It's the Jews, I tell you, the JEWS!!!!

Sounds like a good idea

I would like you to open a thread each evening on ID. Much funny.

(Open thread a good idea too.)

Hey! Reuters are idiots! (But you already knew that). Dig this "quote" from a NASA employee, way down near the bottom of the article linked below.

"Tragically, two years ago, we came to realize we had let our God down"

(Emphasis mine.)

My advice to Reuters would be to hire reporters with enough intelligence and knowledge of the English language as not to confuse "God" with "guard". And of course, to maybe hire some, oh, editors?

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050804/2005-08-04T141203Z_01_N04115231_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SPACE-SHUTTLE-DC.html

I'm sure readers will find many other examples of stupidity in this article, by the way, even from NASA astronauts themselves. For example the quote "We know that we [the Earth] don't have much air." ...

mark

Here Ace, this might be a handy reference for you.

Not saying that it'll get Dave from Garfield Ridge off your balls, but ...

Reuters has already corrected/retracted that "god" remark BTW.

As a former Rockwell engineer in Downey CA who was there in the early 80's for STS-1/2/3 I found this entertaining though:

"The Times said an internal NASA memo, written in December by a retired NASA engineer brought back to monitor the quality of the foam operation, complained that deficiencies remained in the way foam was being applied to the fuel tank and warned "there will continue to be a threat of critical debris generation."

Back in the early 80's we would have just said "hey, this shit doesn't work - its probably going to fall off and destroy the orbiter".

At NASA you have "critical debris generation", at Rockwell we had "this shit won't work". There in a nutshell is the explanation of why NASA has problems.

What I'd really like to know, too, is if comments like this in the NASA article actually reflect reality, or just wishful thinking or something:

"Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world," Collins said in a conversation from space.

I mean ... is it really possible to see that kind of stuff from the Shuttle? How could you tell that you were seeing "deforestation"? Can you even see forests in the first place? Same goes for "erosion"? Huh? How could you tell?

I mean, maybe I'm full of it, never having looked down on the Earth from the Shuttle personally, but it just doesn't pass my smell test. Seems more like an austronaut making comments that they expected their audience to appreciate, never mind the lack of factual support. I don't know.

Not a fan of open threads, no.

Mark:

Actually, you can see environmental devastation quite well from space; there were some amazing pictures a number of years ago from a Shuttle mission showing the Amazon basin -- you could actually see the scars and smoke where people were clearcutting the forest to make way for cultivation.

Likewise for some parts of China and the old Soviet Union. Lake Baikal was formerly the largest freshwater lake in the world, but decades of misapplied irrigation reduced its volume by nearly a third, and this was easily seen in orbital pictures. Likewise, the terrible depredations on the island of Haiti are completely obvious from space; the brown "bloom" in the waters off Haiti is due to the terrible erosion brought on by deforestation and terrible land use.

I love it when Bill stops by here and helps Ace out. So nice of you Bill!

Oh, and as for the thread idea-- dumb. Very dumb.
Wanna know why?

First, you misunderstand the purpose of linking. You think it's because you get good things that you can publicize to your readership. The trouble is, it's really the blogger leeches begging for recognition. But if they beg in public, it's not as cool to get chosen-- it's like the little shits in class going "Oooh! Oooh! Pick me!"

It's much cooler, and much more psychologically rewarding, to be chosen for a link by the Almighty Ace of Spades HQ quietly, either via an email tip, or-- imagine this!-- Ace actually visiting and reading the other blog.

Just being a lazy fuck and telling us peasants to "post your links in the open thread" is really bad form.

But hey, whadda I know? I get thirty hits a day, and they're all from bbeck arguing evolution.

Second, IMHO the best open threads are the *hijacked* open threads. The post starts off about Jihadi bombers, or Michelle Malkin's thighs, or Ace whining for the hundredth time that Mike Ovitz doesn't know about his script for All Dogs Go To Heaven 9, and over time, it organically mutates (some would say "evolves") into a larger discussion.

The beauty of that "off topic" discussion is that it becomes a cool-cat club. The dedicated thread is like the blogger ghetto, the INTERNET gulag where us losers are shunted off to in order to keep the other threads free from prattle about whether Megan and LauraW are closet rugscuffers.

Anyway, my opinion counts for two things here, Jack and Shit, and Jack just left town. . . so I won't be holding my breath.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

ABSOLOTELY! Freeper has all kinds of important stuff that the ACE doesn't have.

I get thirty hits a day, and they're all from bbeck arguing evolution.

HEY! Don't make me re-think my assessment that Bill is the wanker in your little scuffle, Dave.

My name sure gets brought up in a lot of unprovoked threads.

Later,
bbeck

Just being a lazy fuck and telling us peasants to "post your links in the open thread" is really bad form.

No it's not.

The fact of the matter there are a lot of people sending me stuff. Some of this stuff I post, some I don't, because I don't like it.

