Here are my observations:

1) Government funded studies need some to meet sort of needs based threshold requirement prior to funding. Sorry Victor, though I do agree with you at times, you'll never convince me of the "need" for any of the studies discussed in that clip.

2) She is single and will be for a long time. He mouth can be muffled for so long at a time lest she will suffocate.

Abrignac wrote:

Hehehe....it's fine to disagree with me (usually means you're wrong, but it's fine). My point is that there IS a "needs based threshold" for all government grants supporting research. A grant proposal has to be drawn up and a group approves or denies the proposal based on: 1) whether they think the research will be successfully completed; and 2) whether they think the knowledge acquired will likely be worth the expected cost. The fact that these have been approved, suggests that a group of individuals (individuals with much more knowledge in those fields than you, I or Hannity ever will have) has made that assessment.

Hannity is disagreeing with that assessment based on a single sentence describing the study. He isn't actually pulling any more information in, with which to have an educated discussion. He's looking at the title, and then asking someone with no knowledge to defend it.

I actually felt stupider after listening to those 3 babble for a minute.

victor809 wrote:

I actually felt stupider after listening to those 3 babble for a minute.

victor809 wrote:

However, the fact that Hannity would have such a bumbling idiot on to "defend" the position speaks volumns of his own short comings.

Abrignac wrote:

We can definitely agree on that. Why did this woman even think she was qualified to defend a study she clearly didn't bother reading either?

All three of those idiots needed to be locked in a room and horsewhipped until they read the grant applications front to back 10 times. At least then the discussion would have some shred of information guiding it.

victor809 wrote:

Blame it on CNN. There was a time when news reporting was a respectable profession. Then along came CNN and with it a venue for the talking heads. Nowhere near enough "news" happens to justify what, 6,8,10,500 24 hour news channels. News has become another circus side show. Thank you Ted.

Abrignac wrote:

Why would you think it is smart to take a title of a scientific study, make wild claims about how useless it is (without actually reading the purpose), and then demand a lawyer who has no interest or knowledge of the study come in and defend it. If that short-bus Hannity actually wanted to discuss the merits of those studies he was whining about, he would ask the grant author to come on and defend it.

victor809 wrote:

Therefore it is little wonder you posted something this remarkably naïve (sp:?).

jpotts wrote: