From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Feb 7 06:23:44 2007 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, February 7 2007 Volume 01 : Number 2788 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: RE: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. RE: fsj: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. Re: fsj: RE: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. fsj: the '48 CJ-2A comes home... (fwd) fsj: O/T: New 30 over piston set for Dodge Eagle Chrysler 3.3L (mine) Re: fsj: the '48 CJ-2A comes home... (fwd) FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:54:16 -0600 From: "Brundage, Robert G CIV USA" Subject: fsj: RE: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. I am afraid you guys are blurring the lines of what is being discussed. I see three different discussions that need to be kept separate for clarity. 1. Scientists who do research. 2. Media that reports on scientist's research. 3. Politics that try to influence scientific research. My thoughts on each: 1. Scientists that do research: I believe that the scientific method is sound (hypothesis, conclusion and so on). I believe that the scientific 'Peer Review' process is sound (the method used by the scientific community to review each others work). I believe that the majority (every group has it's 10%) of scientists are ethical, open minded to facts, and scrupulously dedicated to the truth and no different than us. I believe the vast majority of research funded (mostly governmental) is done for getting non-biased answers. Currently the majority of evidence points to man having an influence on the earths climate. I do not think all science should be ignored and not believed just because of the 10%. Certain folks have complained that the scientists cannot get their story straight, that it changes every so many years, like this is a weakness. If you ask me, this is the strength of science. It just follows the evidence as we currently understand it. It is not about moral issues, it is not about being right or wrong, it is not about standing strong and united, it is about following the evidence. That is true honesty. 2. Media that reports on scientific research. I believe the media makes assumptions, speculations, flatly does not understand what it is reporting sometimes. What do you expect in today's current 'short attention span' news? Do I think it is intentional the majority of the time, No (I do think upper management does try to manipulate the public, sometimes). I believe we should be cautious in believing everything we here on the news. I do not think the media should be ignored and not believed just because it has flaws. 3. Politics that try to influence scientific research. Whether this is a study funded by a cigarette company or our president and/or congress, it is wrong, and usually pointed out as suspect in short order (due to the scientific method and peer review process). Again, I believe this to be the minority(10%). To say '{- In other words, don't trust anyone! ;-)', I think is extreme and unwarranted. Not everybody is 'on the take', 'corrupt', 'trying to influence public opinion'. Look around you, at your friends, coworkers and family. Those scientists are no different in moral fiber and dedication to job as you and yours are. Scientists are not a football team trying to defeat an enemy at any cost. They are researching the physical environment in which we live and following the evidence. Robert Brundage GIS Coordinator Public Works Bldg 865; Bastogne Ave & 16th St Fort Campbell, KY 42223 PH: 270-798-9571 FAX: 270-798-2232 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fsj-at-digest.net [mailto:owner-fsj-at-digest.net] On Behalf Of Dan Black Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:38 AM To: Full Size Jeeps Subject: fsj: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. I'm changing the subject line again. Hope it doesn't screw up anybody's threading too much. Jamie Phillips said: {- Ever wonder what would happen to the "scientists" if they came out and {- said "you know, this is a natural occurring cycle"? Many would be out {- of a job. Some _have_ said that. It doesn't get as much media coverage, probably because it's not as exciting since there's no scandal and no one to blame, but I've heard it a few places. And I'm not sure if it would count as a "cycle" or not (there may or may not be a pattern), but I certainly haven't ruled out the "natural occurring" part for my own opinion. {- Has there ever been a research project that did not end up supporting {- the beliefs of the organization who pays the bills? The beliefs they {- had before the project was ever started. Yes, unfortunately, most studies that can get funding are able to get the funds entirely because the funds come from someone with an agenda. Every once in awhile, though, I'll read the odd article where somebody even admits they went out trying to prove one thing, and actually discovered something entirely different -- and they even decided to switch their beliefs or opinions based on the facts. Too often, though, what you describe is right, and if the facts don't fit the theory they're trying to prove, they change the "facts". {- In other words, don't trust anyone! ;-) I'm actually surprised more people haven't figured that out yet. {- Especially not the media when it comes to science. Most journalists {- have no idea what is going on when it comes to science. They are {- usually to lazy to perform proper research. And, they just want to {- sell a story. It's mostly that last part... Though I also know, from seeing articles on things I know a lot about, that reporters who aren't experts tend to try to summarize and explain things, and they don't quite get the facts right in the first place, so I end up reading it and thinking, "Well, sort