JC Dill

Earthquake List for 10-degree Map Centered at 35S, 75W

Update time = Sat Feb 27 22:53:22 UTC 2010

Here is a list of the earthquakes located by the USGS and contributing networks for the 10-degree Map Centered at 35S, 75W. Most recent events are at the top. (Some early events may be obscured by later ones on the map.) Click on the date portion of an earthquake record in the list below for more information.

	MAG	UTC DATE-TIME y/m/d h:m:s	LAT deg	LON deg	DEPTH km	Region
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 22:22:32	-34.072	-71.308	35.0	REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE
MAP	5.3	2010/02/27 22:22:32	-33.957	-71.202	35.1	REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 22:20:03	-35.094	-72.712	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 22:16:14	-36.491	-73.380	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 22:13:51	-34.437	-72.531	35.0	OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 21:59:08	-36.794	-73.311	34.8	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 21:48:26	-33.968	-72.140	28.6	OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	4.7	2010/02/27 21:42:19	-34.973	-72.745	434.1	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 21:00:37	-33.855	-73.028	35.0	OFF THE COAST OF VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 20:44:34	-37.893	-73.423	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 20:29:22	-34.689	-73.621	35.0	OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	4.9	2010/02/27 20:05:27	-33.470	-72.470	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 19:06:18	-37.473	-73.502	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	6.3	2010/02/27 19:00:08	-33.425	-71.909	34.8	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 18:41:50	-37.581	-73.501	34.9	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.3	2010/02/27 18:23:11	-37.618	-73.818	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 18:15:23	-37.527	-73.696	20.8	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 18:12:50	-33.847	-71.577	35.0	REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE
MAP	5.3	2010/02/27 17:56:53	-34.688	-71.571	35.0	LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 17:43:37	-36.453	-72.978	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 17:24:33	-36.256	-72.927	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 17:22:26	-38.043	-73.629	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 17:11:49	-33.953	-71.796	35.0	LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 16:50:20	-34.162	-72.010	35.0	LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 16:37:34	-37.509	-73.605	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 16:32:21	-34.986	-72.356	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 16:27:57	-37.820	-73.404	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 16:21:13	-38.266	-73.434	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 15:23:05	-34.528	-74.987	35.0	OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 15:09:08	-33.890	-71.268	35.0	REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 14:40:53	-31.321	-74.548	35.0	OFF THE COAST OF COQUIMBO, CHILE
MAP	4.9	2010/02/27 14:29:09	-35.028	-71.714	35.0	MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 14:23:27	-34.505	-72.596	35.0	OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 14:20:00	-37.274	-73.062	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 14:06:47	-37.288	-72.835	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 13:54:04	-33.269	-71.834	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 13:12:52	-35.014	-71.660	35.0	MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 13:07:42	-38.436	-73.254	35.0	ARAUCANIA, CHILE
MAP	4.9	2010/02/27 13:04:51	-37.115	-73.325	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 12:58:33	-33.443	-70.944	35.0	REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 12:46:19	-37.699	-73.681	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 12:44:49	-36.999	-73.038	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	4.9	2010/02/27 12:28:48	-34.187	-70.439	35.0	LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 12:23:06	-36.253	-72.266	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 12:03:27	-34.399	-73.825	35.0	OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 11:45:03	-36.318	-73.216	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.3	2010/02/27 11:27:00	-38.103	-73.587	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 10:54:23	-36.828	-73.336	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.9	2010/02/27 10:38:35	-38.019	-73.575	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.9	2010/02/27 10:30:34	-33.559	-72.636	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 10:10:15	-33.701	-72.184	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.8	2010/02/27 09:59:21	-37.991	-73.467	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.1	2010/02/27 09:21:25	-36.609	-73.218	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 09:00:17	-33.425	-71.625	35.0	VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.3	2010/02/27 08:53:56	-34.447	-73.397	35.0	OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O\’HIGGINS, CHILE
MAP	5.0	2010/02/27 08:53:26	-35.073	-71.760	35.0	MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 08:48:05	-38.584	-75.257	35.0	OFF THE COAST OF ARAUCANIA, CHILE
MAP	5.7	2010/02/27 08:31:04	-34.820	-72.443	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	6.1	2010/02/27 08:25:29	-34.750	-72.394	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	5.5	2010/02/27 08:19:23	-33.479	-71.574	35.0	VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 08:13:16	-33.062	-71.702	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	6.9	2010/02/27 08:01:24	-37.654	-75.199	39.0	OFF THE COAST OF BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 07:59:55	-36.050	-73.562	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.2	2010/02/27 07:56:37	-36.933	-73.240	35.0	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 07:51:05	-36.399	-72.498	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 07:46:49	-36.795	-72.924	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	6.0	2010/02/27 07:37:18	-36.837	-72.541	35.0	BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.6	2010/02/27 07:33:31	-38.007	-73.484	35.7	OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE
MAP	5.4	2010/02/27 07:19:48	-35.811	-72.945	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	6.0	2010/02/27 07:12:28	-33.807	-71.913	35.0	OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE
MAP	6.2	2010/02/27 06:52:35	-34.735	-72.638	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE
MAP	8.8	2010/02/27 06:34:14	-35.846	-72.719	35.0	OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

