OT: Apparently Irma's "graphics have been created to make it look like the ocean's having an exorcism"

So if it is your anecdote it must be true.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

I think it is pretty clear that the same facts can be used by many political perspectives depending on how they spin it. "The hurricane is coming" is used by one group to support acceptance of AGW while another group uses "The hurricane is coming" to show how media and the government distort the news to falsely promote AGW. Same news, same reporting, but the spin can be done independently.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 4:24:50 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wro te:

ys after

e media tamper

ed with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the po litically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

lite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

the definition

ever in the

ing that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warmin g is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understandi ng of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding someth ing he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem t o have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not t hat he seems to have done that.

k search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm no t familiar with.

hear network

e biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some los s of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd size s, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

ding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thr ead. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be com pletely torn down and rebuilt.

troyed, then

ater mark

s an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than make s it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits w here the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, th ese houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold t he viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

ed an aerial

destruction".

at looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

e? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

ye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an ae rial view.

ction are.

er the

w feet

is not

aerial

tion"."

ou saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way th e media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do d o sensational amounts of damage.

that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up ima ges that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implication s.

Since what I post doesn't line up with whatever has been programmed into kr w's processing unit, and he only appreciates posts that he agrees with, he does find my posts a waste of bandwidth. He only wants to read stuff that c onfirms his prejudices.

What might well work for him would probably be bad advice to people with fu nctional brains.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up imag es that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications .

cal

The

s

one

The facts can be used to support various spins, but the various branches of the main-stream media are stuck with reporting pretty much the same facts. Squeezing in any spin is difficult, since the words devoted to inserting the spin take up column inches that would otherwise be used to communicate more facts.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You too confuse Trump with a leftist.

Apparently you're just another stupid leftist.

Clueless. Illiterate.

Trump was a Democrat for a lot of his career. Only krw could be dumb enough to think that that made him a leftist, or that arrogance and ignorance are restricted to those who don't share krw's ill-informed political opinions

James Arthur could be doctrinaire enough to come to the same conclusion, but that's a different kind of brain damage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

days after

the media tamper

pered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

tellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

ge the definition

est ever in the

ything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global war ming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find exampl es that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understa nding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding som ething he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't see m to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, no t that he seems to have done that.

uick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast s ays it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

I hear network

the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd s izes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For examp le, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

destroyed, then

h water mark

y is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than m akes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bit s where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hol d the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

howed an aerial

s "destruction".

that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be stand ing may not be in good shape.

o be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

e eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial view.

truction are.

after the

few feet

hat is not

an aerial

ruction"."

w you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes d o do sensational amounts of damage.

way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implicat ions.

tually done.

gree with it.

Since s.e.d. is a text only forum, you can't get at it if you are illiterat e. Krw calling anybody else clueless has it's own ironic content, but it's not a point that krw has the cognitive capacity to appreciate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yeah, ok. That's a new one. Maybe you confuse Pelosi with a right-winger?

te:

days after

the media tamper

pered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

tellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

ge the definition

est ever in the

ything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global war ming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find exampl es that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understa nding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding som ething he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't see m to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, no t that he seems to have done that.

uick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast s ays it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

I hear network

the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd s izes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For examp le, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

destroyed, then

h water mark

y is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than m akes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bit s where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hol d the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

howed an aerial

s "destruction".

that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be stand ing may not be in good shape.

o be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

e eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial view.

truction are.

after the

few feet

hat is not

an aerial

ruction"."

w you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes d o do sensational amounts of damage.

way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implicat ions.

tually done.

gree with it.

The only thing you seem to be good at is making unsubstantiated insults. C alling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way fo r you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

It's difficult to be wrong when you make up your own facts, isn't it?

Maybe that's why he's so popular with right-wingers LOL. The irony here is very entertaining. The only reason he's so popular with the extreme right seems to be that he is crude and unstable.

Trump does have some good policy ideas, but unfortunately some bad ones and is near incapable of executing any of it.

I wasn't talking about the infirm. Well, I was talking to one, so that's close, I guess.

Factual, even though you're too stupid to know. Lefties are.

Clueless. Illiterate.

Oh really? Where did you talk to him? Was it a rally with greatly exaggerated crowd sizes?

te:

5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

ach days after

in the media tamper

tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and parano id.

hange the definition

argest ever in the

anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find exa mples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his under standing of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopp ed him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beas t says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

it. I hear network

rma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and so me loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is go ing to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crow d sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

ot finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in th is thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For ex ample, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

es destroyed, then

high water mark

dity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material tha n makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroy ed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

n showed an aerial

was "destruction".

use that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

ff the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be st anding may not be in good shape.

" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

agle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial view.

destruction are.

rk after the

d a few feet

d that is not

ed an aerial

estruction"."

view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricane s do do sensational amounts of damage.

a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political impli cations.

st

actually done.

t agree with it.

Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

An excerpt from your last two replies to this thread:

Clueless. Illiterate. Clueless. Illiterate.

Your lack of originality and phrase reuse makes one wonder who's the "Cluel ess. Illiterate." one here!

You're proving my point, moron.

The facts speak for themselves. If you don't want the truth spoken about you, shut up.

That's a huge load of wishful thinking. Column inches are used to attract eyes. Enough facts and the page gets turned. That's one reason why USA Today is such a successful paper. It doesn't try to convey more facts, it dumps a ton of information on the reader in tiny doses, complete with sensational headlines and content. They know all too well that most readers won't even flip the page to continue an article... unless they are on a London bus looking for page 3.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

I always thought he was lying about crowd sizes. Nice of you to confirm.