Friam

just the facts

Classic

List

Threaded

41 messages Options

123

Robert J. Cordingley

just the facts

From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and
Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts
on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on
objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister
(brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more
politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss.

Thanks
Robert C

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

cody dooderson

Re: just the facts

That looked cool. I was particularily interested in what they said about gun control( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ). I went to the source of their information and it was totally different from what they reported.

They attribute the data to the source

[120] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2007." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 athttp://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

And here is their graph. Notice that firearm deaths is 16th.

Here is the exact data i got from from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html for 2007

Notice than firearm deaths are ranked both 4th and 5th. What is going on here? Is this a Fox news source. Also, why did they just choose 2007? The data goes back to 1999

10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States 2007, All Races, Both Sexes

	Age Groups
Rank	<1	1-85
1	Unintentional Suffocation 959	Unintentional MV Traffic 41,900
2	Homicide Unspecified 174	Unintentional Poisoning 29,824
3	Unintentional MV Traffic 122	Unintentional Fall 22,605
4	Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 86	Suicide Firearm 17,350
5	Unintentional Drowning 57	Homicide Firearm 12,608
6	Unintentional Fire/burn 39	Suicide Suffocation 8,161
7	Undetermined Suffocation 34	Suicide Poisoning 6,356
8	Homicide Suffocation 30	Unintentional Unspecified 6,005
9	Undetermined Unspecified 28	Unintentional Suffocation 5,038
10	Unintentional Fall 24	Undetermined Poisoning 3,759

	WISQARS^TM	_{Produced By: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention}
		Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss.

Thanks
Robert C

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: just the facts

Lying with statistics, I don't think that firearm homicide or firearm suicide (the categories in the second table) count as firearm accidental deaths (the category in the first graph).

-- rec --

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

That looked cool. I was particularily interested in what they said about gun control( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp ). I went to the source of their information and it was totally different from what they reported.

They attribute the data to the source
[120] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2007." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 athttp://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

And here is their graph. Notice that firearm deaths is 16th.

Here is the exact data i got from from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html for 2007
Notice than firearm deaths are ranked both 4th and 5th. What is going on here? Is this a Fox news source. Also, why did they just choose 2007? The data goes back to 1999

10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States
2007, All Races, Both Sexes

Age Groups
Rank <1 1-85

1
Unintentional
Suffocation
959 Unintentional
MV Traffic
41,900

2
Homicide
Unspecified
174 Unintentional
Poisoning
29,824

3
Unintentional
MV Traffic
122 Unintentional
Fall
22,605

4
Homicide
Other Spec.,
classifiable
86 Suicide
Firearm
17,350

5
Unintentional
Drowning
57 Homicide
Firearm
12,608

6
Unintentional
Fire/burn
39 Suicide
Suffocation
8,161

7
Undetermined
Suffocation
34 Suicide
Poisoning
6,356

8
Homicide
Suffocation
30 Unintentional
Unspecified
6,005

9
Undetermined
Unspecified
28 Unintentional
Suffocation
5,038

10
Unintentional
Fall
24 Undetermined
Poisoning
3,759
WISQARS^TM _{Produced By: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention}
Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:

From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group. The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss.

Thanks
Robert C

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

On 4/5/13 11:34 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
> From Abortion, Climate Change, Gun Control to Social Security and
> Taxes, the http://www.justfacts.com/ offers just the [distilled] facts
> on about 14 major topics. I thought this site with its emphasis on
> objectivity might perhaps be useful to the group.
I took a gander (mostly at my favorite hot-button topics) and found that
while the site *does* emit an *air* of unbiasedness... I'm pretty sure
their "distillation" is somewhat deliberately selective. It wasn't
hard, for example, for me to guess what the (big)Brother site was going
to espouse. In fact this site seems to be entirely designed to support
the arguments of the more (obviously) biased and opinionated site.

The "unbiased" site seems to have been "salted" with facts that
contradict the position of the "biased" site but when I *then* read the
more biased site, I found that they had convenient "dismissals" ready
for the "inconvenient facts" while glomming on to the "convenient"
ones. Other, important and "inconvenient" facts were not mentioned
either place. Go figure.

