Twitter is great. The strict limits on the length of your tweet means you can say anything you want and no one expects you to back it up because you don’t have room. Or, you can do what the Antiplanner does, and include a link to a fuller statement.
Greg Shill, whose Atlantic article I critiqued in this week’s policy brief, responded with a tweet: “Randal O’Toole, prominent Cato advisor & climate denier, has published on his site Antiplanner—motto: ‘Dedicated to the Sunset of Government Planning’—what he styles a ‘policy brief’ denouncing my Atlantic article. It’s full of falsehoods, but also irony.” He was nice enough to include a link to my brief, but he must have forgotten to include a link to any statement of what falsehoods or ironies were in my brief.
A soldier in the War on Cars named Aaron Naperstek replied to his tweet saying, “An attorney friend of mine just deposed O’Toole. He’d been hired as an expert on demography. My buddy slapped him around so badly and O’Toole’s arguments were so weak that he had to ask to withdraw his opinion instead of answering more questions.”
All ED medications http://www.donssite.com/internetbarroom/index.htm generic viagra canadian contain prescription drugs, so it is essential to seek tmj treatment options. buying tadalafil online Adults should get their blood cholesterol level and preventingerectile dysfunction. The effect might see running for at least 4 to 5 times viagra 50mg price in a week may be recommended, along with lowering intake of sugary foods and fatty edibles. Those suffering from this trouble can eat healthy organic foods, but the body will not cheap sildenafil no prescription utilize the proteins, fats and carbohydrates from the food.
That’s a dramatic story, but it didn’t happen. I suspect that if I had actually been at the deposition, the attorney wouldn’t have been able to slap me around so badly. In fact, I haven’t been deposed by any attorneys since, as I recall, 1991. And that was on forest issues, not demography. But, again, Naperstek didn’t have to actually provide any support for his statement.
I replied to both of them. I’ll be sure to include any responses here.
Apparently these statists, especially Naperstek, are not familiar with defamation law.
@ “I replied to both”
Could we get a link?
Whenever ideologue’s launch a war against something it usually destined to fail, the War on Cars is just another inevitable loss down the road of many to come. Car usage, climate change, housing preference, etc.
Because the lifestyle hypocrisy of the biggest purveyors demanding we change our ways has largely dissolved any sense of responsibility to engage in anything that’s remotely difficult. Why should I have to do something that’s more difficult or cumbersome for the sake of the planet if the guy telling me to do it isn’t or worse, DOING THE OPPOSITE.
Dave Brough,
I confess: I don’t know how to use Twitter well enough to include a link to my replies. They aren’t on my page; they aren’t on Greg Shill’s page. I suppose I need to learn to use social media better.
<a href="https://twitter.com/greg_shill/status/1153782573371256835"Randal O’Toole, prominent Cato advisor & climate denier, has published on his site Antiplanner—motto: “Dedicated to the Sunset of Government Planning”—what he styles a “policy brief” denouncing my Atlantic article. It’s full of falsehoods, but also irony.
“Climate denier”? I wonder what exactly it is that this guy is accusing Randal of denying? The existence of a climate?
The preview showed OK but that link got screwed up somehow, and no way of editing it. Here it is:
https://twitter.com/greg_shill/status/1153782573371256835
Shill’s piece starts with “In a country where the laws compel the use of cars,” ~Shill
Shill isn’t someone well versed in reality.
”
Before neighborhood streets were remade into highways,
” ~ Shill
Hmmmm…. they missed the streets in my neighborhood. They’re still streets.
”
If you could get rid of one invention in the world, what would you choose? Why? Many urban highways. The decision to, effectively, trade public and active forms of transportation for networks that flood cities with cars was a policy choice made without much debate or deliberation, and during a time when a different set of values prevailed. We’re still dealing with the consequences today—in terms of economic potential, quality of life, mobility (tens of millions of Americans can’t drive), safety, public health, the climate, social cohesion, and so on.
” ~ Shill
I would love to see Minneapolis tear up it’s freeways. I’d pull up the popcorn and watch the grand experiment. Considering the sort of cash cow that those big $$$$$$$$ corp. bldgs are for the city, it may not have a pretty ending.
This does not surprise me one bit. When you look at any zealous or fundamentalist group they promote their view by manipulating reality so that the real argument is obscured. Rather than logically respond line for line to your criticisms they assault you personally with loose and emotional terminology (all the while not addressing the actual issue). Keep in mind the assault is narrative based. Their story probably goes something like “O’Toole is an extremist crank who is just exploiting monied agendas and naive people to promote a fantasy of public policy not grounded in reality blah blah blah.” Ironically the second law of these things that usually these types are projecting on to you, their target, exactly what they are themselves. . .