Back to 10-degree Map Centered at 35S, 75W

Everyone knows about the 8.8 magnitude earthquake that hit Chili in the pre-dawn hours today. What most people don\’t know is that there have been dozens of large earthquake aftershocks. What is most striking is that they have had numerous aftershocks greater than 6.0, the strongest so far was a 6.9, about 90 minutes after the initial quake. These aftershocks are almost as big as the 2 \”big quakes\” I\’ve experienced living in California – Loma Prieta in 1989 and the San Fernando quake in 1971.

Large aftershock earthquakes make it very difficult to launch any rescue attempts.

I love it!

In naming roustabout, lumberjack, ironworker, and dairy farmer America\’s %u201Cworst jobs,%u201D CareerCast.com omitted one whose awfulness is counterbalanced only by its public-spiritedness: fact-checking Bj�rn Lomborg.

The Danish political scientist won fame and fans by arguing that many of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists%u2014that species are going extinct at a dangerous rate, that forests are disappearing, that climate change could be catastrophic%u2014are bogus. A big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books, The Skeptical Environmentalist (in 2001) and Cool It(in 2007), have extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions. So in a display of altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for (just as we\’re grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers), author Howard Friel has checked every single citation in Cool It. The result is The Lomborg Deception, which is being published by Yale University Press next month. It reveals that Lomborg\’s work is \”a mirage,\” writes biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword. \”[I]t is a house of cards%u2026Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature\” of Lomborg\’s work.

SUBSCRIBE

Friel\’s previous books (The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy and Israel-Palestine on Record) were works of media criticism, and that\’s what he thought this one would be. He had planned to examine coverage of global warming in the Times and The Wall Street Journal, he told me, when he came upon Cool It. In this and his other writing, Lomborg accepts that greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil, or natural gas trap heat in the atmosphere and thus alter climate. But he doesn\’t think it will be a disaster, which means we shouldn\’t do anything too difficult or expensive to avert it. That has made him hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don\’t want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions. Lomborg made that stance intellectually respectable in many circles, in no small part because his books seem so well sourced, something a number of glowing reviews noted. The Guardian named him \”one of the 50 people who could save the planet\” and Foreign Policy listed him as 14th on its list of \”the top 100 public intellectuals.\”

But when Friel began checking Lomborg\’s sources, \”I found problems,\” he says. \”As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found that it didn\’t support what he said, and then did another, and kept going, finding the same pattern.\” He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel\’s conclusion, as per his book\’s title, is that Lomborg is \”a performance artist disguised as an academic.\”

I don\’t want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg\’s scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I\’ve done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling. Let me pick three of Lomborg\’s contentions that Friel pretty much blows out of the water.

