1501
Lenny Flank
RE: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 00:18:00
>> (1) what do we want?
> To get and keep religion out of school science classes.
>
> (2) who can give it to us?
> Public opinion.
>
> (3)how can we MAKE him/her/them give it to us?
>
> Convince the public that religion free science classes are in the best
> interests of humanity.
Well, ya need to be a bit more specific than this . . . ;>
===================================
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
1502
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
12/07/2006 01:16:00
On 11/07/06, Ian Lowe <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
>
> There's no denying Johnson is indeed a crank, but is the science behind the
> HIV situation so clearly defined that we can label people cranks for having
> a dissenting opinion?
>
> "I am not a biologist" but I was under the impression that there was still
> proper scientific debate about a large percentage of the AIDS symptoms
> essentially being a result of stage three syphilis within a previously HIV
> infected (or CMV positive for that matter) host, rather than a straight HIV,
> therefore AIDS relationship?
>
> ID is clearly not real science, I'm not so sure that the "HIV doesn't cause
> AIDS" camp are quite so clear cut.
As far as I am aware, no one has ever died as a direct result of an
HIV infection. What HIV does, evidently due to its prolific rate of
mutation (it is the fastest mutating pathogen known to infect humans,
with influenza a distant second) is shut down the immune system. As a
result, diseases of opportunity (e.g., Kaposi Sarcoma, yeast,
toxoplasma) - which normally would be entirely unable to establish a
foot-hold (or would otherwise be extremely rare) run rampant.
We have been able to track it back to the original chimpanzee
population from which it originated. We are able to perform HIV titer
counts and watch the effects of HIV on CD4s. We keep on coming up
with new therapies to try and defeat it. We now know that ten percent
of the population of Europe is immune to the disease. We know that
HIV-2 provides some protection against HIV-1. We know that HIV-1 is
related HERV-K, and likewise identify HERV-K protease as a
contributing factor in HIV-1 infection. We have performed detailed
studies of its evolution in the human population. We have tests which
can be performed on the streets in roughly fifteen minutes.
Given all the information I have seen on the virus, I strongly suspect
it is the most studied pathogen known to humanity at this point.
Frankly, signing this document is roughly equivalent to becoming a
lifetime member in the tinfoil-hat brigade. Will this put a dent in
Philip Johnson's reputation among the committed? No. In fact I doubt
much if anything can. But among the educated, more or less rational
members of society, this link should speak volumes regarding just how
extreme this fellow is.
However, another link you may want to look into -- and I can bring up
some of the information for you later today if you want - are the ties
between Philip Johnson, the Discovery Institute, and a fellow by the
name of Howard Ahmanson - who is a member of the
Dominionist/Reconstructionist movement. It is one of the more extreme
Fundamentalist groups in the United States. This, too, should help
considerably.
Both links should help highlight the fact that Johnson and the
Discovery Institute are not simply promoting nonsense, but that the
kind of nonsense they are willing to promote in the first case is
quite dangerous, and in the second, their actual agenda is strongly
associated with political extremists who wish to bring an end to
democracy and establish a theocracy - presumably in preparation for
the end of the world.
For some, this sort of connection may be more difficult to make in the
case of Intelligent Design itself - since it is often so
nebulously-"defined." (Are you talking YEC, OEC or Bill Dembski's
new-fangled Intelligent Evolution which he came up with just after
Dover?) Even when recognized as nonsense, Intelligent Design might be
thought by some as a form of harmless wish-fulfillment which one might
let into schools in order to try and please mothers. But these links
strongly suggest otherwise - almost as a kind of shorthand. Multiple,
independent lines of evidence which strongly suggest these guys are
dangerous dingbats. Put them up there with the Wedgie and it all
should be pretty damning.
1503
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 03:17:00
--- Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
> Don't you have a Flood layer to find in aeolian
> sand, Nick-dearest?
What are you harping on about? (grin)
You don't believe in the Flood so you'd never
interpret ANYTHING as evidence for it! Your
pre-conceptions, like mine, are based on a
belief-system (better known as a religion).
Aren't there are millions of dead things
(fossils)buried in rock layers, laid down
(catastrophically) by mud and water all over the
earth?
There's your Flood "layer" - lots of SiO2 in it!
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1504
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 03:26:00
Hey Nick, if you (1) don't have any science to offer, and (2) don't
answer any questions put to you, then, uh, why the hell should anyone
pay any attention at all to you?
===================================
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
1505
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 04:00:00
--- Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> And look who is paying his public sector salary this
> month?
> The very people, you and me included, he looks down
> on.
Your perception that I look down on people is baseless
paranoia. Do you have any evidence for it? Or maybe
it's on the same level as the "scientific evidence"
for macroscopic evolution (speciation)?
> Er. Nick, why don't you answer my questions:
> 1. You have said that I am a liar. Where and when
> did I lie?
I never used the word if I remember correctly. I
merely responded to your blunderbuss rantings (e.g.
"all fundies are liars") by repeating your own
reference to the 9th Commandment. The context was that
you accused John Mackay of taking state school money
as a "fee" for speaking at Blue Coat. Even when I
denied it, you still persisted. IT IS A LIE.
> 2. What the hell is a fundie atheist? (third time
> I've asked the question!)
A fundamentalist is someone who believes without
question the foundational truths of their religion or
belief-system. In that sense I'm happy to be known as
a "fundie" Christian!
In popular parlance it has come to be associated with
an aggressive and blinkered militancy which refuses to
even consider the opinions of others.
Since atheism is a belief system (in the non-existence
of God) it follows that there can be "fundies" of that
religion too.
I think your "tilting at windmills" (see above) means
you're doing well in your efforts to be known as one,
but I will apologise (and withdraw the phrase in your
case) if you aren't in fact an atheist. They do exist
though, and some may be reading this right now....
