|Republicans are nasty people - Reagan and Hitler linked||MJ|
Aug 13, 2003 12:28 AM
|no surprise there though
|Yeah, they both have 6 letters in their last names.||94Nole|
Aug 13, 2003 4:23 AM
|In fact, Pres. Reagan's first, middle and last names all have 6 letters, or 666. Run away, Run away!!
You libs are so ridiculous. You all say we can't leave Clinton out of anything. Let's see, Mr. Reagan left office what? over 14 years ago?
The left better try a different approach because they are losing the more civil "democratic" battle. The majority of Americans have awakened.
Aug 13, 2003 5:28 AM
|Let's define troll ... nm||OldEdScott|
Aug 13, 2003 5:50 AM
|any post with "Hitler" in the topic line nm||DougSloan|
Aug 13, 2003 7:56 PM
|Sensitive about H!tler? nm||OldEdScott|
Aug 14, 2003 4:58 AM
|prima fascie evidence of a Troll nm||DougSloan|
Aug 14, 2003 5:48 AM
|Interesting mispelling there, Doug. nm||OldEdScott|
Aug 14, 2003 6:04 AM
Aug 14, 2003 6:59 AM
Aug 13, 2003 5:52 AM
|I love the way he posts this garbage but when you engage him on these articles, it seems like he either did not read or comprehend them. MJ, start telling us what you think about something first rather then just posting random.|
Aug 13, 2003 8:59 AM
|I think it's funny that someone reached this conclusion - what do I think? - who cares - read the article if you want or don't - I really don't care...
if you want to "engage me" - go ahead - here's my position:
that research and its conclusions are funny - if you don't think so (whichever side of the fence you're on) then you are very, very sad indeed - if you can't figure that out then you must be very, very thick indeed
do you wanna talk about deep and meaningful things? - here's a shortcut - based upon your previous posts I suspect on the majority of issues we won't agree - you'll see black - I'll see white - (you'll be wrong and I'll be right) - but we'll have had a good time in the process - I'll be sure to check the forum guidelines on the content of posts
|I propose all us lefties get togther and write 'troll-nm' every||OldEdScott|
Aug 13, 2003 9:27 AM
|time a post mentions Bill Clinton, or accuses us of un-Americanism. Plus anytime Steam posts anything. We KNOW he's just posting psychotically crazy stuff to provoke a reaction.
We'll take this proposal up in the Caucus meeting, right after we work our way through Jon's Canadian beer, and just before we vote on whether to admit that godless sn69/Scott to the club.
Aug 13, 2003 9:45 AM
|I an just suggesting you give your own input to the articles when you post them. That is all. THese are discussion forums, not post a link!!! Maybe people would stop calling you a "troll" and discuss the topics. Try posting your opinion and use the articles to support you argument.
If you think I am "thick" for questioning your debate tactics, so be it, it is just another thing you are wrong about. Maybe I am think for feeding the trolls though!!!
|I'll be sure to label all humourous links as such||MJ|
Aug 13, 2003 11:52 PM
|from now on for the thick posters here such as yourself
if people want to call me a troll - that's fine I will survive to quote Ms Gaynor - as a matter of fact I quite like Doug's definition of troll - any subject line with Hitler is at least trollesque - that's funny too - I suppose you missed that as he didn't support it with detailed arguments
it's not 'debate' - it's funny - I'm usually pretty clear when I 'debate' here - but if you really wanna get in to it with me as you appear to do (it's like you're flirting with me or something - whatup with that?) - then pick a subject - any subject and I'll take the other side (hey - for grins you can even take the "liberal side" and I can take the "conservative side"!!!) and then we can have a "meaningful discussion" at the end of which you'll beg for mercy and Old Ed Scott can declare a victor... come on chicken
|I'll be sure to label all humourous links as such||Alpedhuez55|
Aug 14, 2003 5:17 AM
|Since you like to throw around personal insults like "Thick" I do not think you are worthy of a debate. Besides, having Old Ed Scott pick a winner would be like having Jack Nicholson ref Lakers Game seven ;-)
Last time we debated all you did is post a bunch of articles that contradicted your argument and I used quotes from your own articles to make your point and you would post more links. That was not a debate.