Lomborg opens Cool It with a long discussion on polar bears, arguing that no more than two (of 20) groups are declining in population, that their numbers are not falling overall, and, in places where they are, that it is not a result of global (or Arctic) warming. In fact, polar-bear populations in warming regions are rising, he argues, suggesting that a warmer world will be beneficial to the bears. As Friel shows, Lomborg sourced that to a blog post and to a study that never mentioned polar bears. But he ignored the clear message of the most authoritative assessment of the bears\’ population trends, namely, research by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming. In fact, concluded the IUCN, polar-bear populations \”have declined significantly\” where spring temperatures have risen dramatically. It also offered an explanation for Lomborg\’s claim that numbers are falling most where temps are getting colder: that area happens to be where there is unregulated hunting.

For his claim that the polar-bear population \”has soared,\” Lomborg cited a 1999 study (scroll down to the paper by Ian Stirling). But that study described declining birthrates and other threats to the bears, blaming warmer spring temperatures that cause the sea ice to break up. Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen, which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg\’s claim about thriving polar bears that one might assume.

One of Lomborg\’s most interesting claims is that global warming will avert more deaths (as fewer people die of cold) than it will cause. But three of the five sources he cites (including this and this) reached the opposite conclusion, Friel shows. (Lomborg told me he included the three to criticize them, but a reader flipping to the endnotes might get the impression that they supported his claim.)

Of the other two studies Lomborg cites for the claim that averted cold deaths will outnumber heat deaths, he told me by e-mail, \”there is no question that they support my point. Indeed their support is so explicit that I am at a loss to see how Friel could have construed it otherwise.\” One study, he said, is \”the only peer-reviewed study to calculate all extra heat deaths and avoided cold deaths globally.\” The two studies are here, from 2006, and here, from 2000. But the 2006 study concludes that 850,000 deaths from cold will be averted in a warmer world, not the 1.4 million Lomborg says, and it estimated deaths from only six causes (cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, diarrhea, and three tropical diseases), not from everything. The 2000 study offered death-rate estimates only for people 65 to 74, so it is hardly a full population-wide analysis. Finally, Lomborg cites a report by the World Health Organization to support his claim that cold claims millions of lives%u20141.5 million in Europe every year, he writes. But the WHO report says nothing about that. (Lomborg told me he cited WHO \”solely to provide an estimate of Europe\’s population\” but, as with other source notes, it appears to support his controversial claim, not something as unobjectionable as Europe\’s population.)

\”This pattern of nonexistent footnoted support for assertions in the text was quite common,\” Friel told me. Lomborg makes \”a highly substantive claim that, when you go to the footnotes, is not supported. When you ask me, \’How would you characterize Lomborg\’s methodology?\’ it is not such an easy question to answer. I mean, what do you call this?\”

Lomborg also went to town on the 2002 breakup of Antarctica%u2019s Larsen B ice shelf, which environmentalists blamed on global warming. \”The Larsen area\” has been breaking up for centuries, he argued, so the huge breakup cannot be blamed on man-made global warming. But the study he cited for that statement, writes Friel, \”was not a study of the Larsen B ice shelf%u2026Thus, while supposedly demonstrating that the 2002 [breakup] had a precedent during the Holocene, Lomborg dropped the specific reference to Larsen B, inserted the broader \’Larsen area\’ reference, and cited a study about the Larsen A area as if it supported his claims about the Larsen B area.\”

I\’ve quoted the above at some length because it is indicative of two things: Friel\’s fine-grained sleuthing and the unfortunate lack of reader-friendliness that has resulted. Friel also undercuts his thesis by significant overkill, chastising Lomborg for describing a source as \”Figure 10.6.1\” rather than \”Section 10.6.1.\” That is sloppiness on Lomborg\’s part, not duplicity, and including it%u2014and many, many like it%u2014makes Friel seem like Inspector Javert in obsessive pursuit of Jean Valjean. Mixing the trivial with the significant doesn\’t help his argument. Friel also gets tripped up by the recent revelation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied for its assertion about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 on an off-the-cuff (since retracted) comment, not a rigorous study. Friel criticizes Lomborg for saying they would disappear by the end of this century, arguing that he should have accepted the IPCC\’s date of 2035. Oops.

