If you asked the average person if the depleted uranium used to tip anti-tank shells was radioactive then only a tiny fraction would say no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So whether or not something is a fact is determined by whether or not it is common knowledge? Since when did democratic response extend to the laws of physics??
By 'simple empirical fact' I merely meant that it has an unambiguous, correct answer that can be easily confirmed by a reference text.
[quote]<strong>People fact check things they think they might have wrong, dates, times, estimates of numerical values of things. They don't fact check their understanding of the half-lives of the various isotopes of uranium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you support my point... people only bother to check facts if they think they might be wrong. If they are *certain* they are right, they won't bother... and there's the problem. Biases continue unabated.
[quote]<strong>If that's his only credibility problem, then he's doing okay by my reckoning.
And, by the way, depleted uranium *is* radioactive, it just has a much longer half-life than U-235 making it negligible compared with background radiation. But I assume that was covered in the other thread.
Yes, basically everything in our environment is radioactive to some degree, including us, and it's all natural. Heck, that's why C-14 dating works. (Or any other radioactive decay based dating.) I will amend the statement to read:
DU is no more radioactive, to an appreciable degree, than the background radiation in our natural environment. It is therefore not a risk factor of note, due to its radioactivity. It is a toxic heavy metal, much like lead, and therefore has a similar chemical risk.
I can't speak for anyone else here (or at any other forum) but I continue to be staggered by the double standards openly applied in this matter.
Being Saddam Hussain's cheerleader is not my aim, I'll leave that to hypocritical wanker's in America who supply tinpot dictators when it suits them (it's happening right now) and then use paper thin rhetoric to denounce them as evil. It really has gone beyond satire.
That said, defending the deliberate bombing of water treatment and sanitation facilities as an necessary tactic in a so-called war where you massively outgun the other party is just wrong. I'd love you to explain the big moral difference between that and and poisoning water supplies.
And the other response by the macho guy, who thinks Iraqi children shouldn't **** with the US is just bizarre.
Apparently the 9/11 deaths were unforgiveable no matter what the US might have done in the past because they were innocents.
Seems like a sound principle to me, shame it doesn't apply to anyone outside the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're responding beyond the scope of your assertions (which you've not documented) that bombing sanitation and water treatment facilities is a U.S. war strategy and that because of that 500,000 children died in the war's aftermath because of it and sanctions. How long 'aftermath' is, you don't mention.
First of all, as I meant to say, Iraq's children would not have suffered if Hussein did not invade Kuwait. If he figured there would be no reprisals, he gambled incorrectly. He gambled on the risk--if it even went through his mind--that his citizenry would suffer. Obviously, the risk to his citizens was not of prime importance.
Secondly, the Gulf War was fought by a coalition, and many nations planned, coordinated, and executed the attack. Striking utilites and infrastructure (power plants, bridges, waterworks, sanitation facilities) is a fundamental tactic to weaken fighting forces. If major armies are near inhabited areas (and, indeed, Hussein postioned his armies near cities as human shields--a despicable practice), then the citizenry will suffer. Again, Hussein invaded Kuwait. Again, he was the provacateur.
Finally, when the war was over, and Iraq was allowed to sell oil to provide for his people who were and are suffering, when, as Kickaha proves beyond any BBC link I can provide, that Hussein's regime is stealing those supplies for its own armies and building palaces with acreages that far exceed the White House and Buckingham Palace footprints--combined, Hussein chose not to aid his people. He has the power to help. He is the one who continues the status quo. He is the one that caused and causes suffering and cares not if Iraqi starves. He is the one commisioning statues and building murals of himself, still.
Place the blame of the Gulf War aftermath on Hussein and him, alone.
That was to all that I was replying. My apologies if you were offended; it was a knee-jerk reaction on my part.
[quote]Always ready to try and dig up dirt on someone if they disagree with your politics, right Sam?...even if the dirt is skewed, distorted or just an outright lie, it's gets easier every time, right?<hr></blockquote>
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.
Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media.
DU is not radioactive. It is a toxic heavy metal such as lead, but it is not radioactive. Check out the DU thread that I think you left after a while...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to be nitpicky, there was a time when the Military was making DU rounds out of plutonium and apparently those specific rounds were radioactive. That was an abberation though, as far as I can tell.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not I, said the brown cow.
Sorry, I think you have me confused with someone else. I just responded with a news item that I heard on NPR... a news source I usually *do* like and trust. I think they do fairly good checking of basic facts, which is much more than most 'news' outlets these days, much less random websites.
[quote]<strong>Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I don't put much faith in them, either. *shrug*
I'm afraid I can't be the arbiter for anyone else on reliability. Everyone should make their own decisions, but everyone should have as many facts on hand as possible before doing so. Facts that have been checked with primary sources, if at all possible.
For instance, during the Constitution/UN Charter debate earlier, I found dozens if not hundreds of opinion sites. But I posted just the primary sources. Why? So people could get the facts directly and make up their own minds instead of parroting someone else. Face it, you can find at least *one* source on the net to support just about any argument.
I'm actually trying to find solid primary (or close to) sources for the Powell military record items. So far, not much but opinion pieces. On both sides.
Just to be nitpicky, there was a time when the Military was making DU rounds out of plutonium and apparently those specific rounds were radioactive. That was an abberation though, as far as I can tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. It was a failed (stupid) experiment for obvious reasons. (And just to be similarly nitpicky, they wouldn't be DU rounds, they'd be DP. )
<strong>Finally, when the war was over, and Iraq was allowed to sell oil to provide for his people who were and are suffering, when, as Kickaha proves beyond any BBC link I can provide, </strong><hr></blockquote>
Er, thanks for the support, but I don't think I *proved* anything. I think there's extremely strong evidence based on eyewitness testimony from someone I know personally and find trustworthy who talked to one of the leaders of Iraq.
Okay, it's really really close to proof in my mind, but...
Hey *I* still want to talk to Rev. Buchanan personally before I tell myself that it's *proof*.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably true, if you were to smear a liberal, I wouldn't care to comment on it...let the snakes attack snakes. But, smearing is still smearing, dirt digging is still dirt digging and mud racking is still mud racking. You best agruement for dirt digging is "well, if i smeared someone you didn't like you wouldn't mind [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media. </strong><hr></blockquote>
All media are questionable, especially opinion peices like then one you linked to..so don't take them as fact..especially opinion pieces like you linked to. But, the fact you have to go digging through 30 year old stuff to smear him is a little questionable.
DU is no more radioactive, to an appreciable degree, than the background radiation in our natural environment. It is therefore not a risk factor of note, due to its radioactivity. It is a toxic heavy metal, much like lead, and therefore has a similar chemical risk.
Better?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's better because otherwise you are disagreeing with a 'simple empirical fact' that is simply and empirically correct.
[quote]
dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered)
<hr></blockquote>
He claims that it is radioactive, and it is, so what's your problem?
You could easily say that he is being misleading, if you were to claim he knew the difference in levels of radiation between uranium isotopes and was deliberatly misrepresenting them but you didn't, you nitpicked and questioned his credibility based on the physics equivalent of criticising someone for a spelling mistake, and at that you were actually wrong.
You obviously missed the subtlty of my point about fact checking. "Common sense" tells you that uranium == radioactive == bad. And technically the first part is correct as all isotopes of uranium are radioactive. People are misinformed about the second one, but not in a superficial way, deep down they 'know' that radioactive == bad.
You made the same mistake yourself, even after you were aware of the facts, had recently read a whole thread on the subject and while you were 'correcting' his 'mistake', and yet you question someone's credibility because they are unaware that there are two subtly, but importantly, different materials that are both referred to as uranium.
My point: this has no bearing on the credibility of the source, attack the substance of what he says or don't bother.
