This diary documents the conventions which comprise the GoRight Style Guide for the English language. This style guide is being developed using a differential approach to documenting specific style elements. In other words, this guide only seeks to document those elements which make the GoRight style unique.
NOTE FOR FIRST TIME READERS: This post is not representative of the typical content on this site. The views expressed in the primary content of the diary are those of the author and should not reflect on any other members of the SwordsCrossed community. Some members of the community have expressed the desire to make an "affirmative statement that [this] diary does NOT reflect their sense of decency and appropriate discourse, nor that of many/most members of the SC community." Thank you.
-- Signed, The Author (On behalf of the site administrators and any offended community members.) [I concur with this statement. - Ender]
As many here at Swords Crossed are aware, I am a steadfast advocate for following the Golden Rule. So much so, in fact, that I assume that my political opponents are all honorable people who, themselves, likewise follow the Golden Rule. As such, I feel duty bound to treat Democrats and "liberals" the same way that they are treating people on my side of the political aisle. The logic being, of course, that since my opponents are following the Golden Rule that they must be treating me the way that they, in fact, want to be treated themselves.
I was surfing around the web looking for a piece of humor to mirror the satirical humor so often found on the liberal side of the web but from a right wing point of view. I found this piece from a random blogger who shall remain nameless on a website that shall likewise remain nameless, which fits the bill perfectly.
The author, not unlike myself, is angry about how cruel satirists can be when making their points. As such, the piece that follows targets left-wing satirists and their art by demonstrating the cruel realities of how their pieces are perceived by their political opponents.
Promoted by Brendan
Should the goal of tax policy be to equitably divide the wealth pie or should it be for everyone to be better off?
From the IPCC we know:
As we all know the undesputed champion of Global Warming Alarmism is Al Gore who has been
scamming people spreading the word by flying around in his private jet and burning the midnight fossil fuels to power his mansion. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has become the primary propaganda piece for the alarmist's cause. We have all heard stories of this movie being forced on students here in the US, but it seems that the alarmist's in the UK have been similarly attempting to indoctrinate British youths with it as well.
As a nod to the point-counter-point style of the site in the days of old (what was that, about 18 months ago?). - Promoted by Specter
As we frequently hear from various sources, the levels of sea ice in the arctic are currently at or near record lows. This is the common refrain from the man-made Global Warming proponents. The melting sea ice in the Arctic is a catastrophe, they say. What is much less clear is exactly why it is a catastrophe, assuming that it is one at all. They never seem to clearly state exactly what the catastrophe is going to entail. "
Crossposted from Global Levels of Sea Ice Far from Alarming on my RightCounterpoints blog...
Crossposted from Canadian Polar Bears doing Well? on my RightCounterpoints blog ...
Cross posted from This is racism? on my RightCounterpoints blog...
Cross posted from: Meteor Blades Gets "It" on my Right Counterpoints Blog...
As most of you are no doubt aware skymutt created quite the phenomenon with his recent diary:
Everyone seemed to enjoy the spectacle of one-liner style hit pieces and the rapid fire back and forth debate. While it was certainly engaging it might be worthwhile to look back over the results and see if there are any lessons to be learned:
Promoted by Brendan
Hat tip to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Your tax dollars at work!
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
We have recently had several threads related to an adjustment which was made to the GISS Assessment of the US Temperature Anomolies. The most recent thread is here: More on the GISS debacle.
Here is a graph demonstrating the effect of those changes:
Note how the changes only occur at the end of the graph. Hansen and some here on SC are arguing that this type of change is insignificant and not noteworthy. But how have other AGW proponents treated such changes when they were supposedly in their favor? I give you an excerpt of an counter analysis to the original Sun Spot data:
In surfing around looking for Al Gore quotes I came across a series done by Canada's National Post on Global Warming Deniers. I have not read most of these at this point but I though that posting some quick links here for anyone else that was interested might be helpful. If you read any of these and have any comments that you would like to share on the material please feel free to add a comment below with the title of the article your are referencing.
Mostly as a joke, I posted the following comment:
when this raised some interest is followed up with this comment:
Both of these comments were concerning the following internet posting:
which simply observes that quite a few people connected to the Clintons have turned up dead and then provides a list of some of those people, their relationship to the Clintons, and their stated causees of death.
This diary is being written as a response to quaoar in this comment:
In formulating a response I was searching for a particular quote by Abraham Lincoln which I was aware of from the Time-Life series on the Civil War. I was not able to find the quote I was looking for, but I did come upon this letter:
It is an excellent read, in my opinion, and very much worth everyone's time. It is obvious to me, based on this letter, that Bush 43 is doing his best to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln with respect to the GWOT. I know that most here will disagree and object to the comparison, but this is my opinion. I need not justify it to any of you. The parallels between the philosophies and the rationales are striking to me, however, and they indicate a clear intent on the part of the President to follow historical precedent as he sees it (i.e. as defined by Lincoln and as they are applied to our present situation).
This diary is being created in response to one produced by Tlaloc, here .
In general, something as simple as a voting mechanism attached to each comment where others can vote with "Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree" would be useful. It might also be instuctive to be able to view the results along specific groupings on the left, center, right spectrum. That way we can easily see which points are fundamentally aligned with ideological convictions.
While this would be more generally useful than merely assessing Truth or Falsity as it applies to Tlaloc's proposal, it could be easily used to serve that purpose. When a question of verifiable truth comes up a separate comment can be created which simply asks whether the point in question is true, then people could use the above mentioned voting mechanism to weigh in and we would be able to see the results along ideological lines.
Promoted by Brendan -- could the political rancor of today actually spawn armed conflict in the future? Are the fault lines across American society deepening to the point of potential civil war? I don't think so, but it's worth examining what lines in the sand we draw as conservatives or liberals.
This diary is an outgrowth of this comment , so some related commentary may be found there. That comment was, in turn, a reply to this open thread topic from Ender:
Is there any doubt that some liberals are overreacting whining babies? Top recommended diary on dkos - Is there any doubt now that it is a coup attempt? . You look at it, and all you can do is shake your head. Is there any doubt that the person who wrote that is
a lunatica bit off? At least we don't get much of that craziness here :)
The text of my original comment is reproduced here as a matter of convenience:
I have been saying for years that I think this country may actually be heading into a civil war some time in the (relatively) near future. I haven't ever put a time frame to it but I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred in my son's lifetime.
I have now had two people refer to me as being "galling" or having "gall". Who they were is unimportatnt from what I want to discuss. Whether they intended such or not, I take not particular offense. But since it is now a recurring theme, of sorts, I thought it might merit some time to reflect on this point a bit and then solicit the opinions of others.
First let's understand the primary term gall[1,noun] :
Main Entry: 1gall
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gealla; akin to Greek cholE, cholos gall, wrath, Old English geolu yellow -- more at YELLOW