Wow! That Is A Powerful Storm! Sandy Make Dept Of Labor Dance!

TownHall just reported

Unreal: Labor Department May Delay Jobs Report Until After Election

The U.S. Labor Department on Monday said it hasn’t made a decision yet on whether to delay Friday’s October jobs report, the final reading on the labor market before next week’s federal elections. A Labor official said the agency will assess the schedule for all its data releases this week when the “weather emergency” is over. Labor is scheduled to release the employment report on Friday, third quarter employment costs on Wednesday and weekly jobless claims on Thursday. The U.S. Census Bureau also said it hasn’t made a decision on whether to delay economic reports it plans to release this week, including construction spending on Thursday and factory orders on Friday. 

They got their information from WSJ.  Who has an update already. 

“It is our intention that Friday will be business as usual,” said Carl Fillichio, a senior press advisor at Labor. Mr. Fillichio’s statement provided clarity to an earlier Labor statement that said the agency would assess how to handle data releases this week after the “weather emergency” is over.

Nice try, slick.  I seriously doubt Friday will see power outages in the DC area from Sandy.   Would there be any reason why they wouldn’t want to release the jobs numbers Friday? 

This entry was posted in Economics, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Wow! That Is A Powerful Storm! Sandy Make Dept Of Labor Dance!

  1. Obama’s going to lose anyway.

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Would there be any reason why they wouldn’t want to release the jobs numbers Friday?
    <<

    Yes, it might affect the One’s election results negatively. Oh, I see–sarcasm–you already knew that

    Jim

  3. philjourdan says:

    Sandy really was a perfect storm for most of the country. It did very little damage – and shut down DC for 2 days! We need more Sandys

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Yup, VERY little damage. One of the worst natural disaster to ever hit NYC, My niece in Alexandria just got power back after 12 hours. Sister outside Atlantic City says city is completely flooded. Friend form CT could not go home last night because highways closed. Metro North has a BOAT on the tracks. Nice fireworks display from electrical transformer in NY. Subways completely flooded throughout southern manhattan.10 feet of water in parts of Wall Street. Staten island hammered with a tanker sitting on a road. etc etc etc

      • Bruce says:

        I’m with you on this one Tony. Not good. About the best you can say is the wind wasn’t too bad, but the water is always the problem. When Brisbane flooded last year as a result of a big La Nina storm and poor dam management it made a big wet expensive mess which took ages to clean up. A flood in a internet age city is not good. It was more expensive and damaging to people than Cat 5 Cyclone Yasi, which was nearly as large as Sandy but a whole lot meaner – except it hit up north where people are used to cyclones and have houses built for them. NYC is not built for Sandy’s.

      • Man Tony you sure missed the point of the post. Let me guess. you’re the Watson to anyones Sherlock—you need guidance when you read.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Here is the current status of the MTA. But maybe Phil is right and they are just loafing around, as union workers do, and there are just a couple of blown branches on the tracks and a couple of puddles in the subway, train stations, and tunnels. Really not much damage at all. Another lefty conspiracy to undermine the American economy
          http://www.mta.info/nyct/subway/

        • philjourdan says:

          Again, you assume. I said nothing about Unions. Nor did I quantify the damage done (which is not even in the ball park compared to other storms). What made this storm special is one thing – It hit NY. Sorry if I do not cry for people who build houses on stilts at the waters edge.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          I am constantly amazed at the short memories of what people write on these ight wong blogs. If you have trouble scrolling
          Philjordan “Sandy really was a perfect storm for most of the country.IT DID VERY LITTLE DAMAGE – and shut down DC for 2 days! We need more Sandys” My emphasis on your words “very little damage” My very first google hit places Sandy in the top 6 ever. Funny no mention of Irene or Isabel (really, ISABEL???). the ONLY hurricane where one could possible make the “Not in the ballpark claim” is Katrina
          http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/10/cost-hurricane-sandy-perspective/58510/
          I just mentioned the lazy union workers and the whole conspiracy possibility to give Phil an out after making such a ridiculous comment. Since he is apparently dismissing that possibility, I retract that comment.
          So THEN he doubles down talking about my “delusions” and not crying for those idiots that build houses on stilts at the waters edge. Now southern Manhattan, parts of Brooklyn, Queens and the entire MTA are houses on stilts at the waters edge!!
          Phil if you undersand the meaning of the word “delusional”, which has four entire syllables, maybe you know this simpler three syllable word – “projection”?

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, I would tell you to RIF. As you took my comment out of context. Note again what I said:

          “Sandy really was a perfect storm FOR MOST OF THE COUNTRY. It did very little damage– and shut down DC for 2 days! We need more Sandys”

          Now I know you think that NY and NJ are the sum total of the country, but I will remind you of my rebuttal: this is the United States of AMERICA, not the United States of New York.

          Now I know you think that the value of money is constant. Liberals always look at things through the eyes of a child. However, the estimate, while significant, does not compare to past storms (I would draw your attention to Andrew and Galveston). And the cost is inflated DUE to the union workers you profess to love (but shaft at every turn). And while the loss of any life is significant, the fact is that the death toll is minimal in comparison to past storms (and largely offset by the fact that murders were reduced during the storm due to lack of victims).

          So I would caution you on your own projection as we have learned you can do simple math (count syllables), fail at higher math (cannot do fractions or take percentages), and fail at reading and economics.

          Congratulations! You are a good liberal. Ignorant, uneducated, and projecting your faults onto others.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Ah Phil,

          Amazing how you manage to look at your own words and not see them, and then you manage to look at my words and see something that is not there.
          As for taking anything out of context, if you actually looked at the link I posted it had the storms all pegged at 2010 dollars. Isabel did NOT make the list because it was a measly $4 billion dollars and 16 deaths.You don’t seem to understand that NC and Virginia are not the ENTIRE United States. ALthough the damage to the the Wilmington subway system and financial hub of the country may have been similar to what happened in NY. Don’t see much discussion of that for some reason though. You see Phil there is really almost NO natural disaster that effects the ENTIRE country directly. It is actually a very BIG country , with a lot of land on each coast and a lot of land in between those coasts. Katrina did not affect the entire country. I was in NY and didn’t notice any flooding at the time.
          But smart of you to actually name a hurricane that DID do more damage, Andrew. I applaud your skill at scurrying to remedy your rather foolish initial comparison. But the estimates for damage with Sandy are increasing by a few billion dollars every day. Some are even saying $50 billion. I can’t imagine the loss of productivity of a big chunk of New York for four and counting days as well as signficant parts of NJ and CT. But I am Glad you FINALLY had something negative to say about those terrible union workers. Though a little disappointed you did not take the bait initially. I am sure all the pissed off commuters in the affected areas are really upset with those assholes that are trying to make the place function again.

