Sandbox – 4jun15

June 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sandbox – 4jun15

04 June 2015

[As most RR readers have seen, the sandbox 'all topics welcome' forums (fora?) in these pages have been more than well received – their comment streams quickly fill with multiple topic threads discussed among multiple participants. Recently these sandboxes have begun 'filling' more rapidly – e.g. the 1jun15 sandbox garnered over 200 comments in three days. This has given rise to a growing concern of mine about the readability of very long comment streams containing several live threads. Fortunately, most commenters have started using name/time tag referents to point readers to which of the preceding comments their current comment addresses. (However, some still believe that their particular thread is being so closely followed by everyone that no such provenance pointers are needed – hubris?)

So I wonder if perhaps readability would be enhanced were RR to implement categorical sandboxes – national policy, local issues, foreign policy, climate change, science, education, … ?? While that approach MAY focus discussions and make them more readable, it would also detract from the apparently pleasant melee or potpourri of thoughts that readers now experience as they revisit the comment stream to have their interest piqued by some new comment/er. Easiest would be not to 'fix' what seems to work, and to just open new sandboxes whenever the comment streams grow beyond a hundred or so. Anyway, I invite a discussion and your thoughts on the matter. gjr]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

260 responses to “Sandbox – 4jun15”

Walt

04 June 2015

Let’s start the new litter box out right. NOAA has “fixed” that little problem.
Yup,, AGW is back on track. If the facts don’t fit the agenda, remanufacture the facts.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

LikeLike
Jon

04 June 2015

Ah, its the old Dailycaller. Their report must be accurate!

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

Yup, one of LIBS most feared web sites. They are real good at exposing LIBS and LIB activities for what they are.
But go ahead, and attack the messenger, not the message.

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

Hit up Google “jon”,,, pick one… ANY one.

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 June 2015

Jon 1133am – Jon, your response is a caricature of how the progressive mind works on substantive matters. You dismissed an important issue on the basis of who reported it without the slightest understanding of the underlying facts or arguments. Daily Caller invites you to dig deeper by linking to Anthony Watts site – one of the most respected in the world on climate change – whereon you can see the data plots and their attendant explanations, and be further linked to the original NOAA reports on its temperature data revisions.
But true to form, you responded as would a sclerotically predisposed naïf on the matter. From sampling some of your more sober repartees in these pages, I continue to believe that you can do much better.

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

Funny,, nothing on CNN,, but this is the latest post on NOAA CNN put up.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/09/world/global-warming-record-quarter/index.html
CNN is sure on the ball. No wonder hardly a soul believes, reads, or watches it.

LikeLike
fish

04 June 2015

So I wonder if perhaps readability would be enhanced were RR to implement categorical sandboxes – national policy, local issues, foreign policy, climate change, science, education, … ??
You can attempt this George but since any “sandbox” thread winds up light years from where it started topic wise I think it’s probably a waste of effort.

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

I want to get more money when I sell my 12-year old vehicle. It has over 130,000 miles on it. I roll the odometer back to 84,000 and can get $5,000 more for it. Ooops, that’s fraud and I can be sent to jail.
NOAA ‘scientists’ adjust temperature data to fit their narrative (religion), no worries.

LikeLike
fish

04 June 2015

Funny how “science” takes a backseat when money is on the line? I thought that only those horrible, horrible corporations would fudge numbers to benefit themselves?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

I’m must be slowing down. Fish beat me to it… AGAIN!
Yes, a bad day for ECO news. The EPA chokes on having to admit FRACKING is safe, to NOAA cooking the books.

LikeLike
fish

04 June 2015

Posted by: Walt | 04 June 2015 at 02:33 PM
Of course you’re slowing down Walt….it’s all that smoked meat…..lucky bastard!

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

I could say something about that,,, but,, I better not.

LikeLike
fish

04 June 2015

Posted by: Walt | 04 June 2015 at 02:52 PM
Yeah…that’s probably for the best!