of, but not really..." So that always makes me wonder how (in)accurate other stories are, on subjects that I'm not an expert in. So, yeah, you should question pretty much anything you read. (Even questioning something that's accurate won't hurt -- it should only lead you to a better understanding of why it _is_ accurate.) {- Also don't entirely trust the media when it comes to politics I'd take out the word "entirely". Maybe replace it with "even begin to". {- (Especially the Associated Press). Actually, I think they got a lot better over what they were doing a decade or so ago. CBS is also one of the better ones. I usually like Reuters best, though. Around ten years ago, a lot of media (especially TV and newspappers, which covers most of the news sources) was pretty liberally biased. Over the last several years, though, I've seen a lot more conservative sources get popular -- Fox News, etc. I wish all of them were more facts and less opinion and bias, but you can't really get that with humans, so barring that, I'm actually much more satisfied with today's environment, where you have roughly equal liberal and conservative media sources, each as loud as the other. {- Global warming may be occurring but because so many different groups {- are trying to use this to support their own agenda (while providing {- their own interpretation) it makes it all the more difficult to filter {- out the crap. And john said: {- just because someone believes one way or another should {- not totally discredit or taint their information, it {- should still be considered in light of all the facts. Yeah, I just can't understand why the idea that "pollution and dependence on foreign oil clearly suck, so let's figure out something clean and sustainable" isn't good enough, so they have to make things up - -- or, at best, jump to conclusions (about global warming, endangered species, etc.) in a system that is far beyond their understanding. I'm generally against restricting access to the natural areas (definitely against the wholesale closure of large numbers of them), but I'd love to have a vehicle with electric motors on the wheels and batteries that could give me enough range and could be recharged cheaply and cleanly. Most off-roaders do love the environment -- that's why they're out enjoying it. If the hard-core environmentalists would look at that and approach them from a friendly angle -- "let's work together to get a good SUV with even better capability while being cleaner and even quieter" -- instead of "let's close all the trails that you enjoy" - -- they'd probably be welcomed very enthusiastically. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------- You weren't listening. -- Brantley Foster - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org - -------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:14:14 +0000 From: "michel balea" Subject: RE: fsj: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. Good observations, Dan, And yes you can get any conclusions you want... this is the wonderful side of statistics.... we have used the most amazing tests to prove our points (pharma monies), but if the test has been published, it can be used..... even our University statisticians were amazed, did a little research, were not convinced... but they were not footing the $$$, or the $$$$$$. Sometimes you need the power of math to take care of biological variations :-) As for the media.... they cannot bite the hands that feed you... except npr of course..... the funny things are that even the wall street journal is starting to side w the new york times..... If you have a chance to compare news, the best is when the same news is on the back pages in one and the front line for the other.... it is absolutely hilarious to read the headlines accross continents... which included the french news for me from conservatives and liberals as well.... doing this i have no time to watch TV.... too many projects.... Michel From: Dan Black Reply-To: Dan Black To: Full Size Jeeps Subject: fsj: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:38:23 CST I'm changing the subject line again. Hope it doesn't screw up anybody's threading too much. Jamie Phillips said: {- Ever wonder what would happen to the "scientists" if they came out and {- said "you know, this is a natural occurring cycle"? Many would be out {- of a job. Some _have_ said that. It doesn't get as much media coverage, probably because it's not as exciting since there's no scandal and no one to blame, but I've heard it a few places. And I'm not sure if it would count as a "cycle" or not (there may or may not be a pattern), but I certainly haven't ruled out the "natural occurring" part for my own opinion. {- Has there ever been a research project that did not end up supporting {- the beliefs of the organization who pays the bills? The beliefs they {- had before the project was ever started. Yes, unfortunately, most studies that can get funding are able to get the funds entirely because the funds come from someone with an agenda. Every once in awhile, though, I'll read the odd article where somebody even admits they went out trying to prove one thing, and actually discovered something entirely different -- and they even decided to switch their beliefs or opinions based on the facts. Too often, though, what you describe is right, and if the facts don't fit the theory they're trying to prove, they change the "facts". {- In other words, don't trust anyone! ;-) I'm actually surprised more people haven't figured that out yet. {- Especially not the media when it comes to science. Most journalists {- have no idea what is going on when it comes to science. They are {- usually to lazy to perform proper research. And, they just want to {- sell a story. It's mostly that last part... Though I also know, from seeing