Text 1359, 115 rader
Skriven 2006-06-02 21:22:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1805.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0J2gg.45197$Lm5.43864@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0A5B51B00A16B06F0284530@news.verizon.net...

>> True, but I did not arrive at my decision without useful intelligence to
>> guide me.  I have Paul's unwillingness to answer my question save to try 
>> to
>> push the program on me.  I asked him to tell me how completely global
>> warming was covered and how well different perspectives and important
>> details on global warming were handled.  He gave me no useful answer, 
>> save
>> to urge me to see the program.  I took this non-reply to mean it's a 
>> program
>> that has already made up its mind on the question and is simply telling 
>> me
>> what I should think. <<
>
> Maybe so, but I do hope you see the irony in that it is abundantly clear 
> that
> _you_ have already made up _your_ mind, as well.

I don't understand.  Everyone has to  make up their mind at some point.

No, my lack of desire to see Gore's film comes from not caring to be lobbied 
or stampeded to a particular point of view.


>>> If you can tell me that "Inconvienet Truth" actually covers the 
>>> shortcomings
>
>> and glitches to the liberal view of global warming as well as its 
>> strengths,
>> I'll buy a ticket and go see his film.  Hell, I'll paypal you the cost of
>> your and your husband's tickets. <<
>
> No, thanks.  I'm a bit put off by the idea of being subsidized by someone 
> who
> is covering their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears and saying
> "lalalalalala" while we ruin the only place we have to live.

Amy, please.  I have been happy to engage eveybody on this topic and nobody 
has had a damn thing of substance to say.  Just gloom-and-doom statements 
like yours directly above, which are, to put it mildly, unconvincing to 
someone who isn't already convinced.

Whatever your image of me is on this issue your rhetoric suggests it's 
dead-wrong.

The jury is out, OK?  Out.  I haven't decided, save to reject leftist 
alarmism until I believe it is on a firm foundation.  Global-warming is 
treated too close to an article of faith for me to swallow its apocalyptic 
predictions easily.

The debate is dominated by monied political lobbys that buy scientific 
results (usually in the form of computer models) before the research is 
done.  On BOTH sides.  But that means the pro-warming side too.  Throw that 
out and there's a dearth of solid information to hang one's hat on.

I'm not going to see Gore's big film because I don't expect it to rise above 
a stereotypical leftist view on the issue.  I expect Gore to play to his 
base, be long on alarmism and pending environmental damage and short on 
depth examination of the issue, save for a lovingly-detailed apocalypse 
scenario.  If he's really bold he will issue a direct indictment of the 
industrial west rather than simply talk about bland impersonal figures like 
CO2 emissions.  Between then internet and the lead time in making a film, 
you will have heard the majority of what Gore has to say from other sources 
already.  You aren't going to encounter much new, just very, very prettified 
at best.

If you want to go see something like that, fine.  Knock yourself out.  I 
have better things to do than sit through what is likely going to be a 
recitation of what's already in the public domain.  If Gore actually 
expresses a new thought or gives you your money's worth in depth examination 
and consideration of shortcomings to pro-global-warming orthodoxy, I'd be at 
once surprised and pleased.

And like I said, I'd buy a ticket.


> For me, this is
> a much more important topic than proving a point, proving you wrong, 
> proving
> Conservatives wrong, etc. etc.  So I've no intention of taking notes to 
> see
> whether or not your chosen points have been made (and frankly, what's the
> provenance of your expertise, that only _your_ points having been made 
> will
> make it a valid film or not??), and making a game out of it.

Then don't.  Revel in the confirmation of what you walked in thinking.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                                    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)