Berniacs Need To Grow TF Up

[oznabrag]

I think you let them both off the hook to easily. Too many Sanders voters stayed home to the point that it became news. Clinton was an AWFUL candidate and made huge mistakes. There are a lot of "what ifs" we can play, but the bottom line is that there are too many snowflakes in the Democratic Party who can't play with others when they don't get their way. Marching in lock step is the strength of the Republican Party and while I do not like where they go with it, we need to admit it wins elections.

. . .

[WI-Tom]

I think you let them both off the hook to easily. Too many Sanders voters stayed home to the point that it became news. Clinton was an AWFUL candidate and made huge mistakes. There are a lot of "what ifs" we can play, but the bottom line is that there are too many snowflakes in the Democratic Party who can't play with others when they don't get their way. Marching in lock step is the strength of the Republican Party and while I do not like where they go with it, we need to admit it wins elections.

Too easily? Let's remember that 9 in 10 Sanders' supporters voted for Clinton. If we are to characterize Sanders' supporters with a generalization, then, it's pretty clear that overall, they DID support Clinton. That suggests, to me, that my interpretation (If Sanders' supporters had not voted for Clinton, she would have lost both the popular AND the electoral vote) seems more valid than your interpretation.

But whatever--that's a bit of a quibble, I think, and I'm largely in agreement with you--except that I think you mean that progressive Democrats are the whiny snowflakes, while I'd say that label--if it must be used at all; I'd suggest "no"--more accurately applies to the DNC and the party establishment.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

You should be.



Well, THERE'S yer problem!

During this past election, the only thing that mattered was to stop Trump.

There are four years 'til the next election.

There will not be another such an opportunity to assert progressive power in your lifetime.

The simple fact of the matter is that progressive policy is centrist policy, no matter what the Republicans and Democrats say.

The PROBLEM has been getting enough votes to make it happen.

That's because the moneyed interests are scared spitless.

The 'splitting the vote' thing is a curious beast.

If the R's and D's are up to their necks in Big Money, it is THEIR votes that are split.

Four years, if the Insano-Americans don't manage to burn it all down on the 20th.

You've even got a practice run in 2022.

I can see Abrams as quite likely to be the first woman elected President.



This strategy is a loser.

Proven loser.

The Ds are center right, by your own declaration, and we must let them be what they are.

Far, far better to have Democrats as the right-of-center-power-that-is than to have freakin' Louie Gohmert.

Furthermore, let the Ds go to war with the Rs.

Given the incandescent chaos those treacherous bursteds have descended into, The Ds will almost certainly win that fight. Meanwhile, the Ps will have established their cred, and amassed a bloc of voters enough to carry the elections.

Oh, and AOC needs to sit down and shut up, until we can all figure out why what she's doing isn't working.

Because it's not working. Not on a national scale, anyway.

I can get agree with pretty much everything in this post, at least conditionally. Where I'm not sure I'm completely onboard is whether it's the right moment to push for a real progressive party.

I'm not saying I have an argument against it from a philosophical or theoretical standpoint. Certainly I'd love to see it happen. But I also understand the almost impossible failure rate of third party start-ups, the lack of precedents for third party victories, and something of the logistics and infrastructures that would have to be mobilized to make a viable third party happen.

Meanwhile, I think you are overly dismissive of the degree to which criticisms from within or about an existing party can affect that party's direction and create change.

And mostly, I harbor a deep and abiding skepticism about how successful ANY party will be if it commits to doing what REALLY needs to be done, which is immediate aggressive and sustained action on climate change, and aggressive and sustained action to reverse (not just slow down) the inequality of income and wealth.

I think you and I agree on most of that last bit, and any differences we have seem to center on HOW best to achieve those aims. Like you, I threw in my lot with the Democrats this time around because Trump was so obviously so so so so much worse. I don't expect much better from Biden and the D's this time around, but they may prove me wrong. At the very least, they have slowed the pace of digging deeper into the hole we are in--shifted from backhoes to shovels, I'd say. That's worth something.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

To oversimplify, the US has four major political factions squeezed into two parties. The Democratic party has a moderate, slightly leftish faction, vaguely like Christian Democrats, and farther left a smaller social-democratic faction (Biden and Sanders, to simplify further). The Republicans have a capitalist-right faction, conservative but sane, and a larger authoritarian-nationalist-populist-evangelical Trumpist faction, edging over into semi-fascist on the far edge. Now, I said it was an oversimplification, and the divisions aren't sharp; there's a continuum encompassing most of them, and exactly where to put the lines is somewhat arbitrary. But the US political system is structured for two large parties; it does not accommodate governing coalitions except within a party. Smaller parties can be spoilers; that's all (think George Wallace). If either major party splits along those lines, they will lose power. I might wish it were otherwise, but that's the situation whether we like it or not.

