Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Please support the forum

As you shop this holiday season, please remember to use the forum's Amazon.com link (listed in the menu as "Amazon Link") to add items to your cart and purchase them. The forum gets a small commission from every item sold and the commission increases based on the number of items sold in a month. (So even buying a 99 cent MP3 helps!) Bonus this year: Amazon has announced FREE SHIPPING through the holidays!!

Additionally, the forum gets a "bounty" for various offers at Amazon.com. For instance, if you sign up for a 30 day free trial of Amazon Prime, the forum will earn $3. If you create a wedding or baby registry, the forum earns $3. And creating an Amazon Business account will send a $15 commission our way.

Your personal information is completely private, I only get a list of items that were ordered/shipped via the link, no names or locations or anything. This does not cost you anything extra and it helps pays the operating costs of this forum which continue to go up as our commissions have gone down. Thank you for your support and happy holidays!! --Deborah

Here is the link:
Click here to shop at Amazon.com
2 of 2 < >

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republicans have a 25% chance of retaining the house. They gave Trump a 7% chance at winning the presidency.

    The only way there is a blue wave is if there isn't a red wave. It all depends on voter turnout.

    Comment


    • fTL2iQuuD00Lg3hxK3xuvI_QCe_JR4ZIx6zGXBu1e_I.jpg?width=949&amp;s=2a3cfcbcc9e1480e940d8be44ab36f4ff945f0a7.jpg

      Comment


      • x49c1vpb6kr11.jpg?width=1024&amp;s=e67cdc50ff9d4000adfbc8dd47bd7bb3e056288e.jpg

        Comment


        • 5totkoe3kkr11.png?width=544&amp;s=2ff957428399eea8a8113bcd3c5b926945412e60.png

          Comment


          • Also, you lack a basic understanding of peer-reviewed science, or you lack a basic understanding of Calvinball. One of the two. Perhaps both.

            Comment


            • peer-reviewed science lol


              One paper, published in a journal called Sex Roles, said that the author had conducted a two-year study involving “thematic analysis of table dialogue” to uncover the mystery of why heterosexual men like to eat at Hooters.

              Another, from a journal of feminist geography, parsed “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks in Portland, Ore., while a third paper, published in a journal of feminist social work and titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” simply scattered some up-to-date jargon into passages lifted from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

              Such offerings may or may not have raised eyebrows among the journals’ limited readerships. But this week, they unleashed a cascade of mockery — along with a torrent of debate about ethics of hoaxes, the state of peer review and the excesses of academia — when they were revealed to be part of an elaborate prank aimed squarely at what the authors labeled “grievance studies.”

              Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.

              Comment


              • If the alarmists are to be believed, we're already past the point of no return. I mean, unless you couldn't believe them THEN. But, when it comes to giving "drop dead dates" the alarmists always move the dates back and, in that sense, never play with the same dates twice. Obviously.
                Last edited by iam416; October 11th, 2018, 12:30 PM.
                Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                Comment


                • Right. So they correctly identified a trend and its cause, and, like all of the most solid of peer-reviewed science, the findings have been replicated multiple times in multiple settings. An incorrect projection of a trend's velocity negates only part of the research, and not all of it. Especially since one group's projections have no bearing on the multiple replications of the existing trend. Throwing out a non-perfect bit of heavily-replicated scholarship because it's not perfect is, of course, unjustified. A person in your position who fails to understand that is either purposefully myopic or ought to be very thankful that this isn't a meritocracy.

                  So, again, you either lack the conceptual understanding to comment intelligently, or you are choosing to comment from a position of willful ignorance.

                  Comment


                  • none of the computer models are accurate. they aren't even close to accurate. surprising for a bunch of scientists who, as you say, have identified a trend and have replicated it multiple times in multiple settings cant seem to predict shit.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hack View Post
                      ......... I'd rather capitalism moderate itself, in order to extend its own life and protect the economy from bad ideas coming from the fringes on both sides......
                      A thoughtful take in the context of Global Warming. I've heard it before in other contexts and it resonates with me.

                      The problem is that from both a economic and political standpoint, it's not going to happen in our lives..... or probably ever.

                      Look, this is a terrible place to debate the impact of climate change, whether it exists or not and if it does exist what it's impact on the weather is. The most important reason for that is that there is insufficient subject matter expertise on either side of the debate here in this forum. Like, talent and Kapture, I don't trust the studies - not the science per se but the studies - and there's been some very good posts and links here to explain why that is so - Dog humping in parks promotes a rape culture there, for example. The science is pretty good; conclusions from it may not be.