articles on things I know a lot about, that reporters who aren't experts tend to try to summarize and explain things, and they don't quite get the facts right in the first place, so I end up reading it and thinking, "Well, sort of, but not really..." So that always makes me wonder how (in)accurate other stories are, on subjects that I'm not an expert in. So, yeah, you should question pretty much anything you read. (Even questioning something that's accurate won't hurt -- it should only lead you to a better understanding of why it _is_ accurate.) {- Also don't entirely trust the media when it comes to politics I'd take out the word "entirely". Maybe replace it with "even begin to". {- (Especially the Associated Press). Actually, I think they got a lot better over what they were doing a decade or so ago. CBS is also one of the better ones. I usually like Reuters best, though. Around ten years ago, a lot of media (especially TV and newspappers, which covers most of the news sources) was pretty liberally biased. Over the last several years, though, I've seen a lot more conservative sources get popular -- Fox News, etc. I wish all of them were more facts and less opinion and bias, but you can't really get that with humans, so barring that, I'm actually much more satisfied with today's environment, where you have roughly equal liberal and conservative media sources, each as loud as the other. {- Global warming may be occurring but because so many different groups {- are trying to use this to support their own agenda (while providing {- their own interpretation) it makes it all the more difficult to filter {- out the crap. And john said: {- just because someone believes one way or another should {- not totally discredit or taint their information, it {- should still be considered in light of all the facts. Yeah, I just can't understand why the idea that "pollution and dependence on foreign oil clearly suck, so let's figure out something clean and sustainable" isn't good enough, so they have to make things up - -- or, at best, jump to conclusions (about global warming, endangered species, etc.) in a system that is far beyond their understanding. I'm generally against restricting access to the natural areas (definitely against the wholesale closure of large numbers of them), but I'd love to have a vehicle with electric motors on the wheels and batteries that could give me enough range and could be recharged cheaply and cleanly. Most off-roaders do love the environment -- that's why they're out enjoying it. If the hard-core environmentalists would look at that and approach them from a friendly angle -- "let's work together to get a good SUV with even better capability while being cleaner and even quieter" -- instead of "let's close all the trails that you enjoy" - -- they'd probably be welcomed very enthusiastically. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You weren't listening. -- Brantley Foster - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org - -------------- _________________________________________________________________ Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:42:47 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: RE: Re: OT (way OT) - media, environment, etc. I disagree with you on your view of "peer review". This has become something that has been used to censor those that hold opposing views. (pretty much of any kind... e.g. Linux or other opposing views...) Peer review involves significant politics, especially in the academic world. It should work, but it is corrupted. I'll see if I can find these articles and provide the links that report the abuse in the academic world. It's not all objective, fair and open. I've personally experienced some of this in the academic world, it's not as simple as you would think. (And I've experienced it both in the issues of science related to origin and objectivity, as well as in the computer science field in dealing with Linux/UNIX in the CS world today... being a Linux advocate in today's IT department is pretty much like being a Christian in the scientific community, and I am NOT kidding. (actually, it might be worse... :) Thinking about it, I get more opposition to Linux/UNIX at work than I do discussing contrary ideas to popular notions about the environment or science... :) I agree with you that the majority of scientists are honest and doing research because they love their work. The problem is we are all working on assumptions and biases, and that filters that work. The problem is objectivity has been lost because of the human factor. The scientific community should be able to openly discuss the merits of any idea, instead of arrogantly writing them off and denying the flaws in their own assumptions. The close-mindness of the majority prevents a rational discussion on the topic, pretty much leaving us with one view. If that's the "majority" view, it's only such because of a form of mob rule. I also disagree that the "majority" of evidence points to man having influence on the earth's climate. That's really hard to postulate and test, and even harder to verify. There are so many variables and factors involved, and if you look at the impact of man on the planet we're a very small percentage related to surface area, volume or output. It's interesting to examine the percentage of arrable land that we're using on the planet. cia's website is interesting to gather such information. Anyway, if it were true that the "majority" of evidence point to man, then the Kyoto agreements would have been a slam dunk... and if I'm not mistaken, those came up during a democratic presidency, so it's not just a right-wing conspiracy. I appreciate the way you presented this, and appreciate being able to examine these issues in a calm and rational manner. We should be able to agree to disagree and