1551
Lenny Flank
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 23:31:00
> 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.
>
I think we oughtta use this list for tactics and planning. Stuff we
don't want to let the fundies in on.
(Nick doesn't count, since apparently nobody takes him seriously
anyway).
===================================
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
1552
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Change of group owner.
12/07/2006 23:35:00
> 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.
>
Geez, we're all talking like the poor guy's dead or something. ;>
But yes, Alan has indeed been a prime moving force behind this whole
thing.
===================================
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
1553
MB
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 23:05:00
> 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.
>
>
I also don't think Nick really fits for Debunk but surely not for
here now. Yes, we need to tighten up. I agree with that and have
thought something along those lines for months. But it's not my
group, so...
Regards,
MB
1554
Timothy Chase
Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
12/07/2006 23:37:00
We have mentioned websites, wikis, and the handling of email lists.
We have discussed some of the logistics and strategy of the
organization. But one thing we have agreed upon is the need for more
people. Now we need to figure out how to get them.
I think that people from outside of the UK will be valuable, but
people from inside the UK are essential. We need people who will know
people. Contacting major organizations is fairly critical, but it
will be easier to get in the door with some if we have more
connections and perhaps even a larger membership. Moreover, potential
connections grow fairly quickly with increased membership.
I know that Roger has already sent out a message to DebunkCreation
members. That is good. To filter out those that we trust less as I
believe Ian would have it, we should check the messages that
individuals have already posted. Easy enough with Yahoo's new search.
Fraction of a second pulls up everything a given person has ever
posted.
Likewise, I think we might want to consider trying to pick up members
from TalkOrigins. Search should work well for that, too.
*
Another point: Increasing individual membership will get other
organizations to take us a little more seriously, and it should give
us a little more "bargaining-power" when establishing partnerships
with them. This way we are able to properly preserve to purpose of
the organization as one which unifies everyone who agrees with us on
what is essential -- opposing creationism and defending science
education against incursions by creationist ideology -- under the
umbrella. That's us, by the way.
However, we should also think about what it is that distinguishes us
from other organizations -- such as Science Just Science. What is
their specific purpose? How is this different from our own? How are
we going to explain the difference to them? Who will do it? These
aren't exactly questions that we need to answer right away, but I am
figuring we are going to want to bring SJS in soon, so we might want
to start thinking about this if we haven't already.
1555
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Change of group owner.
12/07/2006 23:47:00
On 12/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Geez, we're all talking like the poor guy's dead or something. ;>
>
> But yes, Alan has indeed been a prime moving force behind this whole
> thing.
Nah!
He has been promoted to Esteemed Member of the Board and Valued
Advisor, which as I understand it involves less direct responsibility
and more vacation time. Now Roger is left with more of the
grunt-work.
Heh...
Judging from what I am seeing so far, I suspect delegation will come in handy...
1556
Marc Draco
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 23:42:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Well, we can welcome a new one from tonight I hope.
Will everyone bid warm welcome to Stefan when he finds us. I've just
had a rushed pint with him (before our respective other halves found
out) and he's raring to go.
Damn nice lad too.
He also has some contacts within the school in question. Oh, this is
going to be sweeeeeeeeeeet!
;-)
Marc
Lenny Flank 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.
===================================
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
1557
Lenny Flank
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 23:44:00
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Nah... BCSE sounds perfect.
> >
> > ==========================
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Too many 'Mad Cow' jokes maybe.....?
>
What a logo THAT would make. And the motto: "No more bull".
BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===================================
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
1558
Lenny Flank
Re: Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
13/07/2006 00:17:00
>> However, we should also think about what it is that distinguishes us
> from other organizations -- such as Science Just Science. What is
> their specific purpose? How is this different from our own? How are
> we going to explain the difference to them? Who will do it? These
> aren't exactly questions that we need to answer right away, but I am
> figuring we are going to want to bring SJS in soon, so we might want
> to start thinking about this if we haven't already.
>
Well, we'd be different because we'd be the umbrella that unites all
the others.
There are many different motives for opposing the creationists. And
all of them are equally valid. The Secularists don't want religion
in schools. The C of E and Catholics don't want fundie religious
views pushed onto others. The Science Just Science folks want, well,
science just science. ;) Business leaders and groups want
quality science edcuation in a high-tech world. Parents and students
want quality education to get good jobs.
Our job is to coordinate all of these various efforts, against our
common enemy. We're not supporting one group or another --- we are
helping them support each other.
===================================
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
1559
Wankle Rotary-Pyjamas
Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 00:18:00
>--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
...
>> 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.
...
----------
Dear Ian,
I'm really sorry, but I can't go for this suggestion.
I've "lurked" ever since this forum started; I think I may have posted just one
or two messages right at the outset and p*ssed a surprising number of people
right off simply because I didn't think that merely setting up a website would
achieve an enormous amount of anti-creationist publicity... OUCH!!
This forum has become a treasure trove of information: fundie stuff, creationist
stuff, etc. All the info posted here is an absolute gold mine for anyone who
needs to do research, or look up opinions... or just simply to get that "feel
good feeling" that there really are other folk on their side.
The fact that I don't post messages all that often is because, for the most
part, more erudite and articulate folk (such as your good self) have put my case
for me, in a more powerful and persuasive manner. The fact that I haven't posted
it *HERE* doesn't mean I have never thought it; or never said it; or never meant
it; or never *DONE* it!!!!...
