I was misled

A Muzi said:

Now that all our respective positions are hardened and the air is
poisoned, can we return to bicycles?

Bicycles have no political consistency - they are constantly leaning to
the left, then to the right, back to the left...

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:54:51 GMT, "Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:50:07 GMT, "Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>I've seen this type of behavior before (Walter Cronkite comes to
>mind)... an aging man, respected in his field, uses his name as a
>soapbox on which to subject those who are unfortunate enough to be
>listening to his highbrow, gray-haired wisdom. Its too bad, really.
>
>Well, at least any tinge of guilt I felt for photocopying "The
>Bicycle Wheel" from my local library is now gone... (and I may stop
>greasing my tapers).
>
>Kyle
>
>
><[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227
>>
>> Jobst Brandt [email hidden]
>

Dear Kyle,

I've seen this type of behavior before, too.

You're not saying, of course, that you feel entitled to cheat
someone who disagrees with you.

You're just saying that it's a relief to learn that you disagree
with someone you cheated.

It's too bad, really.

That is your best synopsis ever, Carl.

I disagree. Of all people, I would expect Carl to excel in reading
comprehension.

Mr. Fogel makes no mention of the meat of my post, but just snipes at my
tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor. While photocopying a portion of a book
would perhaps constitute a violation of copyright law, _cheating_ implies
that I denied Mr. Brandt income, which is not the case.

And that's not his most egregious error. The point of my post had nothing
to do with whether or not I disagree with Jobst's post. In fact I never
mentioned politics or referred to his linked story. My distaste for his
post stems from disappoinment based upon (misguided) expectations. I have a
great deal of respect for Jobst. As a fellow engineer, I admire his
reliance on scientific analysis, attention to detail, and I envy the fact
that he has been able to spend much of his career contributing to the sport
he loves. As a budding cyclist/mechanic, I place him on the very pedestal he
now uses as a soapbox. When last near Palo Alto, I stopped downtown for the
sole purpose of checking out the big pictures that I had read were hanging
in Palo Alto Cycles. So when Jobst uses his position within this group to
incite another endless political thread, it takes him down a few notches in
my view. He's entitled to do so, but I would expect one who adheres to -
and demands from other posters of this group - the application of scientific
rigor to the simplest of observations, to have a more legitimate source than
misleader.org! If I were to post a link to a similarly hysterical
right-wing site, most readers of this board wouldn't even let their mice
hover over the link, much let it form the basis of serious discussion. So
just because Jobst can accurately identify and describe fretting, I don't
give him a pass on gratuitous pandering to an overwhelmingly like-minded
audience.

Dear Kyle,

You made a new copy of Jobst's book. Who'd you pay for it?

Carl Fogel

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:j61Dc.94357$2i5.90766@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

I've seen this type of behavior before (Walter Cronkite comes to mind)... an
aging man, respected in his field, uses his name as a soapbox on which to
subject those who are unfortunate enough to be listening to his highbrow,
gray-haired wisdom. Its too bad, really.

I don't know the significance of "aging" (aren't we all?) or "gray-haired",
except as a gratuitous pot shot, but, if your big fear is that Jobst will
abuse his automatic credibility with this audience, you must be new here.

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

If I were to post a link to a similarly hysterical
right-wing site, most readers of this board wouldn't even let their mice
hover over the link, much let it form the basis of serious discussion.

Hasn't stopped Mark.

Quoted message said:

So
just because Jobst can accurately identify and describe fretting, I don't
give him a pass on gratuitous pandering to an overwhelmingly like-minded
audience.

"Like-minded" audience? Now, I know you haven't been here long...

A Muzi said:

Weisse Luft said:

From the NYT, no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

garmonboezia cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg said:

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:j61Dc.94357$2i5.90766@attbi_s52:

Quoted message said:

Well, at least any tinge of guilt I felt for photocopying "The
Bicycle Wheel" from my local library is now gone... (and I may stop
greasing my tapers).

Kyle

My tapirs are ALWAYS well greased before I hitch them to my coach
and six.

Greasing tapirs is illegal in 12 nations under OAS treaties and in 19
states. You don't want to be admitting such behavior on Usenet!

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi said:

Weisse Luft said:

From the NYT, no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

Dear Tim,

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York
Times takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any
editorials that you would consider something other than
left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you
may not be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you
have a print subscription, or do you read the NYT at the
library, or what?

Carl Fogel

Tim McNamara said:

garmonboezia cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg said:

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:j61Dc.94357$2i5.90766@attbi_s52:

Quoted message said:

Well, at least any tinge of guilt I felt for photocopying "The
Bicycle Wheel" from my local library is now gone... (and I may stop
greasing my tapers).

Kyle

My tapirs are ALWAYS well greased before I hitch them to my coach
and six.

Greasing tapirs is illegal in 12 nations under OAS treaties and in 19
states. You don't want to be admitting such behavior on Usenet!

Dear Tim,

I must protest!

Some ill-informed nations and a few states bent upon folly
may have banded together to stamp out an event that in no
way harms the tapirs (who give every sign of enjoyment), but
this does not mean that the rest of us should give up our
greased-tapir contests where pigs are not readily available.

Indeed, only by greasing the tapir can the sport be called
humane, since grease reduces the abrasions on both
contestants and gives the tapir a chance to escape, while
mud alone is proven to be an insufficient lubricant when
the tapir falls into the clutches of a truly desperate child
in our modern answer to the Roman Colosseum.

Speaking of which, the Colorado State Fair, with its pig
races, is just around the corner.

Time to taper off,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi said:

Weisse Luft wrote:

>From the NYT, no less.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

Dear Tim,

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York
Times takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any
editorials that you would consider something other than
left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you
may not be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you
have a print subscription, or do you read the NYT at the
library, or what?

Carl Fogel

I'll answer since I have a NYT subscription and actually read the paper.
They print Willian Safire and David Brooks on the editorial page on
a regular basis. Both regularly take hard right-wing positions. Safire
was a Nixon speech writer and occasionally takes the liberty of speaking
for Nixon's ghost. Yes of course there is plenty of liberal opinion that
more than balances this but give them credit for presenting the
conservative side.

Bret

G.T. said:

A Muzi said:

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but I'll be
damned if I sign up for their spam.

Man, you must be one helluva reactionary if you're calling the NYT left.

Ladies and gentlement of the jury, I rest my case... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi said:

Weisse Luft said:

From the NYT, no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

If you want to figure it out, find out where they published the
revelation that Russian President Putin warned the US in the days
after 9/11 that they had credible evidence that Iraq was planning to
attack the US. A huge, huge news story by any account.

Front page headlines surely? Nope.

OK, at least front page, right? Nope.

Buried at the bottom of an inside page.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Peter Cole said:

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

If I were to post a link to a similarly hysterical
right-wing site, most readers of this board wouldn't even let their mice
hover over the link, much let it form the basis of serious discussion.

Hasn't stopped Mark.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's a reference
to the fact I've been willing to look at "hysterical left-wing sites".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So
just because Jobst can accurately identify and describe fretting, I don't
give him a pass on gratuitous pandering to an overwhelmingly like-minded
audience.

"Like-minded" audience? Now, I know you haven't been here long...

I dunno - I'd guess the ratio at about 20 - 30 - 50 (right, center,
left). Of course, some are so far left they'd break the teeter totter
if we tried to figure out a "centrist r.b.X. political position"... ).
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Jp said:

Weisse Luft <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Go back to school, the adults are in charge.

Yeah, Cheney showed us from the floor of the Senate what it means to
have adults in charge.
JP

How far down do you want to dig? Sen. Lehey was bantering tripe about
the VP to the point of fustration. Patty-boy was asking for it and many
thought he got was was coming to him.

But rip things out of context and you can make any story fit your
mypoic views.

--

Bret Wade said:

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi <[email hidden]> writes:

>Weisse Luft wrote:
>
>>From the NYT, no less.
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html
>
>I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
>I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

Dear Tim,

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York
Times takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any
editorials that you would consider something other than
left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you
may not be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you
have a print subscription, or do you read the NYT at the
library, or what?

Carl Fogel

I'll answer since I have a NYT subscription and actually read the paper.
They print Willian Safire and David Brooks on the editorial page on
a regular basis. Both regularly take hard right-wing positions. Safire
was a Nixon speech writer and occasionally takes the liberty of speaking
for Nixon's ghost. Yes of course there is plenty of liberal opinion that
more than balances this but give them credit for presenting the
conservative side.

Bret

Dear Bret,

I think that we're missing each other here.

Yes, as you point out, the New York Times prints some
columnists with right-wing opinions, just as the Wall Street
Journal runs Albert Hunt's column fairly often.

These are opposing points of view. Both newspapers print
letters to the editor, too, that disagree with the editorial
positions.

What I meant was the editorials that state the New York
Times position on issues. These are the unsigned left-hand
columns in traditional newspapers (same for the WSJ).

Does the New York Times editorial board (as opposed to their
syndicated columnists) take any positions that strike you as
right-wing?

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Bret Wade said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:54:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>A Muzi <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>
>
>>Weisse Luft wrote:
>>
>>>From the NYT, no less.
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html
>>
>>I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
>>I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.
>
>Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
>and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
>or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
>both).
>
>I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
>other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
>purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
>unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
>filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
>price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
>marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

Dear Tim,

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York
Times takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any
editorials that you would consider something other than
left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you
may not be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you
have a print subscription, or do you read the NYT at the
library, or what?