          Of course you have not shown anything I have written to be in anyway incorrect, yet you are kind enough to insult my understanding of fraction, economics and reading.
          While this type of thing bores the hell out of most of the intelligent people I know I am just constantly amazed at the level of fantasy and inability to admit ANY mistake that people like you are capable of.
          Let us recap shall we? You were wrong about both Irene and Isabel. You are wrong about there being “little damage”. You were wrong about the damage not being “in the ballpark” of other storms. You were hysterically wrong about NY and NJ damages areas being somehow related to houses built on stilts (yes I understand you were foaming at the mouth when you wrote this and should not be held responsible but I am not going to let you constantly use that as an excuse). You were worng about the deaths being largley offset by the decrease in murders (NY has been averaging a little over 1 murder/ day. Since I am so bad at it , you do the math).
          You WERE right about Hurricane Andrew. Well, as I said above maybe not right, but at least not demostrably horribly wrong. like the above instances. But even here, you were right AFTER I gave documentation that your two initial instances were flat out wrong. Kind of like bringing in a relief pitcher for the 10th inning, when your starter lost the game by 8 runs in the 9th.
          But I know you have some brilliant retort, and that is what makes this so fascinating to me. You are compeltely wrong about almsot everything. You can make no case for my being wrong about anything. and yet I know somehow, your creative ideological brain is going to respond in some way that will absolutely CONVINCE you you are right about this somehow and you will desperately (or deludedly) think it will convince others of the same
          With others I can usually predict where the fantasy will go, but you are really brilliant in this regard. Kudos. And I await your devastating retort.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry Tony, the spin zone is on the left. You can read what I wrote, but you can not re-interpret it. So try that trick on one of your brain dead sheep on the left.

          READ. A trait you seem to lack. I never claimed isabel was in the top anything. I STATED Andrew and Galveston. As I said, READ. I never claimed Virginia and North Carolina were the US. Nor did I infer that. READ. A trait you seem to lack. You can try to weasel out of your incompetence all you want, but the words are here, and your sycophantic sheep are not. So you are going to get NOWHERE. Until you learn to read.

          And after you read, I would suggest you learn SARCASM. But then that takes intelligence so I doubt you will ever master that subtlety. I have no idea if any houses in NY and NJ are built on stilts, nor do I care. You seem to. Fine. Believe what you want to. But before you go rebutting anything, I suggest you READ what is written, and RESPOND to what is written, not what you WANT written. Since your post is so filled with factual errors, gross misunderstandings of the written word, and total ignorance of the English language, it is not worth picking apart piece by piece. Suffice it to say, you failed composition 101. Next time, try starting with reading comprehension. And learn that your little cesspool is not the sum total of this country.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          Well that was lame. Here I go complimenting you on your past ability to wiggle out of impossible situations where you were just totally wrong, and you respond with THAT? Starting to sound a bit lke Steve, only more verbose. You would save yourself some time and just respond with “Idiot” when you can’t actualy come up with anything.
          But still imprsssive that you write things without begging James to remove the post directly underneath that completely contradicts you. Although as I reread you post it does get funnier.
          Again I think the issue might be your ability to scroll.
          You wrote “I never claimed Isabel was in the top anything.”
          and just in the below earlier comment you wrote ” Isabel and Irene were worse.”
          A lesson in Logic. You commented saying Sandy caused “very little damage”. I asserted that Sandy caused a LOT of damage with some examples to that effect. You posted a comment saying Isabel and Irene were worse. I posted a link asserted Sandy was one of the top most damaging hurricanes EVER. I state that you are wrong that Isael and Irene were worse. You ignore this and make a claim that I think only NY and NJ are the sum total fo the country. and you bring up Andrew. I acknowledge Andrew was a damaging storm maybe more so than Sandy. I bring up Isable and show how it was no where near as bad as Sandy. You then state you you never claimed Isabel was the top of anything. Now if Sandy IS near the top of most damaging storms, and you worte that isabel was worse, then it logically follows that isabel is one of the top damaging storms.

          Of course then you brought out a litle chuckle by saying “Since your post is so filled with factual errors, gross misunderstandings of the written word, and total ignorance of the English language, it is not worth picking apart piece by piece.” while of course that is the standard dodge of the hopelessly outclassed debater, I find it interesting that you do not ever, in any of your responses to me, point out anything close to a factual error.

          Look, I know I am being mean to you. And I am sure that you are good person. You have passionate beliefs and I repsect that, even if I think they may be misguided. But this is very simple situation. You said Sandy did not cause much damage. EVERYONE who reads this knows that that statement is absolutely untrue. it is no big deal. I am wrong sometimes, James has called me out on a few instances with information I was not aware of. I admitted I was wrong. the world did not end, I was not treated as a leper by my friends. it is OK to say that Sandy caused a lot of damage. And i will happily accept that and we can forget about all the rest of what you wrote.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony. I am beginning to think you do not think. I am wiggling out of nothing. My statements are all available for everyone to read. When challenged on the most COSTLY hurricanes, I came up with Andrew and Galveston. What I said was that Irene and Isabel were worse. And they were – from an intensity standpoint. That the states affected did not build houses on every inch of the sea shore means that fewer people saw their house become a boat. But I never claimed they were in the top 10 in damages or lives lost, or even that they contradicted your link. So you are still trying to weasel out, creating your strawman, and then refuting it. You are pathetic in that sense because you accuse Steve of doing EXACTLY that.

          My last post stands. You have to learn how to read first. Apparently, you skipped that part. As I am careful in what I say, I have never had to weasel. And while I am careful in what I say, I have no control over the reader’s lack of reading comprehension or their mastery of the English language. So what you INFER from what I say is your problem. Not mine. You cannot find a single error in what I wrote, the only errors are in what you INFERRED. And I care not what your feeble mind infers. Again, that is your problem, not mine.

          And you are still ignoring Galveston.

          get use to it. you are only 4% of the US, not 60%.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,
          That is MUCH better. No time to point out how everything you wrote was either again wrong or misdirection, but I am not embarrassed for you to have to respond this time. I realize it took you a long time to come up with the new definition for worse, and if you had mentioned anything about intensity in any of your previous comments is might actually be defensible. More later.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony, you are welcome to point out ANYTHING I wrote that is wrong. So far you have failed completely to do so. Claiming you won the Nobel Prize does not make it a fact that you have. I merely pointed out to you how you were wrong, that your assumptions are not my words, and what you infer is not what I wrote.

          I came up with no new definition. You ASSUMED statements not made. If you care to debate the issue of storm intensity as being better or worse, you are welcome to do that. If you want to talk about money costs, you can do that. Yet you cannot then intermingle the 2 and claim some sort of hollow victory.

          I will take your note as an admission of your error in assuming things not written. Next time, read what I write. I hate having to restate what I write in language a 6 year old can understand.

          Final note: I challenge you to find a single time I have called you an idiot or any other pejorative. I have accused you of some things, which you are free to disagree with. But ignorance is not a pejorative. it is descriptive. I use my words carefully.

        • kim2ooo says:

          “But ignorance is not a pejorative. it is descriptive. ”

          A fact – lost on many!

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,,

          my initial comment pointed out the main irifutable thing that is wrong. you said the storm did “very little damage”, being it i certainly in the top five, maybe even the 2nd or third most damaging storm ever in the US, and certainly the most damaging storm on the east coast. There is no way to possible contend otherwise. it is 5 days from the storm and still millions without power, and NY still only partially functioning.
          you mentioned the term “intensity” only after a number of times that I pointed out how you were wrong. Using your new metric, if a storm was 500 feet across but had winds of 180 MPH, woul dyou still contend that the storm was “worse” than one with 60 mph that was 1500 miles across? if so then we jast have to agree to disagree and i doubt many people would take your side. I never once metioned anything about intensity wind speed, rainfall. You can argue all you want that i “assumed” something but it is much more reasonable to suppose that you reread the psots and after much contortion finally figured out a way to make an argument for your case when there actually is none.