My little pamphlets in Reading have inspired an occasional comment here and
there, and I've heard them mentioned on BBC Radio Berkshire on that bigot
Peach's program. Andrew Peach is a religionist who refuses to acknowledge any
view point on "ethical" or religious matters other than his own, and should be
relegated to composting the church yard of his choice at his earliest
opportunity. Just think: something as simple as printing a pamphlet from your
own PC and dropping it on a "communal relaxing commodity" (a bench!!!) in the
"Reading Oracle Shopping Obscenity" can start debates on BBC radio!!!
It's absolutely right that this forum should become a centre for *ACTION* rather
than simply telling that sick person Cowen that he needs to see a doctor. But
kicking off we folk who are less able than Lenny Flank to articulate our views
on fora such as this would be a very retrograde step, and possibly alienate folk
such as little ole me who take three days to compose a message....
But I still love to read your arguments!!
P.
P.S. Perhaps you could BCC me in??
1560
ukantic
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 00:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
Hi Ian,
I allowed in Nick because we were interested in what he had to say
for himself. The decision to invite in other creationists was taken
after consulting the group & ascertaining that this is what they
wanted to do.
> 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.
Because membership is by invitation only, anyone who wishes to join
has to justify or at the very least give some indication as to their
identity. I have a pretty good idea who is on this group & their
reasons for being here. The fact that they do not post cannot be
taken as evidence of non interest. It may mean that but some people
are also too busy to participate & only want the news.
> 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.
The whole point of setting up the forum Ian was to make it
accessible to people. It is a record of events associated with the
UK creationist scene. It is no different to Debunk Creation, which
also has an open archive.
Furthermore, I am using the archive to access news reports (linking
to them) for many of the smaller papers that do not retain their
articles. If the group was made private I would not be able to do
this. Take this article for instance:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/98
> 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?
Agreed, but perhaps the solution is to create another private group
that deals specifically with such issues, rather than chopping &
changing an existing group.
Alan.
1561
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 23:38:00
>
> 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)
> Thoughts?
Let's not bite off more than we can chew. Keeping the creationists
out of government-funded schools will be a big enough fight all by
itself.
As I used to tell all the more militant people on my picket lines,
we're not going to start the revolution here. I'll be happy if we
just beat this boss and get these workers what they want.
So let's just keep our eyes on the prize. Once we have that, we can
move on to other things.
===================================
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
1562
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
12/07/2006 23:43:00
>>
> 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.
Well, maybe then we should jump in with them as a coalition partner.
No need to reinvent the wheel.
===================================
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
1563
oeditor
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 01:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Wankle Rotary-Pyjamas
<wankle_rotary_pyjamas@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> 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.
> ...
>
> ----------
>
> Dear Ian,
> I'm really sorry, but I can't go for this suggestion.
>
> I've "lurked" ever since this forum started;
As I see it, if the group goes closed it will have to be purged of
lurkers because nobody knows who's out there. At least one of Nick's
friends, possibly. OTOH, there will have to be some way of admitting
new members - application or invitation. I'd be very surprised if
Roger didn't invite you (i.e. not purge you), even if you were to
continue to lurk. It will be more difficult, admittedly, to be fair to
well-wishers we don't know. But if it's to be a group of activists,
keeping ill-wishers out may be more important than keeping
well-wishers (without credentials) in. Sadly.
Brian
1564
ukantic
Re: Change of group owner.
13/07/2006 01:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks Mike and thank you for your support as well. Of course I will
continue to contribute – I may be busy at the moment, but I am not
going anywhere.
Alan.
1565
oeditor
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 01:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
> I allowed in Nick because we were interested in what he had to say
> for himself. The decision to invite in other creationists was taken
> after consulting the group & ascertaining that this is what they
> wanted to do.
I don't think anyone's complaining - just thinking that we've (almost
accidentally) become something different and had better keep fundies
and (some) lurkers out. As it turns out, Nick is the only creationist
to join, and it's hardly worth changing the nature of the group just
for one person, however entertaining he is. Although I suppose he
might have been the catalyst which got us over the potential engergy
barrier to a more active state :-)))
>
> Because membership is by invitation only, anyone who wishes to join
> has to justify or at the very least give some indication as to their
> identity. I have a pretty good idea who is on this group & their
> reasons for being here.
I imagine most of us have long since forgotten how we came to be here.
Glad to hear your reassurance.
> The whole point of setting up the forum Ian was to make it
> accessible to people. It is a record of events associated with the
> UK creationist scene. It is no different to Debunk Creation, which
> also has an open archive.
>
> Furthermore, I am using the archive to access news reports (linking
> to them) for many of the smaller papers that do not retain their
> articles. If the group was made private I would not be able to do
> this.
Again, the group seems to have drifted. If we are to become an
activist group, then we need a separate web-site as a mouthpiece
anyway. It might be worth including a blog component for that sort of
thing. Not a lot of news escapes the NSS - in most cases a precis and
a link should do.
> Agreed, but perhaps the solution is to create another private group
> that deals specifically with such issues, rather than chopping &
> changing an existing group.
Whiteshadow?
Brian
1566
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 23:39:00
> 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.
>
Debunk absolutely does not allow religious discussions, pro or con.
Nick wouldn't last ten minutes.