Lomborg responded to several specific charges of Friel\’s that I sent him. On polar bears, he doesn\’t dispute using the sources Friel finds dodgy. He acknowledges that the IUCN report \”says that the reduction in ice affects polar-bear reproduction,\” but says \”it does not specify how.\” That seems a bit disingenuous, however, since it is clear that loss of sea ice hurts bear reproduction. Lomborg also told me that he \”did not ignore the drowning of polar bears,\” but says the drownings were the result of a storm. Bears, however, have a better chance of surviving storms if they can take refuge on a large expanse of sea ice rather than face open water. As the final arbiter, let\’s go to Ian Stirling, one of the world\’s foremost experts on polar bears. Lomborg, Stirling says, used \”inaccurate and utterly inadequate arguments\” to \”erroneously suggest climate warming will have little negative effect on\” the bears.

On the Larsen B ice shelf, Lomborg told me that \”Friel is correct that the study I cited was not a study of the Larsen B ice shelf. But nowhere did I say that it was. I cited this study to make the general point about the importance of maintaining historical perspective when we consider collapsing ice shelves.\”

Lomborg has written a 25-page response to Friel\’s accusations, which his publicist shared with me and which he plans to post on his Web site. Lomborg casts aspersions on Friel\’s motives and accuses him of \”selective or incomplete quotation, misrepresentation of source material, and even outright fabrication.\” \”I am proud of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It,\” Lomborg concludes. \”Friel fails to make his case because, simply, I did not \’cheat\’ my readers.\”

I can\’t recommend reading The Lomborg Deception straight through. But anyone who picks up Cool It (particularly any students) should have Lomborg Deception within reach to decide for themselves whether Lomborg\’s main claim to authority%u2014that environmentalists make it up while he provides accurate facts%u2014is so much hot air.

Sharon Begley is NEWSWEEK\’s science editor and the author of The Plastic Mind: New science reveals our extraordinary potential to transform ourselves  and Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves .

� 2010

Very interesting article about the Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel.

This is a book debunking 2 books by Bjorn Lomborg, one of the prime \”debunkers\” of Global Warming. Yes, the Lomborg Deception has some flaws of its own. Even so, it still casts a lot of light on Lomborg\’s deceptions in his two \”debunking\” books that the deniers are so fond of citing on FAUX News.

More proof that Reagan/BushI/BushII tax cuts didn\’t \”trickle down\”.

A wonderful collections of short videos that will amaze and inspire. I\’m especially fond of Roping the Wind and 50 Cent Interviews.

An opportunity to meet/mingle/take photos with fellow Silicon Valley SMUGers.

Meet at the main entrance to the Stanford Quad, at the southwest end of Palm Drive / University Ave.

The Stanford Quad and surrounding area has a plethora of photo opportunities – graceful halls, majestic towers, a beautiful chapel, spacious lawns, courtyards, sculptures, plantings, etc. There will be opportunities for architectural photos, portraits, landscapes, etc. Don\’t be surprised to see many photographers taking wedding portraits in this area.

We will shoot from ~2-4 pm and then choose a restaurant or cafe in Palo Alto for pizza or coffee afterward.

Transportation and Parking:

Stanford is convenient for taking public transportation, a nice walk from the Palo Alto Caltrain station, which is also a bus stop for the 22 and 522 VTA buses.

On weekend afternoons you can generally find parking on the \”loop\” where Palm Drive goes around the Oval Park. Bring quarters for the parking meters ($3.00 for 2 hours, meters stop running at 4 pm so you don\’t need extra quarters if you decide to stay late and keep shooting).

Join me for a Photowalk with the SV SMUG group, at the Quad at Stanford, Sunday 2/21 at 2 pm.