          Your initial arguments were for Irene and Isabel and for the geographically limited nature of the impact. I showed you quite clearly that both of those arguments were wrong. Irene did not have high winds, so it was not an “intense” storm. According to Wiki Isabel had wind sped of 100 MPH at landfall and quickly lost speed. there were way fewer deaths, an order of magnitude less damage, and more people are without electricity now 5 days out, than were the day after the Isabel. You cannot have it both ways with your definition, especially after you have let the clock run out.
          you also wrote that I had not I ( actually you said “liberals”, which i am definitely am not) taken into account the change in value of money over the years, which I pointed out to you was ALSO not true.
          And you said the damage did not compare to previous storms which is YET again Untrue. You THEN mentioned Andrew which I concede WAS true and then modified that because the damage estimates were rising (they still are). You THEN said the death toll was minimal, ALSO not true, and then said that it was “largely offset” by the lack of murders, which AGAIN is untrue.
          That was just one post, where almost nothing you wrote was true. Again I acknowledge that Andrew was more intense and certainly by many reasonable ways of counting caused way more damage. Buit the fact that Sandy is not the most devastating storm ever hardly qualifies it for causing little damage.
          I have not only claimed to have won a nobel prize. I have shown you pictures and newspaper articles and notarized statements from Sweden testifying to that fact.

          I never said you called me an “idiot” I said Goddard did ( I am looking for a word that means waaay more than repeatedly and not finding any), and that you would save both you and me time if you just did that, when you did not have a valid argument. I don’t mind being called an idiot, as I KNOW for a fact I have an IQ that is almost surely in the double digit range!

        • philjourdan says:

          If you had stuck to that point, we could have discussed the intent of my post which was simple hyperbole. In other words, the main thrust of the one off statement was the closing of DC. instead you went off on what was clearly a sarcastic comment (low form of humor according to the latest knowitall).

          You then created a strawman, based upon nothing more than one statement, and proceeded to slay said strawman. And did so badly. That was your problem.

          If loss of power is the measure of a storm, then the Derecho was just as bad – but it had the misfortune of missing the narcissistic NY/NJ area.

          You see, that is a strawman. I turned your entire argument around on you and stated something you did not, and then proceeded to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument through a strawman.

          And I will make a final point. If a tornado tears through a corn field, it may be the strongest tornado in history. But the monetary damage is minimal. An F1 can then proceed to do millions of dollars in damage if it hit a downtown metro area. So the cost has nothing to do with the destructive power of a storm. Sandy was costly only because it hit a metro area, and not a cornfield. That does not make it unprecedented. It does not make it the worst. It may make it expensive, but then when you are paying $10 for hot dog, a sneeze in new york is expensive.

          So next time, read what I write, not what you want me to write. And get off your poor me attitude. I was posting here after the derecho, and you can ask any regular here if I was whining about losing my roof, my 30 year old River Birch tree, or being without power for days on end. I was not. Nor did I spit on the utility crews when they came to fix the issue, or demand to see a union card.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          You see Tony – Philly Steak and Cheese doesn’t like to admit that the economic output of a liberal haven such as NYC is bigger and more important than the entire bible beating South. So that 1 week without power in NYC is more economically damaging than 1 month in the deep south.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, that is a very poor strawman since no one commented on if they were liberal or conservative, rich or poor. I only pointed out it was a metropolitan area. A fact that seems to have escaped you. I understand you are developmentally disabled, but I had not realized you were also reading impaired.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil Phil Phil,

          I assumed you had given up the fight since you did not respond for a few days. How silly of me.
          I have now gone point by point by point through many of your repsonses and shown you how they are wrong. You have barely addressed any of those specific points, and in fact have said it is not worth doing so, yet you keep responding without addressing them. You have accused ME of being wrong without actually showing where anyhting I wrote was wrong.
          I very clearly addressed your initial comment where you said Sandy caused “very little damage”, after wading throught you last response you appear now to be backing off of that.
          After all this back and forth NOW you decide to go to the “Thrust” of your point, which was the closing of DC? Of course I understood that. Unlike uknowispeaksense, I have a fondness for sarcasm. I did not take issue with that. if one removes the fact of how devastating this storm was, it would even have been funny. If there HAD been “very little damage”, I would have likely agreed with you. The government tends to over react with these kinds of things and I appreciate humor about the silliness of overreaction.

          So I did not STICK to that point because there was no reason to argue that. I didn’t get upset at your callousness in that type of joke. No “Hey that is too soon”. No anger at you for diminishing the suffering that has been going on, and continues to go on. I don’t believe that you don’t care about those things, so I assume that you do care.
          NO I was SOLELY disputing your comment that ,once again, “there was very little damage” if you acknowledge that that one point was just plain wrong, or that you were exaggerating that to make it seem funnier or that you just didn’t realize at the time how devastating the storm was, once again I am happy to forget all the rest and be happily on my way.
          Otherwise we can keep on with this pointless exchange and I will point by point refute the rest of your last comment. (which I frankly enjoy for reaosns I stated in a long ago previous comment on this thread).

        • philjourdan says:

          No Tony, you have not gone point by point through MY responses. You went point by point through your strawman. I assumed you had conceded that your strawman was bested, but it is not what I said. Since you have not addressed what I said, only your strawman. You cannot best me until you address WHAT I said. Not your strawman. And that is why you gave up. Falsely claiming victory over a strawman. You should go back to Steve and tell him that his tactics do not work since you are using what you claim he uses.

          I have only accused you of being wrong in trying to set up a strawman of what I said. IN that you are wrong. And you are right in one respect. I have not addressed any of your points, because I am not defending YOUR strawman. If you want to defend it, be my guest. But stop trying to get me to defend YOUR strawman.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          the point si have rfuted repeatedly are your actual words. they are not distortions of what you said or deliberate attempts to misinterpret, they are your actual words with the actual meaning properly ascribed. Since you are unwilling to to point by point show show that anything I have said is incorrect, and i have repeadedly shown where your specific points were incorrect, we can continue this dance where you deny it. fortunaely we have made this long enough so that no rational person would bother reading through half of it.
          But as I repeat AGAIN. the point of my comment was your saying Sandy “did very little damage”, as long as you continue to deny that that statement is objectively incorrect by any resonable standard that an non rabid ideokogue would use, we can just keep going back and forth.
          You have not shown that anything I have written was incorrect or a strawman argument. As is pretty obvious by your refusal to refernece what I actually have written. You on the other hand have brouhgt up two, VERY late misdeirections. One that by “worse” you meant intensity, and then paly this silly game where you try to maintain that I assumed soemthing that you didn’t mean. It is both irrelevent and not credible. Then you maintained that I was ignoring the “thrust” of your point. I agreed that I was ignoring the thrust of your point, I did not have any argument with the thrust of your point and the thrust of your point has no bearing on the thrust of MY point. These are just debating tactics that try to confuse a very simple issue. You get points for creativity, but I already have great respect for you in that regard, but it changes nothing. As a wise man once told me , ” Claiming you won the Nobel Prize does not make it a fact that you have”.