===================================
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
1567
Timothy Chase
Re: Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
13/07/2006 01:39:00
On 12/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> >> However, we should also think about what it is that distinguishes us
> > from other organizations -- such as Science Just Science. What is
> > their specific purpose? How is this different from our own? How are
> > we going to explain the difference to them? Who will do it? These
> > aren't exactly questions that we need to answer right away, but I am
> > figuring we are going to want to bring SJS in soon, so we might want
> > to start thinking about this if we haven't already.
>
> Well, we'd be different because we'd be the umbrella that unites all
> the others.
>
> There are many different motives for opposing the creationists. And
> all of them are equally valid. The Secularists don't want religion
> in schools. The C of E and Catholics don't want fundie religious
> views pushed onto others. The Science Just Science folks want, well,
> science just science. ;) Business leaders and groups want
> quality science edcuation in a high-tech world. Parents and students
> want quality education to get good jobs.
So would I take it that science just science would be dealing with
schools and parents, for example, and certainly wouldn't be as
interested in dealing with the Secularists, C of E or business
leaders.
> Our job is to coordinate all of these various efforts, against our
> common enemy. We're not supporting one group or another --- we are
> helping them support each other.
A "thin" umbrella -- which leaves organisations to do what they want,
but helps to facilitate cooperation, share information and provides
them with other assistance. So in otherwords, this isn't the sort of
thing that SJS would want to do for themselves, especially if we are
willing to do it for them for free.
Well one of the things I learned a while back is that if you can take
a personal interest in the projects of those who you are trying to get
to work with you, then you are more likely to sell them on working
together. So at some point, I would suggest assigning people to
handle those who they are more comfortable with or with which they
share the most interests. Common interests and understand will help
with such cooperation.
Incidentally, thanks to all the digging Roger has done on the Fundies,
your organisation skills and familiarity with creationism, and the
rest of the considerable talent we have in this group, I think we can
do a good sell. Additionally, I am assuming they can't beat the
price, and in time we can look for donations to defray costs and keep
this going for years to come if need be.
1568
oeditor
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 02:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, I am using the archive to access news reports (linking
> > to them) for many of the smaller papers that do not retain their
> > articles. If the group was made private I would not be able to do
> > this.
> thing. Not a lot of news escapes the NSS - in most cases a precis
and > a link should do.
>
Sorry, thinking (not) on the hoof, just like Bliar :-(( The NSS links
to the papers' articles, of course. I think a blog could probably
cope, though, with the articles that will vanish.
Technical question: how can we find out how long which papers keep
their articles online? Oh, and btw, what about Google's cache?
Brian
1569
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
12/07/2006 23:41:00
> 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.
I've always operated on the assumption that the other side probably
knows everything I'm up to. Then I try to minimize what they know.
They usually can't do anything about it anyway.
===================================
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
1570
ukantic
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 02:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
>
> > I allowed in Nick because we were interested in what he had to
say
> > for himself. The decision to invite in other creationists was
taken
> > after consulting the group & ascertaining that this is what they
> > wanted to do.
> I don't think anyone's complaining - just thinking that we've
(almost
> accidentally) become something different and had better keep
fundies
> and (some) lurkers out. As it turns out, Nick is the only
creationist
> to join, and it's hardly worth changing the nature of the group
just
> for one person, however entertaining he is. Although I suppose he
> might have been the catalyst which got us over the potential
engergy
> barrier to a more active state :-)))
> >
> > Because membership is by invitation only, anyone who wishes to
join
> > has to justify or at the very least give some indication as to
their
> > identity. I have a pretty good idea who is on this group & their
> > reasons for being here.
> I imagine most of us have long since forgotten how we came to be
here.
> Glad to hear your reassurance.
I have kept a record of the initial applications, I know many people
from other forums, etc. Unless you are going to ask applicants to
send a birth certificate & references then I guess you are just
going to have to forget about discussing anything on a forum that
you would want to be kept secret. Of course that does not mean you
cannot reduce the risk by making it private.
>
> > The whole point of setting up the forum Ian was to make it
> > accessible to people. It is a record of events associated with
the
> > UK creationist scene. It is no different to Debunk Creation,
which
> > also has an open archive.
> >
> > Furthermore, I am using the archive to access news reports
(linking
> > to them) for many of the smaller papers that do not retain their
> > articles. If the group was made private I would not be able to
do
> > this.
> Again, the group seems to have drifted.
If we are to become an
> activist group, then we need a separate web-site as a mouthpiece
> anyway. It might be worth including a blog component for that sort
of
> thing.
I personally find blogs to be excruciatingly slow & tedious. I would
personally prefer to watch a knife going rusty in a bowl of water
for a week – then cut my throat with it.
Not a lot of news escapes the NSS - in most cases a precis and
> a link should do.
Links go dead.
So all the information I posted recently on Dartmouth Academy can be
found on the NSS?
> > Agreed, but perhaps the solution is to create another private
group
> > that deals specifically with such issues, rather than chopping &
> > changing an existing group.
> Whiteshadow?
>
> Brian
>
1571
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 02:31:00
On 12/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I am using the archive to access news reports (linking
> > > to them) for many of the smaller papers that do not retain their
> > > articles. If the group was made private I would not be able to do
> > > this.
>
> > thing. Not a lot of news escapes the NSS - in most cases a precis
> and > a link should do.
> >
>
> Sorry, thinking (not) on the hoof, just like Bliar :-(( The NSS links
> to the papers' articles, of course. I think a blog could probably
> cope, though, with the articles that will vanish.
>
> Technical question: how can we find out how long which papers keep
> their articles online? Oh, and btw, what about Google's cache?