Nick (Everything I say is a lie) Cowan.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
1506
Timothy Chase
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 03:53:00
On 11/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> >> (1) what do we want?
> > To get and keep religion out of school science classes.
> >
> > (2) who can give it to us?
> > Public opinion.
> >
> > (3)how can we MAKE him/her/them give it to us?
> >
> > Convince the public that religion free science classes are in the best
> > interests of humanity.
>
> Well, ya need to be a bit more specific than this . . . ;>
I agree that we should avoid turning this into what appears to be a
science debate. I also believe it helps to have something which you
are actually FOR, since when one is simply against something, one is
allowing the opposition to set the terms of the debate, and even if it
is not your central focus, it at least gives the organization a
defining goal. And what I would be for is science education - which
in this context means the simple recognition that evolution is a fact
and there is no debate.
Likewise, I think it would be helpful, even if it is only tentative,
to have a name for the umbrella organization which fits its purpose:
Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution
SECURE
... because we are defending education against the threat posed by
creationism and creationist ideology, and both the UK and democracy
against the threat of theocracy. The name would draw attention to the
threat posed by what it is we are against. It would also stress that
evolution is something which science is united on, that it is
integral.
However, as this is an umbrella organization, I believe it is wise to
keep this minimalist, so I wouldn't go beyond this. The organizations
which the umbrella unites might bring in other issues which they see
as related, but I would consider it inadvisable for the umbrella
organization to go any further as any attempt to include more points
would risk alienating potential allies.
1507
Roger Stanyard
Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
10/07/2006 13:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
>> Lawyer by profession, the Vardy loons hired a Professor Johnson of
UCA
> to speak on Intellgent Design.
>
That is, of course, Phillip Johnson of the Discovery Intitute. If I can
show that Johnson was, indeed, hired and attended. I think it calls for
a hard-hitting article/posting to the notoacademies site.
Johnson is, of course, closely associated with Howard Ahmanson who, for
25 years, sat on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, all the while
it was advocating murder of people that did not agree with its
fundamentalist views. Ahmanson is a major funder of the Discovery
Instutute.
What kind of advertisement for Emmanuel College is that!
And, of couse, Johnson is claimed to be the man behind the Wedge
document.
I think we are beginning to get evidence together that EST's real
ambition is to convert all state schools in the UK to fundamentalism.
You've already mentioned Winch and anything on him would be really
appreciated.
We already have the hard info that Layfield was active in proposing
infiltration of state schools by fundamentalists.
Moreover, I am working on how Ahmanson is involved in the Oxford
Missionary School, part of the Anglican movement. That's bringing up
some real nasties inn terms of objectives and connections.
What I will also be looking at is the connection between Oxford and the
Christian Institute. I haven't got anything on this (and, maybe, won't
get any) but you can bet I'll find other connections to the
fundamentalist movement in the UK.
You are dead right to show that the Johnson statement is an amazing
admission in the college's official newsletter for March 2005.
I just have to make absolutely sure that it happened and I can't open
the newsletter either through saving it in HTML form or directly from
the TinyURL you give. Any ideas on this, everyone?
Roger Stanyard
1508
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 07:28:00
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> it's on the same level as the "scientific evidence"
> for macroscopic evolution (speciation)?
When are you going to to produce evidence for this mythical barrier
stopping genetic mutation from preventing the emergence of new species ?
>> 2. What the hell is a fundie atheist? (third time
>> I've asked the question!)
>
> A fundamentalist is someone who believes without
> question the foundational truths of their religion or
> belief-system. In that sense I'm happy to be known as
> a "fundie" Christian!
You've kindly opened yourself up: why, then, is the Pope not a "fundie" ?
1509
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 07:33:00
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> --- Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't you have a Flood layer to find in aeolian
>> sand, Nick-dearest?
>
> What are you harping on about? (grin)
Yes, until you admit you don't have a damn clue what you are blithering
stupidly about. Worldwide floods would leave a distinctive geological
layer... How do you propose this can be scientifically tested? What
would this Flood layer look like and where can I find it in excavated
desert sites that date back to 75 kya ?
> You don't believe in the Flood so you'd never
> interpret ANYTHING as evidence for it!
A fluvial layer is a fluvial layer, Nicky-dearest.
1510
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 07:30:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> Hey Nick, if you (1) don't have any science to offer, and (2) don't
> answer any questions put to you,
...which he had promised to answer just over a month ago. Lying breaks
one of the ten commandments, Nick... as does bearing false witness
(Bibliodoltry).
1511
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
12/07/2006 07:45:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
>> Lenny Flank wrote:
>>> Do we want creation "science" banned, by law or by
>>> policy, from all schools?
>> I want all pseudoscience removed from the science classroom until such
>> times as new views, or old, become accepted in mainstream academia.
>> Furthermore, if there is to be any discussion on any aspect of
>> pseudoscience, it needs to be within the framework of the historicity
>> of science: there are more than enough examples with mainstream
>> science to teach critical thinking skills to school pupils.
>
>
>
> OK, we need to break this down into a series of manageable steps.
Yup but the first stated starting point will always be broad. The first
step, in order to even be able to appeal to the UK masses and newspaper,
is to bring a high profile name on board. My suggestion is Steven Jones.
This is a political fight which needs to be targeted against a political
goal; it also needs to be diversified into the local communities around
certain schools. One or two schools to start off with or else the
resources are stretched too far. The local education authorities would
need to be engaged as the next phase within this second step.
In reality, a plan like this is too complex to draw up onlist and is,
obviously, always open to constant change. In otherwords, it has to be
adaptable.
>>> What ***specific steps*** do we want to see carried out? We want
>>> what to happen, to whom? Who can do that for us?