                      My personal view is that carbon emissions are harmful on many levels for a myriad of well documented scientific reasons. It's not impossible to curb them on a global scale with some type of uniformly applied carbon tax. There's plenty of decent economic science that supports that and avoids the pitfall of discussing whether or not global warming is (a) a cause for concern or (b) is associated with global climate change and all that entails. But those opposed or in favor of any kind of carbon emissions control when this comes up for discussion, almost immediately go on the attack mode in defense of their disparate positions.

                      I also believe that global warming is real. It is indisputable it is happening. I also think global warning, whatever the cause, is affecting surface and atmospheric weather patterns that are supportive of more severe drought, cyclones and hurricanes. Certain groups will assert it has little to do with carbon emissions and will not likely be reversed by reducing them. The science saying it will reduce them and all will be well if we do is a bit squirrely, IMO. This same group will also assert that it is economic suicide for the US to embrace a position that it will cooperate in global efforts toward carbon emission control of any type when the worst offenders of carbon emissions are two emerging economic powerhouses - China and India. I actually agree with this. That does not mean however that I don't think carbon emissions are harmful.

                      I think it is a mistake to ignore the potential global consequences of uncontrolled release of carbon gases into the atmosphere over the long term. What should be done about it and how urgent it is to do something, is another matter entirely. I think it is one of those quandaries of two choices: pay me a little now or pay me a whole lot latter. These are not good options for a politically polarized world occupied by mostly self-serving interests. The default position in this circumstance is to simply kick the can down the road.
                      Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; October 11th, 2018, 02:24 PM.
                      On Harbaugh's expectations for M football in 2015 (NFL NETWORK): We'd rather be about it than talk about it."

                      Comment


                      • It’s so much fun to take hack to task to the point of inducing insults. I’m surprised he didn’t include his trademark “chippy” cuntfest.

                        Today they tell us we’re doomed if we don’t, among other things, reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. That ain’t happening, so we’re doomed. I only hope hack is here in 2030 to eat shit, but even if he is he’ll keep playing calvinball, cite some new paper that’s says 2070 and include a whole bunch of shit about how stupid I am.

                        Meanwhile we have dozens of past alarmist claims that are wrong and yet the eminently curious and hard-thinking hack is swallowing it whole with nary a question. Quintessential #GentryProg. Laughable.
                        Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                        Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                        Comment


                        • from real clear politics

                          OH2 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          NY 27 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          NC 2 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          WV 3 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          TX 23 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          OH 1 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          VA 2 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          MTAL Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          WI 1 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          CA 50 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          CA 39 Previous: Tossup. New Status: Leans GOP.
                          PA 7: Previous: Lean Democrat. New Status: Tossup.
                          NC 9: Previous: Lean Democrat. New Status: Tossup.

                          Comment


                          • You wish. You keep on coming after me, and have very little in response save for sneering. If you had any facts to help you, you'd have used them. But you do not. You aren't stupid though. You post as if most of the rest of us are, though. Which may be true.

                            Jeff, the important thing to keep in mind about capitalism is that it has changed in your lifetime, and can and will continue to. Capitalism is not an on/off switch. Change doesn't mean a wild swing from robber baron to Robin Hood. Much of the rest of the world is changing, or further along the line in grappling with the real economic sacrifice that will entail. As long as politicians pretend there are no consequences either way, that's going to be difficult. If ever a politician were willing to state clearly that there's no way to have your cake and eat it too, that would be an intresting story to follow. That could be what happens in Canada next year. Voters told their politicians in the '15 election that they would accept a carbon tax, and since then at the provincial level have elected premiers who reject the carbon tax. At some point, if adults are entrusted with adult-level information on this topic, we could get an indication of what's possible in this world.

                            Comment


                            • Buchanan:

                              I mostly agree. Any real policy assessment is, at bottom, a cost-benefit analysis. In this case it’s very difficult because the costs and the benefits of global warming are hugely speculative. “Trending” doesn’t cut it for a policy decision. And groups that have historically changed, revised and otherwise modified their predictions of the future don’t inspire much confidence in the precision of their predictions. Well, not to critical thinkers.

                              Meanwhile, the costs of getting to net zero carbon are staggering. And those are real and near term — or they have to be near term or we’re DOOMED!!!!!! So what the ecosocialists are asking is for the world to incur massive costs because their historically imprecise predictions say we’re DOOMED otherwise. If you’re not at least somewhat skeptical of that bullshit you’ve given up serious thought on the issue.
                              Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; October 11th, 2018, 04:51 PM. Reason: I changed the costs of global warming to the costs and benefits of global warming are hugely speculative. That's what you meant, right. You should have in case you didn't fucktard.
                              Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                              Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                              Comment


                              • I agree that a cost-benefit analysis is appropriate. Yours is a costs analysis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X