Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About firstpusk

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Brent, thanks so much for the dismissive tone. I have had a couple of important appointments this afternoon and another I am leaving for right now. I don''t have time to be at your beck and call today. Maybe we can play tomorrow.
  2. eolesen, Arpanet is a long way from what we have now. He was working with the people that were experts and helped provide the resources to make the internet what it is now. That is what he was claiming and that is the reason he has been recognized. "However.... Taking credit for someone elses''''s work goes entirely against my view of A Scout Is Trustworthy." Misrepresenting Gore''s claim is not trustworthy.
  3. Brent, Let me give you one of my experiences. I called into the local Christian talk station to talk with this global warming ''expert'' they were interviewing. I challenged him on the manner in which he misrepresented some snowfall data. I indicated that the researcher had asked that their work not be misrepresented in such a way. Then, I asked him about the source of his funding. He immediately tried to change the subject to yet another study that he also misrepresented. He simply refused to answer about money his group recieved from Exxon and kept trying to change the subject.
  4. I''m shocked! Shocked, that someon would think national would allow money to influence program decisions.
  5. "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore clearly took the legislative initiative to make the internet possible. He deserves credit for being ahead of every other political leader on that account. What is your excuse for repeating a falsehood?
  6. Ed, I believe that you said: "Al Gore didn''''t invent the internet! Al Gore can''''t dance! These are all facts we must live with!" Al Gore didn''t claim he invented the internet. You were wrong. Gore''s energy use has been a subject of attack from a number of right-wing groups. He claims that he is trying to reduce the energy usage of his house. He has purchased high cost green energy sources. He then claims to purchase enough carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint to zero. The reporting I have read from these critics emphasizes the energy usage and garbles or tries
  7. Thanks pack, I understand what you are saying. I get a bit tired of the sliming mentality. Much like his work on the internet, Gore has worked with scientists to popularize their work. Climate change is a reality. The exact extent of its impact and its timing is not clearly understood, yet. I appreciate you mentioning that the science is available to those who are willing to seek it. I have spent some time reading some of it. I also have sought out the ''work'' of those taking an alternate view. I have yet to find a scientist skeptical of consensus view that hasn''t taken oil com
  8. Gern, I guess you were right... http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2730
  9. Ed, I think you shouldn''t repeat the false statements that Gore claimed to invent the internet. He did indeed take the lead in legislating to make it possible, and did (rightly) take credit for that. Some can dispute his choice of words in the Wolf Blitzer interview that is cited as the origin of this scurulous claim. However, I think it is a much worse offense falsely accuse an honorable public servant of dishonesty. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
  10. Sorry. "Ben" went to the far right and off the screen on my PC. How appropriate. A slight shift and I see where you are coming from. There is no case for IDC, so Ben and Co. are going to try for the sympathy vote. It does seem to undermine their case for fairness when they start out by lying.
  11. "Speech is another matter. And their assertion that speech is not being protected is, in my mind, subject to doubt given their lie regarding the interviews. So rail on Ben, and good luck. But you shot your credibility when you lied. I''ll probably wait until I can see it for $1 at the local student theatre. The lowest denomination of the land." Did you just call me a liar? Is this some kind of mean-spirited joke?
  12. The entire "Expelled" project misrepresents the creation/evolution debate by framing those pushing religion as science as victims. I think that this NY Times article is somewhat enlightening on Ben Stein''s creationist movie project. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&em&ex=1191211200&en=2d7df8cdb5e2a971&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin There is no scientific case to be made for Intelligent Design Creationism. It is merely the latest legal dodge to try to teach religion in public school science classrooms. I think this paragraph from the article p
  13. "Safety Afloat Hasen't changed in MANY, MANY years. Lifeguards have never that I know of been required. While its good to have one and is recommended its not required." When I started as a scoutmaster in the early 90's, a lifeguard was required for canoe trips. That is why I initially attained the certification. It has not been required. I think that it is a great idea to have someone BSA Lifeguard certified, but it is no longer required.. "I know of no reason why they just don't do Tour Permit and do it right. If they have SA/SSD defense leaders then they have meet G2SS requirenm
  14. So Mr. BrentAllen, how does one define the "Hate Bush crowd"? Is it anyone that shines a critical light on the administration? Is it limited to the media, or do you define the career intelligence analysts, government officials and military officers as part of the crowd when they point out that there is something rotten in Denmark. I guess it would be pretty tough for you to get any kind of objective view if all sources are required to lionize the president or be considered part of the "Hate Bush crowd". I am sure that anything that isn't Rush or Faux is not reliable enough for you, eve
  15. "I'm so tired of this argument." Too bad. You should understand the argument before you tire of it. "Do I really need to post all the quotes again from ALL the politicians who spoke of what a grave threat Saddam was, with his weapons? Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Gore, Kennedy, Waxman, Edwards, Cohen? Ill be glad to do it, again." I suppose that you will claim that they were working with the same intelligence that the Bush administration had. This simply won't cut it. There are too many examples like the Niger yellowcake story. You see the problem is these folks were be
  • Create New...