[John Smith]

Let's be honest, when Sanders voters stayed home in the general election 4 years ago, they helped give the election to Trump. This was nothing more than a temper tantrum by people who did not get their way. (And I did not like Clinton. I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general election because that is what I had to do.) They illustrate how the Democratic Party fails to get things done and AOC is cut from the same cloth. I often agree with her, but I don't admire her behavior.

I expect her behavior is apt to improve over time.

[John Smith]

Another at least equally valid way of looking at it:

If the vast majority of Sanders' supporters had NOT voted for Clinton in 2016, she would have lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote. Had she not underperformed in other areas as well, she might have won both.

Tom

I think it is a mistake to underestimate the impact Comey had in '16

[John Smith]

I'm curious: precisely what does Bernie propose that people here oppose?

[leikec]

I have no problem with AOC or her behavior. I also disagree with her at times.

Jeff C

[oznabrag]

I can get agree with pretty much everything in this post, at least conditionally. Where I'm not sure I'm completely onboard is whether it's the right moment to push for a real progressive party.

I'm not saying I have an argument against it from a philosophical or theoretical standpoint. Certainly I'd love to see it happen. But I also understand the almost impossible failure rate of third party start-ups, the lack of precedents for third party victories, and something of the logistics and infrastructures that would have to be mobilized to make a viable third party happen.

Meanwhile, I think you are overly dismissive of the degree to which criticisms from within or about an existing party can affect that party's direction and create change.

And mostly, I harbor a deep and abiding skepticism about how successful ANY party will be if it commits to doing what REALLY needs to be done, which is immediate aggressive and sustained action on climate change, and aggressive and sustained action to reverse (not just slow down) the inequality of income and wealth.

I think you and I agree on most of that last bit, and any differences we have seem to center on HOW best to achieve those aims. Like you, I threw in my lot with the Democrats this time around because Trump was so obviously so so so so much worse. I don't expect much better from Biden and the D's this time around, but they may prove me wrong. At the very least, they have slowed the pace of digging deeper into the hole we are in--shifted from backhoes to shovels, I'd say. That's worth something.

Tom

1) There will be no better moment.

2) Air ye skeered? Pay close attention. The Rs are in utter disarray. Their Moron King is flailing about, making an ever bigger fool of himself and displaying to the world what a hopeless, fascist loser he is. The Rs are factionalizing themselves into oblivion in real time. It's quite a spectacle. The Ds are focused on doing battle with them, and will bring all their political capital to bear of destroying the authoritarian coup attempt, so they won't have time or resources to wage war against the Ps on a second front.

3) Not really, just that we're not talking about some abstract 'party', we're talking about this particular moment, this particular party.

4) Then sit down and be silent. If there is no hope for liberal democracy in the US, then there is no hope. The fascists win, and everybody dies.

5) You shouldn't. They are the solid center-right, responsible adults in the room. Let it be what it is.

They are uniquely positioned to destroy Trumpism, and it's clear they will do so if they can, but if we recall that Trumpism is not the core problem, and we address the core problem while they are locked in a battle royal with the seditionists, and crack the communication problem to allow us to reach the third of Americans who are to cynical and/or apathetic to vote, the Ps win.

Trying to bring the Ds left is doomed. They serve the status quo, they are good at it, and they are responsible adults, for the most part. To distract them during their battle with Evil, would be a mistake.

If they're hurt and embarrassed that they don't get to elect Kamala, that's just too bad.

[oznabrag]

I have no problem with AOC or her behavior. I also disagree with her at times.

Jeff C

I have no problem with her or her positions either, for the most part.

She is clearly alienating a lot of people who agree with her though, and if the Ps let her keep on, it won't work any better later.

There. Is. Something. Wrong. With. The. Messaging.

[David G]

I think it is a mistake to underestimate the impact Comey had in '16

Indeed. I believe he skewed the pooch in momentous fashion.