LikeLike
George Boardman

04 June 2015

Dr. R, you wrote at 12:15 PM that it’s typical of progressives to “dismiss an important issue on the basis of who reported it…”
Just like conservatives who dismiss anything reported by The New York Times or Washington Post.

LikeLike
George Rebane

04 June 2015

GeorgeB 403pm – I do contend that Mr Boardman. When the NYT or WP have put out their progressive pap, then, at least on these pages (and on FN and WSJ), the substance of their claims is countered with substance which may or not include taking to task their propensity to publish it. That is almost never the case with a liberal response to something reported on an admitted right-leaning outlet as eight years here attest. The Right/Left exchanges are asymmetric along so many fronts. But I do appreciate your raising the point.

LikeLike
Gregory

04 June 2015

I often cite the NY Times, WaPo, PBS or NPR, especially if I first heard or read the news from either a libertarian or conservative source.
It is VERY common for the “progressives” among us to be a knee-jerk reactionary against anything emanating from a source that smells right wing to them.

LikeLike
Walt

04 June 2015

I subscribe to the Reagan doctrine.(sort of) I don’t trust what LIBS say, so I verify.
And 7 times out of 10, what they say is BS.
Take Patricia’s latest post on FRACKING. It dates to 2011. A far cry from the “news of the day”. The EPA may have said that back then, but that’s NOT what they say today.
And trying to pass off old press because it fits the narrative is more than disingenuous.
The AGW and “green” gang will stoop to any level to keep their beliefs relevant. Damn the facts that prove otherwise. It’s belief that wins out for them.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

04 June 2015

I am sure Mr. B never was subjected to end BS reporting of him so I forgive him for his ignorance. When conservatives were finally offered middle of the road reporting from a couple of places, we rejoiced and celebrated. Now all we need is all the rest of the media Mr. B likes and favors as “unbiased” to really become that. Then we can all rejoice!

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

04 June 2015

I read a story on Daily Kos the other day. They were outraged at a Christian pastor telling HS grads his opinion of gays. They were sure it was true because: wait for it – the story came from Fox News. They even had the http jump directly to the Fox story. Now, I could have sworn that lefties all say that Fox News is nothing but lies.
Perhaps Mr Boardman could provide some examples of folks here dismissing a news item simply because it’s in the NYT. It might be that we dismiss a story and maybe it was in the NYT, but you will need to show that it was dismissed just because it was in the NYT and was not vetted.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

04 June 2015

Haters are going to hate, truth notwithstanding.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

04 June 2015

Hmmmm. fish quotes Dr. Rebane, so I quote fish and the good doc by extention.
“So I wonder if perhaps readability would be enhanced were RR to implement categorical sandboxes – national policy, local issues, foreign policy, climate change, science, education, … ??” Quotation marks added by third party without prior consent.
How about a all of the above!
https://www.facebook.com/MANDATORY/photos/a.251564004947905.47255.205523986218574/548390651931904/?type=1&theater

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

04 June 2015

Lowell was sent to heaven by a 1,000 plus friends today.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

05 June 2015

Technology is changing the way we communicate. Or is it the Internet is changing the way we communicate? I get ’em all mixed up. Glad to see thousands are still using the telephone.
http://news.yahoo.com/5-ways-people-drought-shaming-neighbors-185449003.html

LikeLike
Paul Emery

05 June 2015

My goodness, there are those who contribute to this blog that cite Rush Limbaugh and Slimebart as credible sources of news so the standards are certainly not that high in this venue.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

05 June 2015

I think the same for those quoting KVMR. LOL!

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

05 June 2015

Todd, does that rebuke of KVMR extend to Dr. Rebane?