          So Phil, do you STILL contend that Sandy caused “very little damage”? All you need do is answer that questio. If the answer is NO, then we can be done with this. If the answer is yes, supply evidence to back it up, and I will consider it. Since I Am willing to admit to being wrong I will honestly weigh your documentation agaisnt what I know. ( I am in NY nopw and should be helping with relief efforts after I vote tomorrow.

        • philjourdan says:

          No tony, you did not “rfute” it. I stated it was not one of the worst. That was it. You ASSUMED I meant cost. YOU mentioned cost. Then I mentioned Andrew and Galveston.

          I said Isabel was worse. And it was from an intensity stand point. I am sure you are going to say that Camille was not bad since no one in NY was impacted, and the cost was less than Sandy. I understand your whole world is about the cost to NY, which is fine. I never argued that (I merely pointed out that NY and NJ are only 4% of the US not >50%).

          You continue to argue against your own strawman. You are assuming things I have not said. You are wrong. I thought you had finally admitted that you were not debating me, but instead you come back and want to restart the debate using your strawman. Fine, do so. But I will not participate in your game. I said that. And that is why I have not felt a need or had any inclination to pick your responses apart point by point,. Because they all all Non-Sequiturs.

          So argue away. You are only proving that either you can’t read (which I doubt), or that your favorite debate tactic is the construction and deconstruction of Strawmen. And I do not chose to defend YOUR strawmen. If you want to debate what I said, DEBATE WHAT I SAID. Not what you want me to say. So far, you have assumed facts not in evidence, and accused me falsely. You own me an apology. Your initial assumption is easily forgiven. Your insistence on stupidity is not.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Philly doesn’t even know what a straw man is but he pretends everyone else’s argument is one (never his though!). He’s a blowhard of the worst kind. Constantly patting himself on the back for his useless, sophomoric comments. I guess it makes him feel good to constantly praise himself.

          It’s certainly entertaining to watch! Almost as fun as whale watching!

        • philjourdan says:

          phd your obsession with me is very unhealthy. I would suggest a shrink – but they can only work with something that is there, not something that is absent. Since you have no clue what you are talking about, and your posts are purely ad hominems and juvenile pejoratives, everyone is quite aware of your mental immaturity, your lack of cognitive ability, and your insistence on acting like a spoiled child.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,
          I know this doesn’t matter to you but you are really pushing the envelope in your frantic attempts here to “be right”. I understant that you don’t care about whether you are right or wrong, and that you have to somehow make people here and yourself think you WON.
          So I will ONCE again go over your most recent post point by point and throw a bucket of reality over it.

          Phil, what you STATED, originally, which was the entire point of my initial comment was that Sandy caused “very little damage”. The whole “worst” thing can as you tried to somehow defend that initial ridiculous objectively false claim. that is the end of the story and the argument, and everything else is just a waste of your time and entertainment for me.

          No Phil that was NOT it. You stated one of the worst AFTER your intitial statment about “very little damage”. I mentioned cost because that is a standad measure of worst, especially in relation to the concept of damage. You mentioned Andrew and Galveston and I heartily agreed, until I kept seeing the price tag for Sandy keep climbing. I have never questioned the intensity of the storms, have always been quite happy to accept the recorded history of relatvie intensity of specific stroms, and it was never a relevant factor.

          I did not ASSUME you meant cost. You did not mention cost. The word “worst” does not mean “intensity”. it does not have a limited meaning even when just talking about the weather. Worst means worst which means including all factors, unless specified otherwise, of which intensity can certainly be a factor. But as related to the entire POINT of these comments, worst should have some bearing to “very little damage”, and if you meant worst as “intensity”, then the meaning of worst makes no sense, because intensity of a storm does not determine the amount or type of damage done.
          You ignored my question of comparing two hypothetical storms, one of very tiny size and high intensity and of huge size and low intensity. You did so because addressing that would totally undermine your argument. that anaology makes clear that “worst” cannot be just a factor of intensity. As soon as you changed your wording to intensity I was happy to acknowledge , and continue to be happy to acknowledge the objective truth of other storms being more intense than either Sandy or Irene. you WIN that point. I didn’t even try to block that punch! Becuase it is completely irrelevent, I never thought otherwise and it was just a debating device to try to confuse the reality of your argument being wrong. That argument, in case you have forgotten, is Sandy caused “very little damage”.

          And then you made me smile when you, who repeatedly have said I put words in your mouth, ( which I have not, since I have posted point by point rebuttals of almost every substantive comment you have made, many of them direct quotes from your posts). As soon as you used the word intensity I totally acknowledged that Isabel was more intense. I then showed you that isabel caused less “damage” than Sandy. I am quite willing to be shown to be wrong on that issue if you just suppply me with verifiable evidence that tIsabel caused more damage than Sandy.
          You THEN launch on this whole bizarre thing about Camille, that for some incomprehensible reason you are “sure” I am going to say Camille was not bad. Are you serious? I am the one accusing YOU of dismissing the “badness” of hurricanes. Yes Camille was “bad” and there was a a “lot” of damage. I have never once said or given any indication that New York is special in this regard. You keep bringing that up, which is of course irrelevant as well as being completely untrue. I seem to recall a hurricane in NO that caused a “lot” of damage and I have never dismissed that becuase it didn’t happen in NY. Irene caused a lot of damage in Vermont and hardly anything in NY, yet I considered irene to cause a “lot” of damage. I have also thought that tornados in the midwest have caused a “lot” of damage, and they are not in NY. In fact I don’t apply any geographic filter to determine how much damage or how “worst” any natural disaster is. I can give you a list of thousands of natural disaster that I would consider having caused “a lot of damage” that have not happened in NY. If you want that list you would have to pay me, becuase I would have to look up a lot of them. Is $1/storm reasonable?

          No clue what strawman you are referring to in the next paragraph >”You continue to argue against your own strawman”<. You have alluded to a whole bunch, none of which are strawmen as I have repeatedly shown. And I find it hysterical that I continue to refute all of your points by actually taking your actual points, one by one and showing them to be wrong, and you have the brilliance to conclude that they are all non sequitors and you have no need to pick them apart. Whereas all yours actually ARE non sequitors and I have no qualms about picking them apart. it is fun. And it is fun because it is so easy to do and you apparently have no lack of interest in handing me new non sequitors to have fun with.

          I am not "restarting" any debate. .
          That is REALLY bizarre. the only thing that matters in this “debate” is whether you stand by your statement that Sandy caused “very little damage”. That is it. Everything else is just window dressing. tasty window dressing, but irrelevent to the point at hand. As soon as you admit that Sandy caused more than “very little damage” or provide evidence to support your case that it did not indeed cause a lot of damage, all your hand waving is just an entertaining exercise for me.

          And your final paragraph, as full of bluster and chutspah (sorry that is a word used in NY, but you should be able to look it up) as one could imagine.

          OK, why don’t we debate what you said?Hmmm. Where shoudl we start?…. Let me think a minute……. HEY, I have an idea, why don’t we START…..with you saying that Sandy caused “very little damage”. Seems like as good a place as any.
          I think Sandy caused a LOT of damage, so I think that statement you made is wrong.
          What do you say to support your contention that Sandy did not in fact cause a lot of damage?

