Apology
When I started the Eagle's Eye blog I made a commitment that it would be different from the usual disrespectful, nasty rhetoric that characterizes too many blogs. I promised a civil tone, with respect for the opinions of others and an absence of spiteful, insulting commentary. Any and all comments would be welcome--this was when we had the ability to edit/censor comments, which we no longer have--so long as they did not engage in personal attack, insult, racism or profanity. Lately, I'm afraid this standard has not been evident.
I welcome discussion of and disagreement with my posts. If you look back at the history of this forum, I have tried to reply to every comment containing substance. To me, this is a sign of respect for someone who took the time to respond. The threads that I have tried to maintain throughout are consideration and respect. I have always in my long career tried to respect others and treat them with consideration. I am a firm believer in the efficacy of dialogue. It is my conviction that vituperative confrontation destroys communication, and communication of ideas is what I want my blog to be about.
I have extended to everyone I ever met in life the benefit of the doubt, eschewing first impressions, and, perhaps surprisingly, have almost never been disappointed. I treated my employees with understanding and empathy, and they rewarded me with loyalty, a very good bargain indeed. Certainly not everyone with whom I came in contact was a prince (or princess), but I can't recall ever encountering a truly nasty and vindictive person, at least until now. Certainly, some folks had character flaws and some were even unscrupulous in their business dealings, but these were rare and I was generally successful in avoiding them. Perhaps I have become complacent and overconfident in people, but I am very comfortable with the results. I can look back on a 40-year career without a bit of guilt or shame. It's a good feeling.
Lately, though, things have spun out of control. Someone who hides behind an analogue of our sponsor, Lake Country Publications, has decided for some reason to launch an unremitting and, to me, unjustified attack on me personally, rife with innuendo, snide comments and an avalanche of personal insults. This assault has continued incessantly with every recent post of mine. I have tried to take it in stride and refrain from responding in kind, with I think some success, at least until recently.
This is more than political disagreement. All the liberals who have responded in the past to my admittedly conservative posts have engaged in respectful and often very thoughtful dialogue. I truly enjoy these discussions, even the ones I don't win. Some folks have expressed themselves with vehemence and passion, which is fine so long as it doesn't become personal. Not true with good old Lake Country P. His comments have been thin on facts, except for obviously pasted-in article excerpts, but very rich in personal attacks.
Now, I am not thin-skinned. I have been tempered in a fairly intense industrial and military crucible. I can take it with the best of them. That's not the problem. I must admit that this individual has gotten under my skin. I suspect that this was his purpose all along. (I am assuming masculine gender but really can't be positive.) For some reason, he has "taken me on."
The constant barrage of insult has induced an increasing temptation in me to respond in kind, something I vowed never to do. I am very uncomfortable with the emotions I am feeling in response to the constant barrage of insults. I have responded with a few personal insults of my own, for which I am ashamed and what has prompted this post.
Perhaps this is a sign of our current highly polarized political environment. If so, it is very sad and quite concerning. Dialogue is important in a democracy (or constitutional republic for you purists), and degeneration into invective and anger is a bad sign. It becomes a sword-clanging battle, with the combatants concentrating on the conflict to the exclusion of all reason and logic.
Therefore, I sincerely apologize to whatever readers of mine are left out there for the deteriorating tone of commentary dialogue in my recent posts. I have decided to ignore all communications from this individual in the future. This is for the selfish purpose of preserving my integrity and character. He will no doubt claim victory as a result, having in his mind sent me scurrying into oblivion. Sorry, pal, but I'm not going away. Your comments will appear, but I will not read them nor respond. As usual, any and all other comments are welcome and I will respond to them to the best of my ability.
In the wise counsel of Max Ehrmann's Desiderata: "Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit."
Good advice.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.






71 Comments
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 8:31 AM
But you go right ahead and rip on the integrity of people at NASA, though. Did it ever occur to you that you aren't the only person here that has done work for NASA?
Why do you insist on using sattelite data but tell everyone else that NASA data is questionable? oops! sorry. I forgot that pointing out logical errors is a personal attack.
I sincerely opologize for personally attack the logic that you use. From now on, we'll all just accept your word as God himself.
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 8:35 AM
Your very public statements aout how windmills defy the laws of thermodynamics and actually result in a net consumption of power, needs to be attacked. If you feel that you need to take it personally when someone points out how ludicrous that idea is, maybe you should think twice about making that type of statement.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Jacob Pickard - Jul 12, 2009 8:58 AM
Cool down, the "tone" of your posts are starting to sound like AJ's & Jim's, very reactionary.
jhayett - Jul 12, 2009 10:12 AM
I was told by JS Online last week that we are not far away from getting back to whose comments we can decide on our own to publish. We are all hoping this takes place soon so we can have debates that don't attack the messenger when the message gets in their way.
Yes, I agree that these people are dividing this country and at an alarming rate. Why one can't debate the facts or the truth without the typical smear campaign full of hate is not the American way.
