*DAMN R6 Forum

For those that haven't noticed it yet, there is a new show on Showtime called BULLSHIT.  Done by Penn and Teller in the spirit of Harry Hudini and his debunking of all things BULLSHIT.  I suggest any of you try to catch an episode.  Now this is some good political and social commentary.  The best two they have out right now deal with the people that protest and rally about the environment and about baby products.  Well, those hit home with me the most anyway.

For example, they went to the Earth Day rally in DC to get some opinions.  To start with, even the people that were the designated spokes people for their groups couldn't really explain why they were protesting (what the problem actually was).  They all liked the buzz words, but none of them really knew any of the science behind it (and yes, like always, the science matters).  They actually sent around a woman with a petition to sign calling for a ban on dihydrogenmonoxide.  She told no lies but almost everyone signed it, including the organizers of the rally.  How sad.  They all signed up to ban water.  

Take it even farther, the biggest buzz phrase was "deforestation".  Everyone was against the logging industry.  They then pulled on the founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) and he mentioned what idiots people were being.  How logging (just like hunting) is not a bad thing.  It's actually healthier for our forests with all the new growth and all (they plant more trees then they cut down).  He also mocks what Greenpeace has become, along with most of these other movements.  That they are social clubs and don't take into account the actual science of the situation.  They showed him clips of these activists talking about how species become extinct every 12 minutes and he asks where's the proof?  That it's real easy to restate buzz phrases like that, but where is the actual scientific proof?

It really reminded me of a few people here and their emotional stances on topics where they repeated catch phrases but couldn't actually get any real data showing what they were saying.

Anyway, check it out.  Here's a link if you are interested.  http://www.sho.com/ptbs/

Yeah, that show's been on for a while. I caught a few episodes last year at my friend's house. One of them was about baby products and child care, and another was about second-hand smoke. It's nice to see stuff backed up by facts once in a while, not just people spewing out crap. It's amazing some of the things they can get people to do. For example, they got parents to put on diapers and play with children's toys as a way to "get in touch with their babies" or something along the lines of that. It's funny AND educational.

Certainly there is no denying that some people (both sides of the spectrum and in between) hold view points based on ignorance.  How is this any difference than Michael Moore going in and making a fool of Charlton Heston.

Any doubt that Penn and Teller actively seeked the ignorant ones and cut the ones of people who knew what they were talking about?  It is hardly "fair and balanced" to highlight the lowest common denominator of a political stance.  This is often what Bill O'Reilly does, he finds the best people to defend his side but not the best to defend the opposing side.

heh,
I'm kinda tired of ignorant protesters, i live in seattle, there is no shortage of them here.
And yes there are idiots who are conservative, and liberal. Like those southern bible thumpers who protest churches that have gay members. It seems that when people become really liberal or really conservative they are more prone to ignorance. Common folk don't care or talk about shit that they don't know about.

Well first I'd like to point out that that prank about the dihydromonoxide ban was actually a Swedish student prank during the 80s (or 90s) and is in no way very original.. They even had a lot of well-manufactured "facts" behind it that time. The people who signed that petition came from a lot of different social classes. :)

And also Bucc, I don't think this topic really has anything to do with liberals, it has to do with activists and extremist environmentalists who are all complete dumbasses most of the time. They are not liberals.

And mellow, it is practically proven that second-hand smoking is very harmful (if not as harmful as first-hand smoking) for your health so don't say anything about that.

Well they are protesting/demonstrating for the right reason, but it is true that many of them dont know likety shit. Unfortunently this is what many people see librals as. They assosiate that image with the word leftist and Liberal. Just like many leftists (including myself) assosiate the christain zealot with right. But what the hey, its fun to steryotype.

Damnit Cossack, why don't you just go drink some vodka wearing your fur coat and shut up  ;D

I fully agree, Bucc

However, you've made a great statement about the sad state of the American public, not any substantive argument against the positions of those who actually are educated and reasoned in their viewpoints.

Often the people who take to marching on the streets for causes are those who are the most radical and therefore least objective.  Sometimes that's a positive thing, but often it is a severe bind to credibility and even proper argument.