If we go private, some of what is already out there will be in the
cache, but much of the recent stuff won't be, and I doubt that you can
pick up any material on closed lists posted after they have been
closed, but I can check.
1572
Lenny Flank
Re: Proposals
12/07/2006 23:34:00
>
> 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.
And that is exactly what is needed. This fight will be neither
short, nor easy. The fundies are VERY well-organized, they know very
well how to focus political power, and they raise more money in a
week than we all could in fifty years.
We need a core organization that can stay in it for the long haul.
===================================
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
1573
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 03:10:00
Unless you are going to ask applicants to send
> a birth certificate & references then I guess you are just going to
> have to forget about discussing anything on a forum that you would
> want to be kept secret. Of course that does not mean you cannot reduce
> the risk by making it private.
I think we're overestimating the need for secrecy. After all, when
Debunk organized the Dover book donation, we had creationists ON THE
LIST the entire time we were planning it. And they couldn't do a
damn thing to stop it. (shrug)
We don't need to be the CIA (or MI6). Just keep in mind that the
walls have ears.
===================================
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
1574
Timothy Chase
Re: Proposals
13/07/2006 04:36:00
On 12/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And that is exactly what is needed. This fight will be neither
> short, nor easy. The fundies are VERY well-organized, they know very
> well how to focus political power, and they raise more money in a
> week than we all could in fifty years.
>
> We need a core organization that can stay in it for the long haul.
Maybe twenty years from now - just possibly - the creationists will no
longer be a threat. I certainly wouldn't bet on it. However, if and
when the creationists are no longer a threat, the organisation which
we are creating now can take on the broader mission of promoting
science education and science literacy. I think it can become an
enduring legacy for us all, and for myself perhaps a life well-lived.
I think the organisation should be permanent.
1575
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 04:44:00
On 12/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> Unless you are going to ask applicants to send
> > a birth certificate & references then I guess you are just going to
> > have to forget about discussing anything on a forum that you would
> > want to be kept secret. Of course that does not mean you cannot reduce
> > the risk by making it private.
>
> I think we're overestimating the need for secrecy. After all, when
> Debunk organized the Dover book donation, we had creationists ON THE
> LIST the entire time we were planning it. And they couldn't do a
> damn thing to stop it. (shrug)
>
> We don't need to be the CIA (or MI6). Just keep in mind that the
> walls have ears.
For me personally, the one major reason that I would prefer to make
some things invisible is the fact that we are gathering information on
organizations and individuals. Anything else, I really don't care who
knows. In fact, I probably wouldn't mind personally sending John Burn
a weekly itinerary as a kind of two-finger salute. But I suppose we
could handle the more sensative information off-list, perhaps.
1576
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 07:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
>> If we go private, some of what is already out there will be in the
> cache, but much of the recent stuff won't be, and I doubt that you can
> pick up any material on closed lists posted after they have been
> closed, but I can check.
>
There is also the issue of the stuff on my blog. People have been
lifting it and posting it to their own blogs and sites. It's too late!
I know for a fact that one of the UK's academic IDers/YECers I wrote to
a week or so back looked at it. He replied to me by private email (and
started preaching, btw - sigh)
Roger
1577
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 07:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
It seems to me that we are trying to run before we can walk.
Blackshadow is an established and known name and an advertisement and
a resource to the movement.
Making it inaccesible to causal perusers reduces its uesfullness and
utility both to use and outsiders who may be useful to us. We need
publicity and well wishers and to make it closed access looks to be a
case of shooting ourselves in the foot.
Blackshadow, to me, is partly an advertisement and we need publicity
and as many members/supporters as we can get.
DebunkCreation was the advertisement that got me into the anti-
creationist movement.
We can vet every application to join it but that will still leave us
with a security problem because we are working in cyberspace. We
simply can never really known who is who in full.
It seems to me that at this stage we use off site emails for
confidential exchanges. It's still a very small group so that should
not be difficult to manage and keep secure. Now if we had the 900 or
so that Lenny has on DebunkCreation, that may be a different matter
but it has taken Lenny years to get to that number and he is working
in a country with five times the population of the UK.
Let's leave having a closed group to a future date to be decided.
Blackshadow is also a resource of information. Now Yahoo has given us
a decent search capability, that value has significantly increased.
My personal viewpoint is that we need maximum publicity. We need to
shout as loud as we can about who we are and what we are doing. It is
almost the antithesis of secrecy.
Yes, in tactical matters we need to keep matters confidential from
time to time but organisations that are based on secrecy, usually, in
my view, fail because secrecy isn't sustainable - especially in the
Internet world!
Roger
1578
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 07:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
>
> For me personally, the one major reason that I would prefer to make
> some things invisible is the fact that we are gathering information on
> organizations and individuals. Anything else, I really don't care who
> knows. In fact, I probably wouldn't mind personally sending John Burn
> a weekly itinerary as a kind of two-finger salute. But I suppose we
> could handle the more sensative information off-list, perhaps.
Methinks that most of the information we gather on individuals and
organisations must be in the public domain. The way the thinking is
going in this group is that it will be an umbrella organisation. The
NCSE doesn't keep what it does secret. Its a resource both for us to
use, other organisations and for the media to draw upon.
Yes, or course, there is info we might not want to be made public but,
in my view, this is likely to be only a very small element and it
usually consists of work in progress.
I have a pile of stuff that is work in progress which I have yet to
post.