If we're going to pull out of the U.N. Charter then do it. We do not have the authority to sign a treaty and choose at random when and where we'll support it. That's what the Constitution says.
You don't like it, go live somewhere without the U.S. Constitution (yes, I see that you're in London, that's the joke.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry for the late reply, issues of time zones and not having internet in my flat.
You're argument is hilarious, in part because the U.S. breaks treaties all the time.
And the last thing you said is just stupid. I'm in London on a student exchange program and am going back to the U.S. in June. I'm just trying to point out that unless there's some enforcement mechanism (which there isn't), we can break with U.N. if we want to.
He claims that it is radioactive, and it is, so what's your problem?
You could easily say that he is being misleading, </strong><hr></blockquote>
BINGO. I doubt the veracity and credibility of the source because he was stating an empirical fact in such a way as to make it *seem* to be something other than it is.
[quote]<strong>if you were to claim he knew the difference in levels of radiation between uranium isotopes and was deliberatly misrepresenting them but you didn't, you nitpicked and questioned his credibility based on the physics equivalent of criticising someone for a spelling mistake, and at that you were actually wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everything's radioactive. Whoopee.
If I tell you "Don't eat that, it's radioactive!" what's your assumption? That it's radioactive in a *bad* way. If I were to say "Don't eat that, it's carbon-based!" you'd think I was a nutter and just stating the obvious. Guess what - both statements are. That's my problem with the 'fact' in this 'article'. It uses people's lack of education about basic science to make something seem more than it is. That's dishonest. The question is then "What else is being misrepresented?"
If, on the other hand, the person *truly believes* that DU is appreciably radioactive, then they have a problem with not checking their facts, in which case the question comes up "What else did they screw up?"
[quote]<strong>You obviously missed the subtlty of my point about fact checking. "Common sense" tells you that uranium == radioactive == bad. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and as we all know common sense is often wrong. 'Common sense' also tells you that the world is flat, fer chrissakes.
[quote]<strong>And technically the first part is correct as all isotopes of uranium are radioactive. People are misinformed about the second one, but not in a superficial way, deep down they 'know' that radioactive == bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sigh* Yeah, I know. It's sad. During a high school physics class (I was a student), I finally got tired of it and brought in a paper bag. I had a reputation as a whiz kid (heck, my nickname was MacGyver), so they believed me when I told them that in the bag I had a radiation emitter. I said it was the same radiation as gamma, just at a slightly different wavelength. I then pulled it out of the bag, turned on and aimed at them. Most people screamed. It was a flashlight. They got the point.
*Water* is bad in sufficient quantities... you drown. *Oxygen* is bad in intense concentrations. Radiation is, sadly, a word used by some folks to scare uneducated people unnecessarily when it suits their purposes. That is what I believe is occurring here.
If the radiation is not appreciably above background radiation, then it is 'nominally radioactive', and in general 'common sense' is *non*-radioactive (in relation to the world around us). Throwing in the word 'radioactive' into the 'fact' merely added a fear buzzword where it was inappropriate and unnecessary. It made for sloppy reporting.
[quote]<strong>You made the same mistake yourself, even after you were aware of the facts, had recently read a whole thread on the subject and while you were 'correcting' his 'mistake', and yet you question someone's credibility because they are unaware that there are two subtly, but importantly, different materials that are both referred to as uranium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly question their credibility when they purport to provide a source of 'facts' and have them wrong or vaguely stated! If you're going to say "X is the truth!" you *better* be right, and state it clearly, or risk looking like an idiot. Unfortunately, no one seems to care anymore about the truth of simple statements. As long as you can find *one* source somewhere to 'prove' your point, hey, it's all okay. Feh.
The rest of the information *may* in fact be 100% correct. But because the source demonstrably has a simple referencable fact incorrect (or at least stated ambiguously to give it a particular 'spin'), it indicates lazy reporting and sloppy fact-checking... or dishonesty. None of which gives me much faith in their abilities as a source of accurate information.
Give me primary sources, not innuendo.