LikeLike
Don Bessee

05 June 2015

Dr. R would be the exception that proves the rule! lol

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Paul DO show some proof that Breitbart is publishing bogus stories.
As I recall, you refuse to even read any. So.. Just who is telling you that?
BTW.. Record sea ice… But it is melting! (according to LIB news)

LikeLike
George Rebane

05 June 2015

The unsubstantiated and blanket vilification of sources (messengers) continues without the apparent ability reasonably contend what they are saying (the message). However, the Left has never accepted the “standards” evinced on RR, and again appears to call for some sort of sort of mediation or censorship of its readers’ comments. The policy here has been that the commenters forge their own reputations in these pages by what they write and cite.
My personal preference is to take a messenger to task (if at all) only after having successfully demonstrated the paucity of his messages AND citing aspects of his incorrigibility (e.g. not recognizing and/or addressing counter arguments).
PaulE 850am – I take it that your reciprocal view would then be to equally disdain, on prima facie grounds, the standards of sites on which the dailykos, moveon, and truthout are cited.

LikeLike
fish

05 June 2015

Pot meet Kettle……
My goodness, there are those who contribute to this blog that cite Rush Limbaugh and Slimebart as credible sources of news so the standards are certainly not that high in this venue.
My goodness, there are those who contribute to this blog that cite ~~Rush Limbaugh~~ MSNBC and ~~Slimebart~~ DailyKos as credible sources of news so the standards are certainly not that high in this venue.
Fixed that for you Paul.

LikeLike
fish

05 June 2015

So tough these days for a progressive administration to get decent press from an adversarial 4th Estate.
REVOLVING DOOR | WEST WING – MSNBC’s Rachel Racusen Rejoins White House

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

05 June 2015

Patricia, I am surprised you don’t understand the difference between KVMR’s News (Paul Emery is the news director) and opinion segments. Perhaps a discussion here can enlighten you as to the differences.
Paul Emery, like all liberals, rejects anything printed in certain if not all, news sources he deems as “right”. We on the “right” read it all. I have for all my life of 65 years, been reading and listening to “left” on every news venue the left cherishes (they had a monopoly until the 90’s). You cannot imagine the happiness I experience when “right” in the form of “middle” was now available.

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Unlike LIB news, who fly’s cover for Lefty politics, ( like painting employment in a rosey light,, when in fact that “red light” is the warning the ship is going down. 1/3rd of Americans are not employed, yet unemployment is in the press @ 5.5%.. LIERS!!)
In contrast, “Right wing” news slams their “own” and breaks out the cat o’nine tails for the job. Politicians of the Right are taking heat for this joke of a “free trade” Bill.
How dare they vote on a secret Bill they haven’t read?? Where have we heard that before?
( gotta pass it to see what’s in it.)
There is vary little “protectionism” from “Right wing news” of their own.
That’s why CNN, MSNBC and such have such piss poor viewership. Only the far left Progressive still give them the time of day.
LIB news has yet to get really peeved that Hillary has given them the silent treatment.
Some are still shilling it as a “brilliant move”.

LikeLike
Gregory

05 June 2015

“My goodness, there are those who contribute to this blog that cite Rush Limbaugh and Slimebart as credible sources of news so the standards are certainly not that high in this venue.”-Paul Emery
Geeze, Paul, you are far too focused on who says it rather than whether what they say is correct or wrong, and just as guilty as the more weak minded conservatives who uncritically accept info from people they agree with.
Our recent exchange over the Pope’s phantom Master’s degree in chemistry when he was 18 or 19 is a case on point.Limbaugh is relentlessly partisan, Drudge has a populist libertarian streak, the Breitbart-less Breitbart is partisan and sensationalist, but has imho a better track record than MSNBC which might not be saying much but it says something.
How about dropping the argumentum ad hominem, which is what your “slimebart” is, and revel in actually analyzing the claim and demolishing those, if you can?

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

The lies keep popping up like weeds. Sorry AGW gang,, it’s your crew that keeps getting caught.
“Emails obtained by the blog JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy show Harvard University and Syracuse University researchers involved in the study consulted with the EPA while conducting their study, contradicting their previous statements the study was done independently of the agency.
“Emails obtained from EPA through the Freedom of Information Act show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two researchers falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted ‘independent’ of the agency,”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/scientists-may-have-lied-to-promote-epas-global-warming-agenda/
Once again,, don’t shoot the messenger.