I seriously doubt you would want your own pro-war views equated with those of people who went to "anti-anti-war" rallies.

Yea thats the spirit, Talk down to the retarded liberals!!!  ;D >:(

Republicans Rule
Liberals Reek

Aint it the truth.. For example, Bill Clinton, shared military secrets with the chinese and other enemys of our country.. If it wasnt for him, 9/11 and other awful scenarios would not have formed. And, Al Gore, What a retard, I am so reileved that he was not elected

To Bill Clinton : (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ass.gif)

To Al Gore : (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/uzi.gif)

Ya get the point ??

Snipey... you poor fella... someone educate him? Please? The public school system failed?

Snipey, you are so fucking sad.

I checked out their website and it really looks like it is a pretty good show. I agree that almost all of the topics discussed on their show are pretty heavily filled with BS, especially creationism, bottled water, the "Left Behind" series of books, self help, and alternative medicine. However, I do take issue with their environmental "expos?". I feel environmental activists are being misrepresented with this quote:

The reason environmental activists despise logging is because they are cutting down old growth trees, trees that those ecosystems are completely dependend on for providing habitats, nourishment, etc to the other plants and animals of coniferous forests. When logging companies cut down those trees and plant more new ones in their space, they have ruined the ecosystem and killed most of the flora and fauna that once existed there. Because when they plant new trees, they cant plant deeply rooted, 200 foot tall old growth trees. They plant skinny little stubs that will take hundreds of years to reach the point where the forest was before. These stubs are ugly and planted in completely uniform rows of all the same type of tree, bearing absolutely no resemblance to the beautiful forests that once existed in their place. Moreover, these rows of newly planted trees are extremely susceptible to forest fires, which the logging industry and president Bush have completely disingenuously blamed on the environmental movement.

I agree that there are plenty of dumbasses in the movement. Julia Butterfly Hill was featured on Penn and Teller's website as one of the leaders, and I must agree with em. I've met her in person and she has more than a few screws loose. She exhibits what I find one of the most annoying trends in activism today: stupid, uneducated people with nothing in their lives and nowhere else to go joining up and dedicating their lives to liberal causes because they just want to be accepted somewhere. So even though there are ridiculous people in the movement, that doesn't mean one should disrespect the entire movement for it. There is science behind environmentalism (ie, the environmental science departments at major universities), and its a shame that many of its proponents don't know enough to quote the stuff. I think loudnotes said it well with his anti-anti-war argument; making Julia Butterfly Hill the poster child of environmentalism is like making Jerry Falwell the poster child of conservatism. Even though they are well known (and well liked, within their movements at least) leaders, if you interview them you just know they're gonna say something embarassing.

What makes that post 'Sad' ? I am just saying how I feel about Liberals..

Snipey... do you truly believe that Bill Clinton was the determining factor that caused 9/11?

Hehe, my major is Geography and Environmental Science.  You said it.  I happen to be focusing on the more geography/geospatial side but certainly if I wanted to take a more ecological side I could as well...things like biodiversity.

LOL,
Bill Clinton was the reason 9/11 happened? Please snipey explain, and cite sources on this.

Kami, it's a very old one, but still pathetic how people fall for it.


They asked the groups running it to supply the spokes people, they didn't seek out the dumb ones.  I thought I wrote that already.  


Cossack, that's where I call BULLSHIT.  They can't be doing it for the right reason when they don't know the reasons.  That was the whole point.  They are completely misguided, just spouting catch phrases that they've heard, not understanding what it's all about.  Reminds me of Bondo.


No, because the ones that are educated and reasoned aren't the issue.  And I bring up Patrick Moore as an example of that.  Founder and former president of Greenpeace, well educated and motivated in regards to the environment.  Him I don't mock at all.  I may not agree with everything he's ever said or done, but he's done so looking at the evidence in a scientific method (so unlike the people I was mocking, which includes some here).