          Of course I have not assumed facts not in evidence, and you have not presented any. I have only accused you accurately, fairly, and truthfully ( and saracastically, but that does not invalidate the other ways).
          I owe you no apology, and I made no assumption that needs to be forgiven. And I HAVE NEVER called you stupid, so I could not be insisting that! (this last was sarcasm, I actually know what you were trying to say, but turn it back toward you with hysterical results, dontcha think?)

          What is great about your not adressing any of the specific points is that you can keep ignoring what I write and pretend that all your words actually reflect some sort of actual reality. So you can respond to this post ignoring where I clearly point out the fallacies in almost everything you write, and just keep coming back with more comments that appear to be rational. In fact if I ONLY read your posts I would think that you were making very good points. As I have said I am impressed with your ability ot argue, it is very well developed, unfortunately, while I don’t have a good memory, I AM able to scroll and I can read what I write as well, making it very hard to take anything you write seriously. Just to make the whole scrolling thing easier for you I have included your last post so you can reference them together. I am a thoughtful guy in that way.

          Philjordan wrote:
          No tony, you did not “rfute” it. I stated it was not one of the worst. That was it. You ASSUMED I meant cost. YOU mentioned cost. Then I mentioned Andrew and Galveston.

          I said Isabel was worse. And it was from an intensity stand point. I am sure you are going to say that Camille was not bad since no one in NY was impacted, and the cost was less than Sandy. I understand your whole world is about the cost to NY, which is fine. I never argued that (I merely pointed out that NY and NJ are only 4% of the US not >50%).

          You continue to argue against your own strawman. You are assuming things I have not said. You are wrong. I thought you had finally admitted that you were not debating me, but instead you come back and want to restart the debate using your strawman. Fine, do so. But I will not participate in your game. I said that. And that is why I have not felt a need or had any inclination to pick your responses apart point by point,. Because they all all Non-Sequiturs.

          So argue away. You are only proving that either you can’t read (which I doubt), or that your favorite debate tactic is the construction and deconstruction of Strawmen. And I do not chose to defend YOUR strawmen. If you want to debate what I said, DEBATE WHAT I SAID. Not what you want me to say. So far, you have assumed facts not in evidence, and accused me falsely. You own me an apology. Your initial assumption is easily forgiven. Your insistence on stupidity is not.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tony – give it up. I am not trying to win anything. You took a statement of mine out of context (understandable since it was not detailed). When you then misinterpreted it, I corrected you. Yet you doubled down on insisting that what I meant was what you interpreted. And it never was. So there is no need to go through a point by point because that is merely your construction of your strawman to best. I told you I would not do that, and I have not. I owe you no explanation. Indeed, I owe you nothing, You only owe me an apology for assuming you are Karnac the Magnificent and can read my mind. You cannot and we are both intelligent enough to know that. So give it up. I do not care what you assume. Your assumptions are worthless.

          Read what is written. Not what you want to be written.

      • philjourdan says:

        Cry me a river. Isabel and Irene were worse. The only difference – they did not affect NY. In case you missed it, this is the United States of AMERICA, not the United States of New York.

        Not to mention Florida, which thankfully has not been hit in several years. Since they were hit by 5 in one year!

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Phil’s an idiot – he doesn’t understand that New Jersey alone has the population of 5 mountain states….

        • philjourdan says:

          Ah, the old harpie is back (for at least a few days). I am well aware of the population of each state. And I do not recall anyone (least of all Tony) talking about a mountain state. But then with your ignorance, I doubt seriously you would know what was being discussed. Tony may be a liberal. But at least he has a modicum of intelligence. Which puts him outside your league.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Sandy’s damage worse than Irene, far from Katrina

          Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/30/3892637/bill-for-superstorm-sandy-could.html#storylink=cpy

          WHAT WERE YOU SAYING FAT BOY?

        • philjourdan says:

          I am saying that Tony Duncan can read, and can respond in a rational way. He made one simple mistake – he assumed. And I am saying you still apparently cannot read, or comprehend what you read. As is evidenced by your last 2 misdirected replied.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          HEHE There’s that fat boy arrogance and ignorance I missed so much.

          Clueless but confident! Our fair PhillyJourdan!

        • philjourdan says:

          Again, your inability to pen a coherent intelligent sentence is not my problem. Should you ever decide to grow up and communicate like a rational adult, you will be treated as such. Until that time, you will be treated like the spoiled child you act like.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil and PHD
          What is it with you 2? You are attracted to each other like bees to flowers.

        • philjourdan says:

          Not me. I was having a debate with Tony Duncan. I have had battles with him in the past, and he is a worthy opponent as he does stick to the facts and leaves the silly pejoratives at home. phd then stuck his juvenile nose into it, not adding anything constructive, just more childish insults. He seems fixated on me as he is constantly mentioning me, and I ignore him unless he attacks me, and then only respond to point out his juvenile behavior since he has demonstrated that he is incapable of any higher thought.

        • kelly liddle says:

          I am definately right about the attraction of you 2 even your comments are attracted to each other check out the time stamps on the comments above.

        • philjourdan says:

          I can only define when I comment by the schedule I keep. I was commenting to Another when he chimed in with his juvenile banter.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,
        No need to give up,

        But you should give it up. YOU wrote something demostrably wrong. I called you on it. And we were off to the races. I took nothing out of context. there was no need for any detail, since it was a comprehensive statement- Sandy caused “very little damage”. I did not misinterpret it, you did not correct me. You went on a fantasy journey trying to avoid admitting you were wrong. You said some other silly demonstrably wrong things along the way. I specifically pointed them out to you, and you just kept going. My ONLY onterest in my first post. the only thing that any of my words related to in my first post were your saying Sandy caused “very little damage” as long as you keep refusing to address the accuracy of that statement you are just prolonging this silliness.

        All you have to do is address the point of this argument.
        That you wrote Sandy caused “very little damage”.
        Funny how you cannot even allow your fingers to type that phrase any more. The only phrase that has any relevence in this entertaining thread. It is the only thing that I challenged oin your initial comment and the only thing that I was at all interested in you responding to. can NOT be a straw man becuase it is a straight challange to a statement of fact on your part.

        Again the fact that I have written nothing that was in any way incorrect or misleading or distorting, that I have acknowledged every accurate thing you have written and pointed out the numorous incorrect misleading and distorted things you have written, is ALL irrelevant. The fact that you are willing to write so many retaliatory comments but are unwilling (and unable of course) to point out any thing I have written that is innacurate is irrelevant. The fact that I have addressed every substantive point you have made by specifically adressing those points with incontrovertable logic is irrelevant. I really don’t care about those things.
        Do you stand by your statement that Sandy caused “very little damage” ( Hey I can touch-type that phrase now for some reason), or not?
        That after all was the very first thing you said in your original comment, and the only thing that I objected to.
        Why don’t we clear THAT up first, and then if there is anything else (There isn’t from my point of view, as I have written here repeatedly) that needs to be addressed we can do that.

        I must say though that you have exceeded expectations. This is unquestionably the most ridiculous interet ineration I have ever had. Goddard still has some dozzies, but you beat out the “Bikini Island H bombs killed every single coral polyp in the entire atoll” argument that we had. I NEVER thought anything could top that for stubborn refusal to admit being wrong about something you could not possibly be right about.
        But as they say “Standing on the shoulders of giants.”…

        Now, to the detail of your comment, which while I have already dealt with in general iI shall now do so in detail this time with your exact quoted words in the body of the detail.