All I am saying you do is write a couple of sentences about the articles and what you think about them. Is that so hard for you to do??? If I am thick because I want you to tell me what you think about something when you post a bunch of links, then maybe your posts are not worth reading at all.
|Round One, even on points. DING. nm||OldEdScott|
Aug 14, 2003 5:22 AM
|LMAO, I need a Makers Mark, but it is too early!!! nm||Alpedhuez55|
Aug 14, 2003 5:26 AM
|you're thick because you don't appear||MJ|
Aug 14, 2003 6:15 AM
|to understand humour - are you one of those Americans who loves Monty Python but doesn't understand irony - despite the all those Cartoon reruns of the Simpsons?
like I said pick a subject either side - if you think I'm so terrible it shouldn't be hard for you to win - I'm sure OldEdScott doesn't even like the Lakers - and remember you can be a liberal if you want...
on the other hand if you just want to keep telling me how terrible my debate is and that you don't want to debate because of 'personal insults' that's fine too - although we'll have to re-evaluate what "troll" means...
BTW you must have either a very hard or very sheltered life if "thick" upsets you...
|WHOA! Kidney punch! Deduct one point. Step back, men.||OldEdScott|
Aug 14, 2003 6:20 AM
|OK, resume ...|
|you're thick because you don't appear||Alpedhuez55|
Aug 14, 2003 6:55 AM
|You have to do a lot more than call me thick to upset me. You are giving yourself way too much credit. Well I agree with Doug that Trolls use Hitler in subject lines and think trolls resort to personal insults. I trying not to feed trolls after having to put up with SpankPruitt on Golf Review for the last couple of weeks. I am all trolled out for the rest of the year.
You are capable of making a good argument on your own. All I am suggesting make one when you post your articles and post more than links. I am sure I probably agree with a lot more things than you think. But as I said before, it is a dicscussion board, not a links page.
As for your debate request, I will just throw in the towel and let you win the debate. It can be like Brett Farve taking the dive so Micheal Strahan could get the sack record. You can get a hug from Old Ed too just like Gastaneu did from Strahan before he realized he got hosed ;-)
|Hey MJ -- you misspelled H!tler. nm||OldEdScott|
Aug 13, 2003 5:51 AM
|Probably a rabid conservative..................||MR_GRUMPY|
Aug 13, 2003 5:58 AM
|trying to give lib's a bad name. Reagan was a goof, but well meaning. Much smarter than george.|
|Do people ever actually READ the ACTUAL articles?||dr hoo|
Aug 13, 2003 10:46 AM
|Not abstracts, not news reports about the research, not editorials about the reasons behind the motives of the researchers, but the ACTUAL articles?
I took a look at it, though not a close look. There is also a critique of it, and a response to the critique in that issue of the Psychological Bulletin (which I did not look at at all).
The article in question is simply a meta-analysis of the past 50 years of research, mostly focusing on the last 30 years. Meta-analysis looks at the findings of past research and uses those findings as data, then does an analysis of that.
They found that there are psychological characteristics that have been repeatedly shown to correlate with self labeled conservative identification. The correlations are moderate to strong. The findings are reliable, in that they show up repeatedly over time in a number of studies.
Wow! How earth shattering!
The language is TECHNICAL, and you need to know what they mean by terms such as "decreased cognitive complexity". Saying conservatism is correlated with decreased cognitive complexity does not mean conservatives are stupid. Rather it is saying that conservatives will tend to employ simple answers rather than complex ones.
Communism is bad and wrong. That is a simple cognitive construct.
Communism has lots of problems, but socialist programs have worked at times in some places, so we should look at why those worked while others failed. That is a more complex cognitive construct.
Which sounds like a conservative position to you?
Mental rigidity and close mindedness. Fundamentalists have THE answer about the TRUTH of CHRIST, and no argument can sway them. Moderate religious people are more accepting of differences in beliefs, and can allow diversity in opinion.
Does the study say ALL conservatives are mentally rigid? No. It says that STUDIES SHOW that there is a tendency for those who score high on indicators of mental rigidity (technically defined and operationalized) will also score high on conservatism (technically defined and operationalized).
But that doesn't make as sexy a headline, does it?
dr (RTFA) hoo
|NO! They just like to show how intellectually ....||Live Steam|
Aug 13, 2003 5:49 PM
|challenged they are! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! :O)|
|Sometimes i just feel like ranting.||dr hoo|
Aug 13, 2003 7:36 PM
|Actually, if you want to learn a whole lot about the topic, it looks like a pretty good general survey. I could see a class spending a couple days on the article, the critique, and the response.
Every so often I track down the real research behind "internet chatter". Mostly it is drivel, but this looks to have some serious rigor behind much of it. I've seen the research come up time and again since it broke, so I expect a student to bring it up in one of my classes this term. Now I can deal with the questions.
Not my cup of tea though.
|Someone beat you to the punch earlier MJ.||Sintesi|
Aug 13, 2003 6:17 PM
|But yeah funny. Reedikolus might be a better description.
A balanced posting by the way. I tip my cycling cap.