I suspect a similar pair of sites might exist with the "opposite"
leaning with similar features. I spent most of the 80's, 90's in
constant horror at the same kind of rhetoric used to support any number
of "politically correct" positions. It is not just "one side" of the
political division in this country that resorts to such rhetoric, but
somehow it seems to have gotten heavily unbalanced in the last 10-15
years (might just be my shifting perspective?).
> The sister (brother|sibling) site http://www.justfactsdaily.com/ may
> be more politically motivated and picking and choosing what to discuss.
>
http://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-anti-science-accusation

comes on clear and strong...

I was expecting (hoping for) a *more* unbiased pro/con discussion... the
kind where when the arguments are complete there are still something
left standing on both sides, not ones where one side has been trampled
down and the other stands victorious, foot on the other's chest to a
roaring crowd of sycophants... waiting for the "thumbs down"!

Carry On,
- Steve

PS... good followup Cody... do remember that both Fox News and Rush
Limbaugh *claim* to be "entertainment"... which explains why roughly 50%
of the population is *rabidly* fascinated and the other 50% is
*morbidly* fascinated by their antics!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: just the facts

I also spent 15 minutes or so perusing some of the more politically polarizing topics, and it didn't take long to realize the site tilts pretty heavily toward the right. It's easy to cherry pick just the facts that support one's own position. Does anyone have suggestions for a site that actually accomplishes what this one purports to do?

Of course everyone's idea of what is right vs left differs. My brother considers Fox News to be objective and CNN to be liberal. Other friends find CNN to be conservative and Democracy Now to be objective. Personally, I think CNN does a reasonable job of being in the middle, DN cherry picks for the left, and FN cherry picks for the right.

;; Gary
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Arlo Barnes

Re: just the facts

I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while of course they wouldn't say they distort the truth, mostly they are devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy) without angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is an inapplicable concept).
Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they will have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data. For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a general journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been published about climate change - do most of them have data showing causes as being anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other papers, you can see what responses have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it certainly helps.

-Arlo James Barnes

glen ropella

Re: just the facts

Take your own data. Excellent suggestion! For some reason, it made me
remember this site.

The Centre for Investigative Journalism
http://www.tcij.org/

I think there is a middle ground between the sensationalism of our
infotainment outlets and the often daunting task of gathering our own
data. But I have yet to find a reliable middle ground. Each source of
news I find turns out to seem biased (to me). That leads me to question
what type of person becomes a journalist. What types of journalists are
there? Etc.

I actually dated a journalism major in my last years of college and a
few years after graduation. Aside from the obvious, I was drawn to her
unbias and devotion to rationality in the face of all the prejudice
surrounding us. That unbias eventually turned into apathy and the need
for extraordinary stimulus ... like hanging out with the hippies across
the street who didn't bother to bathe, much less wash dishes or clean
house. She started listening to Blues Traveler 24/7 and finally dumped
me for an alpha hippie (a weird breed, actually).

Arlo Barnes wrote at 04/05/2013 12:32 PM:

> I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while of
> course they wouldn't say they /distort/ the truth, mostly they are
> devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or
> civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is
> equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes
> stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy) without
> angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is an
> inapplicable concept).
> Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and
> presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an
> accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they will
> have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data. For
> example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a general
> journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been published
> about climate change - do most of them have data showing causes as being
> anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other papers, you can see
> what responses have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if
> done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it
> certainly helps.
> -Arlo James Barnes

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Beams of darkness streak across the sky

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by Arlo Barnes

Arlo -

I don't think Democracy! Now purports to be 'just the facts' - while of course they wouldn't say they distort the truth, mostly they are devoted to news and interviews about left-leaning topics, or civil/humanitarian rights in general. Fox News, on the other hand, is equally focussed on conservative viewpoints, and occasionally makes stuff up. CNN is going for whatever draws viewers (controversy) without angering them (any perception of sidedness, even where it is an inapplicable concept).

I generally agree with your analysis, and in fact appreciate it's insightfulness.

I limit my "push" media to DN! but with a fairly good awareness that it is very *selective*. I listen to it *for* it's strong progressive voice. I am fairly confident in their honesty and accuracy within the limits of their bias.   I cannot say the same for Fox News.   I am pretty sure that they are strongly in the camp of "the ends justifies the means" and "say anything". Their 2008 mascot, ms. "I can see Russia from here and they ARE coming, let's go shoot some wolves from helicopters, I'm a Maverick" was such a huge caricature of that kind of "form over substance" that I gag when I see their talking heads and banners (who *IS* that woman commentator with the constantly flaring nostrils?).