[quote]<strong>My point: this has no bearing on the credibility of the source, attack the substance of what he says or don't bother.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The substance of that particular tidbit was at best misleading, or outright wrong. That leads me to question the accuracy of the rest of the reporting. This has every bearing on the credibility of the source in general. That's what credibility *means*.
As to the rest of the source's statement, I have no facts one way or another, and cannot comment. I merely pointed out that on one simple, easily verifiable, easily stated fact, they were incorrect (or at best vague and misleading) in their assertion.
You're argument is hilarious, in part because the U.S. breaks treaties all the time.
And the last thing you said is just stupid. I'm in London on a student exchange program and am going back to the U.S. in June. I'm just trying to point out that unless there's some enforcement mechanism (which there isn't), we can break with U.N. if we want to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No kidding we break them. There are plenty of laws broken from the top of the government to the lowest individual. What's your point? We can break with the U.N. if we want to? We have an obligation to the Charter until we break from the Charter.
As for the second comment, I said it was a joke. That means I was kidding.
EDIT: agent302, go check out the Iraq/smoking gun thread for more on this argument.
BINGO. I doubt the veracity and credibility of the source because he was stating an empirical fact in such a way as to make it *seem* to be something other than it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, why didn't you say so in the first place.
I still think that the original comment about uranium is tangential to the point of the article--it was a throw-away line.
(edit: also, in my opinion, the author is unaware that DU is not harmfully radioactive.)
You can write the whole thing off because of it if you like, I'll wait for something with a bit more substance.
And for future reference, since you seemed to miss my meaning twice, something is not 'simple' just because you know the right answer.
[quote]<strong>I still think that the original comment about uranium is tangential to the point of the article--it was a throw-away line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, it was. It had nothing to do with the purported content of the article, yet it was included for no good reason other than fearmongering, IMHO. Since I abhor that kind of manipulation, it makes me wary of the source's motives and intent.
[quote]<strong>You can write the whole thing off because of it if you like, I'll wait for something with a bit more substance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now, now, I didn't say I wrote off the 'whole thing', only that I wasn't going to *accept* the whole thing as gospel. Totally different stances. They have assertions? I want further proof from primary sources, since I was able to pick out one assertion I knew to be bogus. They *may* be right... that's a far cry from writing them off as false.
[quote]<strong>And for future reference, since you seemed to miss my meaning twice, something is not 'simple' just because you know the right answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it is 'simple' if it is a solitary fact that does not require interpretation, translation, or context for meaning. Would you have preferred I use the phrase 'atomic fact' and *REALLY* screw up the conversation?
No, it is 'simple' if it is a solitary fact that does not require interpretation, translation, or context for meaning. Would you have preferred I use the phrase 'atomic fact' and *REALLY* screw up the conversation? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have two words (and a hyphen) for you.
counter-intuitive
compare and contrast:
my theory
He got that counter-intuitive fact wrong.
He got that simple fact wrong.
your theory
He plainly stated a counter-intuitive fact in order to mislead the public and create hysteria.
He plainly stated a simple fact in order to mislead the public and create hysteria.
Even with your theory about motivations, simple doesn't make sense.
Synonyms of simple are easy, ordinary and common. It sounds from your definition, that I quote above, that you perhaps meant objective, but again, the fact he stated was objectively correct.
Comments
<strong>
It's hardly 'a simple empirical fact'.
If you asked the average person if the depleted uranium used to tip anti-tank shells was radioactive then only a tiny fraction would say no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So whether or not something is a fact is determined by whether or not it is common knowledge? Since when did democratic response extend to the laws of physics??
By 'simple empirical fact' I merely meant that it has an unambiguous, correct answer that can be easily confirmed by a reference text.
[quote]<strong>People fact check things they think they might have wrong, dates, times, estimates of numerical values of things. They don't fact check their understanding of the half-lives of the various isotopes of uranium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you support my point... people only bother to check facts if they think they might be wrong. If they are *certain* they are right, they won't bother... and there's the problem. Biases continue unabated.