BTW, this isn't an American issue.  The idiots are a world wide problem, just like the environment.  I've seen protests in Europe, and most of the protesters that I came across were just as uneducated and dumb.


Then you assume wrong once again.  Since I did write here how I did go to a rally held by the arab-american community here, that supported the war.  The people that organized the rally I went to were very well educated and spoken.  Not crying out for blood but for the limited force needed to make Iraq safe for their families.

Above all else, don't forget that I am an environmentalist.  I belong to the MUCC (Michigan United Conservation Club), and even teach some of their classes to kids.  


They've killed off most of the fauna?  Like Patrick Moore said, PROVE IT.  How have they ruined the ecosystem?  Those 200 year old trees have been there for 200 years, what was there 500 years before them?  Other trees?  What happend to those poor trees?

Trees grow, live and die, just like any other plant.  The whole point is education.  Logging and the forests have to be MANAGED.  Logging in and of itself is a good thing, and good for the ecosystems, just like the occasional forest fire is (and if you don't believe that, I can point you in the right direction for some reading.)  Forest fires help clear out old growth and also return many important compounds to the soil.  I'm not talking about the huge, out of control fires of the past few years, but forest fires in general.  Logging does some of the same.  You talk about the fauna that is destroyed by felling the old growth, but what about the fauna that the old growth choked off itself?  Didn't think about that, did ya?  


Are we talking Ecology and Environment or Asthetics of your personal liking?  They are planting trees, trees which will grow for another 100 years or so before being cut down.  Trees that for that time will house all kinds of flora and fauna.  Just like they would if they had planted themselves after a natural forest fire.  You don't like the way they look?  That's a valid, scientific reason, now isn't it?

Bucc, you are right -- in a way. I don't think that logging will ruin these areas forever. I just think it ruins them for several hundred years, and quite frankly yes for me a lot of it has to do with aesthetics. I want to be able to enjoy the beauty of these forests, and I want my children to be able to as well. I understand that plants and animals compete and often kill one another off. And I recognize that logging has the same effect - I just think its much more drastic. I know the world needs paper, but the way the logging companies are going about it is stupid, because they are hardly considering sustainability at all. The logging companies continue to cut old growth while ignoring the forests full of trees they themselves have planted. They say the problem with these forests are that they do not yield wood nearly as well as old growth and that it takes many more trees to make the same amount. Too bad for them, at the pace the world consumes paper all of the northwestern old growth will be gone in a few decades and all we will have left is forests full of tiny trees that aren't nearly mature enough to produce good paper. Then what will we do? Why do we always approach environmental problems from the angle of "we'll deal with that when it becomes a worldwide disaster that absolutely must be dealt with, and until then we are ignoring it"?

Sure, Penn and Teller are going to SAY they got the best spokespeople.

Oh, and once again you show your complete arrogant condescention that somehow you know everything and thus when I disagree I'm stupid or wrong.  I understand exactly what I write about.  You just have problems understanding it because you are blinded by your hatred for me and would prefer to twist what I say rather than accept that it has reason and truth to it.

Most likley Rush and his parents.

Listen to who twists the truth here Bondo.  I wrote twice now that they asked for the official spokespeople and got them.  P&T didn't "pick" anyone.  If you watched it, instead of talking out of your ass for a change, you'd see them give every opportunity to these people (mostly college students, btw).

And I'm not blinded at all, even if I was, I could smell the BULLSHIT you spread just as easily.

Now, onto a better stated opinion:

And that's fine, as long as you realize a few things.  First and foremost of which is that they are two different arguments and shouldn't be mixed.  But also that logging isn't allowed in many of the State or National forests, so there will always be those places you want.  Yes, I am fully aware of what Bush has done with that, and it's the main reason I hate the guy, so let's not get into that discussion.  I have a better one that's more on point anyway.


First, we need to clear up a major misconception that you seem to have.  That the old growth trees are used for paper.  They server many better purposes then just paper.  If you want stronger hard woods for things like buildings, furniture, etc, you need the old growth stuff.  