[WI-Tom]

Why, for the love of baby jeebus, do you insist on re-phrasing, often by using quotes to put words in peoples' mouths, and then make a withering attack on your re-phrased argument?

I find your hostility to rephrasing and paraphrasing during discussions to be deeply misguided, at least in principle. In fact, paraphrasing is broadly (perhaps universally) accepted as fostering good understanding among those who study communication. For example:

Paraphrasing is repeating in your words what you interpreted someone else to be saying. Paraphrasing is powerful means to further the understanding of the other person and yourself, and can greatly increase the impact of another’s comments. It can translate comments so that even more people can understand them.

Source

I'd add that another great value of paraphrasing others' comments is that it can often reveal unspoken assumptions, implications, and logical conclusions--often unintended ones--that the original poster may not be aware of, and may not even approve of.

I think that's often the source of the trouble you have with my posts--you assume that if I comment on something is not explicitly stated in those exact words, then I am making it up; in other words, you seem to believe that anything not explicitly stated in the message cannot be inferred from the message. And if that's what you actually believe (he said, in a subtle acknowledgement that his understanding may not, in fact, be accurate), then I'd say you are simply quite wrong. Just because meaning is inferred rather than explicitly stated does not necessarily reduce its validity or accuracy.

To make an honest attempt at paraphrasing someone is NOT putting words in peoples' mouths. On the contrary, it is an essential step toward understanding. By paraphrasing someone, you essentially tell them "Here is what I have understood you to mean." Then you can add comments and explanations as a response to what you have understood.

The person being paraphrased then has an opportunity to respond, and to correct any misunderstandings revealed in the paraphrase. All too often, though--and this is usually the case with you, I've found--that response is simply to shout "Straw man!" and make inflammatory remarks about "putting words in someone's mouth."

A more productive discussion would happen with this sort of response, which assumes good faith on the part of the paraphraser:

"I don't think you've understood what I said. You seem to think I meant __________, but really, I meant _________ instead. Your failure to understand my point makes your argument inaccurate/irrelevant/etc."

In other words, to sum it all up:

If I had a dollar for every time that you do it, then I would be wealthier than TLT.

No. If you had a dollar for every time that I "do it" [put words in someone else's mouth], you'd owe me money.

Tom

[David G]

And there it is...

He can't hep hisself, because he can't even see it.

[CWSmith]

Too easily? Let's remember that 9 in 10 Sanders' supporters voted for Clinton. If we are to characterize Sanders' supporters with a generalization, then, it's pretty clear that overall, they DID support Clinton...

As I said above, I voted for Sanders in the primary and for Clinton in the general. One in ten staying home in a race that close and that important really is not acceptable.

[oznabrag]

To oversimplify, the US has four major political factions squeezed into two parties. The Democratic party has a moderate, slightly leftish faction, vaguely like Christian Democrats, and farther left a smaller social-democratic faction (Biden and Sanders, to simplify further). The Republicans have a capitalist-right faction, conservative but sane, and a larger authoritarian-nationalist-populist-evangelical Trumpist faction, edging over into semi-fascist on the far edge. Now, I said it was an oversimplification, and the divisions aren't sharp; there's a continuum encompassing most of them, and exactly where to put the lines is somewhat arbitrary. But the US political system is structured for two large parties; it does not accommodate governing coalitions except within a party. Smaller parties can be spoilers; that's all (think George Wallace). If either major party splits along those lines, they will lose power. I might wish it were otherwise, but that's the situation whether we like it or not.

That is the fault line over which the R Party is splitting ALREADY.

Their vote is already split, given that Biden gets sworn in.

If the Insano-Fascist Republican faction prevails on the 20th, all this talk is a waste of time, but again: NOW is the moment to push a progressive party. Let us show the Ds just how many votes they've alienated, if nothing else.

I see the Ds destruction of the R-Party authoritarian sedition as a thankless task.

It will not gain them any support.

They will be effective at prosecuting, censuring and dismantling the threat, but that's not the sort of platform you can run on, it seems to me.

The lion and the hyena fight over the carcass, while the jackal runs away with the prize.

[WI-Tom]

5) You shouldn't. They [the Democratic party] are the solid center-right, responsible adults in the room. Let it be what it is.

I think you set a VERY low bar for what "responsible adults" should be.