[quote]<strong>If that's his only credibility problem, then he's doing okay by my reckoning.
And, by the way, depleted uranium *is* radioactive, it just has a much longer half-life than U-235 making it negligible compared with background radiation. But I assume that was covered in the other thread.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, basically everything in our environment is radioactive to some degree, including us, and it's all natural. Heck, that's why C-14 dating works. (Or any other radioactive decay based dating.) I will amend the statement to read:
DU is no more radioactive, to an appreciable degree, than the background radiation in our natural environment. It is therefore not a risk factor of note, due to its radioactivity. It is a toxic heavy metal, much like lead, and therefore has a similar chemical risk.
Better?
<strong>
I can't speak for anyone else here (or at any other forum) but I continue to be staggered by the double standards openly applied in this matter.
Being Saddam Hussain's cheerleader is not my aim, I'll leave that to hypocritical wanker's in America who supply tinpot dictators when it suits them (it's happening right now) and then use paper thin rhetoric to denounce them as evil. It really has gone beyond satire.
That said, defending the deliberate bombing of water treatment and sanitation facilities as an necessary tactic in a so-called war where you massively outgun the other party is just wrong. I'd love you to explain the big moral difference between that and and poisoning water supplies.
And the other response by the macho guy, who thinks Iraqi children shouldn't **** with the US is just bizarre.
Apparently the 9/11 deaths were unforgiveable no matter what the US might have done in the past because they were innocents.
Seems like a sound principle to me, shame it doesn't apply to anyone outside the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're responding beyond the scope of your assertions (which you've not documented) that bombing sanitation and water treatment facilities is a U.S. war strategy and that because of that 500,000 children died in the war's aftermath because of it and sanctions. How long 'aftermath' is, you don't mention.
First of all, as I meant to say, Iraq's children would not have suffered if Hussein did not invade Kuwait. If he figured there would be no reprisals, he gambled incorrectly. He gambled on the risk--if it even went through his mind--that his citizenry would suffer. Obviously, the risk to his citizens was not of prime importance.
Secondly, the Gulf War was fought by a coalition, and many nations planned, coordinated, and executed the attack. Striking utilites and infrastructure (power plants, bridges, waterworks, sanitation facilities) is a fundamental tactic to weaken fighting forces. If major armies are near inhabited areas (and, indeed, Hussein postioned his armies near cities as human shields--a despicable practice), then the citizenry will suffer. Again, Hussein invaded Kuwait. Again, he was the provacateur.
Finally, when the war was over, and Iraq was allowed to sell oil to provide for his people who were and are suffering, when, as Kickaha proves beyond any BBC link I can provide, that Hussein's regime is stealing those supplies for its own armies and building palaces with acreages that far exceed the White House and Buckingham Palace footprints--combined, Hussein chose not to aid his people. He has the power to help. He is the one who continues the status quo. He is the one that caused and causes suffering and cares not if Iraqi starves. He is the one commisioning statues and building murals of himself, still.
Place the blame of the Gulf War aftermath on Hussein and him, alone.
That was to all that I was replying. My apologies if you were offended; it was a knee-jerk reaction on my part.
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.
Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media.
<strong>
DU is not radioactive. It is a toxic heavy metal such as lead, but it is not radioactive. Check out the DU thread that I think you left after a while...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to be nitpicky, there was a time when the Military was making DU rounds out of plutonium and apparently those specific rounds were radioactive. That was an abberation though, as far as I can tell.
<strong>
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not I, said the brown cow.
Sorry, I think you have me confused with someone else. I just responded with a news item that I heard on NPR... a news source I usually *do* like and trust. I think they do fairly good checking of basic facts, which is much more than most 'news' outlets these days, much less random websites.
[quote]<strong>Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I don't put much faith in them, either. *shrug*
I'm afraid I can't be the arbiter for anyone else on reliability. Everyone should make their own decisions, but everyone should have as many facts on hand as possible before doing so. Facts that have been checked with primary sources, if at all possible.
