lets go back to Ben's Original Post shall we?

Post #229,751 by boxley 10/16/05 9:19:22 PM Reply	lets go back to Ben's Original Post shall we? from the link The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee. this wasnt released by the Park Service was it. So we have an agendaized Environmental group anecdotally claiming that foo is about to happen. My post was to the effect that earlier administrations promoted on the basis of environmental fuckwittery. Everyone derides my story and claims anecdotal as opposed to evidence. Ben's link proves my point that environmentalists did run the shop until this directive. Under previous administrations biologic reports from the field on environmental impact statements were rewritten to promote the agenda of upper echelon environmentalists. Case in point, the original environmental impact statement on ANWR was heavily modified to deny drilling even though one of the team members on that study found no cause to deny drilling and the original unedited report claimed no sustained impact on the environment. Tongass National Forest logging was eliminated not because of environmental concerns but because of environmental thuggery. Now I think that on the basis of the link Ben provided, that it appears that environutjobs did run the place and are now miffed because the decision to no longer let them do that was taken. Proves my point. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #229,767 by ben_tilly 10/16/05 10:40:41 PM Reply	Let's not Let's go back to your [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=229643\|second post]. The one where you gave an anecdote and claimed that it wasn't anecdotal evidence. Do you understand my reply now? (And Ashton's after that, and Peter's after that and...) If you don't like that memory then let's go back to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=229722\|yours]. The one where you said that you looked up the definition - and then went on to demonstrate that you have not a clue what anecdotal means. Tell me. Was your dictionary crap, did you merely misunderstand it, or were you lying? If you really want to go back to your interpretations of the original post, then you have a whole series of logic errors we can bring up. For instance you've misunderstood anecdotal again. The article is based on information about a directive that has been handed down, not a few incidents. It might be many things, including mistaken, but that's not anecdotal. Also my link proves that at least some environmentalists were happier with the old way of doing things. Not that they ran the shop. There is a world of difference. Now I'll say that it is obvious that environmentalists had rather more say in the Parks department before. That is not to say that they were entirely happy - there has been (for instance) a considerable amount of ranching and lumbering on park lands. Your Alaskan examples notwithstanding, environmentalists didn't win every victory they wanted - not even close. However they had a better chance than they will with a politically stacked management. And a deliberately stacked management is pervasive damage that will not be quickly resolved with a change of administration. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #229,828 by boxley 10/17/05 12:36:56 PM Reply	oh really? For instance you've misunderstood anecdotal again. The article is based on information about a directive that has been handed down, not a few incidents. about a supposed directive,the article reported. Substitute article for posting, since that is what it is, a link to a post. from dictionary.com 1. also an\ufffdec\ufffddot\ufffdic (-dtk) or an\ufffdec\ufffddot\ufffdi\ufffdcal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes. 2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: \ufffdThere are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems\ufffd (C. Claiborne Ray). note the "rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" now please explain why a posting of an alleged directive by a antipathic interest group meets the above test. Only in your mind that the weight of a posting you agree with has more weight than one you do not. However that is subjective not statistical proof. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #229,881 by ben_tilly 10/17/05 5:45:52 PM Reply	"Based on casual observations..." What that is getting at is that anecdotes are interesting stories, and judging based on anecdotal evidence is judging based on a few specific stories of incidents. The post in question is not based on a scattering of incidents. It is based on someone's interpretation of a directive that is claimed to exist. This is, therefore, not anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean that it is right. Nor are theories based on anecdotal evidence necessarily wrong. We calls something anecdotal based on the kind of evidence used, not the quality of that evidence or the accuracy of the conclusion. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #229,896 by boxley 10/17/05 8:53:44 PM Reply	wrong its based on an interesting story about a document that may or may not exist, if it wasnt an intersting story you wouldnt have posted it. Now if the link had refered to a published statute on a .gov site it would have been a news fact, as it is its an interesting story. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #230,000 by ben_tilly 10/18/05 6:51:27 PM Reply	This is the end of the line for me Plus you are dodging the question of your own misuses of the term. In short, anecdotal arguments are ones that apply inductive reasoning from haphazardly collected examples (which may or may not be verifiable). Therefore your attempt to characterize the Parks department based on the actions of one ranger was clearly anecdotal. And the attempt in the original article to deduce the consequences of a purported directive was not. I don't care whether you understand or agree with this characterization. This is how I understand the language, and I have no percentage in correcting you further, or in trying to get you to admit that your example was anecdotal despite your claim that it wasn't anecdotal. Feel free to follow up in any way that you want. I won't bother responding. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #230,046 by boxley 10/19/05 10:10:52 AM Reply	read me in my posts [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=229735\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=229735] "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #230,102 by Ashton 10/19/05 4:19:50 PM Reply	And you are (still) arguing 'credibility' of a datum, while he was explaining 'categories' of er, data.

Welcome to IWETHEY!