        Which statement did I take out of context? see without ANY detail Phil it is impossible to pin you down exactly, which of course makes it more fun for me because I know you cannot now actually SAY which statement becuase THAT would be going into the detail that you are too refined to bother with. But since i have said the only statment I am interested in is the “very little damage” I will address that. I did NOT take it out of context. I challenged the veracity of that statement. I have asked you to either defend that statement or acknowledge it is not accurate over a dozen times to no avail. If it is the “worst” statement, i have dealt with that in detail and explained exactly why you were wrong about it, I have acknowledged the question of intensity and you have never responded to my detailed refuations of the relevance of that one. if it another statement, you will have to refresh my memory, which I am sure you will not deign to do.

        I did not double down on anything. I explained, very clearly and logically why there was no “interpretation” and why it was irrelevant, this is true which ever statment you are referring to. It seems likely you are referring to the meaning of “worst” or about intensity. And I have repeatedly explained to you that it is both irelevant and that it is a rather lame and inadequate distraction form the point of this thread. None of this has any bearing on the veracity of your comment that Sandy caused “very little damage”

        YOu are correect on this. There is no need to go through anything point by point becuase there is only one point. Was Sandy a storm that caused “very little damage”?

        yes you told me you would not do that and your explanation for why has absolutely no validity. But again the only thing that that is relevant is …. get this…. Wait for it……………..did Sandy cause “very little damage”? And of course you owe me nothing. I dont care if you never answer that question. We could have ended this long ago if you had just stopped responding. As soon as you stop responding with misdirection, incorrect assertions, and ignoring the point of this thread, and bluster, this whole conversation will be over. I promise I will not post twice in a row. I really don’t care if you respond, either by admitting your initial comment was incorrect or continue this pointless journey. You are in control here. have no doubt of that.

        Ok, goign to go for a few sentences in a row here. I never assumed anything, I never pretended to read your mind about anything. I have repeatedly used your exact words and repsonded to them directly and accurately and truthfully. Your assertion about the meaning of worst is a rather silly diversion, and your assertion that I assumed that meant money damage is competely contradicted by my posts where I explained what the word worst actually means and that yur distortion of worst to mean solely the word intensity has no bearing on the actual issue being discussed. I went into great detail about how I understood that other storms were more intense as far as wind speed is concerned. I made it clear I had not questioned it, and I acknowledged that Sandy was not more intense than numerous other storms. i amso made it clear that Intensity does not have a direct corealtion to the word worst, but that it can certainly be a factor. I gave you that little thought expriment about different storms, to explicate that point. I nowhere inferred anything that you did not mean that any rational person who used the English language could infer. I did not say that cost was an exclusive measure. I in fact used neumerous exampls in my initial comment that had nothing to do with cost. You inserted the idea of my having some sort of bais regarding disasters in NY that had no basis in anything that I said or wrote. And you have totally avoided engaging any of the things I have written that contradict,with logic and factual accuracy almsot every assertion that you have made since your intitial comment.

        So Phil, IF you don;t want to continue this, please tell me if you believe your statement that Sandy was a storm that did “very Little damage” was true or if you now conisder that to be innacurate or an exaggeration, or in some other way not a valid statement. If you DO beleive it do be true please provide some evidence to support your contention.
        OR you can just ignore this and we will leave it at that. remember you are in total control of the situation here.

        Read what is written. Not what you want to be written.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          sorry Phil

          I put all your quotes inside those carat things on the side and apparently wordpress thought they were some sort of hypertext function without any actual instructions. But you should be able to follow the gist of this. Too late for me to put your eaxt quotes back in where they belong

        • philjourdan says:

          No Tony, You wrote something demonstrably wrong. Sorry if I do not claim responsibility for your straw man. As you are simply repeating yourself and tearing apart your straw man, this is pointless. YOu beat the straw man! Congratulations. However, that just proves you are not insane. You can at least win arguments with yourself.

          There is no point in discussing it further since you are merely repeating yourself, and not addressing what I said, only what you want me to say. So keep arguing. I really do not care. I just no longer see a point in pointing out you are the best slayer of your own straw men.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Phil,

          You keep ignoring every single thing that i write, brushing it off as strawmen arguments. But of course you keep not being specific about any of what I say givng a veneer of rationality to your inability to answer a simple question. do you consider that your statement that Sandy caused “very little damage” to be true?
          that is the crux of all of this. Again I don’t care that all your other arguments were misdirections (the whole “worse”, “intensity” tangent), or projections of my perspective that had no basis in reality (pretending that I have some special bias about natural disasters in NY)
          You just wrote that I wrote somethng demonstrably wrong, yet you cannot name what it is. You say you refuse to get specific because it is just going to support my strawman. No, you can get specific and point out how what I wrote is wrong. That is how actual arguments are moved forward, becuase then the validity of the opposing points can be weighed.
          I have over and over again quoted you directly (except for the above comment where I didn’t realize your actual quotes would be removed by wordpress), not taken anything out of context, and showed how you were incorrect in each point I made. That is not beating a strawman.
          the thing I keep repeating is that you made a statment that Sandy did not cause “very much damage” I challenged you on the veracity of that statement and you refuse to address my challenge. Are you really saying that my pointing out that your written words are completely objectively wrong, is making a strawman argument? that your dismissal of the devastation from Sandy is not relevant?

          Well in that case this is all very easy. You just write that Sandy did a LOT of damage. YOUR statement was incorrect but that was not the point of your post. The point of your post was that you were making a joke that shutting down Washington for a couple of days was a good thing becuase then Washington wouldn’t be able to do any particualr damage to the country for those days. Ha ha, it was joke Tony. Yes the storm was devastating, my comment was factually incorrect, but you are making a big deal over soething that is not very important.
          Of course you could have done that in your initial response, and you CERTAINLY could have done that when i said basically the same thing many many comments ago.
          But you, apparently, like Steve, cannot allow your self to wirte the words, “I was wrong”, even about something as pointless and inconsequential as this.
          Pity really because I guess we will just have to keep going . Again you have total control over ths thread.
          I wait your next response. Or mabe you are finally ready to jsut stop responding and we can both go about our lives.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Tony, I think if we go back to Phil’s initial statement

          “Sandy really was a perfect storm for most of the country. It did very little damage – and shut down DC for 2 days! We need more Sandys”

          What we have here is a very poor attempt at humour where he is suggesting that in terms of the whole country, Sandy did very little damage, however he may have jumped the gun. I’m pretty sure the families of those people who lost loved ones would be fairly unimpressed with his premature E-joculation as would all those people who lost their homes. He couldn’t care less though as evidenced by further heartless comments he made such as “Sorry if I do not cry for people who build houses on stilts at the waters edge.” Of course, from the safety of his own computer he can spew hatred for those on the East Coast whom he clearly despises and perhaps envies but will he go there and dare say things like that to their faces? I doubt it. Spineless idealogues such as he lack the integrity to stand by their words if it means they are likely to cop one in the mouth for their troubles.