For instance, during the Constitution/UN Charter debate earlier, I found dozens if not hundreds of opinion sites. But I posted just the primary sources. Why? So people could get the facts directly and make up their own minds instead of parroting someone else. Face it, you can find at least *one* source on the net to support just about any argument.
I'm actually trying to find solid primary (or close to) sources for the Powell military record items. So far, not much but opinion pieces. On both sides.
<strong>
Just to be nitpicky, there was a time when the Military was making DU rounds out of plutonium and apparently those specific rounds were radioactive. That was an abberation though, as far as I can tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. It was a failed (stupid) experiment for obvious reasons. (And just to be similarly nitpicky, they wouldn't be DU rounds, they'd be DP.
<strong>
(And just to be similarly nitpicky, they wouldn't be DU rounds, they'd be DP.
DOH!
<strong>Finally, when the war was over, and Iraq was allowed to sell oil to provide for his people who were and are suffering, when, as Kickaha proves beyond any BBC link I can provide, </strong><hr></blockquote>
Er, thanks for the support, but I don't think I *proved* anything. I think there's extremely strong evidence based on eyewitness testimony from someone I know personally and find trustworthy who talked to one of the leaders of Iraq.
Okay, it's really really close to proof in my mind, but...
Hey *I* still want to talk to Rev. Buchanan personally before I tell myself that it's *proof*.
<strong>
When someone in one of the world's most powerful positions in politics does bad stuff, or is implicated...then we should all know the score. If I had done the same to a liberal, you would have said *zip*.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably true, if you were to smear a liberal, I wouldn't care to comment on it...let the snakes attack snakes. But, smearing is still smearing, dirt digging is still dirt digging and mud racking is still mud racking. You best agruement for dirt digging is "well, if i smeared someone you didn't like you wouldn't mind [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Who is the arbiter on what links are "reliable" and what's not? I see Fox et al quoted ad infinitum in here, and nobody complains, despite it being one of the most hysterically biased of all the corporate media. </strong><hr></blockquote>
All media are questionable, especially opinion peices like then one you linked to..so don't take them as fact..especially opinion pieces like you linked to. But, the fact you have to go digging through 30 year old stuff to smear him is a little questionable.
<strong>
I will amend the statement to read:
DU is no more radioactive, to an appreciable degree, than the background radiation in our natural environment. It is therefore not a risk factor of note, due to its radioactivity. It is a toxic heavy metal, much like lead, and therefore has a similar chemical risk.
Better?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's better because otherwise you are disagreeing with a 'simple empirical fact' that is simply and empirically correct.
[quote]
dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered)
<hr></blockquote>
He claims that it is radioactive, and it is, so what's your problem?
You could easily say that he is being misleading, if you were to claim he knew the difference in levels of radiation between uranium isotopes and was deliberatly misrepresenting them but you didn't, you nitpicked and questioned his credibility based on the physics equivalent of criticising someone for a spelling mistake, and at that you were actually wrong.
You obviously missed the subtlty of my point about fact checking. "Common sense" tells you that uranium == radioactive == bad. And technically the first part is correct as all isotopes of uranium are radioactive. People are misinformed about the second one, but not in a superficial way, deep down they 'know' that radioactive == bad.
You made the same mistake yourself, even after you were aware of the facts, had recently read a whole thread on the subject and while you were 'correcting' his 'mistake', and yet you question someone's credibility because they are unaware that there are two subtly, but importantly, different materials that are both referred to as uranium.
My point: this has no bearing on the credibility of the source, attack the substance of what he says or don't bother.
<strong>
But, the fact you have to go digging through 30 year old stuff to smear him is a little questionable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make it sound like the last allegation was over 30 years ago, in which case your comment would make sense.
But, if you read and believe the source, then the record of involvment in cover-ups and atrocities spans the last 30 years.