examine issues on a point by point basis, without emotion, vile or contempt... I guess the hardest part is selecting a topic to start on. :) As far as #2, we know that's biased, inaccurate and has a short memory... but adversely affects common thinking because people don't have the time or understanding to understand the flaws... #3, is an issue from both sides of the aisle, again, dealing with ignorance, arrogance and the lack of overall objectivity in the original discussion of the topic. If we could only openly compare the two major thought groups objectively it might be better for all... problem is human nature works against that kind of objectivity. It's easier for man to ignore and attempt to discredit any view that deals with a superior being, than to consider that as a real possibility, as a result those that oppose that idea prefer to believe in ideas that don't hold up to real science. But aren't willing to consider other options... cognitive dissonance plays a big factor in this thing... I have been in the academic world since the '70s... have had discussions with many on topics like this. Have seen the way it almost always goes... I've held the "common" view. Argued for it quite voraciously... but when really pressed for the answers I found it quite flawed... long story, but let's say, I understand quite well the view against man on the planet, and to a point agree about the damage we cause, but not to the scale postulated. The current thinking process has led to some very restrictive use of resources and access to land that keeps many from viewing some very beautiful areas. They've gated off access roads... quite foresting, and as a result we're seeing the loss of those forests due to fires... we need to manage our resources, not let them go to seed/weed. I believe we were put here to be stewards, to tend the garden. Hard to tend the garden if you can't get past the gate. :( john On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Brundage, Robert G CIV USA wrote: >-->I see three different discussions that need to be kept separate for >-->clarity. >-->1. Scientists who do research. >-->2. Media that reports on scientist's research. >-->3. Politics that try to influence scientific research. >--> >-->My thoughts on each: >--> >-->1. Scientists that do research: >--> I believe that the scientific method is sound >-->(hypothesis, conclusion and so on). >--> I believe that the scientific 'Peer Review' process is >-->sound (the method used by the scientific community to review each others >-->work). >--> I believe that the majority (every group has it's 10%) >-->of scientists are ethical, open minded to facts, and scrupulously >-->dedicated to the truth and no different than us. >--> I believe the vast majority of research funded (mostly >-->governmental) is done for getting non-biased answers. >--> Currently the majority of evidence points to man having >-->an influence on the earths climate. >--> I do not think all science should be ignored and not >-->believed just because of the 10%. >--> >--> Certain folks have complained that the scientists cannot >-->get their story straight, that it changes every so many years, like this >-->is a weakness. If you ask me, this is the strength of science. It just >-->follows the evidence as we currently understand it. It is not about >-->moral issues, it is not about being right or wrong, it is not about >-->standing strong and united, it is about following the evidence. That is >-->true honesty. ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:56:03 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: the '48 CJ-2A comes home... (fwd) my '48 cj-2a was sitting in the carport when I got home... almost done, a bit more wiring is left, front fender, rad hoses and bumpers. it's blocking my '91 Grand Wagoneer in the carport right now... :) just put insurance on it today and now I can't get it out. :) oh well, both Alpha and Omega are under cover... my Benz and WJ are sitting outside... 46 degree foggy, drizzly type weather... not a big deal. my son's '90 cherokee got moved up into the garden, and the '75 J10 trailer is next to the carport with the cj's roll bar and assorted parts... now, if Superdawg comes back home the collection will be complete... :) - -- john at http://wagoneers.com Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... ============================================ 1948 Willys CJ-2A (Alpha) 1991 Jeep Grand Wagoneer (Omega) 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 1991 Mercedes 300D 2.5L TD 1983 Jeep J10 Stepside (Superdawg) 1975 Jeep J10 trailer hydraulic dump http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:22:10 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: O/T: New 30 over piston set for Dodge Eagle Chrysler 3.3L (mine) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180083368484 Just posted these up on EBay. Not really Jeep/AMC related other than the money is going into my Comanche buildup! _________________________________________________________________ Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:18:31 CST From: Dan Black Subject: Re: fsj: the '48 CJ-2A comes home... (fwd) john said: {- my '48 cj-2a was sitting in the carport when I got home... almost {- done, a bit more wiring is left, front fender, rad hoses and bumpers. {- it's blocking my '91 Grand Wagoneer in the carport right now... :) {- just put insurance on it today and now I can't get it out. :) oh well, I'm guessing if there's a working GWag behind it, you could find a way to get it out if you really wanted to. ;) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never assume the obvious is true. -- William Safire - -------------- Dan Black ------------------------- dan-at-black.org -------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2788 **************************