News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why No Outrage?. Parent comment

Re:Why No Outrage? by nickb on Sunday July 20, 2008 @12:52PM (#251469)
They don't detract at all because they're true. McCain has some serious anger/temper problems and that's not really a secret. He's had numerous outbursts on TV and on Senate floor.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_...

So I don't really why stating that simple fact would take away anything from its credibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why No Outrage? by Alex3917 on Sunday July 20, 2008 @12:58PM (#251475)
The word angrier implies there is an objective way to measure anger. There isn't. Ask Howard Dean.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why No Outrage? by rms on Sunday July 20, 2008 @05:49PM (#251698)
>is an objective way to measure anger

Number of incidents where John McCain has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: many.

Number of incidents where Barack Obama has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: none.

It's objective enough for these purposes.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why No Outrage? by helveticaman on Monday July 21, 2008 @03:00AM (#252041)
The measurement doesn't need to be objective. If you agree with the journalist, then this statement supports his general argument. If you disagree, it doesn't. That's all.

Now, there are ways to measure anger objectively:

Cortisol in bloodstream; volume of voice; Blood pressure; etc.

In fact, the amount of cortisol in the bloodstream is a rather all-encompassing measurement that works as a pretty good proxy for how angry you are, even though it is technically your level of stress.

[ Parent | on HN ]