CNN is a very commercial beast as you point out... my confidence in them fell 25 years ago when my sister and brother-in-law moved from Spain (where all media was government controlled) to Chile (where they had access to Satellite media from the US and Europe). This was during some of the big unrest in Santiago.   My brother in law drove past the Capital building *every day* and then would come home to watch Riots and other things happening on CNN *at the Capital* that had patently NOT happened. WTF?!

He and I were roughly crossing poltical/ideological paths at that point. He was a young (but older than I) highly charged progressive/liberal and I was somewhat caught up in the rhetoric of the conservative/libertarian world.   This was about the point where he (who had become a successful exploration geologist) was starting to believe in the message his International Corporate (backed by the US, UK, etc. govts) bread-provider was telling him and *I*, was starting to *doubt* the nationalistic/patriotic truisms of the National Laboratories, Big Government, and Mutual Assured Destruction rhetoric.   His TV now runs Fox News 24/7, and of course, I spend all my time and attention yammering on FRIAM and up to an hour a day listening to Amy Goodman's voice reel off all of the horrors against humanity (sometimes even including white males) of the day.

Ultimately it is up to the viewer to attempt to perceive, intuit, and presume biases and to gestalt multiple sources to try to construct an accurate view of the world. So if one wants 'just the facts', they will have to go where facts are generated - firsthand sources and data.

Absolutely. *this* is what makes the internet as powerful (for me) as it is. I have *half a chance* of getting within one or two degrees of separation of *source material*. I have regular correspondence with several people who live in the middle east (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) who are variously US ex-pats and Westernized Muslims. I *can* find raw data from many sources (though it is always hard to be sure how "raw" or "cooked" some sources are) and I *can* find others who have the expertise to help me "cook" it to my own liking whilst at least acknowledging their own biases.

For example, in the so-called 'Climategate' issue, why not find a general journal you have access to, and sample papers that have been published about climate change - do most of them have data showing causes as being anthropogenic, or not? And because papers cite other papers, you can see what responses have been to any given study. This is a lot of work if done properly and does not guarantee you a fairer worldview but it certainly helps.

It is a bit trickier than that.   Up until about 2000, even though I had fairly direct access to a variety of climate scientists (LANL, NOAA, NCAR, etc.) I was not convinced of anthropogenic climate change.   I was *inclined* to believe it, but I wasn't convinced by the "facts" I could find that anyone knew for sure. And it seemed pretty arrogant to assume so much power for our puny little selves.

I don't remember a specific "factoid" that broke this camel's back, but I did notice that when I was standing on the beach in New Zealand on Boxing day December 2000 and got a *sunburn* in less than 10 minutes (having come from 7000 ft elevation, I am used to humid sea-level locations giving me *much* more time to frolic without bubbling skin).

This experience didn't make suddenly *believe* in the ozone hole, it just made it *palpable*!   I already had an abstract belief in the (anthropogenic) ozone hole (by that time already "healing"), but with it's *palpability* I felt a sudden rush of acceptance that the pile of factoids I'd been juggling about (anthropogenic) climate change were probably sufficient to *act as if* the basic theory were true.    After that the facts just started lining up for me (confirmation bias?) like a self-organizing crystal.   I noticed that early reports on the topic were more convincing (in particular Bill McKibbin's work in the early 1980s)... and I felt a bit of an idiot for not giving over sooner.

On the other hand, I think my *resistance* was partly a result of the "the messenger".   Too many people I'd been hearing screaming "The Sky is Burning! The Sky is Burning!" were the same ones (or had the same affect) as those saying (in Doug's mock-voice) "Chemtrails!" or "Elvis LIVES!" or "Crystals Heal!" or "Pyramid Power!".

It wasn't that I fully disbelieved in anthropogenic climate change, I guess I was just feeling more humble about humanity than to find it easy to believe we could tilt the earth on it's axis (or burn up it's biosphere) through our puny activities.