>> It needs to become part of the national education policy.
>
>
> OK, and what's the political process for doing that? Whose arm do we
> need to twist?
The education ministers will only listen to a groundswell of public and
educational authority outcries. This step comes wwwaayyyyy down the list.
We both know how detailed a plan this would need to be. If two people
met and drew it up together, for example, this process would take most
of an afternoon (if not a day). The resulting document would be long indeed.
1512
Mikey Brass
Re: Ex-student Criticises King''s Academy
12/07/2006 07:59:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> OK, Mike. The problem I think was with your choice of words; it read a
> little harsh.
I'm typically South African: brutally honest when need be and when
someone is starting out on a venture like this, there come times when
that is needed. I felt this was such a juncture. We could debate it till
kingdom come (sic), but ultimately I think we'd both agree on the need
to tie up as many loose-ends as possible to assist in the delivery of
the message.
With regards to myself, I have the spell-check switched on on my e-mail
but I have always tended not to proof-read my e-mails. When I write,
however, for my website, for the public, for encyclopaedias or for
journals, it is not only necessary but a requirement. It's also an issue
of time management - do I care if there is the odd spelling mistake in
an e-mail posting? Frankly, no. Do I care if there is one in an article
submission of mine? Hell yes, I'm a perfectionist in that regard because
of pride of my professionalism in my discipline.
Ultimately though, what helps in making an impact on delivery to a wider
audience? I think that is the crux of not just the young man's website
but of what the list is actually currently discussing under a variety of
different thread headings.
> In any teacher on this
> pay scale, regardless of subject, this is a disgrace.
Agreed *grins*
> I've moved most of this work to Linux (Kubuntu & Linspire)
I tried the new version 6 of Ubuntu yesterday, using the Live CD on my
work Thinkpad. It ran beautifully. I'm also looking forward to Freespire
(the forthcoming free version of Linspire) being released at the end of
August. Freespire are promising for it to be the most user-friendly
version yet. However, in order for me to migrate my personal work to
Linux, I would need to run Win4Lin. I require the bibliographic software
Endnote.
> As for McQuoid - yes, he is enough to make you vomit. Imagine what it
> must be like to have him running your school! <shudders>
If he was, he would have my foot permanently stuck up his arse. However,
he might actually like that;-)
> I'm linking back to his site
I asked in my guestbook message if I can do the same.
1513
Roger Stanyard
Re: Old Immovable Nick
12/07/2006 08:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Yup but the first stated starting point will always be broad. The
first
> step, in order to even be able to appeal to the UK masses and
newspaper,
> is to bring a high profile name on board. My suggestion is Steven
Jones.
>
Steve Jones would, indeed, be a very good choice.
Mikey, what are your contacts like at UCL at the moment? Can you get
hold of him? I'm ex-UCL but the academics I knew there are largely
now retired or dead! I suspect that I might be able to make contact
with Ron Cooke who used to be head of the Royal Geographic Society.
He taught me at UCL (my first degree is joint honours economcs and
geography).
I am happy to come up to London to meet him if it could be arranged
(it's only 55 minutes on the fastest train).
Roger Stanyard
1514
Roger Stanyard
Proposals
12/07/2006 07:57:00
Lateral Thinking.
On the how to side, I think good public relations is essential.
Luckily I'm quite good at that sort of thing and have been working
towards it over several months.
Seems to me that we need to build up our ability to use national and
local press to get the message over.
However, it needs to be more than that. That's why I have been
systematically building up a data base of who's who in the
fundamentalist word and how they work. In addition, that has included
a large number of hard hitting articles.
Those give us both the "intelligence" to target the shells accuracy
at the fundamentalists and a resource where the journalists can call
upon for help, background and research. It's called making life easy
for them.
It's only a minor step from there to using it to target other "on-
side" groups and individuals, whether they be unionists, local or
national politicians, school governors or what.
I have tried to make these articles easy to read and very hard
hitting.
One of the issues we have to face is that, at this stage, vast
numbers of decision takers and so on are really not aware of what the
fundamentalists stand for, their utter lunacy and how dangerous they
are. We need to get that message across.
In terms of lateral thinking about who is on-side, It seems to me
that the Royal Society, the British Society for the Advancement of
Science and the professional bodies for science and engineering
should be high amongst our list to work with.
It also seems to me that we quickly need to build up a list of
contacts in the national press. I think that can be relatively easily
done but any help would be appreciated.
As an aside, yesterday I went through the on-line "debate" of the
Royal Society opened up after Steve Jones' lecture in April.
It was full of fundamentalists. The one thing I immediately realised
is that had I had the information and intelligence on the fundies
that I have now, I could have pulled them to pieces without any
resort to scientific arguments at all.
That matters because most of the people we are likely to be
addressing are either scientifically illiterate or simple don't have
the time or inclination to wander through arguments about 2LOT or
whatever.
The one thing we are going to need is some kind of central repository
for all the intelligence on the fundies I am building up. That
suggests a web site. (at the moment about a third of my stuff is on
my blog – that's the wrong way to make the intelligence accessible to
interested parties.
What does everyone think about opening a web site for the group?
Alan Bellis has retained ownership of his web site because he,
rightly, has issues of his own which he wants to continue with.
Science Just Science I guess are a bit too gentlemanly for my style
(OK, well they have to worry about libel).
In terms of local campaigns, where for example, fundamentalist
academies are being set up or fundamentalists get into standard state
schools, I hope we can draw on the work Peter Hearty is doing at No
To Academies.
However, some months ago, a couple of us put together the seeds of a
campaign to stop (if necessary) the fundamentalists getting into
state schools in my own home town. That covered such issues as them
getting appointed as school governors, articles on who they were/are,
letters to local newspapers, talking with local clergy, involving
local MPs (Liberal Democrats in this case) and local councillors.