<strong>
If we're going to pull out of the U.N. Charter then do it. We do not have the authority to sign a treaty and choose at random when and where we'll support it. That's what the Constitution says.
You don't like it, go live somewhere without the U.S. Constitution (yes, I see that you're in London, that's the joke.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry for the late reply, issues of time zones and not having internet in my flat.
You're argument is hilarious, in part because the U.S. breaks treaties all the time.
And the last thing you said is just stupid. I'm in London on a student exchange program and am going back to the U.S. in June. I'm just trying to point out that unless there's some enforcement mechanism (which there isn't), we can break with U.N. if we want to.
<strong>
He claims that it is radioactive, and it is, so what's your problem?
You could easily say that he is being misleading, </strong><hr></blockquote>
BINGO. I doubt the veracity and credibility of the source because he was stating an empirical fact in such a way as to make it *seem* to be something other than it is.
[quote]<strong>if you were to claim he knew the difference in levels of radiation between uranium isotopes and was deliberatly misrepresenting them but you didn't, you nitpicked and questioned his credibility based on the physics equivalent of criticising someone for a spelling mistake, and at that you were actually wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everything's radioactive. Whoopee.
If I tell you "Don't eat that, it's radioactive!" what's your assumption? That it's radioactive in a *bad* way. If I were to say "Don't eat that, it's carbon-based!" you'd think I was a nutter and just stating the obvious. Guess what - both statements are. That's my problem with the 'fact' in this 'article'. It uses people's lack of education about basic science to make something seem more than it is. That's dishonest. The question is then "What else is being misrepresented?"
If, on the other hand, the person *truly believes* that DU is appreciably radioactive, then they have a problem with not checking their facts, in which case the question comes up "What else did they screw up?"
[quote]<strong>You obviously missed the subtlty of my point about fact checking. "Common sense" tells you that uranium == radioactive == bad. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and as we all know common sense is often wrong. 'Common sense' also tells you that the world is flat, fer chrissakes.
[quote]<strong>And technically the first part is correct as all isotopes of uranium are radioactive. People are misinformed about the second one, but not in a superficial way, deep down they 'know' that radioactive == bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sigh* Yeah, I know. It's sad. During a high school physics class (I was a student), I finally got tired of it and brought in a paper bag. I had a reputation as a whiz kid (heck, my nickname was MacGyver), so they believed me when I told them that in the bag I had a radiation emitter. I said it was the same radiation as gamma, just at a slightly different wavelength. I then pulled it out of the bag, turned on and aimed at them. Most people screamed. It was a flashlight. They got the point.
*Water* is bad in sufficient quantities... you drown. *Oxygen* is bad in intense concentrations. Radiation is, sadly, a word used by some folks to scare uneducated people unnecessarily when it suits their purposes. That is what I believe is occurring here.
If the radiation is not appreciably above background radiation, then it is 'nominally radioactive', and in general 'common sense' is *non*-radioactive (in relation to the world around us). Throwing in the word 'radioactive' into the 'fact' merely added a fear buzzword where it was inappropriate and unnecessary. It made for sloppy reporting.
[quote]<strong>You made the same mistake yourself, even after you were aware of the facts, had recently read a whole thread on the subject and while you were 'correcting' his 'mistake', and yet you question someone's credibility because they are unaware that there are two subtly, but importantly, different materials that are both referred to as uranium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly question their credibility when they purport to provide a source of 'facts' and have them wrong or vaguely stated! If you're going to say "X is the truth!" you *better* be right, and state it clearly, or risk looking like an idiot. Unfortunately, no one seems to care anymore about the truth of simple statements. As long as you can find *one* source somewhere to 'prove' your point, hey, it's all okay. Feh.
The rest of the information *may* in fact be 100% correct. But because the source demonstrably has a simple referencable fact incorrect (or at least stated ambiguously to give it a particular 'spin'), it indicates lazy reporting and sloppy fact-checking... or dishonesty. None of which gives me much faith in their abilities as a source of accurate information.