I'll be posting some moe comments on this a bit later after I have gone
through everybodies' postings and emails that have come in overnight.
(PS: I started work at 5am this morning on this and I don't think I'll
complete it till 9 am).
Roger
1579
Roger Stanyard
Re: Change of group owner.
13/07/2006 07:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
>.
>
> Thanks Mike and thank you for your support as well. Of course I will
> continue to contribute – I may be busy at the moment, but I am not
> going anywhere.
>
> Alan.
>
I bloody well hope so Alan. You got me into this mess of having to
start work at 5 am to answer emails!
Roger
1580
Roger Stanyard
Re: Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
13/07/2006 07:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
>The Science Just Science folks want, well,
> > science just science. ;) Business leaders and groups want
> > quality science edcuation in a high-tech world. Parents and
students
> > want quality education to get good jobs.
>
> So would I take it that science just science would be dealing with
> schools and parents, for example, and certainly wouldn't be as
> interested in dealing with the Secularists, C of E or business
> leaders.
>
As you know, I am a member of Science Just Science and have been so
since it basically launched in February. I am one of the more
prolific posters there.
SJS is pretty open as to its tactics and who it deals with. There are
some very bright people in there and some of them are activists in
their own right and have been for years.
Basically the model put together to deal with the fundies in
Winchester (as and when we need to) was a joint effort between me and
one of the other group members (who is also involved in Panda's
Thumb).
Indeed, IIRC, SJS was developed partly as a British equivalent of
Panda's Thumb but with a strong activist streak.
It's very new so, perhaps, hasn't entirely got into its stride yet.
I must admit that I am pretty heavily committed to backing SJS. They
have tried hard and put a lot of work into it since February (well,
actually since before that as it took a lot of preparation).
I have it in my plans to meet the SJS people as soon as we can
organise time to do so. We have pencilled in as a venue Down House
(Charles Darwin's home).
The other group that I am trying to get involved in is No To
Academies which is Peter Hearty's baby. It's a problem of time as
usual. I wanted to contribute something this week but I don't think I
can find the time until the weekend.
Just as a minor point that some may find useful, SJS is pretty strict
on religious sensibilities - it goes out of its way not to offend
them. A significant number of people in it are Christians.
Roger
1581
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 07:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >>
> > 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.
>
>
> Well, maybe then we should jump in with them as a coalition partner.
>
> No need to reinvent the wheel.
I think, in effect, we already are. Several SJS members are also
members of Blackshadow and vv including me, Alan and Dean Morrison.
Roger
1582
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 08:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Wankle Rotary-Pyjamas
<wankle_rotary_pyjamas@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
>
> ...
Thanks Phil for the comments.
Phil may not have posted much but he is an activist in his own right
who has found the forum extremely useful. He is exactly the sort of
person we should be supporting.
Moreover, just in this one posting he has given us some tips on "how
to" techniques.
I shall be incorporating them in my model for Winchester!
Do keep in touch Phil. Your's was an extremely good reply. It may be
a good idea, as we live fairly close to each other (I'm in Winchester
which, for those outsode of the UK, is about 30 miles from Reading -
pronouned Reding - where Phil is based).
I have to complete all my replies by 9 am so I have to be a bit brief
here. However, I am going to add a number of postings to the forum
today which will touch upon Phil's reply.
Roger
>
> Dear Ian,
> I'm really sorry, but I can't go for this suggestion.
>
> I've "lurked" ever since this forum started; I think I may have
posted just one or two messages right at the outset and p*ssed a
surprising number of people right off simply because I didn't think
that merely setting up a website would achieve an enormous amount of
anti-creationist publicity... OUCH!!
>
> This forum has become a treasure trove of information: fundie
stuff, creationist stuff, etc. All the info posted here is an
absolute gold mine for anyone who needs to do research, or look up
opinions... or just simply to get that "feel good feeling" that there
really are other folk on their side.
>
> The fact that I don't post messages all that often is because, for
the most part, more erudite and articulate folk (such as your good
self) have put my case for me, in a more powerful and persuasive
manner. The fact that I haven't posted it *HERE* doesn't mean I have
never thought it; or never said it; or never meant it; or never
*DONE* it!!!!...
>
> My little pamphlets in Reading have inspired an occasional comment
here and there, and I've heard them mentioned on BBC Radio Berkshire
on that bigot Peach's program. Andrew Peach is a religionist who
refuses to acknowledge any view point on "ethical" or religious
matters other than his own, and should be relegated to composting the
church yard of his choice at his earliest opportunity. Just think:
something as simple as printing a pamphlet from your own PC and
dropping it on a "communal relaxing commodity" (a bench!!!) in
the "Reading Oracle Shopping Obscenity" can start debates on BBC
radio!!!
>
> It's absolutely right that this forum should become a centre for
*ACTION* rather than simply telling that sick person Cowen that he
needs to see a doctor. But kicking off we folk who are less able than
Lenny Flank to articulate our views on fora such as this would be a
very retrograde step, and possibly alienate folk such as little ole
me who take three days to compose a message....
>
>
> But I still love to read your arguments!!
>
> P.
>
> P.S. Perhaps you could BCC me in??
>
1583
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 08:27:00
Too many messages in my inbox to read through them all, but this one
stands out:
> I think, in effect, we already are. Several SJS members are also
> members of Blackshadow and vv including me, Alan and Dean Morrison.
All this means is that there is a workable foundation upon which to
begin co-operation.