I think we already have a model there of "how to".
However, even that was based on thorough intelligence as to who they
were and what they were pushing (see my article on Hyde Street
Baptist Church). I also have another article sitting in the
background (not posted, in other words) to go on the attack with as
and when necessary. I don't believe in entirely spending one's own
shots all at once.
I throw these comments open to the floor again.
Roger
.
1515
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
12/07/2006 08:18:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Mikey, what are your contacts like at UCL at the moment?
My contacts are within the Institute of Archaeology. Means of contact
would be the same, by e-mail.
> I am happy to come up to London to meet him if it could be arranged
Good suggestion.
My suggestion in turn would be for the list to compose a message, which
I would be happy to send on its behalf using my UCL credentials.
1516
Timothy Chase
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 09:17:00
At this point, I am just going to keep my comments to the following....
On 11/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ....
> The one thing we are going to need is some kind of central repository
> for all the intelligence on the fundies I am building up. That
> suggests a web site. (at the moment about a third of my stuff is on
> my blog – that's the wrong way to make the intelligence accessible to
> interested parties.
>
> What does everyone think about opening a web site for the group?
>
> Alan Bellis has retained ownership of his web site because he,
> rightly, has issues of his own which he wants to continue with.
> Science Just Science I guess are a bit too gentlemanly for my style
> (OK, well they have to worry about libel).
I personally think that a website can be very helpful, particularly if
it has a fair amount of text -- assuming that your aim, for example,
is to get indexed by the major search engines. With regard to "making
the intelligence accessible," I think this will be especially helpful
-- if you have an internal search engine. Although you may wish to
look at other alternatives (e.g., services), I believe I have an old
perl script hanging around, and if you have a cgi-bin, I should be
able to install it. Previously I installed it in one of my own
websites (I had over 300 type-written pages of material, so it came in
handy) and customized it for use in websites I worked on for others.
Another thing which may be helpful while you are in the process of
getting things started might be a Wiki where members of the group
could edit and categorize information and access could be limited to
only those you wish to give access to. However, this will in part
depend upon how comfortable people are with it.
Final Note: I hope no one minds my saying so, but I find this exciting!
1517
Roger Stanyard
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 09:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
> handy) and customized it for use in websites I worked on for others.
>
> Another thing which may be helpful while you are in the process of
> getting things started might be a Wiki where members of the group
> could edit and categorize information and access could be limited to
> only those you wish to give access to. However, this will in part
> depend upon how comfortable people are with it.
>
> Final Note: I hope no one minds my saying so, but I find this
exciting!
>
The Wiki sounds like a good idea! It will alow others to check my
work and correct the typos and spelling/gramatical mistakes!
The slight problem I have is that I am cluelss about producing Wiks
and web sites but I think I can get that sorted out with my
colleague, Steve Roberts.
Yes, I must admit I find this exciting and I am pretty driven by it.
It's a challenge and it seriously helps that the peer group is
seriously bright!
Roger
1518
Marc Draco
Re: Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
12/07/2006 10:51:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
And apparently, impressionable schoolchildren too!
Lenny Flank wrote:
->
>
Dr Snelling spoke on the subject of 'Rock Strata, Fossils
> and Geologic Time', saying that the
>
> fossil record supports a catastrophic event. I
It might be nice to present some of Snelling's published geology
papers, wherein he accepts and works with all of the standard
geological dates.
He saves his YEC crap for church audiences.
===================================
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
1519
Marc Draco
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 10:49:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Whose arm? The public's mate.
We need to get back into the public mindset just like the fundies are.
We need people on the ground like young Stefan who we "met" yesterday
for the first time.
No To Academies is running a section on ID/Creationism in our schools
[you'd be welcome Lenny, and we could use your expertise here]. We're
also running a local advertising campaign: but this is such a hot
potato, that I fully expect it will become national news.
I guess we also need some sort of manifesto that spells these things
out. If it happens in the UK and Europe, then a lot of the world would
follow suit - at the end of the day fundies like Behe are in a tiny
(extraordinarily loud) minority. If we can apply a serious consequence
to flouting scientific rules or facts in the way that Behe and Cowan
do, it would shut them up in a heatbeat. Right now there are no
negative consequences whatsoever: they have nothing to lose.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that we stop their right to free
speech, rather just make them chose a side. If we negate their claim to
a degree (doctorate, etc.) that limits their ability to be taken
seriously: anywhere.
I can see that there is a problem with the "study" of ID here, but hey,
if they can come forward with a theory that fits all the criteria laid
down by science they have nothing to fear. You and I both know they
cannot.
Lenny Flank wrote:
->
>
> Sorry Lenny, I was tied up when that came in.
>
> I want to see universal legislation that
>
> a) Disallows the teaching of ID/creationism as anything other than
a
> religious idea. With the emphasis on IDEA b) Disavows anyone found
> promoting ID/Creationism from any and all degree qualifications
they
> may have earned in specialist subjects directly related to a
science.
> c) Allows for the immediate sacking of anyone promoting religious
> ideas in a school - even as an ECA. (Let's face it, no one in their
> right mind would let Abu Bakri or Abu Hamza into schools, now would
> they? Amounts to the same thing.)
>
OK, what's the political process to get these things? Whose arm do
we need to twist?
===================================
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
1520
Roger Stanyard
Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
12/07/2006 11:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> And apparently, impressionable schoolchildren too!
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
There is a paper on Snelling's split personality on the No Answeres in
Genesis web site.
> >
> > It might be nice to present some of Snelling's published geology
> > papers, wherein he accepts and works with all of the standard
> > geological dates.
> >
> > He saves his YEC crap for church audiences.
> >
1521
ukantic
Change of group owner.