Second, they are much better off letting their plantings mature.  Better wood for ALL purposes, and also better for the environment.  If they started tree farming they would quickly erode the area, making sure that no trees would grow there again.  Think about that for a few.

Third, the logging industry actually does a fairly decent job of not being dumb.  They plant a hella lot more trees then they cut down.  They know that their future livelihood is in how they manage the forests, and they take great care to make sure that there will be some 200 year old trees out there 200 years from now that they can cut down.  It's a cycle, a renewable resource that is not being exploited, but managed pretty well.  People talk about it like it's a major ecological problem, but it's not.  It's really being managed and has been for a long time.

Fourth, if you want to talk about the real danger, talk about paper mills.  You know how much chlorine gets pumped into the Great Lakes by the Canadian Paper Mills along Lake Huron and Lake St Clair?  Bleaching the paper is much worse then felling trees for it.

Last, the lumber companies cut down much of the old forest that was Michigan and Wisconsin over 100 years ago.  Grand Rapids was the furniture capital of the US for a long time because of the lumber here.  Some smart fella is even pulling the old waterlogged trees out of Lake Superior where they sunk up by Wisconsin and making a fortune off it (those trees are all hardwood and many of them are over 20 feet in diameter.)  But you know what?  We have forests all over the place, and more wildlife then you would believe.  The only thing that really never came back (and was never given the chance) were the wolves.  The forests do come back.  Ask Brain, he goes to school up in the wilderness of the state.


We don't.  But it takes facts and figures, not emotion and bullshit.  Too many of liberals survive on the second option.  I have yet to hear someone complaining about deforestation in the USA to give any figures about the rate with which the lumber companies are felling trees and put that against other related data (like how much "old growth" forest is still in the US, or even that state.)  I mean, if they are cutting down 10,000 acres a year (and planting that much at least) and we have 2,000,000 acres of old growth forest in America, do the math.  Those numbers are fake btw, I'm just throwing them out to make the point.  The point being, if you don't know the facts and figures like that, how can you say logging is doing terrible things?  I've seen the figures from before Bush, and they were very modest.

Restating what you said isn't really going to change anything.  My contention is that you can't just take what's on TV at face value.  That would be like saying reality TV is completely real.  Is their show live?  Don't you think they probably shot more footage than they showed?   Sorry for being cynical.

OK, I'll try this a little slower so even your dumbfuck mind can get a grasp of the concept.  These people were the official spokes people of their groups.  They said as much themselves.  Some were the heads of the organization.  It was very clear that they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about ( just like you).  So stop saying that P&T hand picked them.  And (if you had any real data, you'd actually know this) these idiots were even easier to pick apart then you are.

If you watch it, and think that something was edited or staged for effect, then maybe you can talk intelligently about it, intead of making my point and spewing bullshit about something you know nothing about.  But, that would be against your nature, wouldn't it.

I just read the opening thing and nothign else so I might be repeating some stuff. When did people, such as Bondo and I, stoop to the leval of correcting your hero George W. Bush online? We didn't as I recall but if you think people stutering is so funny then defenitly there are two sides to that coin. However Im not going to start things just letting you know that you shouldnt point the finger if it can fairly be reveresed.

I don't need to watch the show to be able to suggest that you can't take TV shows at face value.  I'm sure they make it seem very proper to the point where you wouldn't notice anything based on video.  Plus, I never said empirically that they did fake everything, I just think you are a dumbass for assuming everything is on the up and up and they didn't edit their footage at all to feature worse responses.  Christ Bucc, try not being an asshole who rushes to insult others before thinking through the other's posts once in a while.

Jesus Bucc, was all this really necessary?  Your own statement above is ludicrous and hypocritical.  How absurdly arrogant of you.  Bondo thinks he understands exactly what he writes about too.  From an outsider's point of view, it seems that you're just as blinded to reason, else you wouldn't find it necessary to call Bondo a dumbfuck three times today, as you did the 3rd time in the post I just deleted.

Hey, loud. Take it easy on Bucc, he hasn't gotten laid in a long, LONG time. His nerves are just getting a little frazzled is all...

Bucc, how many weeks you got left, 4?