          I admire your perseverence with this clown though, and it is interesting watching from the sidelines, but given that the majority of people who visit denier dens are seeking confirmation bias, exposing one fool’s idiocy, while important, is probably a wasted effort. This argument is one you are never going to win, despite you being right, because he will continue to hide behind his ill-informed “strawman” catchcry.

        • Me says:

          Mikey, still doesn’t like it, so now your tugging on them strings, Eh? Seems you chicken littles were a little in GLEE when it happened because you can claim it supported your cause.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          No,actually I am angry that it happened because for years the science has shown that we are affecting the climate and for years inaction has occurred because of idiotic deniers being loud enough to convince spineless politicians to do nothing. It may well have been prevented had action happened 30 years ago when climate change was first realised as a potential problem. I also felt sad for the people who have lost loved ones. So gleeful? No, far from it. How did you feel?

        • suyts says:

          Imbecilic nonsense. Hurricanes have always happened, but, empirical evidence has shown us there’s been an actual decrease in hurricane activity and strength for the recent years. Idiotic indeed.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, for years observation (a critical part of science for all except the religious) has shown that severe weather has not increased. For years we have seen no major hurricane hit the US. The longest stretch in recorded history. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good religious creed.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          That’s funny coming from someone who let’s loony right wing ideology get in the way of human compassion. What was that you were saying about houses on stilts and how did you feel about all those dead people? I seem to recall you making ideologically driven lame jokes about Sandy’s severity. By the way, with your extensive comment list you’ll make an excellent case study for my students, so thanks for that.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, I do not let anything get in the way of human compassion. But I do not let emotions rule me either. Your ignorance is what causes you to assume facts not in evidence, and make gross assumptions where no data is forthcoming.

          Your problem is you have no intelligence – just feelings, so you assume that everyone else must be inferior. Again, your assumptions, your ignorance, your problems.

          12 step program:

          Step 1: Stop projecting. Try helping out your fellow man instead of trying to find fault with imagined demons. Given your proclivity to not use any mental processes, we can safely say you do not give to charity, or help anyone. You simply rely on the government.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I suggest you take up fortune telling Phil because you are so far off the mark words escape me.

        • philjourdan says:

          Words escape you when speaking in single syllables, so I am not surprised. As your comment makes absolutely no sense, it speaks volumes to the level of education you impart on your students – none. If I was so far off the mark (in simply observing your ignorance), then fortune telling would not be my calling.

          But stay stuck on ignorance. That appears to be your only strong point.

        • philjourdan says:

          A shame you have students. And the reason Johnny cannot read.

        • Me says:

          Pathetic!

        • suyts says:

          Matthews thought it was cool.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Uknowispeaksense,
          Well I am stil a little hurt that you decry sarcasm, as that is mcuh of the basis for mys repsonse on these sites. I tend to model my response based on who I am responding to. One of the reasons I frequented SUYTS space is because he is quite strightforward and relatively respectful, and i try and return the favor.
          I tend to overlook the kind of statements you pointed out, about the “stilts at the waters edge” I figure I have gone to great lengths to provoke him, so I don’t assume genuine callousness.
          Oh I know it is a wasted effort, i have no expectation or interest in trying to change Phil’s mind. To me this is a fascinating psychological exercise.
          I find this endlessly fasicnating. i have some very conservative friendn on Facebook, and a couple of them I have really valuable dialogues with. They are quite willing to acknowledge different viewpoints, and while they have very strong convictions are pretty grounded in reality. One is an extreme libertarian, but a lawyer very smart who understands the realities of politics. the other is a very fundamentalist Christian, whose has becoem a dear friendeven thought we disagree on almost everything. Our personal values are almost exactly the same , and she is a comappsionate and deeply loving soul. Much closer to her than some friends who i share deep political beliefs with.
          To me it is about developing an honest connection. Sarcasm certainly interferes with that, but I am really only interested in actual communication with people who wil listen and can readjust their thinking to someone with as an unusual perspective as mine. to me this is not about conversation or real dialogue it is about following the frame of reference people use to interact.

        • Me says:

          Mikey, your still…. see Me comment to you @ November 9, 2012 at 5:58 pm if you like it or not.

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    Amino,

    if you would pay attention you would see I responded to philjourdan. the “pp\oint”of thepost is just part of the conspiracy fever that has swpet the republican party since the republican convention.

  5. uknowispeaksense says:

    sarcasm – the weapon of the witless. there is no shame in not recognising it.

    • suyts says:

      Thank you for your insightful contribution, senseless. Sarcasm is a very effective form of rhetoric. If the audience doesn’t recognize it, then, it often points to the slowness of the audience.

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        I didn’t say it isn’t effective, merely that it is the weapon of the witless. Failing to recognise it could also be due to the audience giving the sarcastic person too much credit as was likely the case above when Tony Duncan didn’t see philjourdan’s sarcasm.
        I also place mucking around with people’s pseudonyms in the same basket. It isn’t very witty and is actually quite juvenile.

      • suyts says:

        Witless people rarely make use of effective argument styles. Don’t worry about Tony and Phil. They’re old hands at this.

        You’re funny taking offense to playing with your pseudonym. You have an emotive attachment to that? You call people witless because of their use of sarcasm, failing to recognize witless people wouldn’t effectively use it. But, you protest when someone calls you “senseless”. Hold two conflicting views much?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I have no emotional attachment to it. I fully expected witless people to muck around with my pseudonym just as I expect witless people to resort to sarcasm. Nor am I protesting when someone calls me “senseless”. People have the right to their own opinions, no matter how misguided they are. I might become offended if someone I care about calls me names or someone whose opinions I respect so I don’t see that I am holding conflicting views. Do you often speak like Yoda?

        • philjourdan says:

          Witless people hide behind nonsensical pseudonyms. Sarcasm is not the highest form of humor, but it does require a modicum of intelligence – both on the writer and the reader. Those who dismiss it out of hand do so because they have not mastered the art of sarcasm and are jealous of those that can do the art. Perhaps you should learn how to communicate more effectively, then you could actually write some yourself.

          Sarcasm is an effective tool in demonstrating the absurdity of some extreme positions. And in that, it is both effective and full of wit.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit” Oscar Wilde. Sarcasm is the kind of thing employed by school children in the playground because they lack a more mature sense of humour. It is juvenile.
          “the art of sarcasm”? There is no doubt you are an artist. Andres Serrano is also an artist. Art is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

        • philjourdan says:

          Those who can, do. Those who cannot, criticize. Oscar Wilde is not an authority on the subject. One man, one Opinion. But if your life is based on what others think for you, then I would say you have yet to grow up.

          Children cannot do it. That is why silly pejoratives and useless ad hominems are often referred to as “school yard taunts”. Sarcasm is neither.

        • Me says:

          Mikey doesn’t like it! 😆

        • suyts says:

          No, apparently he doesn’t, but he does like to pretend he isn’t bothered when people laugh at his dichotomous views.

        • suyts says:

          “I believe no satirist could breathe this air. If another Juvenal or Swift could rise up among us tomorrow, he would be hunted down. If you have any knowledge of our literature, and can give me the name of any man, American born and bred, who has anatomized our follies as a people, and not as this or that party; and who has escaped the foulest and most brutal slander, the most inveterate hatred and intolerant pursuit; it will be a strange name in my ears, believe me.” – Charles Dickens

          No respect for Mark Twain? Your intellectual vacuousness is on display. Voltaire displayed the lowest form of wit? Laughable.