12/07/2006 12:20:00
It's roughly a year & half since this forum was formed as an
addition to my creationism website. In that time it has slowly but
surely expanded & includes academics from various disciplines &
anticreationist campaigners from around the world.
Unfortunately, due to my work commitments (I run a small business
with my partner, who doesn't want anything to do with this) I have
been finding it difficult to find the time to give the forum the
attention it rightly deserves – something that must be painfully
obvious to everyone.
Recently, I mentioned these problems to Roger Stanyard & he has very
kindly agreed to take over the running of the forum for me. Although
Roger has not got the experience of some other members, (arriving
relatively late on the scene), he more than makes up for that with
his commitment to this issue & prolific output, especially his
investigations into the UK creationist organisations.
Moreover, this subject is characterised by the extreme range of
views represented in the anticreationist, *big tent*, from the
Church of England to The National Secular Society. Roger tends to be
a moderate in these issues, which is a further benefit.
Although I am a member of the NSS, I have tried to keep the group
distinct from it, something I think Roger must continue to do if he
is to keep the group inclusive to all members regardless of their
background. As Lenny has pointed out many times, the last thing we
want to do is alienate religious supporters. Your enemy's enemy is
your friend.
I think I will have to remove the website & FURL from the forum &
introduction because these are more orientated towards the NNS &
really what is needed is a new website that is more impartial on
such matters.
Like Timothy has suggested, I believe a wiki is the best format for
a website. Take a look at www.creationism.co.uk which is based on a
wiki. It is very easy to edit or update & I simply do it from the
browser using a password. The code needed for basic functions can be
remember in 10 minutes flat – it really could not be simpler. The
main advantage of course is that any trusted member can make changes
or add content, which will naturally result in the rapid growth of
the site.
I would start by looking at some of the free options such as peanut
butter wiki (google) that comes with 10 MB free. You can squeeze a
lot of text into that if you are careful. I have no doubt if you
look around there will also be other more tempting offers available
as well.
Finally, I feel sure that this group is going to prosper under
Roger's leadership & the last thing I would like to do before
handing over (I will continue to contribute as a normal member) is
to wish him the very best of luck.
Alan.
1522
oeditor
Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
12/07/2006 12:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I just have to make absolutely sure that it happened and I can't open
> the newsletter either through saving it in HTML form or directly from
> the TinyURL you give. Any ideas on this, everyone?
>
I've emailed you what you need Roger - it's in .png format, about 1.1
Meg. Email subject "EmannuelJohnson"
Cheers,
Brian
1523
Lenny Flank
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 12:58:00
> However, some months ago, a couple of us put together the seeds of a
> campaign to stop (if necessary) the fundamentalists getting into state
> schools in my own home town. That covered such issues as them getting
> appointed as school governors, articles on who they were/are, letters
> to local newspapers, talking with local clergy, involving local MPs
> (Liberal Democrats in this case) and local councillors.
>
> I think we already have a model there of "how to".
So we need to be fruitful and multiply. :>
===================================
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
1524
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
12/07/2006 12:59:00
Hey Nick, don't you have some science questions to answer?
Or doesn't creationism HAVE any science to talk about . . . .?
===================================
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
1525
Lenny Flank
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 13:13:00
> Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution
>
> SECURE
>
> ... because we are defending education against the threat posed by
> creationism and creationist ideology, and both the UK and democracy
> against the threat of theocracy. The name would draw attention to the
> threat posed by what it is we are against. It would also stress that
> evolution is something which science is united on, that it is
> integral.
>
> However, as this is an umbrella organization, I believe it is wise to
> keep this minimalist, so I wouldn't go beyond this. The organizations
> which the umbrella unites might bring in other issues which they see
> as related, but I would consider it inadvisable for the umbrella
> organization to go any further as any attempt to include more points
> would risk alienating potential allies.
>
I like the name. :)
It would be best to model it on the National Center for Science
Education, the anti-creationist umbrella in the US. Basically, NCSE
is a national clearinghouse for information. The bulk of the actual
organizing work is done by state-wide groups such as Florida Citizens
for Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which are all
independent of NCSE but coordinate their efforts through it. If you
contact NCSE members like Nick Matzke, Wes Elsberry or Eugene Scott,
I'm sure they'd be happy to provide advice.
I don't know what paperwork it requires to set up a nonprofit tax-
deductible organization in the UK, but now's the time to start
thinking about 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
1526
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 14:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution
> >
> > SECURE
> >
Well, an alternative would be to call it the British Centre for
Science Education (despite the fact we spell centre differently).
The acronym is quite easy to remember for British people because BCSE
is close to GCSE, the main educational qualification taken at 16.
Roger
>
>
> I like the name. :)
>
> It would be best to model it on the National Center for Science
> Education, the anti-creationist umbrella in the US. Basically,
NCSE
> is a national clearinghouse for information. The bulk of the
actual
> organizing work is done by state-wide groups such as Florida
Citizens
> for Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which are all
> independent of NCSE but coordinate their efforts through it. If you
> contact NCSE members like Nick Matzke, Wes Elsberry or Eugene
Scott,
> I'm sure they'd be happy to provide advice.
>
> I don't know what paperwork it requires to set up a nonprofit tax-
> deductible organization in the UK, but now's the time to start
> thinking about it.
>
If anyone wants to handle this let us know. It isn't difficult. There
is lots of info and help on the Charity Commission's web site but the
one area you might need to be careful about is that the laws in
Scotland are totally different from those of England and Wales.
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
1527
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 14:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution
> >
>
> It would be best to model it on the National Center for Science
> Education, the anti-creationist umbrella in the US. Basically,
NCSE
> is a national clearinghouse for information. The bulk of the
actual
> organizing work is done by state-wide groups such as Florida
Citizens
> for Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which are all
> independent of NCSE but coordinate their efforts through it. If you
> contact NCSE members like Nick Matzke, Wes Elsberry or Eugene
Scott,
> I'm sure they'd be happy to provide advice.
