Public access to publicly funded research

**Alundil** · 02-24-13, 06:07 PM

About damn time.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...30224?irpc=932

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-24-13, 06:18 PM

Man we need to go fishing cause you take the bait every time.

**Alundil** · 02-24-13, 07:37 PM

I'll take the bait this time, even though it's smelly.

How so? How is this a bad thing? Explain.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-24-13, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

I'll take the bait this time, even though it's smelly.

How so? How is this a bad thing? Explain.

You dont remember something about transparency in government being said before?

**Alundil** · 02-24-13, 09:40 PM

Of course I do. But I don't see what this has to do with the previous statements on the subject and/or the lack of follow-through. I said it's about time for this to happen. I believe it is passed time for this to happen actually. That has nothing to do with whether the access is actually granted or not. If it is, that's great as I said. If it's not, I'll continue to be just as disappointed in the federal government as I have been.

How does that justify your comments? It's as if you detected some favorable nod towards the current administration and needed to firmly stand opposed....

I don't get it.

I'm not a fan. I can say that about a whole host things. If that's what your comment was directed at, then there's nothing to see here. If that's not what your comment was in regards to, then perhaps you should strive for a complete "multi-line" explanation of your attempted point as opposed to the one-liner that was painfully vague.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-25-13, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Of course I do. But I don't see what this has to do with the previous statements on the subject and/or the lack of follow-through. I said it's about time for this to happen. I believe it is passed time for this to happen actually. That has nothing to do with whether the access is actually granted or not. If it is, that's great as I said. If it's not, I'll continue to be just as disappointed in the federal government as I have been.

How does that justify your comments? It's as if you detected some favorable nod towards the current administration and needed to firmly stand opposed....

I don't get it.

I'm not a fan. I can say that about a whole host things. If that's what your comment was directed at, then there's nothing to see here. If that's not what your comment was in regards to, then perhaps you should strive for a complete "multi-line" explanation of your attempted point as opposed to the one-liner that was painfully vague.

The point of my comment was very simple. Its business as usual and people keep buying what they're selling. It will be a cold day in hell when we actually have transparency is anything our government does.

**Alundil** · 02-25-13, 06:47 AM

Yet that wasn't what my post was about. I am not "buying what they are selling". You just assumed incorrectly.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**-Lazarus-** · 02-25-13, 12:31 PM

Wait DG, trying to understand. Are you saying they will make it available but they will lie about the content?

**AetheLove** · 02-25-13, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The point of my comment was very simple. Its business as usual and people keep buying what they're selling. It will be a cold day in hell when we actually have transparency is anything our government does.

Maybe so.

But what do you think change looks like?

1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford
1863 - The Emancipation Proclamation
1870 - The Fifteenth Amendment

[...]

1964 - The Civil Rights Act
1965 - The Voting Rights Act

So that's 102 years... and we STILL see political organizations attempt to systematically disenfranchise minority communities.

It was the late 40s before the President orders the armed services to desegregate and Jackie Robinson plays for Brooklyn.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled against Virginia in a case where the state of Virginia had sent a black woman and a white man to prison for having gotten married. That case invalidated the laws against interracial marriage that still existed in 16 states (go ahead, see if you can guess what the map of "states with laws against interracial marriage" looked like in 1967).

I don't think Obama is the Saviour Of Hope And Change, but even if he was it would still take a long time. Longer than 8 years, that's for sure.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**deathgodusmc** · 02-25-13, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Maybe so.

But what do you think change looks like?

1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford
1863 - The Emancipation Proclamation
1870 - The Fifteenth Amendment

[...]

1964 - The Civil Rights Act
1965 - The Voting Rights Act

So that's 102 years... and we STILL see political organizations attempt to systematically disenfranchise minority communities.

It was the late 40s before the President orders the armed services to desegregate and Jackie Robinson plays for Brooklyn.

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled against Virginia in a case where the state of Virginia had sent a black woman and a white man to prison for having gotten married. That case invalidated the laws against interracial marriage that still existed in 16 states (go ahead, see if you can guess what the map of "states with laws against interracial marriage" looked like in 1967).

I don't think Obama is the Saviour Of Hope And Change, but even if he was it would still take a long time. Longer than 8 years, that's for sure.

Cheers,

AetheLove

How the hell did you get from transparency on federally funded research to racism? I dont think anyone was even talking about anything like that. What was being discussed is something not even remotely as touchy and change could in fact happen at any time they were willing to actually do it. Of which seeing as we've been promised such a thing in the past and it went as expected why would this time be any different then before?