        • DirkH says:

          uknowispeaksense says:
          November 2, 2012 at 9:18 am
          ““Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit” Oscar Wilde.”

          Oscar Wilde was an idiot.

        • Me says:

          “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”
          And thats why sooooo many of the left err whatever you want to call them loves the Colbert Report and the Daily Show …. Oh the ironing of it all err something. 😆

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Satire is not sarcasm. Perhaps that’s why so many of the right don’t like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show, they find it too confusing. They know it sort of sounds like sarcasm but it’s too high brow for them.

        • philjourdan says:

          Satire CAN be sarcasm. You are making a classical logical error. No one said all satire is Sarcasm. Just because all A is in B, does not make all B in A.

          Sarcasm requires 2 higher forms of brain function – the ability to create (liberals do have that ability), and the ability to discern (the one lacking apparently).

        • DirkH says:

          uknowispeaksense says:
          November 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
          “Satire is not sarcasm. Perhaps that’s why so many of the right don’t like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show, they find it too confusing. They know it sort of sounds like sarcasm but it’s too high brow for them.”

          I find them extremely shallow and predictable. What does that make me?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Actually no Phil it is you who is making the logical error – satire is distinctly separate from sarcasm.

          The difference between satire and sarcasm is the difference between surgery and butchery. — Edward Nichols

        • philjourdan says:

          Still have not figured out how to reply to a comment. Is that for your masters knowledge only?

          And Epic fail on your part. You made the same mistake. I clearly stated that while A may be a part of B, not all B is a part of A. So while Sarcasm may be a form of humor, it is not ALL humor.

          RIF – try an adult ed class.

        • suyts says:

          Hmm, so my dictionary/thesaurus is wrong?

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Thats makes you boring Dirk and without a sense of humor like most Republicans!

          Since Republicans are boring they have nothing that even compares to the Daily Show/Colbert Report.

        • philjourdan says:

          The only humorless person appears to be you. I guess it is true that liberals have no sense of humor. A sense of humor does require a higher form of intelligence. Snails do not possess one.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Still tooting your own horn huh fat boy? Well guess what YOU’RE WRONG AGAIN!

        • philjourdan says:

          I apparently am right since you are incapable of an intelligent rebuttal, instead merely relying on senseless ad hominems and juvenile pejoratives.

        • DirkH says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          November 5, 2012 at 6:50 am
          “Since Republicans are boring they have nothing that even compares to the Daily Show/Colbert Report.”

          Progressive humor expert recommends those two predictable one trick ponies? What a sorry existence you must lead, I dare not call it life.

  6. suyts says:

    Uknow, I’d like to thank you for offering yourself up as a funny diversion here. Please do so more often!

    sarcasm  [sahr-kaz-uhm]
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: mocking remark
    Synonyms: acrimony, aspersion, banter, bitterness, burlesque, causticness, censure, comeback, contempt, corrosiveness, criticism, cut*, cynicism, derision, dig*, disparagement, flouting, invective, irony, lampooning, mockery, mordancy, put-down, raillery, rancor, ridicule, satire, scoffing, scorn, sharpness, sneering, superciliousness, wisecrack

    Uhmm, is English your first language?

    satire  [sat-ahyuhr]
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: ridicule intended to expose truth
    Synonyms: banter, burlesque, caricature, causticity, chaffing, irony, lampoon, lampoonery, mockery, parody, pasquinade, persiflage, play-on, put-on, raillery, sarcasm, send-up, skit, spoof, squib, takeoff, travesty, wit, witticism

    Yeh, they are synonymous.

    Perhaps, this is why few and few people are watching those two pinheads. They don’t execute satire/sarcasm properly .

    • Scott says:

      Apparently, he likes to split hairs with definitions using subjective reasoning. Look at this little conversation between Tony Duncan and uknow –

      http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/about/#comment-566

      He clearly didn’t get that Tony was joking and then suddenly changes face and compliments him on his facetiousness and then points out how different it is from sarcasm.

      -Scott

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        I like to be accurate. Clearly a fatal character flaw by your reckoning. But then accuracy and facts are not things deniers hold in high regard. I also remember the exchange with Tony well. If you have some sort of magical powers that can detect what I was thinking from 3 or 4 words, then your talents are clearly wasted doing whatever it is you do.

        and suyt, here’s a blog that sums up the difference between satire and sarcasm quite nicely. http://findanoutlet.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-difference-between-satire-and-sarcasm/

        I’ll let you have the final word about that. I don’t need to. You’re not that important.

        • Scott says:

          uknow,

          You make a lot of assumptions. You know essentially nothing about me and, to my knowledge, have probably only read a handful of my comments at most. Yet you label me, apparently without a second thought. I’m apparently a denier (of what?), think you have a fatal flaw, and don’t hold facts and accuracy in high regard. If you have some sort of magical powers that can detect who I am and what I think in such detail from so little, then your talents are clearly wasted doing whatever it is you do.

          So, what WERE you thinking with those three words? I’m curious. For the record, I actually agree with you that sarcasm is a poor method of communication, particularly on the internet, and it is one reason that I dislike Steven Goddard’s blog.

          Since you are a self-avowed atheist, you clearly don’t believe in magical powers. So given that and your seemingly in-depth knowledge of satire, what type of satire is this comment from you?

          If you have some sort of magical powers that can detect what I was thinking from 3 or 4 words, then your talents are clearly wasted doing whatever it is you do.

          And you sure seem to spend a lot of time commenting on a blog run by someone who is not “that important”. Especially given that you’re here because Tony pointed this thread out to you.

          -Scott

        • suyts says:

          How interesting. Lol, well done Scott.

          And, uknow, I’m sorry, I’m taking a dictionary/thesaurus over a blog post.

          As to your friends post. You, him, or anyone else are welcome here. All you have to do is actually present an argument.

          The reason why conservatives have resorted to derisive sarcasm is because the left has shown themselves to be incapable of intellectually discussing the issues.

          This isn’t surprising, considering watermelons don’t know satire is synonymous with sarcasm.

        • Me says:

          😆 Mikey and the like, doesn’t like it when we satire them! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

        • suyts says:

          LMAO…. pure sarcasm!!!

        • Me says:

          Mikey, your assessment is based on an assumption of your attitude with the conception or conclusion of conjecture.
          By your estimation, you fancy, feeling or in your point of view, we get the impression that your hypothesis is a judgement of imagining in your mind.

          In short it’s your opinion, look up synonyms of opinion. 😆

          Did I satire you properly that time, Mikey?

        • philjourdan says:

          You condemn yourself with you statement. You are a charlatan, not a rational person. You want to believe in a mysticism, not scientific facts. Science is your enemy, and you shun it at every turn. So it is not unusual for you to use terms like deniers, when you cannot provide a single piece of evidence to bolster your claim, other then the hysterical rantings of your high priests.

          There is no way you could possibly have the final word. That would require you had any words to begin with.

  7. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    uknowispeaksense says:
    November 2, 2012 at 9:18 am

    “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit” Oscar Wilde.
    <<

    Wilde may think that sarcasm is a low form of wit, but that would still make it a form of wit. Your assumption that low means none is a non sequitur.

    Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s