "You'll havta forgive the man... he is a
> barbarian who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of
> Nature." I had attributed this to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", and
> was taken to task for that, without any understanding of the
> allegorical truth of the line. Who wrote it didnt really matter. But
> some dont get allegorical truth, and so exaggerate the importance of
> literal trivia.

And some choose to get the detail right and are not interested in your claim.

> But- just what are the "Laws of Nature" anyway? Hauser, "Moral Minds"
> delves into the scientific study of the innate sense of morals, which
> even at two, before any socialization has taken place, is there to be
> observed. He sees how that sense, evident then, varies some according
> to the DNA, and endures throughout life. One of the manifestations
> is, of course, self righteous partisanship, utterly convinced they
> know what the 'general welfare' is, but without ever studying the
> matter, either in the historical documentation, or the recent
> scientific studies.

Recent scientific studies are irrelevant to what who wrote that intended.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 9:58 pm
From: "Jim Jones"

Day Brown wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> As for the depression, back then, kids were not raised on sugar
>>> cereals, junk food, and soda, so their academic performance was
>>> better and they grew to be more rational adults.
>>
>> Not always. Diet had less to do with it than the realities of
>> what "labor" meant. People wore ties, because it meant
>> status, and distance from the operation of dangerous
>> industrial machinery.
> As may be. But diet is a grossly underestimated factor.

Yes, but you cannot explain why Japanese society did so badly
in the 30s even tho their diet clearly can not have been the problem.

Neurological
> data is abundant to show how trace minerals and micronutrients in
> "organic" soils are absorbed by the plants that then empower some of
> the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of new
> neural pathways during learning. Which with kids is critical at
> certain times during development. You dont get maximal mental
> development raising kids on sugar cereals, junk food, and soda.

That last claim can not be substantiated.

> American wheat became the global quality standard in the 19th century.

Like hell it did.

> Jared Diamond, "Collapse" reports that when they were able to test it
> in the 1950's, hard red winter wheat had 26% protein. A few years
> ago, the bag at the feed mill said it had 19%. This year and last, it
> dont even say anymore.

Plenty of other wheat growing countries still do.

> Course, nobody wants to think of how their parents raised them, much
> less what they've been doing to their own kids. But one clue: The
> national posted autism rate is 1:155. The rate for Amish kids who
> never see sugar cereals: 1:15,000.

And you have no idea whether that is just due to them
not using modern medicine and so not diagnosing autism.

>>
>> Kids aren't stupid. They correctly surmise that learning
>> calculus may or may not make them any money in the
>> long haul. Although knowing calculus probably
>> knocks your chances of being unemployed back down to
>> sub-4% ( replacement/churn levels ).
>>
>>> The system we have now could be made to work if the electorate was
>>> rational, but you know how many demagogues they support, and mite
>>> yet figure that will be disastrous.
>>>
>>> Which is what Machiavelli says.
>>
>> I'd read of Cicero first....
> Good advice, but things didnt work out well for him either.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Krackpot Ray Keller gets caught in his lies, public records tell the
tale
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/df30389fcba1b11e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 6 2009 1:34 pm
From: The Very Model of Sweetness and Light

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:10:41 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer <spamtrap.AT@AT.frankenexpress.de>
wrote:

>... typical for idiots.

You regurgitate whatever Rush Limbaugh tells you.

>This is part of religion.

You certainly don't have any data to support your
unwarranted beliefs.

>Evasion ...
>No answer, but instead a lousy try of calling name.
>... no answer at all.
>Instead evasion and combining my post with I am's.
>Which makes no sense in any way.
>I was ... simply ...parroting ...
>...like to play the role of a herald buoy ...

Nobody wondered about you.

Meanwhile, the data shows anthropogenic global warming.

"Last few decades WARMEST in 2,000 years and RATE
is unprecedented."

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/fact-from-fiction.pdf

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:50:08 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer <spamtrap.AT@AT.frankenexpress.de>
wrote:

>It's not a matter of "belief".

So offer a fact.

>Answer me one question, please.
>Do you think ...

Yes. I'm wondering why you don't.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:09:14 -0500, "I M @ good guy" <I_m@good.guy> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:15:31 -0500, The Very Model of Sweetness and Light <ye_olde_muleskinner@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"there was nothing exposed"
>>
>>http://openleft.com/diary/16237/a-deeper-look-at-global-warming-denialist-attacks
>
>
> Open Left? Does that mean ...

That means you can't dispute what the link says,
so you're descending into ad hominem fallacy.

> Anybody who calls an AGW skeptic a denier

"The reasons for using the term "skeptics" to identify some of those
who question climate science and "deniers" for others":

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

>... an arrogant fool, there is no truth...

You believe that human activities can't affect global climate,
but you have no evidence for your belief.

>if laws are broken.

Is it legal to steal emails, in your 'world'?

"Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology"

http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, December 7, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 19 new messages in 6 topics - digest