>
I don't think we can jump in feet first and claim to be a national
coordinating group. We are not the only organisation with an anti-
creationist agenda, Science Just Science has been working hard this
year to establish itself and it is bigger than us.
Moreover, it would probably be essential to have the Royal Society
behind us, in some way, to do so. For Americans, the Royal Society is
basically the national academy of sciences for the UK* and it is now,
apparently, very active in anti-creationism.
Roger
* Just to make matters complex, there are actually three Royal
Societies in the British Isles - one in Dublin, one in Scotland and
one in London. The London one is the biggy.
1528
Lenny Flank
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 13:07:00
>
> Whose arm? The public's mate.
>
> We need to get back into the public mindset just like the fundies are.
>
Yes indeed. But the best way to do that is through ACTION. Let
people know what's going on and, more importantly, *what they can do
about it*.
That's how you recruit new activists.
For first actions, we need to do take baby steps. Things like a
letter-writing campaign to a school official or politician, or even
just a rally or picket at a creationist-teaching school. That will
generate some press (requires an experinced press-relations person),
and THAT will attract new people.
===================================
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
1529
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: More evidence of Loony Lectures
12/07/2006 13:01:00
> And apparently, impressionable schoolchildren too!
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> > >
> He saves his YEC crap for church audiences.
Yes. There's something important to keep in mind here ---- the YEC
kooks were laughed out of court here in the US 20 years ago, and no
one here has paid them the slightest attention ever since. Now that
people in the UK are actually taking them seriously again, they will
soon flock there like cockroaches to the darkeness. They simply have
nowhere else to go.
Brace yourselves.
Learn as much as you can about them, and make sure everyone ELSE
knows exactly how nutty they are.
===================================
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
1530
Wilson Alan
RE: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 14:45:00
bgcolor="white"
<snipped for brevity>
> In the US, we had a wonderful trump card --- any time
the fundies
> started preaching
about their religious opinions (and deep down
> inside, that is
ALL they want to do), they violated the US
> Constitution, the
refs blew the whistle, and the whole game was over.
> That trump card
can't be played in the UK.
Perhaps our primary aim should
be to make the UK
a properly secular state?
If the UK were
properly secular then we could keep creationism out of state schools as a
by-product.
However I suspect there
would be much more resistance to this and I’m not at all sure if it is
feasible.
> However, I'd sure like
> to hear them
explain why their religious opinions (or ANYONE'S
> religious
opinions) should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom, instead
> of in, well, a
religious studies class where they belong.
> Nick can't explain
that. I doubt any other creationists can either.
Nor any other advocate of teaching religious
beliefs as science.
<more snipping for brevity>
Alan W
1531
Roger Stanyard
Re: Change of group owner.
12/07/2006 14:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> It's roughly a year & half since this forum was formed as an
> addition to my creationism website. In that time it has slowly but
> surely expanded & includes academics from various disciplines &
> anticreationist campaigners from around the world.
>
>> Finally, I feel sure that this group is going to prosper under
> Roger's leadership & the last thing I would like to do before
> handing over (I will continue to contribute as a normal member) is
> to wish him the very best of luck.
>
Thanks Alan,
I look forward to the contributions.
Alan is one of the good guys in this movement. When I first started in
the anti-creationist movement some seven of eight months back, I had a
long telephone dicussion with Alan (IIRC it was about an hour and a
half long) and he helped me get very motivated.
At the time there was no other such group in the UK (although
ScienceJust Science came quickly thereafter) and I felt it was a real
shame that so few had fully woken up to the problem.
In a sense, my own knowledge was dismal but I had experience of the
fundamentalists in televangelism, notably in the Middle East, and had
done a fair amount of research on such areas as dispensationalism.
Indeed, I had been looking at some of the dodgier televagelists as far
back as the 1980s - Swaggert, the Bakkers and so on.
So, I hope that I can bring some extra knowledge to the table based on
my professional involvement in satellite communications.
In any event, I think Alan deserves a warm thank-you from us all in
setting up the Blackshadow and bringing it to its current position.
Roger
1532
oeditor
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 14:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> The slight problem I have is that I am cluelss about producing Wiks
> and web sites but I think I can get that sorted out with my
> colleague, Steve Roberts.
>
Pbwiki is a doddle, though perhaps a bit limited (I haven't explored
it much. Someone here or on secular_newsline evidently owns
anticreationism.pbwiki.com (I don't _think_ it's me :-) but hasn't
used it at all (well, I haven't a password). To see a minimal pbwiki,
look at fallibility.pbwiki.com
Brian
1533
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 15:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
>
It's the NSS and BHA patch to argue for secularisation of
education/the state.
Seems to me that it's a non-starter for this group. It will alienate
vast numbers of people.
I don't think most English people (as distinct from British people)
are inherently kindly disposed towards fundamentalists but most
probably think that religion in schools is probably a bit of a good
thing - stops the kids from becoming yobs or whatever.
We also have the issue that a third of state schools in England and
Wales are CofE and the RC's are also strong in schools throughout the
UK.
They, as I see it, are basically on-side although the rise of
fundamentalism in the CofE is deeply worrying.
It seems to me that in the long run it is in the interests of both to
keep the fundamentalists out of education. If they fail to do so,
they are likely to end up loosing control of their fiefdoms.
Parents and businesses will not put up with education that turns out
unemployables who would otherwise be doing decent jobs.
Roger Stanyard
>
> Perhaps our primary aim should be to make the UK a properly secular
> state?
>
> If the UK were properly secular then we could keep creationism out
of
> state schools as a by-product.
>
> However I suspect there would be much more resistance to this and
I'm
> not at all sure if it is feasible.
>
>
>
> > However, I'd sure like
> > to hear them explain why their religious opinions (or ANYONE'S
> > religious opinions) should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom,
instead
> > of in, well, a religious studies class where they belong.
>
I must admit this is something I am seriously struggling with. The
Americans in this group are well aware that teaching religion in
state schools is cumpulsory and, indeed are religious services
(although that is practiced more in the breech).
The fundies claim that their science has nothing to do with religion
and can be justified entirely on scientific evidence.
Well, if that is the case, how can they teach it in religious
education - it's science, according to them!
Or is the religious education syllabus to be re-written to include
what they define as a science syllabus? If so, they end up have
creationism taught as science outside of primary science lessons. You
can't win. They win.
It goes back to me point several postings back that there is no room
for creationism anywhere in state education - not in religion, not in
science.
It's a big conundrum that I have just brought up in Science Just
Science.
How do we handle it?
Roger
> > Nick can't explain that. I doubt any other creationists can
either.
>
>
>
> Nor any other advocate of teaching religious beliefs as science.
>
>
> <more snipping for brevity>
>
> Alan W
>
1534
Mikey Brass
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 16:18:00
I agree on a website.
Lets be explicit, stop beating around the bush, and take this discussion
to its logical and ultimately only conclusion. What is being proposed
here is not merely a grassroots movement or a temporary uprising, but
the formation of an organisation which will (if founded) turn into a
permanent counterpart to the US' National Center for Science Education.
--
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)
1535
Roger Stanyard
Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 16:22:00
Quick question for everybody.
Alan had a strict rule of not letting fundamentalists into the group.
Nick Cowan was invited in, btw.
What are your opinions on letting fundamentalists into the group.
My mind is open on this one.
Roger
1536
Mikey Brass
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 16:20:00
Timothy Chase wrote:
> With regard to "making
> the intelligence accessible," I think this will be especially helpful
> -- if you have an internal search engine.
Easy enough with a internal google search.
> and if you have a cgi-bin, I should be
> able to install it.
I would recommend http://www.oneandone.co.uk as the host provider.
The problem with a wicki site is simply control of content and the number
of people permitted to edit.
1537
Mikey Brass
Re: Change of group owner.
12/07/2006 16:20:00
Thank you for everything you have done, Alan. I sincerely hope that you
will be able to continue contributing in the future, in whatever measure.
--
Regards,
Mike
1538
Mikey Brass
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 16:22:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> I like the name. :)
Same.
> It would be best to model it on the National Center for Science
> Education, the anti-creationist umbrella in the US.
Echoing the thoughts of mine in another e-mail.
1539
Mikey Brass
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 16:42:00
My view is generally no; that should be debunkcreation. Blackshadow is a
good discussion forum about UK creationism but is not, imo, the forum to
debate creationists in.
1540
oeditor
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 17:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Quick question for everybody.
>
> Alan had a strict rule of not letting fundamentalists into the group.
> Nick Cowan was invited in, btw.
>
Which speaks for itself, I think. We've wasted an inordinate amount
time "debating" with Nick - not to mention arguing among ourselves
about him. I'm happy to keep on probing Nick's incompatible
affiliations with science and religion, or creationism in general, but
not in a forum which has a main theme of activism. Perhaps a new
group: blackandwhiteshadows, for talking with Nick and his ilk.
Brian
1541
Rudy Vonk
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 17:08:00
On 12 jul 2006, at 17:22, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> What are your opinions on letting fundamentalists into the group.
I realise (not Greek, no "z", hehe) that your (congratulations and my
full support) group is about an - as yet - minor but increasingly
worrying phenomenon affecting the UK. For a variety of reasons, I feel
concerned, but I can hardly claim any protagonism from roughly 600
miles SSW of where you are and starved of fundies. However, my
suggestion would be to let them in if they can at least spell, putting
them on moderation for a couple of posts, and kick them out if they
consume, say, three months after their first post without contributing
a single argument we can debate.
I guess in Nick's case we are approaching that date...
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1542
Timothy Chase
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 17:21:00
On 12/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > Whose arm? The public's mate.
> >
> > We need to get back into the public mindset just like the fundies are.
> >
> Yes indeed. But the best way to do that is through ACTION. Let
> people know what's going on and, more importantly, *what they can do
> about it*.
>
> That's how you recruit new activists.
>
> For first actions, we need to do take baby steps. Things like a
> letter-writing campaign to a school official or politician, or even
> just a rally or picket at a creationist-teaching school. That will
> generate some press (requires an experinced press-relations person),
> and THAT will attract new people.
Damn! They rejected the name I picked on my birthday!
Nah... BCSE sounds perfect. More professional. And it is the name
which I think best describes exactly what this organisation needs to
be: a clearinghouse for information and a means of coordinating the
activities of other organisations. My idea sounded a little less
official. Alright, a lot less official. No, don't rub it in, please.
*
But you are right -- we can't go with that as of yet. We need to have
more people before we can do that. But as Lenny puts it, we need
action first. We need big names first.
However, we are going to need something to call this organization
while we are in the process of bringing a coalition together if for no
other reason to say that it is an organization and that this isn't
just individuals acting separately - without an organization, there is
nothing which individuals can be speaking on behalf of and nothing for
for them to join. We don't need anything particularly official for
this purpose.
So temporarily, perhaps just Ad Hoc Committee for Science -- but let
people know on an individual basis that we are aiming to put together
a British Center for Science Education.
1543
MB
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 19:49:00
Nick should probably be over at Debunk, as this group has another
purpose.
My 2 cents.
Lenny will hold Nick's feet to the fire - if he ever answers
anything at all!
Regards,
MB
1544
Robert Kilner
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 20:58:00
>
>
>
> Nah... BCSE sounds perfect.
>
> ==========================
>
Too many 'Mad Cow' jokes maybe.....?
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
1545
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 21:37:00
Wow - I go to Kent for the day, and the group goes post-tastic!
Righty, I don't think that Fundies should be allowed in.
Further, I think the current membership list should be culled to remove
anyone who has never posted - we probably have a large number of "lurkers"
with unknown allegiences.
And finally - the group's posts should not be visible to non members.
Visit this url: http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://
And you can read the whole archive without logging in.
I typed up a reasonable extension of the "what do we want" post, with bits
about home schooling, private faith schools (especially in the light of
Patrick Henry College) etc. I am *not* prepared to talk tactics in a forum
that any fundie can read.
Thoughts?
I.
1546
Ian Lowe
RE: Proposals
12/07/2006 21:42:00
>The problem with a wicki site is simply control of content and the number
of people permitted to edit.
Good point - for the Scottish Atheist Council, we have implented a combined
Wiki/PHPBb Forum/Mailing List - there's a single database for user accounts,
which controls access to edit the Wiki (only forum members can actually
*read* the wiki)
We actually have 2 wiki's on the site - one is public, one is for members -
both require a user account to edit, the members one needs a user account to
read.
The PHPBB Forum has a mod called mail2forum added, which allows yahoo style
mailing lists which integrate perfectly with the web forum. It's pretty
slick - the forum/wiki/mailing list stuff is pretty well tied together.
We are building a database of MPs, MSPs, Councillors and Journalists to
coordinate letter writing, pr etc.
I'm happy to advise on how we did it if anyone is interested.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 12 July 2006 16:20
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Proposals
Timothy Chase wrote:
> With regard to "making
> the intelligence accessible," I think this will be especially helpful
> -- if you have an internal search engine.
Easy enough with a internal google search.
> and if you have a cgi-bin, I should be able to install it.
I would recommend http://www.oneandone.co.uk as the host provider.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/33wwlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
1547
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 22:08:00
On 12/07/06, Ian Lowe <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Wow - I go to Kent for the day, and the group goes post-tastic!
In some ways, it is shaping up a great deal quicker than I expected.
I guess it isn't terribly likely that we will be "resistance fighters"
sipping lattes outside of a French cafe with the likes of Jean-Paul
Sartre. But I prefer five shots espresso over ice anyway.
> Righty, I don't think that Fundies should be allowed in.
I likewise agree on this one.
> Further, I think the current membership list should be culled to remove
> anyone who has never posted - we probably have a large number of "lurkers"
> with unknown allegiences.
I don't like this, but I think it is the right approach. However, let
them know they can switch to DebunkCreation or the BlackAndWhites if
we create it.
> And finally - the group's posts should not be visible to non members.
Agreed.
> Visit this url: http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://
>
> And you can read the whole archive without logging in.
>
> I typed up a reasonable extension of the "what do we want" post, with bits
> about home schooling, private faith schools (especially in the light of
> Patrick Henry College) etc. I am *not* prepared to talk tactics in a forum
> that any fundie can read.
> Thoughts?
Home schooling?
Let them teach religion as a matter of individual freedom, but test
them on science and demand science standards - real science standards.
Or at least this is my view. But you are right, we should probably
discuss this among ourselves, and at this point the forum is a little
too open for me.
Call me paranoid, but it makes me uneasy: particularly when we are
sharing intelligence on organizations and individuals. However, even
if we tighten things up, I suspect things will be a little leaky at
times. No way to really stop it completely. Something to keep in
mind.
1548
oeditor
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 22:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> Righty, I don't think that Fundies should be allowed in.
>
> Further, I think the current membership list should be culled to
> remove > anyone who has never posted - we probably have a large
number of "lurkers" > with unknown allegiences.
>
> And finally - the group's posts should not be visible to non members.
>
I agree entirely.
Brian
1549
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 22:13:00
On 12/07/06, MB <mbb386@main.nc.us> wrote:
>
> Nick should probably be over at Debunk, as this group has another
> purpose.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Lenny will hold Nick's feet to the fire - if he ever answers
> anything at all!
For right now I will agree to Nick on Debunk, but somehow I don't
think Nick and Debunk are meant for each-other. Almost, but not
quite. The function of one doesn't quite match the needs of the
other. But this is perhaps better discussed after we tighten things
up a bit per Ian's suggestion.
1550
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 22:47:00
On 12/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> > Righty, I don't think that Fundies should be allowed in.
> >
> > Further, I think the current membership list should be culled to
> > remove > anyone who has never posted - we probably have a large
> number of "lurkers" > with unknown allegiences.
> >
> > And finally - the group's posts should not be visible to non members.
>
> I agree entirely.
A few quick notes:
1. If we want a public face that states we stand for in what is
largely a permanent form, this should be a website. It will make its
way into the search engines, but moreover, it won't be edited by
everyone and wouldn't lend itself to this purpose.
2. If we want to share information, such as intelligence, and keep
track of the internals in a semi-permanent form, this should be a Wiki
which will be accessible to everyone in the group, but which won't
present an official face to the public or expose information we would
prefer to keep internal.
3. If we just want to communicate day-to-day information to everyone
or chat, this should be an email list -- BlackShadow. Moreover, we
can send out brief emails to people individually or on the list
briefly describing what has been added to the wiki and giving the
address.
I personally don't like wikis that much. I prefer something with a
vertical hierarchy and cross-referencing lateral links between distant
branches -- one of the few areas in my life where I tend to be more
organized. However, wikis are much easier to learn and use than most
software which forces you to do things in a more formal fashion -- and
this is something we will probably need internal to the organization.