The scientists studying aspects of this who I talked to were *very* reluctant to suggest they *knew* that such things were happening. Some were skeptical ("it is hard to make that correlation") and some were guardedly supportive ("I'm afraid it might turn out to be true... I'm working hard to learn all I can, because if it is, we have a problem!").   I heard none (NONE) say "that is all left-wing fearmongering, don't worry, drill baby, drill, burn baby burn!". I *did* hear many right wingnuts however, saying roughly that... while the (other) loony toons danced about naked chanting "the Sky is Burning, the Sky is Burning!".

Today, I'm pretty sure we have a problem and I'd rather face the problems of slowing our growth and our (all forms) energy dependence and girding our loins for more significant environmental problems than to stick my head back into the fracking tar sands whilst sucking entire cities into sinkholes with crude spilling muckily from the bottom of the barrel all over the baby seals (wait, I think I got carried away).

I'd rather apologize to my grandchildren's children for having erred just a bit on the thoughtful and nurturing side than on the greedy and willfully ignorant side. But then, maybe that is just me.

Carry on,
- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Bruce Sherwood

Re: just the facts

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

Bruce

Steve Smith

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by glen ropella

Glen -
> Take your own data. Excellent suggestion! For some reason, it made me
> remember this site.
>
> The Centre for Investigative Journalism
> http://www.tcij.org/
Our own Tom Johnson! No, that is: http://www.analyticjournalism.com/ ...

My own holy grail is *context*. I appreciate pointers to *facts* but
without *context* they mean nothing. It is context that moves data
into information and in another way information into knowledge and (IMO)
at the apex, knowledge into wisdom. Unfortunately this is a steep and
slippery slope to climb. I am seeking (waiting for it to land on me?)
an application of self-organizing behaviour and emergence to make sense
of this chain.

Does data somehow magically (I mean emergently) exhibit it's own
metadata/context enough to bootstrap into becoming information? My work
around the edge of data mining and visual analytics suggests it might.
And my work around the edges of ontologies, etc suggests the same for
"information into knowledge"... "knowledge into wisdom" is way
trickier... maybe as you suggest, *practice* is the only way up that
last bit to the top?

The term (used here in another thread?) of "Received Wisdom" suggests a
form of Faux Wisdom... which is what the likes of (a few?) of us
reject. While it fills the same niche as "Really Real Wisdom" I think
it is intrinsically contingent on sharing a particular world view. I
*do* accept that you (Glen) will likely suggest that what I'm seeking is
a mirage and it is not beneath me to accept that you might be right.

> I think there is a middle ground between the sensationalism of our
> infotainment outlets and the often daunting task of gathering our own
> data. But I have yet to find a reliable middle ground. Each source of
> news I find turns out to seem biased (to me). That leads me to question
> what type of person becomes a journalist. What types of journalists are
> there? Etc.
Oh boy! When I was getting totally jaded by my work as a PI in the late
1970's, it was partly because I had come to learn through my jobs, way
too much about the upstanding citizens and the institutions I was living
amongst. I flirted briefly with shifting over to Investigative
Journalism to capitalize on what I already knew and the skills I'd
developed in "just looking" (Yogi Berra was my mentor). My acute
sense of integrity (lame, but acute) at the time told me that I couldn't
in good conscience take all the things I'd learned (mostly about my
clients while working for them) and cash in on them... I would be
violating some kind of implicit confidentiality relationship. I also
realized that I was getting tired of squirming around in the muck with
the other vermin (Lawyers, Judges, LEOs, criminals, and businessmen)...
I'd had enough of the seamy underbelly...

So off I went to help build weapons of mass destruction instead! (ok...
capture high speed protons and teach them to do a round dance). I never
meant my Physics/Math/CS education to be *practical* but it did turn out
that way. Ronnie Raygun's Buck Rogers planssounded pretty cool to me
(at the time) and where better to put a giant sixgun than in the sky
over the evil enemies heads!

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

cody dooderson

Re: just the facts

This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain.

Their caption reads "* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:"

Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole

Three crew-members of the Skate (SSN-578) checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959.

US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

This is what the pictures of the north pole look like
Skate

On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste.

Text courtesy of DANFS.
USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,Scott Koen & ussnewyork.com.

They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: just the facts

Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet!

-- rec --

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain.

