For some reason, I woke up this morning and my blog was comletely blanked out... I had to rebuild it again, and now have to put my links back in (again!) Damn! Hey, never fear, because next time I'll be prepared. Until then, the best link on the web for my book is still buzzflash -- they not only have a ton o' great stuff themselves, but they have a plethora or great links, too. As for me, I'll get those links back up soon*
*Currently in progress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hey Shank? What did I post at 1:31am that the blog admin removed? I don't see how I could have posted any thing to this post because your site went down right after I posted a response to 'nonny. (what a hoot!) Not only that but it lists the time of post at 1:45am for the 'nonny post. How very strange! Do you think you were hacked? How did you rebuild your web site with previous posts and all? Do you keep a back up? What time did you post this post? How could I have posted any thing on this post at 1:31in the morning if it didn't exist until, say... 7 hours later? Are we in a time warp? ....i feel funny, i better... lie down.
p.s. the adsense block was doing funny things right before your site went down. The top part was sorta' blinking up over the header that was over it.
Here's what happened. The deleted posts are because I took an old post and edited it instead of makeing a new one, so it had some old comments that I took off cause they didn't apply any more -- that was my own sloppy housekeeping -- oops! Then, I was doing an edit to add more links-n-stuff, and I think my computer burped or something midway while saving the changes and poof! everything vanished. Luckily, though, I found out you can just go to the place where you choose a new template, and choose one again, and everything comes back... it was just the template that got zapped, but all the posts are still there, luckily! So, I wasn't hacked, thank goodness, just bad timing when I tried to save some changes, I guess. I'll add my links back in; maybe refine them a little, too :) All is well!
Shank, I apologize for diverting the Chihuahua’s attention to your ankles! I promise to jump up on a stool and get out of the way so that you can savor his exquisite little nips. ;)
Woof! Go, Chihuahua, go!
GOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!! It's a drop kick and the chihuahua is out the window!
.... can i come down off my stool?
btw, 15 mins of research yielded a name for the type of arguments that 'non posted, fallacious.
http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Williams/HON102Web/falsec-web.htm
It's a good read for honing the edge so to speak, it can be rather painful in revealing how often most of us fall into the traps of these types of arguments.
As far as his 'ment about Dems obviously getting big biz support because they raised more money than the repukes, an HG fallacy by the way, not true.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/politics/10324474.htm
http://www.fec.gov/
laters, i gotta get some sleep.
Wow, cool. I thought that he was wrong about that, but instead of checking on it I decided to take the angle that it shoudn't matter which one had the most money (although I hear that one reason Al Gore lost was because his campaign ranout of money).
I hope I get more people like 'Nonny finding their way here and commenting. The ones who disagree are good exercise for debate. It flexes intellectual muscles that have grown atrophied lately. And the ones who agree reassure me that we're not going to hell in a handbasket... yet.
The typical reaction to poofs like 'non is knee jerk. Response to the allegations with explanations of your position. The real way to shut these guys down is to do research and demand the same from them.
Donny and Steve were great at it back in the old days. Their ace in the hole was "...what are your sources?"
That was the real problem with 'non's arguments. Even when he presented facts like, the dems made more in contributions, his argument that it must mean that he had more big business support was wrong.
People like 'non can make a very persuasive argument and be good at cutting their opponent down for their views but their arguments are very rarely valid.
Post a Comment