However, in order to co-operate there needs to be something more than a
mailing list to co-operate with...
1584
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 08:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, we can welcome a new one from tonight I hope.
>
> Will everyone bid warm welcome to Stefan when he finds us.
Well done, Marc, and thanks.
Roger
1585
Roger Stanyard
Re: Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
13/07/2006 08:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, we'd be different because we'd be the umbrella that unites
all
> the others.
>
> There are many different motives for opposing the creationists.
And
> all of them are equally valid. The Secularists don't want religion
> in schools. The C of E and Catholics don't want fundie religious
> views pushed onto others. The Science Just Science folks want,
well,
> science just science. ;) Business leaders and groups want
> quality science edcuation in a high-tech world. Parents and
students
> want quality education to get good jobs.
>
> Our job is to coordinate all of these various efforts, against our
> common enemy. We're not supporting one group or another --- we are
> helping them support each other.
>
>
I think it is necessary to get the ball moving very quickly to get
momentum and to show the world what we are.
I think it is time to write to the Secretary of State for Education
about the 2002 Estelle Morris letter. I do not want to go into
details of my thinking on site today but we have enough info to do
something.
Email me offsite and I will explain after lunch (around 2 pm GMT).
Roger
1586
Roger Stanyard
Re: Increasing Membership, Bringing in Organizations
13/07/2006 08:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> We have mentioned websites, wikis, and the handling of email lists.
> We have discussed some of the logistics and strategy of the
> organization. But one thing we have agreed upon is the need for
more
> people. Now we need to figure out how to get them.
I have some tricks up my sleeve on this and will be working on one of
them today behind the sceens. It will take a week (or maybe longer)
to get that one sorted. Email me off list for details.
Mikey suggestion of contacting Steve Jones seems to me to be a very
useful immediate step. We may fall flat on our faces on this but I
think it is well worth the effort. That is the third think I'll be
working on today.
Tim, could I ask you to handle Talkorigins and put a message/invite
in there? How about Panda's Thumb? Do you think it's a good idea to
do likewise there. If so, could you, or someone else, handle it?
I't now 8.30 am so I'm going to have to cut this reply short for the
time being. I'll be back later on it.
Roger
>
> I think that people from outside of the UK will be valuable, but
> people from inside the UK are essential. We need people who will
know
> people. Contacting major organizations is fairly critical, but it
> will be easier to get in the door with some if we have more
> connections and perhaps even a larger membership. Moreover,
potential
> connections grow fairly quickly with increased membership.
>
> I know that Roger has already sent out a message to DebunkCreation
> members. That is good. To filter out those that we trust less as I
> believe Ian would have it, we should check the messages that
> individuals have already posted. Easy enough with Yahoo's new
search.
> Fraction of a second pulls up everything a given person has ever
> posted.
>
> Likewise, I think we might want to consider trying to pick up
members
> from TalkOrigins. Search should work well for that, too.
>
> *
>
> Another point: Increasing individual membership will get other
> organizations to take us a little more seriously, and it should give
> us a little more "bargaining-power" when establishing partnerships
> with them. This way we are able to properly preserve to purpose of
> the organization as one which unifies everyone who agrees with us on
> what is essential -- opposing creationism and defending science
> education against incursions by creationist ideology -- under the
> umbrella. That's us, by the way.
>
> However, we should also think about what it is that distinguishes us
> from other organizations -- such as Science Just Science. What is
> their specific purpose? How is this different from our own? How
are
> we going to explain the difference to them? Who will do it? These
> aren't exactly questions that we need to answer right away, but I am
> figuring we are going to want to bring SJS in soon, so we might want
> to start thinking about this if we haven't already.
>
1587
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 08:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> I think we oughtta use this list for tactics and planning. Stuff
we
> don't want to let the fundies in on.
Agreed. Dunno about others in this group but Lenny's DebunkCreation
provides the forum for "debate" with fundamentalists about science.
Thomas' group also provides a forum but most of the fundamentalists
in there are about as dull and ignorant as you can get. They are
almost a parody of a spot the brain cell competition.
It's no fun debating with them. They don't know anything!
Alan had the right idea all along.
Roger
1588
Roger Stanyard
Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 08:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> 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.
As you are well aware, I believe that the foundation of what we are
doing should be based on good intelligence and its presentation. I'm a
great fan of the Michael Collins film (although have no sympathies with
Irish republicanism).
Seems to me that either a web site or a Wiki is the repository for that
intelligence which, as an umbrella group, should be available to all
interested parties - most particularly the media.
However, I like the idea of a Wiki because it enables all of us to put
the intelligence together. In a voluntary organisation like this with
no full time people, delegation amongst and between us is absoultely
essential to be effective.
I'll be back later on this one.
Roger
>
1589
Roger Stanyard
Libel Laws in the UK
13/07/2006 09:40:00
The people in this group are, probably without exception, an
outspoken lot. It is not the kind of place that attracts the
shrinking violet or the timid.
However, we have a problem in the UK in that libel laws are both
extremely tough and very ambiguous. So far, I doubt whether this has
been a problem for any of the Yahoo groups I am in.
However, if we start becoming effective, then we are going to make
enemies and make ourselves targets for libel actions. I have been
very careful to check all my facts for the stuff I have put on my
blog but I suspect people are not going to sue me over personal
diary. Libel action costs a lot of money - £10k up front with the
lawyers used to be the minimum entrance ticket and it is probably
more than that.
