Objectively truth doesn’t quite compensate for being badly spelled and unfinished. ;-)

Gaaaah. A draft, i was gonna save it as a draft.

Watch out, some here won’t accept something as “objectively true” unless there is a link to one of their approved news sources.

John,
I think you’re a little unclear of the meanings of the words ’objectively’ and ’true’ as you use them in a redundant construct.

just because you say it, or are repeating what someone else said, doesn’t make it true.

But if it’s said to by someone whose reputation and/or livelyhood depends on relaying information accurately, we can take their pronouncements as ’subjectively true’.

Subject to no-one disagreeing with them, that is.
We can accept their word until we find other experts whose reputation/credentials match/exceed said source and counter that said source is full of sh*t and here are the reasons why; blah blah blah.

Also, if you refuse to attribute where you get your facts/analysis from, it is your reputation that’s at stake if you pass on bogus information, instead of your source’s.

So is your grousing because you can’t back up your claims with reputable sources, or are you just too lazy to do so ?

So what the hell was in the article, anyway? The link’s dead and I don’t know whether to rant or defend against the ranters. :^)

When have bloggers needed a live post to rant or counter-rant, anyway?

No it isn’t. On the other hand, this comment is objectively false..

True, false…

How long is this post going to be in an indeterminate state ?

Ask the cat.

the cat is dead

the cat is dead

Yes, and it isn’t.

The animal cruelty society will be looking into this…

Watch out. There is a serious chance the Dutch will elect a member of the Party for Animals in the EP !
A number of more or less famous writers support it.

Mis-post or not, damn you! Just found this site, and it’s done everything I was planning to via my own pathetic attempt at a blog with a dedication and level of detail I could never hope to approach. If you need a professional slacker journo type to write any bits and pieces any time, let me know.

Otherwise, good work. Very good work. I wish I’d found this ages ago. As it is, I have a day to read everything before ballot time.

Sorry I don’t have a link to the mathematics behind Schroedinger’s thought experiment about a cat. Come to think of it, Schroedinger didn’t reference anyone in his work (that work in particular), so I’m sure Patrick will assume that Schroedinger was full of it, and without intellectual merit.

As it is, the cat, and this thread, exists in a wave superposition state…

No, the use of logic to dismantle an argument, the exposure of logical fallacies, and the use of “thought experiments” as was done by Schrodinger is forbidden by Patrick. We must only think and feel and arrive at the same conclusions as certain specific sources - we must never examine the data, or the conclusions for any fallacy - by Patrick’s view we are all unworthy.

Come to think of it, Schroedinger didn’t reference anyone in his work (that work in particular)

This is an english translation of Schroedingers “cat paradox” paper (translated by: John D. Trimmer).

At the very bottom are notes including well over a dozen citations of works by others besides Schroedinger himself.

Once again, John, you have been caught passing off bogus information as fact. And you wonder why I consider you an untrustworthy source of information ?

Well, then I leave it to Patrick, the fount of facts and wisdom, to name, and to back up by evidence, that the UN, by its intervention (without the aid of the United States, and more importantly with the imprimatur of European nations) has saved any nation on earth, raising that nations living standards, economy, and political system to a level equal to that of any European nation (say, France). And, in the process, prevented or stopped genocide.

We can name one nation that has done such a thing - the United States, in the case of Germany and Japan. I think Patrick is smart enough to find the links for that. But can he find a similar action by the UN without US help?

John Kwon Wrote:
We can name one nation that has done such a thing - the United States, in the case of Germany and Japan. I think Patrick is smart enough to find the links for that. But can he find a similar action by the UN without US help?

Aside from pointing out that the US is a founding member, contributor, and is a ’permanent’ member of the U.N. security council…So nothing the UN has every done has ever been without US participation.

Let’s consider another aspect of this contradictory request, was this reconstruction of Germany and Japan done solely by the U.S. without the UN ?

This article suggests otherwise:
Officially, the occupation [of Japan] was under United Nations jurisdiction, and documents from the UN’s Far Eastern Commission are included here. The FEC was active for a time during 1946–1947, but its 11-member makeup and the cold war soon vitiated its impact.

Likewise:
After 1945, the United States aided Europe to the tune of over $9 billion in emergency food aid through the United Nations.

uhm, John ?
Do your own research from now on, bub.

Since we’re talking Scrodinger among the Euros, I urge everyone to vote down the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics this coming Sunday.

This thread should really be set to music…

Voting down the Copenhagen Criteria could turn out to be a fatal mistake… Or the boost the Union always needed?!

Patrick, that still doesn’t prove that the UN did anything on its own. It only proves that the US was a power and force for a good result.

I’m still waiting for you to show me how good a job the UN does - without the United States.

Still waiting….
Still waiting….

Yes, I believe that Patrick is an intellectual pacifist.

“The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.”

From Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism in May 1945.

Ah, “Notes on Nationalism”. Were more people to take its lessons to heart, I hold a faint hope that the debate on international affairs would tend to look a lot less repulsive and stupid.