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

05 June 2015

Todd, 8:55: You posted, “I think the same for those quoting KVMR. LOL”
You did not differentiate between commentary and news – only the station. Is Rush Limbaugh commentary or news? (I have to admit I don’t know who Breitbart i, but it sounds like I’m not missing anything.)

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Now really Patrica.. Listen for yourself sometime and come to your own conclusion.
Stop listening to what others tell you.
Just like your admission about Breitbart. Your going on what someone else says.
Visit the site yourself. DO come back and point out any fibs or fabrications. ( good luck)

LikeLike
Paul Emery

05 June 2015

George
To put things in perspective Rush Limbaugh is not a news person but instead he is an entertainer, a comedian to be precise. He is very good at that and makes me laugh whenever I hear him which is usually on long boring freeway drives. I know people who knew him back in the opld days before he hit it big. He was at KFBK in Sacramento when he invented his character. That was when I was involved at KZAP radio in Sacramento. According to my friends he hated his radio character but went with it when he made it big and the rest is history. A very talented comic for sure, suitable for any stage but radio works best because of his remarkable sense of vocal timing and the endless ability to go on and on about the same subject for hours without running out of breath.
Breitbart (rip) on the other hand was an exposed fraud who knowingly manipulated editing of vintage video clips that caused much harm to individuals and institutions. Why any news organization would use his name only verifies that there are no standards of journalism today and even though news with a slant is nothing new his standards are below even the lowest defination of journalism, and the bar is indeed set very low.
Here’s a pretty good summary of the incident from Slate, a credible news source,
” Andrew Breitbart made a mistake. Based on a two-minute video excerpt of Shirley Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP dinner last year, he accused her of practicing racism as a federal employee. He neglected to mention that in the excerpt, she was clearly talking about events in a different job 20 years ago. And when the rest of the video turned up, it proved that her story was about transcending her old racial resentment.”
There are endlessexamples of this story everywhere. this was just the first one to pop up
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2010/07/amen_canard.html

LikeLike
George Boardman

05 June 2015

Some of you may find this hard to believe, but the great Pelline made a stupid mistake earlier today, the kind of mistake you expect from a rookie reporter instead of an alleged veteran journalist.
Apparently trying to establish his bonafides for a job at Consumer Reports, he pillars The Union for its decision to charge $1 a week to any subscriber who wants a TV guide. In an effort to illustrate the error of its ways, Pelline contrasts The Union’s policy with that of The Bee:
“The Bee includes TV listings every day in its print edition–both for sports events, and for 7 p.m. – 11:30 p.m. programming. By contrast, The Union does not.”
You are only half right, Jeffy. If you actually read The Union, you would know the sports section lists all sports events on TV, and includes the Sunday schedule in Saturday’s paper.
This is the sort of thing Jeffy loves to hammer other people about, so will he be man enough to publicly admit his error? Probably not. He has a difficult time holding himself to the standard he expects of others.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

05 June 2015

Patricia 1:12 PM
I was responding to another post. If you read that post you will get the drift of my post.
Rush Limbaugh is very successful because he has a knack for entertaining as he does information. You decide for yourself what he handle should be. Whatever makes you happy.
Paul Emery 2:04 PM
Jealousy is not pretty. I never heard of Rush until I became a Republican Chairman in 1995. I listened to him and by golly he was talking about things I was never hearing on the BIG BOYS and it was so refreshing! I was involved in fighting eco extremism in those days and all we ever heard was the BIG BOYS supporting the eco’s and never even talking to people against their extremism. Same for women’s rights (feminism), abortion issues, and just plain government. You can make fun of him all you want but he has had a great forum all these years and we get to hear issues never exposed by the BIG BOYS. Even to this day. He also rips the liberals to shreds for their BS and hypocrisy which we never heard before.
Breibart exposed things that were ripping America apart such as ACORN and others. What is interesting to me is you never give old CBS any time for Dan Rather, or NBC for their fake crash tests, or PBS for their totally liberal spewings. So, your criticisms are really just your uninformed bias-left opinions. I am sure you always give equal treatment to both sides at KVMR, right?