Moreover, libel actions always hit you when you least expect them and
for reasons that usually have nothing to do with libel in the first
place.
I have had experience of three threats of libel. One was from a
criminal who I told to shove it (that was the end of that); the
second was from Robert Maxwell (also a crook) for quoting an ex-
employee of his as describing him as "as crafty as a barrow-load of
monkeys".
The manager involved had been fired about 12 years beforehand by
Maxwell but the big fat idiot was a paranoid crook and though that it
was one of his existing executives who made the claim.
The third was from the CEO of a major satellite operator. We were
being fed information from another board director about a dispute in
the board room over strategy. The info was correct alright but the
CEO went on the warpath to stop the leaks because his own position
was under threat.
He was pretty quickly fired, btw.
My experience is that if we are hit for libel, it won't be an
individual suing; it will be more to do with such areas and
internecine warfare or disputes within the organisations where they
work. I have targeted several individuals in my work and indeed
intend to do more such work in coming days for No To Academies.
It's not the creationist outfits that are the worry – it's the
universities and schools where they work or push their hocus pocus
such as the Vardy institutions. Sooner or later I am also going to do
further research on what is going on in Oxford. That too is a worry
as Ahmanson is involved there.
So we need to be increasingly careful about the UK's nasty and rather
draconian libel laws.
Roger
Mind-you there are some entertaining ways of getting round libel
actions. In one case we nailed up the letterbox of my office so the
Royal Mail couldn't deliver the writ. I then took a week's cycling
holiday off road. All the time I was almost begging for the lawyers
to turn up and deliver the writ whilst I cycled off into the distance
with them pursuing me across country on foot – a Monty Pythonish
scenario if every there was one.
In the Maxwell case we offered to tone down the criticism and offered
him a choice such as "only as crafty has half a barrowload of
monkeys" or "as crafty as a barrow with only a few monkeys in it"
or "as crafty as a barrow with no monkeys" or "as crafty as a load of
monkeys without a barrow"….. (I jest).
1590
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 09:49:00
When thinking about names, please remember that the UK isn't quite so "U" as
you might think.
Note: before I say another word, please note that I, the messenger, do not
need to be shot.
> Well, an alternative would be to call it the British Centre for Science
Education (despite the fact we spell centre differently).
Be wary of "British" - we are not Great Britain any more, we are the "United
Kingdom(s)".
Scotland may well have to be a separate fight, with it's own legal system,
parliament, education policy (we don't have academies, for instance), but:
"British" is a dirty word in much of Scotland, where "UK" doesn't have the
same stigma. And here's why:
> The acronym is quite easy to remember for British people because BCSE
is close to GCSE, the main educational qualification taken at 16.
Point in case - you said "British people", when you actually mean English
and Welsh - Scottish students don't do GCSEs (or A levels) at all - we do "O
grades", the "Highers".
If you use British, which is supposed to be inclusive, then use it as a
shorthand for "English and Welsh", it excludes Scotland - hence, bad blood,
lack of support and... the whole reason "British" is an unpopular
description up here in the first place.
CSEUK is not as neat (although it avoids the whole mad cow thing...
Righty, not before anyone replies, remember - messenger, as in don't shoot
the.
Ian
1591
John Germain
RE: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 10:17:00
Hmm. I'm a British Citizen but I'm not a citizen of any part of the United
Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
You lot up north of the Ditch all look the same to me: we've enough problems
with Guernsey
without worrying about your petty squabbles....
<evil grin>
John Germain
Bailiwick of Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ian
Lowe
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:50 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
When thinking about names, please remember that the UK isn't quite so "U" as
you might think.
Note: before I say another word, please note that I, the messenger, do not
need to be shot.
> Well, an alternative would be to call it the British Centre for Science
Education (despite the fact we spell centre differently).
Be wary of "British" - we are not Great Britain any more, we are the "United
Kingdom(s)".
Scotland may well have to be a separate fight, with it's own legal system,
parliament, education policy (we don't have academies, for instance), but:
"British" is a dirty word in much of Scotland, where "UK" doesn't have the
same stigma. And here's why:
> The acronym is quite easy to remember for British people because BCSE
is close to GCSE, the main educational qualification taken at 16.
Point in case - you said "British people", when you actually mean English
and Welsh - Scottish students don't do GCSEs (or A levels) at all - we do "O
grades", the "Highers".
If you use British, which is supposed to be inclusive, then use it as a
shorthand for "English and Welsh", it excludes Scotland - hence, bad blood,
lack of support and... the whole reason "British" is an unpopular
description up here in the first place.
CSEUK is not as neat (although it avoids the whole mad cow thing...
Righty, not before anyone replies, remember - messenger, as in don't shoot
the.
Ian
Yahoo! Groups Links
1592
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 10:46:00
Pfft. An English Colony with nicer weather, and you know it :P
In all seriousness, although I am a Scottish Nationalist politically, I
don't take the whole "anglophobia" thing too seriously...
But, many people do - and when it comes to something as simple as picking a
name, it makes sense not to alienate a political group.
Either that, or accept that you don't represent the whole nation, and choose
an "England and Wales" name. There's possibly mileage in that, given that
Scotland is essentially a separate nation as regards this campaign anyway.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Germain
Sent: 13 July 2006 10:18
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
Hmm. I'm a British Citizen but I'm not a citizen of any part of the United
Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
You lot up north of the Ditch all look the same to me: we've enough problems
with Guernsey
without worrying about your petty squabbles....