Lol alaric.  Still, he can take it out somewhere else other than here. . .this is why prostitution is the world's oldest profession. . .

Hey, Loud, how about you tell me where the rules are that I can't call a dumbfuck a dumbfuck?  Because you and I had this talk before.  You want to defend your asshole buddy, do it in words.  I see plenty of people calling names here, not just me.  You either moderate with an even hand or continue to be among the assholes.  I don't need you to censor me, especially when I don't ever see you censoring anyone else.  You don't like profanity, so fucking what.  I don't see any rules about it.  I do see the word quarrel in this forum though.

Obviously I don't mind profanity or I wouldn't use it myself.

However, personal attacks are discouraged, and you used 3 of them with little or no justification.  I'm sorry Bondo's post upset you, but then again you did design this thread to upset, no?  He said nothing personal against you - remember an attack on your argument isn't an attack on you yourself.  Get over it.

I deleted your last post because it had no content.  It consisted of nothing except calling Bondo a dumbfuck, which is entirely unwarranted.  Especially since you'd made that opinion clear twice already.

I censor posts that have no content.  I don't remove just the profanity.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Curse here all you want, just make it substantive.  If you look at it from that angle, you'll see that I'm moderating as evenly as possible.

Oh, really Loudass?  Let me post this little quote for you (which you seem to think I made from your earlier post).


So Loudass, that isn't an insult to me?  Wow, thanks for telling me what is and isn't an insult to me.  That was really on topic too, wasn't it?


Well, I'm looking at it, and not seeing it being evenly.  Just like with Snipey Jeb and Typhy.  You are playing favorites from my point of view.

Jeez, and I thought liberals were whiney!  :P

just joking folks?

No tasty.  No jokes.  Jokes bad.  This serious.    ;D

uh, Bucc, your example of an insult pales in comparison to the things you say to Bondo all the time.  He called you condescending and arrogant because frankly, you are.  I think it's undeniable that you treat Bondo and others as if they were lesser than you (i.e. condescending) and you've as much as said so yourself.  

So I don't know why you would feel insulted by that observation.  You did pretty much insult him in the post to which he was referring.  

I can, however, see someone being insulted by being called a dumbass, dumbfuck, fuckass, assdumb, assfucker, fuckerdumbshitbullcrapIdon'tcare.

You have such ability to argue people successfully with points, I don't know why you resort to petty name-calling.

So now your definition changes from personal attacks that have no point to ones that you agree with or don't?  Is that it?  So if I find a moderator that agrees that Bondo is a dumbass then all is good?

You have a serious fucking double standard there Loudass.  If you are trying to discourage personal attacks, maybe you should do it on both sides.  No, you always seem to pick a side, and discourage the other.  If you aren't going to do it on both sides, you should leave it fucking alone clownpants.

As for arrogant, you and Bondo have not shortage either, that's for sure.  So stop once and for all your attempts at changing my style.  I don't care if you don't like it, we've been through all that.  I don't care if you don't understand it.  But you sure as hell better use an even hand when moderating here, and you sure as hell don't seem to.

Go to your "MP Forums" dumbfuck.  All you do is cause unneccessary drama around here buckfuck.  It's pathetic seeing the posts you make.  You need to GO OUTSIDE AND GET FRESH AIR AND STOP SITTING BEHIND THE COMPUTER 24/7.  Find a fucking hobbie fool.  Go fishing, hiking, running(well, as fat as you are, you might have medical problems with this one).  Just stfu and stop posting your bs around here.  It's obvious you're just a negative soul needing to share his negative energy.  Guess what, your negative energy is something WE CAN ALL DO WITHOUT.  Now stfu.

Rapid, that post was just really fucking sad.

Bucc... it's obvious you're being a bit too aggressive here, chill.

Kami, I think it's earned.  Loudass has been doing this shit for months now.  So it's not really obvious to me.

Especially when you just look at Rapid's post, and see that Loudass leaves shit like that (no, that wasn't a personal attack, was it?).  I'm not asking for the help, I don't need it, but Loudass's excuses about keeping the peace and removing personal attacks is pure bullshit.