Anyone who has power right now and is not using it to fight the only real battle there is, and maybe the only one there ever will be from now on--climate change--is NOT "responsible" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's just the way it is. It's not opinion; it's not my belief. It's this:

1. Wildfires of unprecedented severity and frequency:

NIFC reported that

as of Nov. 27 there were 52,113 wildfires that had burned 8,889,297 acres in 2020. This is approximately 2.3 million more acres burned than the 10-year average and almost double the acreage burned in the 2019 season.

Source

2. Sea levels:

The trends are worrisome. Aimée Slangen, a climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, and colleagues are integrating recent projections from climate models to predict when sea levels will rise 25 centimeters above 2000 levels, a point when 100-year floods on some coastlines could be a near annual occurrence. In unpublished work, Slangen finds that the threshold will be reached sometime between 2040 and 2060. Efforts to slow climate change won’t do much to postpone it given the inertia of ocean warming and ice melt, though they could forestall much greater increases later in the century. And that near-term certainty, though dire, is “quite good for decision-making,” Slangen says.

Source

Ah, I could go on with a looooooong list.

So I don't really care if some poor little Democrats get their feelings hurt because AOC spoke critically about them. At least she ​is behind a Green New Deal. That's something.

Tom

[oznabrag]

Indeed. I believe he skewed the pooch in momentous fashion.

Noice one!

I think you set a VERY low bar for what "responsible adults" should be.

Anyone who has power right now and is not using it to fight the only real battle there is, and maybe the only one there ever will be from now on--climate change--is NOT "responsible" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's just the way it is. It's not opinion; it's not my belief. It's this:

1. Wildfires of unprecedented severity and frequency:



Source

2. Sea levels:



Source

Ah, I could go on with a looooooong list.

So I don't really care if some poor little Democrats get their feelings hurt because AOC spoke critically about them. At least she ​is behind a Green New Deal. That's something.

Tom

1) I didn't set the bar, the Republicans did.

2) You get your knickers in a twist about how you Berniacs get your feelings hurt, then you back AOC alienating voters.

You simply INSIST on losing.

[WI-Tom]

You simply INSIST on losing.

Well, I voted the way you told everyone they HAD to vote, and that's how it turned out.

Tom

[switters]

I see the Bern is still being felt, therefore he is effective. AOC gets better every day, that lady is sharp.

I'm good with the content, the message or plan, people arguing the semantics appear ill informed.

[Flobart]

And there it is...

He can't hep hisself, because he can't even see it.

When you can face up to your own duplicity, perhaps then your critique of others might be of value.

[oznabrag]

Well, I voted the way you told everyone they HAD to vote, and that's how it turned out.

Tom

I'm talking about the FUTURE.

If you can't make the message clear to the electorate, you will lose.

Again.

[leikec]

When you can face up to your own duplicity, perhaps then your critique of others might be of value.

Pot or kettle--I'm sure you can handle either role with your usual aplomb...

Jeff C

[WI-Tom]

And there it is...

He can't hep hisself, because he can't even see it.

Hey! That's "rephrasing"! You're putting word into my mouth! I never said that, so it can't be true!

Or did you mean twodot?

In that case, I agree, but I keep hoping he'll work up to a more thorough understanding.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Hostility? That is what I mean by re-phrasing.

A. "Re-phrasing" isn't the evil you make it out to be.

B. No, it's not. It's making a perfectly valid inference based on the evidence of countless posts in which you scold me for "re-phrasing."

Tom

[WI-Tom]

And there it is...

He can't hep hisself, because he can't even see it.

Most intelligent, rational people think that "seeing" something without any evidence is NOT rational. If you'd care to explain how you think "it" is present, feel free to do so. The burden of proof is not on the accused.

Tom

[johnw]

If you really want a leftist voice in American politics, the first thing to do is get rid of first-past-the-post voting. Ranked choice voting would allow American parties to be more representative.

[WI-Tom]

If you really want a leftist voice in American politics, the first thing to do is get rid of first-past-the-post voting. Ranked choice voting would allow American parties to be more representative.

Amen!

Now, how to do it...

Tom

[WI-Tom]

I am 'scolding' you?

I'll assume you're sincere about wanting to understand. So, on what basis do I assume that you are hostile to re-phrasing and paraphrasing?

