Science has its controversies, its competing schools, its great debates. It is a very human enterprise, and it is far from objective. Anyone who has followed the global warming debate can tell you that.

Here’s another debate worth looking into:

http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate20.html

It is a shame that such communication gaps must also happen in the area of science.

If things get tiresome, we can always talk about something else, instead.

You cannot discuss painting with a blind man, but he may know much more about music than you do.

Is that because I am unable to think like you or is it because you are unable to think like me?

It seems to me that Lindy and I are simply asking questions and pointing out divers information. Why does that bother you?

By the way, whatever happened to Gbaike? His politics were very similar to yours. He was right too, all the time, about everything.

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

I’ve been there. That’s the site of the old Nike battery on the top of Angel Island. Ever been there?

Maybe one or two other people might find the information useful. Maybe not.

You just spent an enormous amount of effort addressing a question nobody asked, and no one wants to have answered.

Tom, you are not just impervious to irony, you’re impenetrable to ridicule.

Although to be more accurate the term is usually “low-information voter.”

“Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald’s, and perceiving John Kerry as elitist for saying wind-surfing was his favorite sport.”

(Link to original TIME article Wikipedia got the quote from)

The Obama campaign specifically targeted these people:

The answers led to advertising purchases that the campaign might not have made, especially as it pursued undecided voters who did not regularly go to traditional sources for news.

So it was, said Jim Margolis, a senior advertising strategist, that the campaign bought more late-night advertising time than it otherwise would have on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ESPN and, most surprisingly, TV Land, the basic cable network devoted to reruns of old programs.

In the case of TV Land, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign was seeking to reach “folks who may not be as political, may not be deciding until later.”

“A lot of these people are lower-information voters,” he said, “not necessarily tuned to politics and watching a little more programming that is out of the main lane of what most of us think of.”

But then, you didn’t know this, did you?