Joe Decker is a nature photographer, writer and educator living in San Jose. He will share with us about his fine art landscape photography. He will also give us a demonstration of how he culls photos after a photo shoot. If you would like to see Joe cull a set of your photos, bring a thumb drive with ~100 raw (unculled, unprocessed) photos from a single photo shoot.

After Joe\’s presentation, we will have a moderated group critique. Everyone is welcome to bring a jpeg on a thumb drive that we can quickly load onto the laptop to display with the projector. (Please make sure your jpeg is *quickly and easily* located on the thumb drive.) Everyone in the group is invited to make constructive comments.

—————————————–

About Joe Decker:

Exhibited across the country from the Smithsonian to LACDA in Los Angeles and awarded an Artist Resdiency by the National Park Service, Joe Decker is a nature photographer, writer and educator living in Northern California.

Born in 1961 in the San Francisco Bay Area, Joe Decker received a B.S. in mathematics from the California Institute of Technology in 1984, which in turn led to a successful and diverse career in the technology industry. His work in visual perception during that time provided a foundation for his understanding of color and how people \”see photographs.\”

Joe remembers the day he first \”saw the light\” and began his pursuit of fine art photography–it was New Year\’s Day, 1991–he woke at dawn to see the mile-high face of El Capitan glowing gold through a faint mist, and he was profoundly affected not only by the beauty of the scene but also by its spiritual quality. Joe\’s desire to capture and communicate such experiences inspired his study into photography.

Self-taught early in his photographic career, Joe began studying with other masters of nature photography in the late 1990s, including Galen Rowell, Richard Knepp, and Bill Atkinson. In 1999, Joe published his award-winning body of work October, entirely taken from images created during a particular month in the Eastern Sierra.

Joe\’s nature photography is a descendant of the West Coast school of landscape photography, showing influences by such artists as Galen Rowell and Frans Lanting. Color, often intensely (but still accurately) saturated, is often a forward element of his work, while composition is often used to signify deeper, more personal levels of the captured experience.

In 2003, one of Joe\’s landscape photographs, Granite and Snow, Little Lakes Valley was \”highly honored\” by the Nature\’s Best Foundation at the National Museum of National History, part of the Smithsonian. In 2005, his image Frightened Tree and Pogonip was awarded first prize in the show Monochrome by Mark Citret, photographer and former assistant to Ansel Adams. In 2006, his \”wildlife\” photograph Aphid and Desert was awarded first prize in the show Flower Power at the Pacific Art League in Palo Alto, California.

In 2008, the National Park Service named him an artist-in-residence at Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona.

Joe teaches a variety of photographic workshops around the Western United States.

Joe utilizes a synergy between modern and classical photographic techniques. Digital capture is used as a \”digital darkroom\” to recreate the power and veracity of the natural scene. Digital techniques are used only to overcome the limitations of prints, and to recapture the color, the sharpness and the interplay of tonalities that were present in the original experience. The final printing process utilizes the LightJet digital enlarger, Fuji Crystal Archive paper and traditional photo chemistry to produce powerful photographic prints that will, with proper care, last a lifetime.

Rockslide Photo

The amazing landscape photographer Joe Decker is speaking at SV SMUG on Monday 2/22.

3 amazing helmet-cam videos of Eventing riders during competition.

in his blog entry The Problem With the Economy

This is the title of a typical incendiary blog post

Posted by Chris Clarke on January 24, 2010

This sentence contains a provocative statement that attracts the readers’ attention, but really only has very little to do with the topic of the blog post. This sentence claims to follow logically from the first sentence, though the connection is actually rather tenuous. This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people. This sentence expresses the unwillingness of the writer to be silenced despite going against the popular wisdom. This sentence is a sort of drum roll, preparing the reader for the shocking truth to be contained in the next sentence.

This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.

This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence. This sentence contains a link to the most egregiously ill-argued, intemperate, hateful and ridiculous example of such people the author could find. This sentence is a three-word refutation of the post linked in the previous sentence, the first of which three words is “Um.” This sentence implies that the linked post is in fact typical of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence contains expressions of outrage and disbelief largely expressed in Internet acronyms. This sentence contains a link to an Internet video featuring a cat playing a piano.