Why, for the love of baby jeebus, do you insist on re-phrasing, often by using quotes to put words in peoples' mouths, and then make a withering attack on your re-phrased argument?

That phrase "for the love of baby jeebus" carries a HEAVY does of frustration, from which I infer that you would much rather I refrain from paraphasing during discussions.

And this:

Why not dispense with rephrasing altogether?

Again implies quite clearly that you'd rather NOT allow anyone to "rephrase" anything.

But of course, this:

Can you let go of your political self-identity? Can you consider that you might place too much importance on your own political identity?

which is your OWN "rephrasing" of things Durnik never posted, reveals the double standard under which you operate. YOU are free to "rephrase" as much as you want, apparently.

Why do you indulge in behaviors you criticize in others? One might reasonably infer some hypocrisy there, except it's too clear-cut to be an inference.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

On this forum perhaps only two people understand global warming better than I (Orca and Chip).

Wow. 49,592 people are WBF members, and you're confident you are in the top three. That certainly says... something.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

No, it was a joke. It was meant to lighten things up.

Seriously.

It was also an oblique reference to Talladega Nights, a Brit comedian from the 60's whose name I forget, a good friend and our janitor when I was in NYC, and perhaps L.W., because he uses something similar.

Thanks for clarifying. Do you understand how my conclusion that it demonstrates frustration is a plausible one?

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Again, extrapolation to hyperbole. Why do it. I mean the people in the Bilge who discuss global warming. That list is shorter than 49,592, can you agree?

Sure, that list is shorter--but of course you didn't say "of the people who discuss global warming on the WBF, I know more than all of them but Orca and Chip."

So now, you're saying you DO want me to make an inference about something you did NOT explicitly state, and then use that inference to draw a conclusion about what you meant (even though you didn't actually say it).

So, which is it? Is making inferences about things not explicitly stated an essential aspect of communicating, as I've argued, or is it "putting words in someone's mouth," which seems to be your position?

A guy does get confused when the rules keep changing.

Meanwhile, I still think it says... something... that you are willing to place yourself in the top three, even given a suddenly shorter list.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

I am arguing against making conclusions, and acting on them.

Interesting. That seems like arguing for paralysis to me.

I'd argue in favor of making thoughtful (and as informed as possible) provisional conclusions that remain susceptible to additional evidence.

Tom

[David G]

Interesting. That seems like arguing for paralysis to me.

I'd argue in favor of making thoughtful (and as informed as possible) provisional conclusions that remain susceptible to additional evidence.

Tom

As would I.

But y'all need to back up. To that place where you discussed 'paraphrasing'.

It is a useful tool. For comprehension and for communication.

But it must be done with accuracy. In the spirit of: 'to the best of my understanding, you are saying...'

You don't do that. You do it badly. Very, very badly. And, seemingly, with the spirit of Straw Man driving the bus. Not in a collegial search for truth and understanding... but what often appears to be an effort to misrepresent. As a method of 'winning'. But it's deceptive, dishonest, and dysfunctional. It just leads to arguments and disrespect.

So I'd ask you... if you're going to rephrase... make your best effort to do so accurately.

Which means taking ANOTHER step backwards. It means reading and rereadding what your correspondent has written while thinking: what is she saying? Then reading again thinking: what else might he have meant?

These last two paragraphs are where you consistently go astray.

[WI-Tom]

As would I.

But y'all need to back up. To that place where you discussed 'paraphrasing'.

It is a useful tool. For comprehension and for communication.

But it must be done with accuracy. In the spirit of: 'to the best of my understanding, you are saying...'

So far, we're in agreement. Here's where our conclusions diverge:

You don't do that.

That comes across as extremely condescending. Why? Because you don't have any basis on which to judge my motivations, and yet you are making the huge assumption that I am operating in bad faith. And your conclusions on this are, quite frankly, dead wrong. So, you've started off on a bad foot. But I'm still listening.

You do it badly. Very, very badly.

OK, although my initial reaction is to disagree, that's certainly open to debate. The usual course of action for someone making such a claim would be to provide some specific examples of my paraphrasing and offer an explanation of what makes them "bad." One good procedure for doing that would be to compare models of varying levels of effectiveness and discuss what makes each one good or bad. I'll certainly be interested if you ever do something like that. Until then, however, you're just making pronouncements without evidence--a particular rhetorical weakness of yours I've pointed out to you numerous times. But I'm still listening.

