True, but perhaps the English language could be specific enough provide a to every sentence.

-

Did you even look at the link? It's a screenshot of Fox News' own headline stating "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES", and if you check the dates you'll see that they began promoting their "Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties" a week or more in advance.

Coverage is when you report on an what other other people are doing over there.
When you run media campaign in an effort to get people to show up at your own event in the future, that's called promoting.

MSNBC, CNN, and every other legitimate News Agency provided coverage of the Tea Party events.

If you have a screen shot of a CNN headline advertizing a "CNN Occupy Events", especially if they start advertizing it a week in advance, then that would be promoting. All the legitimate news agencies, and part-time-news-agency FOX, provided coverage of Occupy. Fox took a break from their occasional news coverage to provide advance promotion for their own Tea Party Events.

Fox thought it would be a swell scheme to undermine the current administration.

-

You goofed.
The only "Epic Fail" is that you never bothered to check the link.

This is a perfect illustration of how partisans on both sides can lose touch with reality. People have a bad habit of picking teams, and then mental shortcuts can fall into place short-circuiting reasoned consideration and logic. Mental filters can drop into place that block information from entering the brain at all, without even permitting any rational consideration of whether the information is true or valuable.

You saw MediaMatters on the link, and you instantly applied shortcircuit logic to deem whatever was there automatically biased and false. A mental filter dropped into place that kept whatever was there from making it into your brain, filtering it out without permitting any consideration of what it was and whether it was true information.

You went on an immediate rant against MediaMatters, and you goofed. It wouldn't matter even if everything in your rant were 100% true, because he wasn't citing Mediamatters. He was citing Fox News. And you would have known that if you bothered checking the link for 3 seconds. He was citing Fox News in a TV screen capture. The image is merely hosted on a MediaMatters webserver. The information in the image, the information he was citing, was 100% from Fox News, straight out of Fox News' mouth, straight out of Fox News' own headline.

False. Fox News did not "cover" the Tea Parties, Fox News created and promoted the events week or more in advance. And if you bothered to check the link you'd have seen Fox New's own headline stating that these were Fox News Channel Events.

Quoting Fox News' own headline: "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES".

Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.

That's what Fox called them, while PROMOTING them. While promoting them a week in advance.

Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.

His statement was completely correct. Fox News is a partisan political activism organization, and they figured it would be a swell idea to undermine the current administration by orchestrating these "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES". And as he said, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like. It's turned into a bit of a Frankenstein monster, largely wrecking damage on the GOP. Yes, as you said the GOP has become rather afraid of the Tea Party.

A small number of Tea Party radicals have gotten elected, and their inability to function as legislators has disrupted the Republican Caucus from the inside, while a similar number of Tea Party radicals have won Republican primaries and in the general election handed those seats to the Democrats. The net effect on Democratic side is roughly zero, while the net effect for the Republicans is decidedly negative.

The "FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES" have largely backfired.

-

That would be an awesome brand of Popcorn!
Pardon me while I go file a Solar Popcorn patent.

-

You don't have the decryption yet. You need an algorithm to obtain a potential decryption. If P=NP then you can use an algorithm to (relatively quickly) find and give you the most compressible decryption. And the most compressible decryption is almost certainly the correct decryption. If the message is already compressed then you need some other way for an algorithm to pick out what potential decryption to give to you. For example if you know a specific name probably appears in the true text then you could try using an algorithm that returns decompressed potential decryptions that contain a specific name. You need to know or guess something about the text in order to write an algorithm which returns the correct decryption.

If the message length is so short that it is comparable in length to the key, then yeah, you'd get a huge number of "meaningful sentence" possible decryptions with no way to pick the right one. However for any message significantly longer than the key, the probability of rapidly approaches zero that there would exist more than one meaningful proper-English decryption.

I obviously was not talking about one-time pads. The comments I was responding to were not about one time pads.

-

What kind of "cat scholar" are you? What cat ever uses an ümlaüt? No cat I've ever seen.
Not even German cats. And I've spoken with plenty of German cats.