Carl Fogel

I'll answer since I have a NYT subscription and actually read the paper.
They print Willian Safire and David Brooks on the editorial page on
a regular basis. Both regularly take hard right-wing positions. Safire
was a Nixon speech writer and occasionally takes the liberty of speaking
for Nixon's ghost. Yes of course there is plenty of liberal opinion that
more than balances this but give them credit for presenting the
conservative side.

Bret

Dear Bret,

I think that we're missing each other here.

Yes, as you point out, the New York Times prints some
columnists with right-wing opinions, just as the Wall Street
Journal runs Albert Hunt's column fairly often.

These are opposing points of view. Both newspapers print
letters to the editor, too, that disagree with the editorial
positions.

What I meant was the editorials that state the New York
Times position on issues. These are the unsigned left-hand
columns in traditional newspapers (same for the WSJ).

Does the New York Times editorial board (as opposed to their
syndicated columnists) take any positions that strike you as
right-wing?

Carl Fogel

Yes, their decision to print Willian Safire and David Brooks. I don't
disagree with this policy. Many papers find the shrillest voice possible
when they print dissenting opinions. The Boulder Daily Camera prints
Mona Charen. That's not the case with Safire and Brooks.

Bret

Tim McNamara said:

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

You can avoid spam by getting a hotmail address and giving that
to the NY Times. Their registration form doesn't ask for your
name, street address, or phone number. It asks a few demographic
questions, but I don't see that as a big deal.

Tom Ace

Quoted message said:

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York Times
takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any editorials that
you would consider something other than left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you may not
be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you have a print
subscription, or do you read the NYT at the library, or what?

Fortunately the New York Times is readily available around the country
on paper. In general I find the editorial policy of the NYT to be
right-leaning and that they- like the rest of the major media in the
United States- have given Bushco a free pass to the abuse of power
without challenge.

Bret Wade said:

They print Willian Safire and David Brooks on the editorial page on
a regular basis. Both regularly take hard right-wing positions.

I'm not a fan of Safire, but I think that Brooks is one of the more
rational rightwing editorialists. He at least seems to think before
he writes, and appears to be able to indulge in actual critical
thought. I'm surprised he gets published, in fact, as it is usually
the reactionaries (of either stripe) that get column inches because
they excite a response in the readership. Rationality and
intelligence does not, and hence is given short shrift in the media.

Mark Hickey said:

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi said:

Weisse Luft wrote:
> From the NYT, no less.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either
you or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or
perhaps both).

If you want to figure it out, find out where they published the
revelation that Russian President Putin warned the US in the days
after 9/11 that they had credible evidence that Iraq was planning to
attack the US. A huge, huge news story by any account.

Which of course is utterly at odds with Russia's and Putin's
opposition to pre-emptive invasion, and thus itself makes no sense and
calls the veracity of this claim into question.

I am amazed at how the Bush Adminstration and its apologists continue
to grasp at straws to support the illusion of a working relationship
between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It wasn't there, which makes perfect sense
when one considers the psychology of Saddam Hussein- there is no way
in heck that he was going to permit anyone to have power in his
country other than himself and those loyal to him. That especially
includes Al Qaeda, whom Hussein could not and would not have trusted
for a moment- especially when his own military power was mostly
illusory.

The connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in the fevered
imagination of Paul Wolfowitz and the paranoid delusions of Donald
Rumsfeld. 9/11 was merely the excuse for invasion; without 9/11
either another excuse would have had to have been fabricated or there
would have been no invasion to reclaim America's tarnished miliatary
image resulting from the "ragged ending" of the Gulf War. It's a good
thing for Rummie and Wolfie that this war has gone so much better.

Your country is being run by idiots, psychopaths and paranoiacs who
have succeeded in smashing the federal budget, running up the highest
deficits in history, and overstretching our defense so much that they
have instituted de facto conscription. They have declared themselves
above the law and obfuscate and frustrate nearly all attempts at
oversight and scrutiny as provided for in the Constitution. They have
all but repealed the Bill of Rights, except for the 2nd Amendment, and
returned us 50 years into our past into the mentality of the McCarthy
era. They have pursued policies that harm many and benefit a select
few elites. They have made concerted effort to stifle dissent in the
media and among Congress members. Do you find this even remotely
acceptable?

As I've said before, never in my 44.66 years have I been afraid of my
own government- even during the darkness of the Reagan years. I am
now. This administration is utterly dangerous and destructive, and if
left unchecked will continue to dismantle the democracy that so many
Americans have died to defend.

Tom Ace said:

Tim McNamara said:

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up in my spam
filter for that very reason. I want access to information, but the
price of having to give private data about myself and to get their
marketing BS in my Inbox is just too high.

You can avoid spam by getting a hotmail address and giving that to
the NY Times. Their registration form doesn't ask for your name,
street address, or phone number. It asks a few demographic
questions, but I don't see that as a big deal.

It's a matter of principle. Access to information should not be
conditional, controlled or fettered.