1401
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 22:13:00
Andrew wrote:
> But abusing people who do
> see a point in doing that doesn't help anybody.
Frankly no one is doing any abusing here *shrugs*
1402
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 22:23:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> Do you have some notion of fundamentalism as somehow being separate from the
> host religion?
I think you are mistaking me for someone who has never been involved in
anti-creationism.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
1403
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 22:22:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> All Christians are not Fundamentalists, but in this context, all
> Fundamentalists are Christians.
Of course.
> ex-christian.net contains a significant number of apostates, and therefore
> presents a cross section of the Christian faith. Some of the people there
> left moderate churches, some of them left hardcore fundie churches.
The glance at the site, together with the site name, may have been me an
imbalanced perception - to what extent is it a site for those who have
left religion and to what extent is it a site for those who have
rejected fundamentalism but are still Christians/whatever ?
> You say there's no point talking to these
> people, I know from personal experience that you are wrong,
There is a broader picture to look at, which Lenny and Andrew have both
posted on. Those willing to listen are in a minority, a *very* distinct
minority amongst fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is ultimately a
political movement and can only be defeated on a political level. The
sub-level is the personal level and if there is any *individual* who
genuinely wishes to learn more, then I will and do help in any way
possible. It is this dichotomy which I happened to have been referring to.
A word of advice: I would suggest not posting ignorant, personal
comments (i.e. your last sentence).
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
1404
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 22:54:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> > > Fundies are indeed arrogant self-righteous prideful pricks who
> think, > quite literally, that they are holier than everyone else. > >
> Just look at Nick. >
>
> And look who is paying his public sector salary this month?
>
> The very people, you and me included, he looks down on.
Well, ya know, we colonials stopped paying taxes to London a few
hundred years ago. It was, um, rather a messy affair. ;)
But you are right, Nick *IS* a contemptuous little prick.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1405
Andrew
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 23:28:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Mikey Brass
> Frankly no one is doing any abusing here *shrugs*
I was referring to this, from John Germain:
>From the Bowels of Which particular CHURCH crypt did you send this shite,
>Ian?
1406
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 00:01:00
On 08/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Lenny, would you PLEASE stop with the making sense?
> >
> >
> > Sorry, dude. I'll try to be more like a creationist. ;)
> >
> Keep it up, Lenny, you have helped tremendously in this group.
>
> This game is about activism using (hopefully) a large number of
> people working in their spare time. The more we have onside the
> better. The opposition has stacks of dosh, full time employees (AiG
> UK has 11), heaven knows what in terms of resources including skills
> in PR and years of experience.
>
> The fundies appear to be wiling their way into the CofE, the
> Evangelical Alliance (and there is the outfit that Stephen Green
> runs), the Lord's Day Observance Society, the Christian Institute and
> so on.
>
> Trouble is, we don't have much in the way of numbers at present.
> Seems to me we would do ourslves a much bigger favour trying to get
> more people involved than wasting our time trying to convert Nick
> Cowan or his wife. We're not going to and even if we did, its only an
> extra name or so onside.
I personally think that you might be able to convert some of the
silent ones - those who are simply sitting in the bleachers, but by
the time they start playing the debating game, they are pretty much a
lost cause. In either case, I certainly don't think that conversion
should be our primary goal. Exposing what they are up to and what
their goals are, now that's important.
However, when it comes comes to funneling needed information, we may
want to consider the extent to which we make this transparent. This
forum is public, afterall. Different channels for different purposes
might be a good idea.
> The creation v science battle was won 150 years go. Listen to the
> activists such as Peter hearty and Marc Draco; they are at the
> forefront and don't really bother with the issue. It's an aside.
I think being able to explain some of the science helps - particularly
when for the average Joe, the only exposure to evolutionary biology
they have ever had is creationist propaganda - which at its best
paints evolutionary biology as being stuck where it was when Darwin
first proposed his evolutionary theory. But I agree that the politics
should be the primary focus.
> It also seems to me we have a big problem in figuring out who we want
> to work with. I have long held off joining the British Humanist
> Association, which really does have some good political contacts,
> because it is perceived as anti-religious. Likewise with the NSS and
> the new Dawkins operation in Oxford.
> I think the anti-creationsts amongst us have a long way to go in both
> learning and organising and any help or advice from the other side of
> the pond is extremely well appreciate. There is no point tryng to re-
> invent the wheel.
At the same time, there are certain differences - YEC seems more
common on your side. Then again, the Church of England has weighed in
on your side. I suspect some tensions over exact strategy will
continue for a while. But they needn't be regarded as essential so
long as we realize that the primary goal of everyone on our side is
(and of course has to be) keeping the Fundamentalists out of power.
> The likes of Drew Smith and Tim Chase have given me considerable help
> in what I am trying to do as well as contributing to this email forum.
[Blush!]
> Of course we have to work within a British rather than an American
> framework - for starters we don't have a legal separation of church
> and state and there is also the minor problem that there are three
> (and, potentially four) parliaments in the UK to deal with.
I personally think that things will be gradually winding down in the
US -- there was a big drop-off after Dover, but in some ways things
are just beginning in Great Britain and in some ways seem worse -
particularly given the absence of a Separation of Church and State. I
myself would like to be of help in any way I can.
> Lenny has helped us a lot. He has well over two decades of experience
> in activism. That is very valuable experience. He doesn't get paid
> for giving us advice and we owe him, and others from across the Pond,
> a big thank-you.
> Lenny, keep sending the advice. Most of us are highly open to it and
> value it tremedously
Not my place to say how well his advice will work given the
particulars of your situation, but I personally would never disagree
with Lenny without first learning what it is that he has to say.
1407
Timothy Chase
Is Fundamentalism Political?
09/07/2006 00:37:00
There was a post which Roger sent in yesterday to Secular_Newsline. I
don't know how many of you saw it, but if you have the opportunity, I
would recommend it.
He was quoting an article written by a Fundamentalist bent on using
the educational system as a means of religious indoctrination -- and
Roger called attention to the last sentence.
The post was:
Stepehen Layfield
Fri Jul 7, 2006 7:25 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/secular_newsline/message/10776
Let me quote the most relevant part by Layfield:
"It is the conviction (and happy experience) of this writer that much
prejudice and ignorance can be undermined by conducting oneself with
both charity and rigour and by making full use of such an opportunity.
(We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up
against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to
make it obedient to Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:5])."
When Layfield says, "... we take captive every thought to make it
obedient to Christ," it becomes pretty clear that Layfield is speaking
of a Weltanshauung - an all-encompassing worldview - which people
"should" live every moment of their lives, and within the context of
education, he is speaking of involuntary indoctrination. In essence,
this religious zealot is speaking of a totalitarian ideology which in
his view should achieve total control over the individual's every
thought and every aspect of aspect of their psychology - in the name
of Christ. I suspect that anyone with modern sensibilities, religious
or otherwise, will find this deeply disturbing - if they give it more
than a moment's thought.
Is Fundamentalism political? Well, yes. At the same time, it is also
religious. Properly, I believe, we should say that it is ideological
and at root totalitarian. It aims to achieve total control over the
individual's every thought and action, and it aims to do so by means
of preaching if possible, but is more than happy to use force if
preaching isn't sufficient.
Now there are of course divisions among us, and some of these
divisions have to do with our attitudes and views regarding the nature
of religion per se. But I don't think that such differences are
essential, and in some respects I believe that these differences can
actually be a source of strength.
If anyone asks anyone of us why we are aligning ourselves with people
who believe differently from ourselves, there is a simple answer:
because we all wish to preserve the freedom to think for ourselves.
Those on the otherside wish to extinguish this freedom for all, a
freedom which is the right of every individual no matter what their
beliefs. It is the preservation of the freedom which we regard as
paramount, and it is the defense of this freedom which brings us
together.
Now let's make friends...
1408
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 01:01:00
> However, when it comes comes to funneling needed information, we may
> want to consider the extent to which we make this transparent. This
> forum is public, afterall. Different channels for different purposes
> might be a good idea.
Here in the US, I've always operated on the assumption that the
fundies know everything I do. After all, since the law is absolutely
completely utterly against them, it doesn't matter anyway --- they
can't do anything to prevent me from stopping them anyway. (shrug)
But yes, it should be kept in mind that there are some things one
wouldn't to broadcast, for tactical reasons. Y'all might want to
consider an "invited members only" email list for planning . . . well
. . . whatever needs to be planned, without the fundies catching on
till it's too late. Things like book donations, backalley beatings,
or whatever. (grin)
> I personally think that things will be gradually winding down in the
> US -- there was a big drop-off after Dover, but in some ways things
> are just beginning in Great Britain and in some ways seem worse -
> particularly given the absence of a Separation of Church and State.
That is my concern too. In the US, what the fundies wanted to do
was, well, illegal. Which made it awfully easy to in fact stop them
from doing it.
You folks in the UK don't have that legal advantage, so it will be a
lot tougher for you.
On the other hand, fundies are fundies, and they all have the same
theocratic political program (or programme ;> ), and no one
supports their wanna-be-theocracy. So the best way to eliminate
their public support, in the UK as well as the US, is to make sure
everyone KNOWS about that theocratic political goal.
It will always be their Achilles heel. The simple fact is that
nobody supports the fundie political goals except, well, the fundies.
And in the UK, you do have the advantage of not having all that many
fundies, unlike we dumb Americans.
>
> Not my place to say how well his advice will work given the
> particulars of your situation, but I personally would never disagree
> with Lenny without first learning what it is that he has to say.
>
(blush)
Well, I just want to grind the bastards into the dirt, in the most
effective way possible.
And, by golly, I enjoy doing it. ;)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1409
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 01:36:00
I'm not particularly offended.
It actually gave me a belly laugh - and has been circulated amongst my
friends to give them a good hoot too. I spend so much of my time being told
that I was never a christian in the first place, that it being suggested
that I secretly still am is a real scream.
And I thought *I* was paranoid about closet fundies!
I.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: 08 July 2006 23:28
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Old Immovable Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: Mikey Brass
> Frankly no one is doing any abusing here *shrugs*
I was referring to this, from John Germain:
>From the Bowels of Which particular CHURCH crypt did you send this
>shite, Ian?
1410
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 02:07:00
> A word of advice: I would suggest not posting ignorant, personal comments
(i.e. your last sentence).
It seems that this conversation hasn't moved on any from Andrew's summary on
Saturday morning.
I'm not even going to provide an answer to your last post - it's clear that
you have made your mind up that exchristian.net is of no value whatsoever,
will continue to defend a contradictory position and that there is
absolutley no point in discussing this any further with you.
Kinda ironic, don't you think?
Ian.
1411
Roger Stanyard
Re: Is Fundamentalism Political?
09/07/2006 07:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
I have done an analysis of the Layfield paper wgich I posted yesterday
at my blog: http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
Tim has given his usually erudite help on this and his commentary is
also included.
Roger Stanyard
1412
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 07:53:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> I'm not even going to provide an answer to your last post
First you say I have the wrong impression, now you won't answer a
question. Suit yourself *shrugs*
1413
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 08:14:00
Jeez people, take a chill pill, get laid or something.
1414
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 10:17:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> It actually gave me a belly laugh - and has been circulated
Remember that the copyright of any post resides with the originator, not
with the receiver.
1415
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 10:40:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Even that might not be true.
It's entirely possible that Yahoo claim automatic copyright assignment
on anything that passes via their servers. Virgin Internet in the UK
used to (and probably still do).
In any case infighting is dumb and serves no practical purpose.
We have a job to do people. Try to remember that.
Mikey Brass wrote:
->
Ian Lowe wrote:
> It actually gave me a belly laugh - and has been circulated
Remember that the copyright of any post resides with the originator,
not
with the receiver.
1416
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 10:50:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> It's entirely possible that Yahoo claim automatic copyright assignment
> on anything that passes via their servers.
Nope, the copyright on yahoogroups still resides with the originator.
> In any case infighting is dumb and serves no practical purpose.
It is a caution regarding the redistribution of posts, regardless of who
the heck is doing it.
The NCSE does give permission for its newsletter to be redistributed as
the receiver sees fit.
1417
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 10:57:00
> In any case infighting is dumb and serves no practical purpose.
I agree - this subject is not particularly productive, and seems (for some
bizzare reason) to have inflamed passions.
There's no point in discussing it further.
I.
1418
Marc Draco
diary date (Blyth Academy)
09/07/2006 12:33:00
Received from Newcastle Unison - just a reminder. They need all the
support they can get (although they have a lot already)
Vardy's band are interested in setting up shop here: let's show them the
door.
----------------------------
A meeting is arranged for Thursday 20th July at 5.30pm in Blyth Civic
Centre, to discuss and plan the next stages in the campaign against the
proposal Academy.
I look forward to seeing you.
Kenny Bell
1419
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 13:39:00
> > In any case infighting is dumb and serves no practical purpose.
>
> I agree - this subject is not particularly productive, and seems (for
> some bizzare reason) to have inflamed passions.
>
> There's no point in discussing it further.
Well, it's not so bizzare and not so surprising -- it's exactly what
happens whenever this fight gets turned into a
"rationalism/atheism/science vs religion" fight or somesuch.
And it's exactly why it should NOT be turned into that.
Whether you like it or not, you will absolutely need the support of
theists (LOTS of them) to stop the fundies. Alienating theists
(whether intentionally or not) will not help you. It WILL hurt you.
So don't do it.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1420
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 14:56:00
>Well, it's not so bizzare and not so surprising -- it's exactly what
happens whenever this fight gets turned into a "rationalism/atheism/science
vs religion" fight or somesuch.
Yeah. And err, where did I say that it should be?
> Whether you like it or not, you will absolutely need the support of
theists (LOTS of them) to stop the fundies.
And where did I say anything other than this? There's no rocket science
here, the need to build as broad a consensus as possible is completely self
evident.
>Alienating theists (whether intentionally or not) will not help you. It
WILL hurt you.
>So don't do it.
Erm, reality check here?
I pointed out that it was not pointless to spend time talking with
fundamentalists, nothing more.
The exchristian.net website which I linked to contains personal accounts of
people who turned their backs on fundamentalist christianity, so it seemed
relevant to me. That's it, end of story. No war on religion, no plot to
convert all the fundies. Just useful accounts from people who have been
there and walked away - incidentally, many of the posters there are, in
fact, now theists, rather than atheist.
I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, or casting me as the devil
of the piece.
Demeaning and objectifying fundamentalists calling them names like moron and
idiot, portraying them as not even worth talking to.. That's much more
likely to alienate fair minded people, whatever their beliefs.
Ian.
1421
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 15:04:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> Well, it's not so bizzare and not so surprising -- it's exactly what
> happens whenever this fight gets turned into a
> "rationalism/atheism/science vs religion" fight or somesuch.
If anyone here recalls the howls of protests which erupted from both
creationists and atheists on the publication of Kenneth Miller's
"Finding Darwin's God", it reinforces Lenny's next point:
> And it's exactly why it should NOT be turned into that.
>
> Whether you like it or not, you will absolutely need the support of
> theists (LOTS of them) to stop the fundies. Alienating theists
> (whether intentionally or not) will not help you. It WILL hurt you.
>
> So don't do it.
Entirely.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
1422
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 15:15:00
> >Well, it's not so bizzare and not so surprising -- it's exactly what
> happens whenever this fight gets turned into a
> "rationalism/atheism/science vs religion" fight or somesuch.
>
> Yeah. And err, where did I say that it should be?
It, uh, doesn't MATTER whether you say it "should" be. It WAS.
And it won't help you. At all.
Believe me, I've seen this movie a dozen times. It NEVER turns out
well.
> > Whether you like it or not, you will absolutely need the support of
> theists (LOTS of them) to stop the fundies.
>
> And where did I say anything other than this?
I didn't say you DID. Don't be so damn defensive. Geez.
> >Alienating theists (whether intentionally or not) will not help you.
> >It
> WILL hurt you.
> >So don't do it.
>
> Erm, reality check here?
>
> I pointed out that it was not pointless to spend time talking with
> fundamentalists, nothing more.
Erm, another reality check here: alienating theists ***WHETHER
INTENTIONALLY OR NOT*** will not help you. It WILL hurt you.
So don't do it.
> The exchristian.net website which I linked to contains personal
> accounts of people who turned their backs on fundamentalist
> christianity, so it seemed relevant to me. That's it, end of story. No
> war on religion, no plot to convert all the fundies. Just useful
> accounts from people who have been there and walked away -
> incidentally, many of the posters there are, in fact, now theists,
> rather than atheist.
That's nice, but, as you can now no doubt tell, it DOES alienate
theists by dragging it into the fight against creationists. This
fight simply isn't about religion, pro or con. And by turning it
into one, you hand the fundies an easy victory, by fighting them
exactly on the terms they WANT to be fighting on.
So don't do it.
> I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, or casting me as the
> devil of the piece.
I have done neither.
I'm on your side, remember?
But you need to decide which fight it is you are fighting. Are you
out to stamp out religion, or are you out to stop the fundies? The
two are not compatible. So pick a field and stay on it. Leave the
other fight for another day.
> Demeaning and objectifying fundamentalists calling them names like
> moron and idiot, portraying them as not even worth talking to.. That's
> much more likely to alienate fair minded people, whatever their
> beliefs.
(sigh) That "whooshing" sound you just heard was the sound of my
point going right over your head.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1423
ukantic
Re: Is Fundamentalism Political?
09/07/2006 15:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@>
> wrote:
> >
>
> I have done an analysis of the Layfield paper wgich I posted
yesterday
> at my blog: http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
>
> Tim has given his usually erudite help on this and his commentary
is
> also included.
Good article Roger, have posted it on my site under UK Specific - UK
Creationists – Steven Layfield
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/StevenLayfield
& used Timothy's quote to give the page impact.
I have also taken the liberty of indexing your blog (as much for my
benefit as anyone else's) to facilitate access. See:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/TheInvestigationsOfRogerS
tanyard
http://tinyurl.com/jyeg7
& this can be found at UK Specific – UK General
& More 1 – Websites.
Alan
1424
MB
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 16:40:00
Lenny, Mikey, and Ian appear to me to be successfully talking past each
other when they're all in agreement. It's absurd. ;)
Email is wonderfully prey to misinterpretation, and that looks like what
is happening here. Quote attributions are *easy* to screw up. We can spend
all day arguing about who said what and in which order. Since Yahoo delays
many posts (for reasons unknown) it's hard to tell what "correct" order
should even be!
AFAICT the main points are:
1) Do *not* alienate possible friends in this fight.
2) It is inefficient/damn-near-pointless to try to change fundies' minds.
3) Be friendly and supportive to those who have shown honest curiosity
about science, those who are already leaving the fundie fold.
I think we're all agreed here. :)
Regards,
MB
1425
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 16:55:00
>> AFAICT the main points are:
>
> 1) Do *not* alienate possible friends in this fight.
>
> 2) It is inefficient/damn-near-pointless to try to change fundies'
> minds.
>
> 3) Be friendly and supportive to those who have shown honest curiosity
> about science, those who are already leaving the fundie fold.
Yeah verily.
I would only add;
4) Remember what your goal is -- stopping the fundies from gaining
political power -- and stick to it. Don't get sidetracked by lots of
irrelevant side issues, whether those are religious, political,
eocnomic or social. Anyone who opposes the fundies is on your side.
ANYONE. If you have a separate gripe with any of them, save it for
another day. There's too much to do without wasting time on
irrelevant side issues. Once the fundies are beaten, THEN you can go
on to fight with everyone else as much as you want over whatever you
want.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1426
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 17:25:00
> Lenny, Mikey, and Ian appear to me to be successfully talking past each
other when they're all in agreement. It's absurd. ;)
It has indeed been one of the most absurd and frankly surreal conversations
I have ever had.
It's been interesting to watch my words being twisted by Lenny, to see
opinions that I do not hold pulled from between the lines, and a conclusion
reached that bears no relation whatsoever to what I actually said.
Interesting, but not particularly pleasant.
It's been educational to find myself on the receiving end of the same
treatment as Nick Cowan. Still, there's only so much a reasonable person can
take.
That's me, I'm out.
I.
1427
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 17:35:00
>> It's been interesting to watch my words being twisted by Lenny
I did no such thing. (shrug)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1428
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 17:38:00
> That's me, I'm out.
Enjoy your feeling of matrydom *shrugs*
1429
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 17:45:00
>>
> That's me, I'm out.
>
Well, that was helpful, wasn't it. (sigh)
Alas, that is EXACTLY how these fights always end.
It's why they are pointless and counterproductive, right from the
beginning.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1430
Roger Stanyard
Re: Is Fundamentalism Political?
09/07/2006 17:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Thanks Alan,
It is on my list of to-dos to get more links from other sites to my
blog.
What the articles really need is a good web site. I have only posted
about a third of my work on the blog. It's not really the right sort of
place for what are often quite lengthy pieces.
It seems to me that anything on a blog should be no more than about 500
words if you want people to read it and comment. Some of my articles
are in excess fo 3,500 words IIRC.
I'll come back to you on this off site as soon as I can talk the thing
through with my colleage, Steve Roberts, who handles such things for us.
What I am also looking for its to get links to my blog from some of the
bigger players such as Talk Origins and Panda's Thumb.
Can anyone give me any advice on this?
Roger Stanyard
> Good article Roger, have posted it on my site under UK Specific - UK
> Creationists – Steven Layfield
>
> http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/StevenLayfield
>
> & used Timothy's quote to give the page impact.
>
> I have also taken the liberty of indexing your blog (as much for my
> benefit as anyone else's) to facilitate access. See:
>
1431
Marc Draco
Time for a change (was Re: Old Immovable Nick)
09/07/2006 17:52:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Holy arguments dudes! Calm down. We have bigger fish to fry:
Let me have your comments on this.
http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=120#120
Soon as you can, please. I'd like to think that I'm making my point
robustly, but fairly... '-)
->
1432
Roger Stanyard
Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 17:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
I'm sorry to see you go Ian. The disagreement or whatever someone might
call it isn't that big or important.
I had this problem when I first joined Debunkcreation. I'm glad,
though, I stuck it out and took the time (over many months) to think
the thing through. That followed quite a few harsh words from the group
and a bit of swallowing of pride as well.
Roger Stanyard
>
> That's me, I'm out.
>
> I.
>
1433
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 18:01:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> >
>
> I'm sorry to see you go Ian.
As am I. We need to be bringing people together to fight the
fundies, not driving people apart.
But as I noted, I've seen this movie before, repeatedly, in the 20-
plus years that I have been fighting creationists.
It always ends the same way.
That's why it's pointless to start it in the first place.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1434
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Is Fundamentalism Political?
09/07/2006 17:58:00
>> What I am also looking for its to get links to my blog from some of
> the bigger players such as Talk Origins and Panda's Thumb.
>
> Can anyone give me any advice on this?
Talk to Wes Elsberry. I don't recall his email address offhand, but
it's listed in the "constributors" section at PT.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1435
Marc Draco
Citation, citation
09/07/2006 18:02:00
Here's a thorny one.
I just found a VERY interesting and quite worrying piece on the ESF
website. Well hidden, but it's there. Thing is, it's in a frame so I
don't know how to legally link to it or cite it for dissection...
Ideas?
1436
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 18:14:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> We need to be bringing people together to fight the
> fundies, not driving people apart.
People who are committed and who, by necessity, need to have the skin of
a rhino.
1437
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 18:08:00
Whoa, whoa...
I'm out of this argument - this is too darn important an issue to walk
away!!
I'm not jacking the group in.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Lenny Flank
Sent: 09 July 2006 18:01
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Old Immovable Nick
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> >
>
> I'm sorry to see you go Ian.
As am I. We need to be bringing people together to fight the fundies, not
driving people apart.
But as I noted, I've seen this movie before, repeatedly, in the 20- plus
years that I have been fighting creationists.
It always ends the same way.
That's why it's pointless to start it in the first place.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See
what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/33wwlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
1438
MB
RE: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 18:59:00
> Whoa, whoa...
>
> I'm out of this argument - this is too darn important an issue to walk
> away!!
>
> I'm not jacking the group in.
>
Thank you! :) I was concerned you'd quit.
I'm glad you're still here. :)
Regards,
MB
1439
oeditor
Re: Citation, citation
09/07/2006 18:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Here's a thorny one.
>
> I just found a VERY interesting and quite worrying piece on the ESF
> website. Well hidden, but it's there. Thing is, it's in a frame so I
> don't know how to legally link to it or cite it for dissection...
>
> Ideas?
>
Links aren't illegal unless you make the page look part of your own
site when it appears. Just bring it up in a new page with the corruct
url shown in the navigation bar. You need something like
target="_blank" in the url reference.
Frames are another matter - I've never fathomed how to reference them.
If it's not too convoluted, could you tell us how to navigate there?
The other thing about copyright is there's nothing to stop you
paraphrasing it. If Jim Cretin were to write a long poem with a
remarkable verse in it, you could say "In Jim Cretins's poem 'I am
Alabaster White' Cretin says that all evolutionists are as red as sin"
or some similar rubbish. There's also the provision for quoting bits
for 'fair comment' but I've read somewhere that it differs between
here (Europe?) and the USA so I'll say nothing.
However, I'd have thought that people could only expect "works" such
as poems, stories, essays, pictures etc to be treated as intellectual
property and so copyright. If Cretin goes around calling people "as
red as sin" that's a public statement and fair game. Anyway, he'd
probably want his declamation broadcast as widely as possible.
So out with it! What (approximately) has ESF said? Are we red, green
or just horrible? Or are they green, horrible and about to take over
the planet?
Brian
1440
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 19:03:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> I'm not jacking the group in.
Glad to hear it.
1441
Roger Stanyard
Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 19:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
>>
> Thank you! :) I was concerned you'd quit.
>
> I'm glad you're still here. :)
>
Me too. :-)
Roger Stanyard
1442
oeditor
Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 19:10:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Whoa, whoa...
>
> I'm out of this argument - this is too darn important an issue to
walk > away!!
>
> I'm not jacking the group in.
>
Phew! You had me worried there - especially as I started the whole
damned thing!
Brian
1443
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 20:06:00
On 09/07/06, Ian Lowe <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Whoa, whoa...
>
> I'm out of this argument - this is too darn important an issue to walk
> away!!
>
> I'm not jacking the group in.
>
> Ian.
Good to hear!
This is fairly big, involving Scotland, England, North Ireland, South
Africa, Australia and the US - although the last of these certainly
not as much as before... (Am I forgetting anyone?) Moreover, it
looks like this is going to take a while. We are going to need all of
the help we can get.
As for disagreements, they are bound to happen. Unlike the other
side, we aren't all goose-stepping to the same loony tune. The
important thing is to feel free to disagree but be able to work
together despite whatever differences we might have.
1444
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 20:36:00
>
> This is fairly big, involving Scotland, England, North Ireland, South
> Africa, Australia and the US - although the last of these certainly
> not as much as before...
I will point out once more that I don't have a horse in this race.
It's the UK's fight, and the UK will have to win it on their own.
All I can do is offer the benefit of my 20-plus years of experience
in both grassroots organizing and in fighting creationists. I've
seen for myself, over the longterm, what works and what doesn't.
Take my advice, reject my advice -- it's up to y'all. All I do is
offer it.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1445
Andrew
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 20:36:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Lowe
> It's been educational to find myself on the receiving end of the same
> treatment as Nick Cowan.
Now that's the first time in all of this that I can't accept what you're
saying. I agree that you've been misinterpreted - and I've tried to say so
and help clarify the situation.
But that's quite different from the situation with Cowan. He's consistently
refused to answer questions, except by being flippant and silly, and he's
claimed he never said things that we can easily prove he did say simply by
quoting previous posts back to him. He probably deserves far more hostility
than he's received.
Regardless of whether the attitudes to you are regarded as just or not (and
I consider them to be at least partially unjust), the situation isn't the
same as with Nick Cowan. If the attitude to you is considered unjust, one
has to conclude that you've been misinterpreted. Cowan hasn't been
misinterpreted. And if the attitude to you is regarded as just, you still
haven't behaved as Cowan has and you haven't been responded to in the same
way.
1446
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
09/07/2006 20:57:00
> But that's quite different from the situation with Cowan. He's
> consistently refused to answer questions, except by being flippant and
> silly
Well, that's not entirely so -- he's more than happy to answer
questions about his RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Which is, of course, the
only thing he *cares* about. What he won't answer are questions
about his creation, uh, "science". And the reason for that is
crashingly obvious ---- there isn't any creation "science".
Nick wants to preach. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Whether it's here, or in a school classroom.
Indeed, PREACHING his religious opinions isn't enough for Nick and
his ilk. What they want is the political authority to force everyone
to FOLLOW their religious opinions, whether everyone likes it or not.
They are ayatollah-wanna-be's. And nobody supports ayatollah-wanna-
be's. Not even their fellow Christians.
And that is why they will lose.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1447
MB
Re: Citation, citation
09/07/2006 22:49:00
> Here's a thorny one.
>
> I just found a VERY interesting and quite worrying piece on the ESF
> website. Well hidden, but it's there. Thing is, it's in a frame so I
> don't know how to legally link to it or cite it for dissection...
>
> Ideas?
>
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but if you're wanting to
find the URL for the frame in question, I have found that with Galeon I
can right-click on the frame and I'll get a choice to open in a new
window. That will give me the frame URL in the browser bar.
Or in Opera I can right-click on the frame and copy the frame address.
Frames are a nuisance when it comes to this kind of thing, and they can be
a nuisance to read as well, being often quite narrow.
HTH.
Regards,
MB
1448
Joe Cooper
Noahs Ark Found (again}
10/07/2006 04:33:00
http://www.space.com
High on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey, there is a baffling mountainside
"anomaly," a feature that one researcher claims may be something of
biblical proportions
1449
Roger Stanyard
Re: Noahs Ark Found (again}
10/07/2006 08:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Joe Cooper <joe0727@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.space.com
>
> High on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey, there is a baffling
mountainside
> "anomaly," a feature that one researcher claims may be something of
> biblical proportions
>
The crackpots are at it again. It's an "anomaly" which means they
don't an explanation it, its "big" which means its small in
geological or physical geography terms, but it must be "biblical"
because everything that is big must come out of biblical literal
interpretation.
So what the hell does "biblical proportions" mean?
Is a large shopping mall or an aircraft carrier of "biblical
proportions"? Is my willie of "biblical proportions", or my ex-
girlfriend's breasts?
Archeologists need not apply to find out.
Roger Stanyard
1450
Marc Draco
More evidence of Loony Lectures
10/07/2006 11:08:00
For those who think it's unusual for cretins to lecture at school, I've
just come across another example of an unqualified individual lecturing
to children at, wait for it, a VARDY school!
Lawyer by profession, the Vardy loons hired a Professor Johnson of UCA
to speak on Intellgent Design.
This amazing admission appears (complete with the usual bullshit
arguments) in the college's official newsletter for March 2005. It's
nigh on impossible to get a normal link to this because it's on
"Flashpaper."
You can find it here;
http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/school/etmarch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/ogcw5