This sentence implies that everyone reading has certainly seen the folly of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence reminds the reader that there are a few others who agree. This sentence contains one-word links to other blogs with whom the author seeks to curry favor, offered as examples of those others.

This sentence returns to the people who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence makes an improbably tenuous connection between those people and a current or former major political figure. This sentence links those people and that political figure to a broad, ill-defined sociodemographic class sharing allegedly similar belief systems. This sentence contains a reference to the teachings of Jesus; its intent may be either ironic or sincere.

This sentence refers to a different historic period, and implies that conditions relevant to the thesis of the blog post were either different or the same. This sentence states that the implications of the previous sentence are a damned shame. This sentence says that the next sentence will explain the previous sentence. This sentence contains a slight rewording of the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.

This sentence contains an apparent non-sequitur phrased as if it follows logically from the reworded thesis of the blog post. This sentence is a wildly overgeneralized condemnation of one or more entire classes of people phrased in as incendiary a fashion as possible which claims to be an obvious corollary to the thesis and non-sequitur.

This sentence proposes that anyone who might disagree with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation is, by so disagreeing, actually proving the author’s point. This sentence explains that such people disagree primarily because of the author’s courageous and iconoclastic approach. This sentence mentions the additional possibilities that readers who express disagreement with the wildly overgeneralized condemnation are merely following political fashion or trying to ingratiate themselves with interest groups. This sentence is a somewhat-related assertion based in thoughtless privilege and stated as dispassionate objective truth. This sentence explains that if the scales would merely fall from those dissenting readers’ eyes, they would see the wisdom and necessity of the author’s statements.

This sentence invites readers to respond freely and without constraint as long as those responses fall within certain parameters. This sentence consists of an Internet in-joke that doesn’t quite fit the topic.

[This parenthetical sentence was appended some time after posting as an expression of gratitude for the post’s many visitors and an apology that server overload has prompted the owner’s closing of comments, at least for the time being.]

–>

Comments

this mispunctuated internet acronym expresses the idea that the commenter could not be bothered to read all of the words you have decided to post

Posted by Sven DiMilo on 01/24 at 08:44 PM

This sentence consists of a single word all-caps exclamation expressing the commenter’s mistaken assumption as to the numerical order of his comment.

Posted by Arvind on 01/24 at 09:33 PM

Wonderful!

Posted by Bill on 01/24 at 09:38 PM

I never meta-incendiary blog post I didn’t like.

Posted by Rob G on 01/24 at 09:42 PM

=v= This comment makes its exasperation manifest.  It careens quickly into pet peeves that have nothing to do with the post, focusing instead on generalizations about women, races, bicyclists, and an ethnicity described with an adjective used as a noun.  A coded racist remark is added, followed immediately by accusations of a “race card” being played.

In summary, disagreeing with this comment to any degree is censorship, which is typical for you and your misdefined 19th-century agenda.

Posted by Jym on 01/25 at 03:37 AM

This comment comes to the defense of the original blog post’s author with a zeal that is unsettling to behold.

Posted by Callan Bentley on 01/25 at 05:23 AM

This comment misreads one of the previous commenter’s comments and wonders why on earth he has posted something so off-topic as a rant about women’s bicycle races, and wants to know about this “race card” he thinks everyone is playing – what is it? Some kind of betting pool on the Tour de France?

Posted by bev on 01/25 at 08:37 AM

This comment contains Internet buzzwords of approval (FTW, made of awesome) in uncertain syntax, along with one or more links to the commenter’s totally unrelated get-rich-quick scheme.

Posted by Larry Hogue on 01/25 at 11:09 AM

This comment takes issue with the first sentence of the blog post and goes on for quite a while making it clear that the commenter didn’t read any further.

Posted by Bob the lurker on 01/25 at 11:17 AM

This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this blog post but is actually a spam comment disguised as a topical comment about online marketing.

