First the Coho, now Apache and Gila

wrote:

Let's answer that question with another question:

Do you have any knowledge, save the NY Times article, about Drew Hall or
this memo?

Only what you wrote in your previous post. (And it's *Dale* Hall.)

But this certainly makes me want to find out more about the man.

and another:

Do you have any knowledge, save the NY Times article, about Drew Hall or
this memo, that indicates that the memo actually requires anyone,
scientists or even sensible people, to do any ignoring of anything, or
even that it requires anyone to do anything specific?

Did you even read the article? Or are you just assuming that
because it was written by a "left-leaning rag" that it is automatically
biased?


Chuck Vance

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:24:30 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

Let's answer that question with another question:

Do you have any knowledge, save the NY Times article, about Drew Hall or
this memo?

Only what you wrote in your previous post. (And it's *Dale* Hall.)

So, you assume it's true (or at least accurately informative) because
it's the NYT? (And I corrected the name error, but thanks.)

But this certainly makes me want to find out more about the man.

I'd suggest doing not only that, but on the situation itself, before
forming any opinions of the NYT article.

and another:

Do you have any knowledge, save the NY Times article, about Drew Hall or
this memo, that indicates that the memo actually requires anyone,
scientists or even sensible people, to do any ignoring of anything, or
even that it requires anyone to do anything specific?

Did you even read the article?

Yes.

Or are you just assuming that because it was written by a "left-leaning rag" that
it is automatically biased?

The NYT isn't a "rag," but generally, much of its personnel tend toward
a (personal) left leaning that is often reflected in reporting biased in
that direction. Sure, it often takes itself and its importance a wee
bit too seriously, but fair's fair and it is an important newspaper
(...heck, think of the fish that would go unwrapped...). This story is
an example of that left slant. And while you're learning about the
story and the players, you might want to get a little background on
"Fallacy" Barringer, too - if for no other reason than for humor's sake
- try searching using her name and "matt drudge," "liz smith," and
"harpers sirica" (three separate searches).

And wayno, if you're reading this and seek any info on ol' Felicity,
turn off the graphics beforehand - if Greta Van Susteren turns your
stomach, Ms. Barringer will do things to you a 55-gallon drum of the
lil' blue wonders can't fix...

TC,
R

wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:24:30 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Only what you wrote in your previous post. (And it's *Dale* Hall.)

So, you assume it's true (or at least accurately informative) because
it's the NYT? (And I corrected the name error, but thanks.)

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

But this certainly makes me want to find out more about the man.

I'd suggest doing not only that, but on the situation itself, before
forming any opinions of the NYT article.

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?


Chuck Vance

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:24:30 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Only what you wrote in your previous post. (And it's *Dale* Hall.)

So, you assume it's true (or at least accurately informative) because
it's the NYT? (And I corrected the name error, but thanks.)

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

But this certainly makes me want to find out more about the man.

I'd suggest doing not only that, but on the situation itself, before
forming any opinions of the NYT article.

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters. It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading. If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

TC,
R

wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

And I thought I was a cynic.

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters.

Oh .. OK.

It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading.

Do tell.

If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.


Chuck Vance

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:11:37 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:06:46 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Let's just say I don't immediately assume something is *not* true
just because it doesn't fit my own personal biases as you seem to.

Well, see, THERE'S your problem...

I have a simple system, and it always works: if I read or hear it from
"news sources" and I didn't write or say it, I question it...

And I thought I was a cynic.

It has nothing to do with being a cynic, it has to do with knowledge of
how the "news media" works, especially the "mainstream" media, whatever
political lean, personal or otherwise, anyone or everyone with a
particular outlet might have. For example, in this case, I found it at
least superficially odd that a reporter that had been, basically, a
gossip pager, and then a media reporter, whose husband is/was(?) on the
editorial board, and who was more a NYC "we've the _important_ press"
social circles type (or at least a wannabe) had this story. Turns out
she was recently moved to an environmental beat (itself odd to me).

My best guess is that she didn't know Gila trout from Gila monsters
before this, but was "pitched" this "story" by someone with an agenda.
Many do not seem to realize that while "business interests" (or land
rapists, if you must) wish to openly exploit _natural_ resources,
there are an equal number of "conservationists" out there who wish to
exploit monetary resources aimed at "conservation" (not all do, nor are
most or the remaining folks "crooks," it's just that they have built
what amounts to bureaucrat-type careers dependant on "conservation" -
they are in the "conservation business") or have other personal agendas
(status in their chosen or desired circles, cause de jour types, limo
liberals, etc.) that have nothing to do with true conservation.

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

So do you actually read?

Perhaps you'll deign to share with me exactly what you know to be
false about the article?

Oh, look, I'm not going down that road again - debating comparative
negatives about and from idiots who like to call themselves
"journalists" and other uninteresting time-wasters.

Oh .. OK.

It was, from an
objective standpoint, at least misdirecting, if not downright
misleading.

Do tell.

Do read.

If you wish to think otherwise, that's why there's
chocolate and vanilla, and if you just don't what to think, there's lots
of folks around here that will tell you what you should think...

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.

Nope. I don't care what, or even if, you think. In fact, try to find
something from me in this thread where I've even told anyone how they
should interpret the info I provided.

HTH,
R

wrote:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:11:37 -0500, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

[snippety]

So do you apply this "principle" across the board? Or is it only
applied to the "evul libral mainstream media"?

So do you actually read?

Quite well, thanks. You might even say that I've made a career of
it. And I've read enough of your "stuff" to have a very good idea of
what your own personal agenda is.

Indeed. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what you are attempting to
do.

Nope. I don't care what, or even if, you think. In fact, try to find
something from me in this thread where I've even told anyone how they
should interpret the info I provided.

Well you sure have spent a lot of time and effort for someone who
doesn't care.


Chuck Vance