Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.

I find it more interesting that you have confused the Lounge with your personal blog, and posted a source from an extremist site to rail up essentially a discussion for you to espouse your personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Then again, that's pretty much all you've ever used the Lounge for, so we'll move on to the place you linked.

That's right, everyone knows that the lounge is Lessbread's blog for linking to extremist sites and espousing his personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Please disabuse yourself of that attitude. Any article or commentary that I've linked to is open to criticism, just like any opinion I've offered. Can you offer an actual argument or are you just feeling crabby this afternoon?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
So did you have an opinion on the subject or are you just content trolling and attacking the source?

I have zero credible sources on the matter, and therefore no credible opinion on the subject. I read the article you linked to determine that it was not vaguely credible (and also written by an idiot), and did not cite anything credible. I am not inclined to discuss substance where there IS none. Given the choice between finding reasonably credible information (because you were too lazy and/or disinterested to do it) and calling you out on your clearly bullshit information, I went with the latter option. I believe plenty of people around here will attest, that's pretty typical for me.

Quote: I wish you'd just relax and enjoy a pleasant conversation instead of feeling obligated to attack every time I discuss something outside of what Linus Torvalds said to Paul Graham, or why Starcraft 2 is teh bomb, or suckz.

It's a question of standards. I'd prefer political content be banned, but short of that I think it is reasonable to demand that the people engaged in it do so with credible sources. That is a relatively well defined term, and "usually agrees with me" is not part of the definition.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
That's right, everyone knows that the lounge is Lessbread's blog for linking to extremist sites and espousing his personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

As stated, you are perfectly welcome to criticize anything LessBread posts -- and I believe you do so with impressive consistency. I very deliberately chose not to exercise moderator privileges in this thread, and I have shut off Lessbread's threads more than once. So I don't see a problem.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Can you offer an actual argument or are you just feeling crabby this afternoon?

Just extra crabby today. Don't mind me.

I'll be close to the front of the line to agree that the site linked in the OP is largely crap, but that doesn't in any way invalidate the discussion at hand. From my cursory surfing around, it appears that the FDA has indeed been irresponsible at best at evaluating e-cigs, and the other cigarette additive bans I've mentioned are detestable at best from a legal standpoint.

Dismissing an argument based on the (alleged) lack of credibility of one source is a logical fallacy, and unnecessary snobbery at the very least. Come on, guys, you should be smart enough to separate a valid discussion from your qualms with the linked article's host site.

After all, isn't that what you're demanding of Dredd?

I read it mentioned (see here for instance) that there is a peer reviewed study showing that e-cigarettes aren't actually delivering any nicotine. The slant of the study was basically: if people want to inhale flavored water vapor fine but e-cigarettes are actually no better than placebos at aiding smoking cessation.

Anyway, I was wondering if this study was for real or junk science payed for by tobacco companies. Just seems like once you got the device designed and built such that you can actually get a drag of water vapor off of it; it wouldn't be terribly hard to lace the water vapor with nicotine but maybe I don't understand what is involved.

Quote: Original post by Promit
I have zero credible sources on the matter, and therefore no credible opinion on the subject. I read the article you linked to determine that it was not vaguely credible (and also written by an idiot), and did not cite anything credible. I am not inclined to discuss substance where there IS none. Given the choice between finding reasonably credible information (because you were too lazy and/or disinterested to do it) and calling you out on your clearly bullshit information, I went with the latter option. I believe plenty of people around here will attest, that's pretty typical for me.

It's obvious an opinion was put forth, with some modicum of reference supplied. Your assertion that it is "not vaguely credible" is unreferenced as well of course. Rather, you find yourself guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. "clearly bullshit"

I don't imagine any reasonable reader would read the thread thus far and not draw the conclusion you have a predisposed opinion and the supplied article disagrees with it. As to what you've brought to the discussion I believe it amounts to "I'd rather discredit the source and intimate the poster doesn't belong here rather than share anything interesting that is domain to the topic"

Your actions are classic trolling my man. Derail the thread, attack the source and the poster, add nothing to the conversation, intimate your opinion is more valuable than other readers. You may as well be using a checklist.

Quote: It's a question of standards. I'd prefer political content be banned, but short of that I think it is reasonable to demand that the people engaged in it do so with credible sources. That is a relatively well defined term, and "usually agrees with me" is not part of the definition.

I didn't see the article in terms of "politics" I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it with other people at gamedev. Less your ham-handed denegration of the thread I feel like other people have shown interest as well, in both an affirmative and negatory manner. They even managed to be civil and polite.

Its no wonder why the interesting topics seem few and far between. You can't wait to shout down anything you don't agree with while pointing out that you're a moderator but you're choosing not to moderate.

I don't understand your personal war with interesting conversation. Or how you can feel that such enlightening topics as "Nerd Rage" and "What is your favorite starcraft 2 unit" is somehow more worthy of a topic than something that actually impacts some of the readers lives.

For the record, I haven't smoked in 11 years, nor will I ever again.


EDIT** it's pretty odd having this round about every time I post something in the lounge contra-the good discussions in the IRC channel. It's almost like a case of "Invasion of the Promit Snatchers" What have you done with the real Promit?!?

[Edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on July 30, 2010 8:32:38 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
... with some modicum of reference supplied.

That really depends on how you define modicum. I think you've defined it down. Also, you haven't addressed my criticisms. They showed that Promit's assessment was correct, at least as far as the lack of substance of that article goes.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Your assertion that it is "not vaguely credible" is unreferenced as well of course. Rather, you find yourself guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. "clearly bullshit"

Why should he have to reference his assertion? Fetter's writing speaks for itself and it doesn't speak well. The quality of argument and poor scholarship of his essay suggests that Fetter might be a college freshman.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I don't imagine any reasonable reader would read the thread thus far and not draw the conclusion you have a predisposed opinion and the supplied article disagrees with it.