Their caption reads "* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:"

Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole

Three crew-members of the Skate (SSN-578) checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959.
US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

This is what the pictures of the north pole look like

On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS.
USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,Scott Koen & ussnewyork.com.

They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

cody dooderson

Re: just the facts

good point

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet!

-- rec --

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain.

Their caption reads "* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:"

Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole

Three crew-members of the Skate (SSN-578) checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959.
US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

This is what the pictures of the north pole look like

On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS.
USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,Scott Koen & ussnewyork.com.

They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

So is the consensus that justfacts.com is perhaps not just wrong but misleading and deliberately deceptive while claiming not to be so at the same time? We really need unbiased investigative journalism. Does the Center for Investigative Journalism do a better job or the BBC or FactCheck.org? The thing is, the [honorable] idea behind justfacts.com is a good one.

-- Robert C
Trust me, never trust anyone who says trust me!

On 4/5/13 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet!

-- rec --

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain.

Their caption reads "* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:"

Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole

Three crew-members of the Skate (SSN-578) checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959.
US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

This is what the pictures of the north pole look like

On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS.
USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,Scott Koen & ussnewyork.com.

They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: just the facts

Democracy Now - PBS TV 9.1 - on now (4/5/13 5:30pm) ! Just talked to the author Robert W. McChesney of Digital Disconnect about problems with journalism. Coincidence?

-- Robert C

On 4/5/13 4:30 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:

So is the consensus that justfacts.com is perhaps not just wrong but misleading and deliberately deceptive while claiming not to be so at the same time? We really need unbiased investigative journalism. Does the Center for Investigative Journalism do a better job or the BBC or FactCheck.org? The thing is, the [honorable] idea behind justfacts.com is a good one.

-- Robert C
Trust me, never trust anyone who says trust me!

On 4/5/13 4:01 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Oh no, someone is wrong on the internet!

-- rec --

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This website pisses me off every time i try to check their sources. Why did they even put sources in if they were going to blatantly lie about what they contain.

Their caption reads "* The following pictures are of U.S. submarines surfacing at the North Pole in March of 1959 and August of 1962:"

Notice that the real description from http://navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm does not actually say anything about the north pole

Three crew-members of the Skate (SSN-578) checking the ice on deck while above the Arctic Circle in 1959.
US Navy photo courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

This is what the pictures of the north pole look like

On 17 March 1959, Skate (SSN-578) surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. Text courtesy of DANFS.
USN photo # NPC 1149126 courtesy of US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory,Scott Koen & ussnewyork.com.

They might of well of put a picture like this up, since they are deliberately trying to deceive readers

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/5/13 2:45 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

It is understandable that many people can't believe that we puny humans could possibly have a big impact on the environment. My parents used to refer with reverence and awe to "the inexhaustible sea"......

My favorite example is the line (paraphrased) from Larry McMurtry's characters, Jim Ragg and Bartle Bone, a pair of unlikely mountain men in a typical discussion.

"Remember when we used to be able to catch a 100 Beav' in a winter right here at this bend in the river? We been coming here for 30 years or more and now we can't hardly find a one anymore? What happened to 'em all?"

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: just the facts

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Robert -

> The thing is, the [honorable] idea behind justfacts.com is a good one.

Yup, *I* wanted to believe in them... if you hadn't prompted me by
warning us there was a parallel blog *with* an agenda, I might have
swallowed more of their hogwash (until Cody, "the Dood") shared his own
followup.

> Trust me, never trust anyone who says trust me!

Which reminds me of something I *think* Glen shares with me: Language
might very well be designed/evolved *specifically* to deceive... to
"game". Which might be why he has been putting action above words for
a while?

Thanks for starting the conversation, even if we all rained on the
original sources!

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: just the facts

Administrator

+1 for http://www.factcheck.org/

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: just the facts

-1 for factcheck.org: they don't say anything about chemtrails.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1 for http://www.factcheck.org/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Doug Roberts
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile

Owen Densmore

Re: just the facts

Administrator

True, their focus as I understand it is assigning a "grade" for political wonks current statements, with source material supporting their grade of their evaluation.

Chemtrails? WTF?

-- Owen

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

-1 for factcheck.org: they don't say anything about chemtrails.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

+1 for http://www.factcheck.org/

123