So, this set of statements:

The offensive line, the offensive coordinator, the head coach, the line coach, etc. are all there to foil the plan of the opposing defense. The saints were … were using a blitz structure that not only worked, but kept the Vikings offense guessing. If the O-line can’t do the job they are there to do, the opposing team will maul them. The line is kind of like setting up a real-time pawn line in chess: If you screw it up, you’re in trouble.

are mysteries, aren’t they?

These satements:

Hitting is part of football, period. Goodnight Dr. Laden.”

The saints weren’t being evil and trying to intentionally hurt Favre

Is a presumption you’ve made that you are trying to pass off as a conclusion and appears to be unlikely, according to most experts that have since commented on this that I’ve heard.

orry for bringing it up.
Goodnight Dr. Laden.

Not a problem. The important thing is that I’ve cleared up your misconceptions! We were done with Fukushima anyway …. time for another update post with fresh information! (It’s in the works.)

That’s what lead me to ask questions about this. Looking back, I think that when you have a QB who can pass, you have to kill the play at one end of the flight of the ball or the other, and almost all the time you kill it at the receiving end and then now and then throw in a blitz. The saints decided to do it at the QB end, and to do it in a way that involved hitting Farve as much as possible to injure him, which they did, and one of his injuries may have figured in the big play at the end which caused the saints to win (Farve who often runs the ball himself, threw a bad pass instead of running ahead a few yards to get the first down, because of his leg injury).

Since then I’ve heard commentaters again and again refer to that game as the time the Saints went overboard.

Tone is hard to modulate in text.

I don’t like being attacked over misunderstandings, which are common on sciblogs.

I agree, and it is unfortunate that this happens sometimes.

(btw, why don’t paragraph breaks appear here?)

It is a mystery. They do, often. I wonder if it matters what browser one is using.

But now you’ve simply created three possible positions, anything else being something unacceptable to you. Also, our intention in this thread is not to declare “our position.” It doesn’t have to be. That’s something you want us to do here but it is not what we planned or intended to do here. We have a different reason for doing this, and not having our position on nuclear power as part of the thread is necessary to do that. And, as I’ve stated, I don’t know if Ana and I even have a collective coherent position on the topic. We’ve not discussed it.

the thread from more than a year ago in which you whined about the Saints hitting the QB so much only to follow up later saying that you were really talking about concussions when you clearly weren’t.

Well, no, I was talking about both bad sportspersonship AND concussions the whole time and as I understand it people in the sports injury business, people in the referee business, and people in the professional football reporting business all agree with what I had the apparent insight to see and courage to say out loud. Dammit!

As if you care, I appreciate the updates on the developing crisis, thank you.

I care about that more than any of the other things we’ve discussed.

—–

Fukushima is said to be approaching Chernobyl

“To clarify: the use of weasel words is what I was arguing against. See above for one example. ”

Those words were chosen carefully, very carefully, and they arenot weasel words. As I wrote that I made the reference to a possible near equivalence the way I did because I do not know if it is true, but I do know that it would be very interesting to try to measure, and the process of figuring out how to measure it itself is interesting given that they are different kinds of reactors and different kinds of accidents.

Thus “… the potential for Fukushima to be worse in terms of total radioactive material released is very real. ” in the second part of the sentence and the next sentence: “However, the two disasters really can’t be compared sensibly because the circumstances of release, and the potential effects, are very different. ”

Look, I’m a reasonably good writer, a thoughtful person (especially when I’m writing words that are going into a colleague’s mouth) and a smart guy. I feel funny pointing that out to you, but it may help you to read what I’m writing. Trust me more. It would be better for you to come at my words looking at what I say rather than assuming or reconstructing what must be in my mind and what must be interacting in my mind with characteristics (of me) that you come to the table assuming.

This does not mean that I’m not sometimes subtle or even circumspect. If you know what I mean. But I’m actually not doing that on this Fukushima report project at all.

Fukushima is said to be approaching Chernobyl

To clarify: the use of weasel words is what I was arguing against. See above for one example. (italics are mine)

Oh, we do, we most certainly do. Our agenda is similar to yours, in part: Pointing out bullshit.

I never once stated that I disagree with you.
What is my position on nuclear power? I think that it is a worthwhile intermediate until we find a feasible alternative.
I understand the need to keep Fukushima on the table, I was not arguing against that. Nor was I arguing for polemicist prattle. If you reread my first post on this thread you’ll find that I was attempting to clear up somebody’s argument as I saw it. If my intent was unclear I apologize. However I despise leaving backdoors open as opposed to stating clearly what you intend to say.
In other words if you are ambivalent, say so. If you are pro or anti, say so. The only argument I made was that you shouldn’t cower behind half-statements. (A good example would be the thread from more than a year ago in which you whined about the Saints hitting the QB so much only to follow up later saying that you were really talking about concussions when you clearly weren’t.)
As if you care, I appreciate the updates on the developing crisis, thank you.

Oh, we do, we most certainly do. Our agenda is similar to yours, in part: Pointing out bullshit. But with respect to these posts and mainly Ana’s feed, our agenda is to keep fukushima on the table.

Our posts have come out more or less evenly over time. Look at the rest of the blogosphere and the web-news-o-sphere. We seem to be under the impression that the situation at Fukushima is unresolved (there is good evidence of that) and while some threats have reduced others are increasing and other remain the same over this period. Yet coverage is following the usual decay curve.

But not here.

… we shouldn’t rely on 50+ year old tech.

That may be true, but are you suggesting that applies to nuclear and not to coal?

This isn’t poker

I’m not sure if it is poker or not. Probably not, but it could be. For instance, not having an explicit stance in one of the two prescribed camps on global warming has caused you to re-affirm one of my worst fears regarding energy policy generally: That there really are two camps and that some people want everyone else to be in one or the other. I’ll take the pot in this hand, thank you very much.

By the way, Arkham, what is your position on nuclear power?