Joel recently introduced a thread which dealt with the subject of the environment. The thread began with:3-18: "I'm not particularly interested the exact sciences regarding all these issues. So, please, let's get off these environmental issues, which by the way I consider arguing for free markets, and get back to the philosophical discussion regarding potential solutions for the ills we see in the world. If you want to post to me about the environment I'll just keep on referring you back to this post; I've read maximum 12 hours on the global waming issue, which is minimal for me, and am convinced it's not a big immediate issue?."
And during successive posts we get:
3-19: "I fully admit I have no concern for the environment. What I'm concerned about is how the environment affects human beings."
3-22: My point was that I'm not interested in science and took about a half hour to find a dozen sources taht gave contradictory evidence to Gideon. I shy from debating science issues because they hold no interest for me.
And yet we also get (and that's All we get) is:
3-19: We don't need to 'save the environment' as it's in no real large-scale danger.
3-19" My point was taht the whole enviro-scare industry is dead wrong and the "global warming" scare is a manufactured issue to drum up support for left wing ideologies.
3-22: Like I said, and made perfectly clear on my post, we don't need to be overly concerned for the environment.
3-22: ...they fight the absurd claims of people like Ralph Nader
and Al Gore (it should be clear by now how much I despise that man).
And finally:
3-23: I'm certainly not corporate sponsored and I'm the one giving the analysis, not some corporation.
So what we have is a post dealing with a subject Joel has little interest in. No problem with that. But every sentence regarding the environment is in the declaritive. There is not one: because; for example; based on...etc.
And at the end of all this we are invited to regard this as... "an analysis".
bill (in analytic mode)