That really depends on how you define "reasonable reader" and again, I think you've define the term down. Fetter has an opinion sure, but you know what they say about opinions don't you? Everyone has one and they all stink and please don't show me yours...

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
As to what you've brought to the discussion I believe it amounts to "I'd rather discredit the source and intimate the poster doesn't belong here rather than share anything interesting that is domain to the topic"

Fetter's article was of poor quality. I disagree with the notion that you don't belong here.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Your actions are classic trolling my man. Derail the thread, attack the source and the poster, add nothing to the conversation, intimate your opinion is more valuable than other readers. You may as well be using a checklist.

I think he was policing more than trolling.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I didn't see the article in terms of "politics" I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it with other people at gamedev.

The article is political. Ideological but not partisan.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
EDIT** it's pretty odd having this round about every time I post something in the lounge contra-the good discussions in the IRC channel. It's almost like a case of "Invasion of the Promit Snatchers" What have you done with the real Promit?!?

Sorry man but that's just a whine.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That really depends on how you define modicum. I think you've defined it down. Also, you haven't addressed my criticisms. They showed that Promit's assessment was correct, at least as far as the lack of substance of that article goes.

Why should he have to reference his assertion? Fetter's writing speaks for itself and it doesn't speak well. The quality of argument and poor scholarship of his essay suggests that Fetter might be a college freshman.

That really depends on how you define "reasonable reader" and again, I think you've define the term down. Fetter has an opinion sure, but you know what they say about opinions don't you? Everyone has one and they all stink and please don't show me yours...

Fetter's article was of poor quality. I disagree with the notion that you don't belong here.

His article was poorly referenced, that is certain. Of course, it's an article not a dissertation. I found an article in the LA Times and NY Times discussing the judge's decision and the FDA's reaction. The LA times actually refers to the questioned chemical as propylene, which means they sourced the FDA.

It's always a bit tough to get quality references that dissent from the government approved viewpoint.

Quote:
I think he was policing more than trolling.

That is false on its face. Policing requires either taking action or not. It's trolling, its textbook, and it's a well versed story between Promit and I.

Quote:
The article is political. Ideological but not partisan.

The article has a point of view. Just like any point of view one can ascribe a political perspective to it.

Being anti-war is "politcal" even though people from most politcal perspectives can fall into that camp.

Quote:
Sorry man but that's just a whine.

That was aimed at Promit and not a whine. He's a pretty decent dude when we discuss technical matters, and I've learned some neat things from some of his writing. Mention anything that challenges his very narrow world view though and he turns into Frankencoder.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
His article was poorly referenced, that is certain. Of course, it's an article not a dissertation. I found an article in the LA Times and NY Times discussing the judge's decision and the FDA's reaction. The LA times actually refers to the questioned chemical as propylene, which means they sourced the FDA.

It's always a bit tough to get quality references that dissent from the government approved viewpoint.

The article was poorly referenced, poorly written and quite frankly reading it was a waste of time. If it was written to be thought provoking it failed. If it was written to provoke outrage, it failed. Moreover, as "an article not a dissertation" it was far too long and far too rambling. You found articles discussing the matter. I found articles discussing the matter. jwezorek found articles discussing the matter. It doesn't seem that Fetter even bothered trying to find articles discussing the matter. The complaint that it's difficult to get quality references that dissent from government approved viewpoint is a cop out, an excuse, and one that verges on extremism. What Fetter managed to demonstrate was that Lew Rockwell has very low standards for what it publishes.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: I think he was policing more than trolling.

That is false on its face. Policing requires either taking action or not. It's trolling, its textbook, and it's a well versed story between Promit and I.

You're welcome to think differently, but that's what I think. And if you need to see action, the action he took was criticizing the article. If you think there was more to it than that, perhaps your view on the matter is clouded too.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: The article is political. Ideological but not partisan.

The article has a point of view. Just like any point of view one can ascribe a political perspective to it. Being anti-war is "politcal" even though people from most politcal perspectives can fall into that camp.

The article is political. It makes assertions about policy. Why deny it? Do you think that by denying that the article is political that people won't approach it as propaganda? I'm reminded of a line I read in David Sirota's latest column earlier today: "...today’s most pervasive and effective propaganda is the kind that is “least noticeable” and consequently “convinces people they are not being manipulated.” The flip side is also true: When an idea is obviously propaganda, it loses credibility." (The Deception of Real-World Inception) Keep up appearances. Don't admit to obvious propaganda, less your credibility become tarnished ...

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Sorry man but that's just a whine.

That was aimed at Promit and not a whine. He's a pretty decent dude when we discuss technical matters, and I've learned some neat things from some of his writing. Mention anything that challenges his very narrow world view though and he turns into Frankencoder.

Sorry man but that's still whining.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Sorry man but that's just a whine.

That was aimed at Promit and not a whine. He's a pretty decent dude when we discuss technical matters, and I've learned some neat things from some of his writing. Mention anything that challenges his very narrow world view though and he turns into Frankencoder.

Sorry man but that's still whining.

I remember you don't like when your threads are closed. I felt -- and still feel -- that it's more productive to examine how this thread fails and how such a failure could be avoided in the future. If you'd prefer that I simply flip the switch with a curt moderator "knock it off" then maybe I'll do that next time.

I still don't know anything about E-cigarettes or the FDA, though.