-

<zen>
A fool learns nothing, even from the wisest of men.
A wise man learns much, even from the greatest of fools.
</zen>

-

I too consider myself an open minded atheist, and changing my mind about God would likely be the *second* thought to pop into my head.

The first thought would be, of course, which of my idiot friends might think it funny to dose my soda with LSD.

  -

Hail Ada, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy mind,
software.
Holy Ada, Mother of God,
pray for us programmers,
now and at the hour of our compile.
Make.

-

Too bad we don't have first-hand writings from him, rather than extremely unreliable hear-say compiled decades after his death.

I suspect the "Son of God" thing is an out-of-context or distorted version of what was probably a "We are all children of god" message.

-

What about when a Muslim or Hindu prays, then their family member recovers? Do you claim that your evidence and your belief is superior to the same evidence and the same belief from a Native American?

"Zeus" is obviously a generic stand-in representing the "god/being/power" of any other religion. Do you deny or doubt that plenty of Muslims, Hindus, and Native Americans will testify to the *exact* same evidence as you did?

When you willfully ignore identical evidence from people of other religions you are failing to apply any analytical reasoning at all.

When you firmly leap to the conclusion that your family member recovered because of prayer, and you call that "evidence", you are failing to apply any analytical reasoning at all.

When you willfully ignore countless research showing that people who are prayed-for recover no more than people who are not prayed-for, showing that prayed-for people are just as likely to die as unprayed-for people, then you are failing to apply any analytical reasoning at all.

If all you have is "I feel it works" then you have nothing more than a Native American who says the same thing, you have nothing more than someone who credits a $100 lotto win as "evidence" for their astrological lucky numbers.

-

I don't reject it at all. There are plenty of real cases of people recovering from all sorts of things after being prayed for.

There are also plenty of cases of people dying after being prayed for, and plenty of cases of people not-being-prayed-for and then recovering, and plenty of cases of people not-being-prayed-for and dying.

I don't reject cases of people recovering after prayer, however any number of such cases tells us *zero* about whether there was any connection at all between the prayer and the recovery. To determine that you need to count up the cases and compare prayer results against no-prayer results. That is reasonably easy to do, and of course plenty of prayer-believers have tried exactly that to demonstrate the real and positive power of prayer.

There have been plenty of studies that have shown that praying for oneself is no more effective than meditation. (Prayer and meditation can in themselves have a beneficial calming and stress reducing effect).

There have also been plenty of studies that have shown that prayer has zero effect when someone is prayed for by others. One memorable study involved heart attack patients. Lots of faithful people eagerly participated to pray for the health and recovery of heart attack patients. Patients who were prayed-for recovered no better than patients who were not prayed for, and if I recall correctly the number of patients who were prayed-for and *died* was slightly higher than the number of not-prayed-for patients who died. But of course a small difference is fully expected within normal random variation.

So as you said, there's tons of evidence. And that evidence clearly shows prayer does not have the claimed effect. If God exists, then answering prayers for healing simply isn't on the list of things he does. He either doesn't do it at all, or he does so so rarely that the number is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

-

Logic fail.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. What logic dictates is that there are True statements which cannot be proven. A "disproof" commonly takes the logic form of proving True that "X is False". Logic dictates it is possible for "your faith is False" to be factually True and unprovable.

Of course a reasonable and rational person does not require a mathematical proof in order to dismiss something as blatantly silly and absurd. And if your faith is even remotely derived from a some fairytale book with a garden of walking-talking snakes and magic fruit, and stories of Pharaoh's Sorcerers magicking sticks into snakes, then yeah your faith can of course be dismissed as silly and absurd. No formal mathematical proof is needed.

-

I believe the votes for Congress to leave session are usually bi-partisan.

-

Pepsi is insane and EVIL. It's going to destroy this country and all of western civilization. This is a matter of self defense and survival.
Pepsi.
Must.
Be.
Destroyed.

I have given $30,000 to the anti-Pepsi Super-PAC. I just wish I could afford to give more.

-