[ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history & journalistic cr edibility

[ROGERS, Brent]

Lenin, Stalin and Mao didn't rule over Democracies, so it's not really a
very good analogy.  

Does Ted Kennedy continue to philander?  If so, it's news to me (but then I
don't tune-in to Fox News very much.)  

Besides, for every Ted Kennedy you can name, I can offer up a Jesse Helms,
Newt Gingrich or a Tom Delay.  

If the Veep is not a good enough of an intellectual example, who is?  The
only person in the world more powerful than he, is only a hair's width more
on the sane side, and that ain't saying much.

I don't know what 'epistemological' means, and am not interested enough to
look it up, so I guess I'll have to wear that.

Were you more offended by my statement than Syd's implication that
Conservatives think more clearly than non-Conservatives, to which my
statement was actually made?  If you were, you certainly weren't as public
about it.

And no, I think I've got the definition of a "true Conservative" nailed
pretty well, thanks.  Especially, if your answer to the question in the
previous paragraph is "No".

Brent Rogers
Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234
T 61 2 9717 3251
F 61 2 9717 9266
M 0417 231 879
E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au 
www.ansto.gov.au
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Dapra [mailto:sjd at swcp.com] 
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 2:28 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history & journalistic cr
edibility

Feb. 8, 2007

         Lenin, Stalin, and Mao NEVER changed their minds about killing 
people by the millions.  Does that make them 'conservatives'?  They ignored 
the "proponderance of evidence" that killing is wrong.  How about Sen. Ted 
Kennedy?  He's never changed his mind about philandering, has he?  Does 
that mean Teddy Bare is a "true conservative"?

         How about you, Brent?  Will you change your mind on the definition 
of a "true conservative"?  I think someone has a little bit of an 
epistomological problem here, (and it's not me who does).  We could use a 
more intellectually rigorous example than the current Veep, too.  You're 
not talking about conservative, you're talking about unregenerately 
stubborn (intransigent?).

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com


At 12:48 PM 2/9/07 +1100, ROGERS, Brent wrote:
>...or possibly because true conservatives never, I mean NEVER change their
>minds on ANYTHING once it is set, despite the preponderance of evidence
>placed before them.  The current Veep, and his continued rosy outlook on
>Iraq being the number 1 example coming to mind at the moment.
>
>Brent Rogers
>Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group
>Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
>PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234
>T 61 2 9717 3251
>F 61 2 9717 9266
>M 0417 231 879
>E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au
>www.ansto.gov.au
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Syd H. Levine [mailto:syd.levine at mindspring.com]
>Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 10:04 AM
>To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE; gary at pageturners.com
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: The hot and cold of history &
>journalisticcredibility
>
>Because it is speculative alarmism?  Because conservatives seem to think
>more clearly?
>
>For some reason, there
> > is a branch of conservatism that strongly resists the scientific
evidence
> > for global warming.



_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/