LikeLike
fish

05 June 2015

Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 June 2015 at 02:04 PM
Is NBC and their subsidiary “news programs” (Dateline NBC, etc.) legitimate…..Paul Emery Approved™….. sources?

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Nice try Paul, Rush never claims to be a “news man”. But his analysis on the news of the day and LIB BS is dead to rights spot on. Otherwise he wouldn’t have the listenership that he does, and has had all these years. But slam away non the less Paul.
OHHHHhhhaaaa yes… Good ol’ KZAP.. too bad it got ZAPPED. What was part was your doing in it’s demize? Didn’t it go classical? ( Man,,, that was a LONG time ago)
As for Breitbart, they are doing a lot better than MSNBC or CNN.
As I took Patricia to task. Do tell where BB is “goosing” the stories. And just like her, your going off what some other is saying, and not first hand info.
It’s always interseting to hit up the likes of LIB news just to see what they are NOT reporting. ( like AGW stories that point to lies and fabrications. NOPE,, not going there.)

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Well,,, HERE is how LIB news reported on the NOAA report. Please note (LIBS) no mention of the doctoring of the facts by NOAA
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/scientists-drop-science-bomb-on-climate-skeptics.html

LikeLike
Don Bessee

05 June 2015

Hey PE, you are aware that Breitbart is dead and thus has no involvement in the web site right?

LikeLike
Bonnie McGuire

05 June 2015

I remember hearing Rush the first time. It was like Fresh air and uplifting…instead of the same o same o. The major media was aiding and abetting the lying enviro’s claiming the loggers were cutting down all the trees and causing the spotted owl to become extinct. They even had viewers vote for or against the loggers or spotted owl. Before it got that far someone had given me an issue of the San Francisco Examiner that had a Gov. ad promising a paid vacation to anyone who would go to the Sierra and demonstrate against logging. After watching this crap over the years, and the lies told about decent hard working people I find it hard to believe anything the political lemmings have to say.

LikeLike
fish

05 June 2015

Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 June 2015 at 02:04 PM
What about “Rolling Stone”? Journalists….legitimate news source?

LikeLike
George Rebane

05 June 2015

Walt 315pm – good catch Walt. AGW was built on lies, went worldwide on lies, and now continues on lies. We always have to remember that the central planners have only AGW to use as a hammer to pound their command and control society into place.
PaulE 2014pm – No one can diminish Limbaugh’s entertainment value. However, what you and the progressives seem to miss is that the substance delivered by his commentaries is listened to by more people than anyone else’s in the country (Right & Left), and then talked about for the rest of the day. And it would be edifying if you or the other libs would point to a couple flagrant misreports of fact by Limbaugh. (You can lambast his opinions and interpretations to you heart’s content.)

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

Ah yes.. The spotted owl. First it was “old growth forests are their ONLY habitat!”
Now we can’t cut fire damaged trees, because the spotted owl needs that too.
I do miss Rush’s old ECO whacko updates. ( Born Free playing with all sorts of gunfire and animal noises in the background)
And a great comparison Fish,,, let;s see what the Great, Paul has to say. I’m sure there will be an excuse thrown in.

LikeLike
fish

05 June 2015

Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 June 2015 at 02:04 PM
CBS?
Surely they the network of Murrow, Cronkite, Rather…..they would be a legitimate news outlet? No comedians or scandals associated with them?

LikeLike
Walt

05 June 2015

OK Paul and Patricia,, Which story more accurately reflects the truth? The one from LIB news or The Daily caller? (and also other “righty” media as well) Need a reminder?
LIB news says nothing of cooking the books on the NOAA data, but “our news” does.
Now don’t be shy, and no Paul,, no changing the subject which you are famous for doing.
But I do expect nothing but crickets from Patty.

LikeLike