Give me primary sources, not innuendo.
[quote]<strong>My point: this has no bearing on the credibility of the source, attack the substance of what he says or don't bother.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The substance of that particular tidbit was at best misleading, or outright wrong. That leads me to question the accuracy of the rest of the reporting. This has every bearing on the credibility of the source in general. That's what credibility *means*.
As to the rest of the source's statement, I have no facts one way or another, and cannot comment. I merely pointed out that on one simple, easily verifiable, easily stated fact, they were incorrect (or at best vague and misleading) in their assertion.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>
You're argument is hilarious, in part because the U.S. breaks treaties all the time.
And the last thing you said is just stupid. I'm in London on a student exchange program and am going back to the U.S. in June. I'm just trying to point out that unless there's some enforcement mechanism (which there isn't), we can break with U.N. if we want to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No kidding we break them. There are plenty of laws broken from the top of the government to the lowest individual. What's your point? We can break with the U.N. if we want to? We have an obligation to the Charter until we break from the Charter.
As for the second comment, I said it was a joke. That means I was kidding.
EDIT: agent302, go check out the Iraq/smoking gun thread for more on this argument.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>
BINGO. I doubt the veracity and credibility of the source because he was stating an empirical fact in such a way as to make it *seem* to be something other than it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, why didn't you say so in the first place.
I still think that the original comment about uranium is tangential to the point of the article--it was a throw-away line.
(edit: also, in my opinion, the author is unaware that DU is not harmfully radioactive.)
You can write the whole thing off because of it if you like, I'll wait for something with a bit more substance.
And for future reference, since you seemed to miss my meaning twice, something is not 'simple' just because you know the right answer.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
Well, why didn't you say so in the first place.
GnnnnnnGGAAAAAAAHHnnnnnngggggg must.... control... fist... of.... doom......
[quote]<strong>I still think that the original comment about uranium is tangential to the point of the article--it was a throw-away line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, it was. It had nothing to do with the purported content of the article, yet it was included for no good reason other than fearmongering, IMHO.
[quote]<strong>You can write the whole thing off because of it if you like, I'll wait for something with a bit more substance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now, now, I didn't say I wrote off the 'whole thing', only that I wasn't going to *accept* the whole thing as gospel. Totally different stances. They have assertions? I want further proof from primary sources, since I was able to pick out one assertion I knew to be bogus. They *may* be right... that's a far cry from writing them off as false.
[quote]<strong>And for future reference, since you seemed to miss my meaning twice, something is not 'simple' just because you know the right answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it is 'simple' if it is a solitary fact that does not require interpretation, translation, or context for meaning. Would you have preferred I use the phrase 'atomic fact' and *REALLY* screw up the conversation?
<strong>
You make it sound like the last allegation was over 30 years ago, in which case your comment would make sense.
But, if you read and believe the source, then the record of involvment in cover-ups and atrocities spans the last 30 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, you are right..the more recent, the better the dirt digging, right?
<strong>
No, it is 'simple' if it is a solitary fact that does not require interpretation, translation, or context for meaning. Would you have preferred I use the phrase 'atomic fact' and *REALLY* screw up the conversation?
I have two words (and a hyphen) for you.
counter-intuitive
compare and contrast:
my theory
He got that counter-intuitive fact wrong.
He got that simple fact wrong.
your theory
He plainly stated a counter-intuitive fact in order to mislead the public and create hysteria.
He plainly stated a simple fact in order to mislead the public and create hysteria.
Even with your theory about motivations, simple doesn't make sense.
Synonyms of simple are easy, ordinary and common. It sounds from your definition, that I quote above, that you perhaps meant objective, but again, the fact he stated was objectively correct.
the notion of an 'Atomic fact' has been discarded by even the Analytic school
so let's not assume too much now
Haven't we learned our lesson, children, about reading her posts?
Kick:
Don't feed the trolls! No more executive AI bathroom for 2 weeks!