Hell, how many threads has he started just bitching about my posting style?  I take that as a personal attack (not that he asked the first time, but by the 4th thread and multiple polls, it was a personal attack, no matter how nicely it's said).  He attacks me more then I have him, I'm just more up front and honest about it.  I don't believe in the PC nonsense of telling someone to fuck off nicely.  And no matter how he's said it, that's what he's done.  

So sorry, chill is not something that Loudass brings out in me.

Oh, and Rapid, fuck off.  If anyone wanted your shit, they could follow your smell all the way to Long Beach.

Bucc, Bondo and I aren't the same person.  Much of the ire you've raised in me has been due to your attacking him, and I consider him a friend.  I've been defending him, but I haven't made a complaint about you for several months, not during several months.  I didn't start a poll - and all your latest defensiveness (the best defense is a good offense, right?) has been as a result of my asking you to back off Bondo, again.

Up front and honest, in your words = Profanity, name-calling, and general being the ass you call everyone.
What I'm doing = trying to mitigate that, and sometimes that means stooping to your level, which I haven't by any means been doing for months, and certainly not with your intensity or vitriol.

I'm trying to keep the peace indeed, and you've felt threatened for god knows what reason, and only made things worse.  Bucc, I think you've earned far more than I, but I haven't launched into these high-minded tirades except to correct your antagonizing me, or Bondo.

Apparently you can't keep my and Rapid's posts straight, so while his basic premise is the same as mine, I don't write like that in the slightest.  My critique of your posting style - which is an old argument, again, that I haven't mentioned a word about in 2 months - was about your words, not your person.  If you take that personally, that's your problem.

However, it's impossible to misinterpret something along the lines of "Loudass" or "Fuck off".

And nicely, I'm telling you to "fuck off" in your telling of people to "fuck off"  Kopeesh?

2 words

Cool off...

Way to either miss or avoid that Loudass.  Search back in your memory to those PM's we've shared in the past.  How I find you just as insulting.  Now, I completely understand that you don't care, and have done nothing to mitigate that in the least, so why should I?  What I mean by up front and honest is that yes, nobody can mistake it when I am insulting or attacking.  I don't hide behind diplomatic insults as you have in the past (we've been all over this ground in the past).  I have no respect for your way of it.


Damn, for god knows what reason?  How many ways do I have to spell it out to you?  You delete my posts on the grounds that they are personal attacks and add nothing, but leave the same sort of posts that speak against me.  Could that make me feel that you are not exactly being fair?  How about you misquoting me often (I've told you often how it bothers me).  No, you don't get it.  You don't understand why it bothers me so you fucking ignore it, you continue with it.  The list goes on and on, but I don't want to bore everyone else.  If you want to know what you think God only knows, just go back and read some of this.  You come in and defend your friend, and in doing so, apply your moderation ability with an uneven hand.  It's one thing to post your opinion defending him.  It's completely another to blatantly delete a post of mine while leaving other posts which are just as bad, under the guise of stopping personal attacks.  If that was truly your goal, you would have deleted both Bondo's and Rapid's posts too.  You didn't.  That really only leads to one conclusion, doesn't it?  Is there another, and if so, what is it?  Why did those other attacks not need moderating?


And if you take Loudass personally, it's just a word, so it's your problem, right?  

My problem is not your insults, it's your fucking hypocrisy and bullshit.  It's you taking out your frustration with me by deleting one of my posts, instead of responding with one of your own.  It's you using a flimsy fucking excuse in doing so, and worst of all, you thinking it was still right.  You think you were trying to keep the peace by doing that, but your judgment sucks.  By applying your responsibilities unevenly, you've only disrupted things more.  Think about that for a change.

Wow, all i can say about this topic is that I turned Democrat after Regan.  Bush's father was an ass and so if W. Bush now.  either way I would say in this thread, hey, let's all get along, but that would sound too much like Snipey and nothing would get done.  Plus the controversy makes for interesting conversation ;D

+MOD+Saberian