Posted by Hilary on 01/25 at 11:34 AM

Incendiary blogging incentivizes blog traffic.

Or, put another way:

She sells screeds by the sea shore.

Posted by omegapet on 01/25 at 11:58 AM

This comment is a scathing attack on a commenter above that basically amounts to bringing an ongoing fight here from another site.

Posted by This handle is anonymous on 01/25 at 01:52 PM

This comment is spam and does not even pretend to be topical. It is written in Russian so I’m not even sure if it is a sentence or not, but I’m pretty certain it’s a list of 238 links to porn sites. Somehow, it made it past the spam filter.

Posted by James on 01/25 at 02:15 PM

This comment attacks the post author by using the phrase “ad hominem” incorrectly.

Posted by Misleading Pseudonym on 01/25 at 02:29 PM

This is not a comment.

Posted by blf on 01/25 at 03:50 PM

This comment addresses a different blog entry and was posted here in error.

Posted by Reb on 01/25 at 04:46 PM

this comment goes on for far too long in a manner only tangentially related to the subject, frequently veering into personal details of the commenter’s life that were really better not shared in a public forum.

Posted by K. Signal Eingang on 01/25 at 04:46 PM

This comment nominates PZ Myers for a poll he is not a part of.

Posted by Tortorific on 01/25 at 04:52 PM

This comment agrees with the blog but worries that it may send the wrong message to those that are undecided.

Posted by PeterM on 01/25 at 04:59 PM

This comment notices several puney spelling and grammatical errors in the previous comment’s, then goes on at length about how misuse of the English language annoys the poster more than incendiary blog postings.

Posted by D-Dave on 01/25 at 04:59 PM

This comment agrees with the content and the need to highlight the issue but thinks that presented the way it has been makes us all look mean.

Posted by PeterM on 01/25 at 05:02 PM

This comment alludes to Muphry’s law and takes the previous reply to task for its own misspellings and grammar errors, completely oblivious to the fact that they were clearly intended as a joke.

Posted by Cath Lawrence on 01/25 at 05:04 PM

This comment triggers Godwin’s Law.

Posted by RodeoBob on 01/25 at 05:06 PM

This comment takes issue with the above commentor’s pointing out spelling and grammatical thus vearing the comment thread further off topic.

Posted by Cappy on 01/25 at 05:07 PM

This comment congratulates the author of the blog post on being willing to say what everyone is thinking, emphasising the large number of people who agree with the author whether they know it or not, while explaining that the vast numbers of knowledgable and authoritative figures who disagree are part of a vast, pointless conspiracy.

This sentence descends into vitriolic attacks on the aforementioned authorities and blames them for unrelated or possibly nonexistent atrocities.

Posted by Davidpj on 01/25 at 05:09 PM

This comment attacks the post author by using the phrase “ad hominem” incorrectly.

This comment attacks the commenter by using the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly.

Posted by RodeoBob on 01/25 at 05:09 PM

This comment indicates that I have left a message simply due to the presumed future epic-ness of this thread

Posted by Damian on 01/25 at 05:12 PM

This comment gives a link to a YouTube video which is proffered as an excellent example of the thesis of the post, but, is actually only tangentially so at best.

Posted by Biff on 01/25 at 05:15 PM

This comment has been deleted by the author.

wait… what?

Posted by D-Dave on 01/25 at 05:15 PM

This comment demands information that is easily googlable and completely off topic, and castigates the post author for not presenting “both sides”. It then goes on to make implied death threats and ends with either “I’m praying for you” or “Jesus Loves you”, possibly in all caps.

Posted by Lou FCD on 01/25 at 05:17 PM

Page 1 of 20 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Leave a comment

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Handshake numbers
Previous entry: A truly inspirational and uplifting thought

This is a reposting of a typical incendiary blog post, tailored to draw more critics to read and reply to the post.

Submitted by: dunno source via Submission Page

Blue. No yel– Auuuuuuuugh!

African or European?

Well, you have to know these things when you\’re a king you know.