Everyone can continue sending me email tips; but they can also put the link in the thread, in case I don't post it myself.

A site like lucianne relies 90% of readers posting stuff they found, not the tiny staff at lucianne finding stuff.

The fact is I'm only doing this five or six hours a day, usually, at most. I think it's a not-bad idea for posters to have an open forum where they can share information without going through me as gatekeeper. Again, especially because I'm not always here, but there are always some readers here. Even at four in the morning there are a hundred readers or so.

As for reading other blogs-- I do occasionally read other blogs. But only occasionally. I spend most time reading free republic, lucianne, foxnews, etc., for stories. And of course my email, which has, on a good day, a lot of interesting stuff.

There are hundreds of blogs on my blogroll and thousands more that aren't. I really can't spend all that much time just reading blogs. A lot of it is duplicative (a lot of people cover the big stories, so there's no point going to a bunch of blogs for that) and a lot of it just isn't up my alley.

Every blogger has different idiosyncratic interests. A story strikes one as funny and another as stupid. A story strikes one as important and another as too inside-baseball and boring.

I read a lot of the big blogs, just because, for example, what Instapundit and Powerline and Michelle Malkin are linking are the stories of the day. Just because they have such wide exposure. They push stories in the blogosphere like the NYT sets the agenda for all the newspapers and network newscasts.

But other than that, I only occasionally read blogs, usually checking my trackbacks and referrals.

It's not a knock on any other blog. It's just a fact of life. There are so man hous in a day, and there are 10,000 conservative political blogs that are worth reading.

10,000 conservative blogs worth reading? Ehhhh...no. There are probably fifteen or twenty, and that's being pretty generous. I don't follow the liberal blogs, as they're not even funny accidentally any more (not even O.W.).

Most conservative blogs are political blogs, and that shit gets boring real fast. One of the reasons AoS is my "site of choice" is that you got teh funnay going on, and a great community of commenters. Even the trolls (Cedarford, jeff, and VonKreedon) are more amusing here than elsewhere.

You got the funny, ace, but you also are a good writer and can put a nice well-written spin on stuff. You shut the door on the real cretins and keep things pretty civil (civil enough for rightwingsparkle to stick around!).

I guess I'm not one of those people for whom content is only part of the picture. Consider Lileks' site. You go there, you read the Bleat or check out the Institute of Official Cheer, you laugh, you move on. But you hang out at AoS (or your blog of choice).

I'm neutral on the open-thread thing -- having a thread topic gives a jumping-off point, even if it diverges right away (witness megan and I in the jihad thread). It's your house, ace; I'm just a guest. Do what you want and don't worry about the whiners.

You got any beer in the fridge?

I guess I meant that there are 10,000 conservative blogs which will have a good story or good spin or good joke every now and again.

But every blog, like this one, has more misses than hits.

So it's just not worth the time to go scanning through 10,000 worthy blogs.

I wouldn't judge the hit-or-misses by the responses either. Sometimes I prepare a comment and realize you said everything that needs to be said on the subject. In fact, this happens more often than not.

Monty honey, grab a nice zinfandel while you're rummaging around in there and pour me a glass, would you? Thanks bunches.

I think there's something to Dave's worry bout an open thread sort of dissipating some of the energy the threads here in a way of goin off on a tangent, getting silly like I like. Having what'll eventually become somewhat the 'designated play area' takes somethin (not sure what) out of rough housing in a regular thread.

That said, I'd like to see an open thread here on weekends at least, maybe also late at night now and then for us West coast night owls to bullshit around in. Sort of a community here and it'd be nice to have someplace to play when you're not posting. So, a little open thread action, yes, but don't go crazy.

Ace,
"The fact is I'm only doing this five or six hours a day, usually, at most."
Uh-huh.
Seems like you're much more dedicated (to us? to . . . ?) than that.
Maybe you're just really, really efficient, timewise.

I like the idea of an Ace open thread. While you're asleep, we can raise an interesting topic, thrash it out, provide competing links. Then you can Ace any parts that seem Aceable to you.
Like email, but already run through a hivemind.

Ray,

You can get jiggy in whatever thread you like. I'm not going to net-nanny threads and say "This belongs in the open thread."

I don't care if you go off-topic in any thread.

I'm just saying it might be nice to have a thread where people know there's going to be news-posts and open argument coming from all posters. Again, minus me as the gatekeeper.

Wasn't really worried bout you being a scold. Never seen you jump on anyone for going afield short of blatent OT link whoring. If people 'serious up,' it's cause they'll see the designated open thread and police themselves, second guessing, 'Is this too silly?, Maybe it needs to go in the open thread' and all. Not a big worry. Just saying a constantly present 'Open Thread' might create a silliness ghetto.

Still though, do it. I'm gonna need a place tonight to rip apart those stupid chicks from 'Hooking Up.' (They're driving me fucking nuts.)

Should I open one of these every night before bed?

This is ace's way of telling us he plans to start sleeping in.