So, this:

And, seemingly, with the spirit of Straw Man driving the bus. Not in a collegial search for truth and understanding... but what often appears to be an effort to misrepresent. As a method of 'winning'. But it's deceptive, dishonest, and dysfunctional.

OK, you're using qualifiers like "seemingly" and "appears to be" here, which I appreciate. But again, your conclusions about my motivations and intentions are wrong. You aren't in any position to know that, of course, but I am. I'd ask that you provide specific evidence of bad faith or dishonesty before believing it exists. I consider that a basic courtesy that I am willing to extend to most posters here, and I'd appreciate the same in return. Your post, even with the qualifiers you were careful to add, does come across as very close to an accusation of dishonesty on my part.

It just leads to arguments and disrespect.

Yes. Some of my posts certainly appear to trigger adverse reactions from certain WBF members. On the other hand, other WBF members have often noted some of my posts as reasonable, honest, and accurate. Some here have even admitted to changing their minds because of things I've posted.

So, are there arguments and disrespect? Yes. To what degree its origins are in my posts vs. in my readers' interpretations is an open question. I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming the basis is completely one way or the other. I feel that you, for one, are very quick to place the blame on me. You seem determined to interpret my words in the least positive way possible--that's probably a result of our history, eh?

OK, this:

So I'd ask you... if you're going to rephrase... make your best effort to do so accurately.

Which means taking ANOTHER step backwards. It means reading and rereadding what your correspondent has written while thinking: what is she saying? Then reading again thinking: what else might he have meant?

These last two paragraphs are where you consistently go astray.

First, I see that, again, you seem to be making the unwarranted assumption that I don't try to paraphrase accurately. Unless you have evidence that I am trying to be dishonest--and you don't--please assume I'm acting in good faith. I do the same for you and other posters, and I'd appreciate that basic courtesy.

You're also making assumptions that I don't read carefully. In fact, I'll warrant that I am one of the more careful readers in the Bilge.

I think where you go wrong here is that I often respond to the unspoken assumptions, implications, and the inevitable logical conclusions of what someone has posted--things that the original poster probably didn't say explicitly, but can be reasonably inferred if one is willing to think analytically. That's just my default mode of operating, for better or worse. When someone advances a claim, my mind instantly reacts by thinking "If THAT is true, then THIS must also be true" or "When you say _______, you seem to be implying ______."

I also assume--wrongly, I suppose--that everyone recognizes that all of my conclusions are provisional, and remain susceptible to evidence--even though I don't always include explicit qualifiers in my posts. And so, when I paraphrase what someone else said, I do it to present a hypothesis. If someone thinks I've paraphrased them incorrectly, and reached the wrong hypothesis as a result, I expect them to tell me so, and explain how I've not accurately restated their views.

A pipe dream, I know! But then, you already knew me to be somewhat Quixotic, I think.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

It might be in part due to a difference in writing style. I have been writing, and copy editing scientific manuscripts since the 1980s. Now that I am a lazy bum I still manage to pay the rent with copy editing. Two this week, one on HIV/AIDs education in Zambia, and the second on expression and function of a proteosome factor in kidney tumor cell lines. As Strunk and White said, vigorous writing is concise. Scientific writing is barebones terse. I will delete almost every superlative from a sentence. Words such as importantly, intriguingly, strikingly, remarkably, interestingly, very, all usually deleted. Every speculative statement is identified with 'perhaps', 'it is likely', or some such qualifier. Inferences are glaring, they stand out. Re-statements or re-phrasings have to be rigorous. Phrases such as 'hostile', 'feelings hurt', 'bashing', to my eye stick out as if they are highlighted in yellow.

Thanks--that makes a lot of sense to me. Having been a peer reviewer for education journals for 15+ years, I can understand how different "journal mode" and "Bilge mode" are in regard to the strength of the language used, and the willingness to express tentative conclusions and inferences.

No doubt my presentations here are often not optimized for persuasive value, and they are certainly not in "journal mode." I really enjoy the Bilge as a way of thinking things through, though, and probably enjoy these kinds of discussions in a more competitive spirit than some others do. I can see where that can set some teeth on edge, even if (as sometimes happens--even a blind pig roots up an acorn every now and then) my logic is impeccable.

Tom