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 11:09 AM
But to continuously create entire blogs filled with false and misleading statements is a personal attack on those of us who are the scientists that work in the field. I have every right to point out each and every scientific mistake he makes when he blogs about the field I work in. In addition, if he wants to personally attack individual scientists and bring their integrity into question in a blog where he is taking the position of authority on the subject, then he should be prepared to defend his own integrity.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
aneuhauser - Jul 12, 2009 11:23 AM
LCP is a perfect example of what is wrong with discourse in this country. In the absence of valid argument, simply shoot at the messenger. Well, this messenger is bulletproof and will continue to say what needs to be said in the present environment of junk science and political expediency. I'm just not going to engage in debate with attack dogs.
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 11:38 AM
"A word of caution concerning the NASA data. ...
Since they have been on limited budgets subsequent to Apollo, they have become obsessed with funding. Global warming, a concept initiated by their Dr. James Hansen, is a cash cow for them. It is in their interest that it exists and is a major problem, as it then attracts federal funding."
and this:
"Could it be that it's all smoke and mirrors? Or is there an ulterior motive behind all the hype and pseudo-scientific claptrap? What could it be? Wealth redistribution, maybe? $650 billion to the federal government in cap and trade fees, all out of our pockets? Keep warm, the iceman cometh."
Hardly scientific.
aneuhauser - Jul 12, 2009 11:39 AM
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 11:48 AM
First you try to deny global warming, even though your sources of data are tracking the effect. By denying it, you don't need to explain it.
Then you realize that many people understand that global temperatures are on the rise and the polar ice caps are melting. You realize that you can't convince those people that the globe isn't warming. So you try to discredit the theory. But you offer no valid theory of your own. Of course, a person who claims global warming doesn't exist to some people will have a hard time presenting an explanation as to why it is occurring to other people. So of course you won't debate this point.
Then, you realize some people won't buy any of your story, so you go ahead and question scientists' integrity.
It would be better if you just argued the politics.
jhayett - Jul 12, 2009 11:52 AM
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 12:04 PM
jhayett - Jul 12, 2009 12:16 PM
Please read the blog before you comment.
Al, once again, no need to apologize to me and others. We understand how difficult it is to deal with those that don't read a blog post or know how to debate the facts or the truth.
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 12:25 PM
Tami Klink - Jul 12, 2009 12:30 PM
I must admit that when it comes to Science, I'm a bit lacking in that sphere of knowledge, so when you post some scientific blogs, it actually makes me try and learn more in order to form my own opinion. In doing that, I have found that it is very similiar to other topics in life in that there are so many 'opinions'/'facts' that you end up wondering just what is true and what is not. Another great example of if we are fed the same story enough times, we will eventually start to believe it.
So, thanks for the 'homework' and I look forward to your next subject!
On a side note, maybe we should be 'allowed' to actually 'see' who our commentors are. That way we will really know who we are responding to.
Have a great week!
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 12:57 PM
Is the globe not warming?
Or is the globe warming but the theory behind global warming flawed?
He argues both that the globe isn't warming and that the globe is warming. Which are you thankful for?
jmark - Jul 12, 2009 1:01 PM
I for one delight in what LCP brings to the debate. He has a real knack for argument deconstruction. Sure he's a bit confrontational, who isn't! Besides, if you're going to take the position that your point of view is the absolute truth regarding a highly contentious issue, expect to be challenged. I actually enjoy the exchange between you two. Great entertainment, and it forces me to actually think a little.
Now both of you, stop your bickering and get back in the ring!
Jim: Shut the f@$k up.
aneuhauser - Jul 12, 2009 2:58 PM
I met only one true "expert" in my career, which included years working with NASA and the Air Force Space Program, and he didn't work for NASA. (His name was Elliot Philofsky and he worked for Motorola-Phoenix.) Of course, I encountered many self-proclaimed "experts" who were anything but. This continues to be a well-populated field.
I am highly gratified by your comments. You have made my day. Wisdom is a great deal more than knowledge.
aneuhauser - Jul 12, 2009 3:01 PM
Locke - Jul 12, 2009 3:10 PM
From Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_MMuS7WQj0
and then of course...
Team America: World Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw
lake country progressive - Jul 12, 2009 3:16 PM
Al: “First, I really like the British. They are a plucky bunch--stiff upper lip and all that.”
Al: "Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here!" Don't know if it's relevent, but I've been aching for a chance to quote it.”
Al: "To see this 'freak' idolized by the masses is sad."
Al: “This kind of rhetoric is destructive, as we can see from the extreme polarization in our society today.”
Polarization occurs not because of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the product of enablers who spread misinformation while pretending to have some sort of authoritative or expert position.
Your posts are riddled with misleading statements that are meant to sound factual, folowed by a small one liner like “in my opinion” or how you “disprove” that windmills provide no power in Denmark at all, then at the end, almost as an afterthought, you follow it by “(The Danish government disputes some of these statistics.)” Or how you use NASA sattelite data and then claim NASA isn’t to be trusted and question reputable scientists integrity.
I begin to wonder: What kind of person does that?