<evil grin>
John Germain
Bailiwick of Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ian
Lowe
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:50 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
When thinking about names, please remember that the UK isn't quite so "U" as
you might think.
Note: before I say another word, please note that I, the messenger, do not
need to be shot.
> Well, an alternative would be to call it the British Centre for Science
Education (despite the fact we spell centre differently).
Be wary of "British" - we are not Great Britain any more, we are the "United
Kingdom(s)".
Scotland may well have to be a separate fight, with it's own legal system,
parliament, education policy (we don't have academies, for instance), but:
"British" is a dirty word in much of Scotland, where "UK" doesn't have the
same stigma. And here's why:
> The acronym is quite easy to remember for British people because BCSE
is close to GCSE, the main educational qualification taken at 16.
Point in case - you said "British people", when you actually mean English
and Welsh - Scottish students don't do GCSEs (or A levels) at all - we do "O
grades", the "Highers".
If you use British, which is supposed to be inclusive, then use it as a
shorthand for "English and Welsh", it excludes Scotland - hence, bad blood,
lack of support and... the whole reason "British" is an unpopular
description up here in the first place.
CSEUK is not as neat (although it avoids the whole mad cow thing...
Righty, not before anyone replies, remember - messenger, as in don't shoot
the.
Ian
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
1593
Marc Draco
Unison report on Academies
13/07/2006 11:13:00
Note how much influence is attributed to "faith groups" - specifically
Christians.
http://tinyurl.com/m9pmb
1594
Marc Draco
Re: Libel Laws in the UK
13/07/2006 11:08:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Insurance mate. We can buy it. (I used to have it years ago for just
that eventuality - and it ain't cheap!)
As NTA gathers pace, it will need some form of insurance (other than
the usual disclaimer that blogs carry). I wonder how Dave McK manages
over at MediaWatchWatch? He's hardly a shrinking violet either!
I've always found (so far, anyway) that if you stick to the facts and
cite your sources, you're less likely to become a target. When unsure,
a good catch-all is to use "allegedly" or "it has been alleged".
Course, you can't just say something that's complete bullshit and tag
that on... it has to have some basis in truth (or someone else has had
to have made the allegation).
One of the things with libel is that it's difficult to apply it when
the offence caused is limited to a small group of people who are not
related to the "offendee". A private group like this is probably such a
place unless the posts are made public to non-members. Even then, the
offence has to be deemed as to have been injurous (?sp.) to the
claimant. Simply calling Nigel McQuoid homophobic probably isn't
sufficient grounds for a libel action. Falsely claiming to have actual
evidence that he is gay, certainly would be.
The real problem (and this IS a problem) is when the "Microsoft method"
is used. This entails crushing your opponent (us in this case) under
the weight of the law even when there is no case to answer. It's all
about how deep your pockets are and how long you can stand up to the
war of legal attrition.
However, there is a advantage to being sued if you play it right
(provided you're 100% CLEAN!). You can't win against these odds, but
larger players, with their own lawyers and equally deep pockets will
then get involved. I refer to the national press, of course. The loons
currently don't have them on side and they are our hidden army in this
potential David and Goliath fight. (The irony of the biblical
references isn't lost on me either.)
However, we do have the unions on our side. Unison did a great report
back in Feb on the current state of play - I read through it this
morning. It has the odd error, like calling Bob Edminton a
scientologist, but is generally a jolly good read. You should be able
to get a copy from them - the email is education@unison.co.uk
Marc
Roger Stanyard wrote:
->
The people in this group are, probably without exception, an
outspoken lot. It is not the kind of place that attracts the
shrinking violet or the timid.
However, we have a problem in the UK in that libel laws are both
extremely tough and very ambiguous. So far, I doubt whether this has
been a problem for any of the Yahoo groups I am in.
However, if we start becoming effective, then we are going to make
enemies and make ourselves targets for libel actions. I have been
very careful to check all my facts for the stuff I have put on my
blog but I suspect people are not going to sue me over personal
diary. Libel action costs a lot of money - £10k up front with the
lawyers used to be the minimum entrance ticket and it is probably
more than that.
Moreover, libel actions always hit you when you least expect them and
for reasons that usually have nothing to do with libel in the first
place.
I have had experience of three threats of libel. One was from a
criminal who I told to shove it (that was the end of that); the
second was from Robert Maxwell (also a crook) for quoting an ex-
employee of his as describing him as "as crafty as a barrow-load of
monkeys".
The manager involved had been fired about 12 years beforehand by
Maxwell but the big fat idiot was a paranoid crook and though that it
was one of his existing executives who made the claim.
The third was from the CEO of a major satellite operator. We were
being fed information from another board director about a dispute in
the board room over strategy. The info was correct alright but the
CEO went on the warpath to stop the leaks because his own position
was under threat.
He was pretty quickly fired, btw.
My experience is that if we are hit for libel, it won't be an
individual suing; it will be more to do with such areas and
internecine warfare or disputes within the organisations where they
work. I have targeted several individuals in my work and indeed
intend to do more such work in coming days for No To Academies.
It's not the creationist outfits that are the worry – it's the
universities and schools where they work or push their hocus pocus
such as the Vardy institutions. Sooner or later I am also going to do
further research on what is going on in Oxford. That too is a worry
as Ahmanson is involved there.
So we need to be increasingly careful about the UK's nasty and rather
draconian libel laws.
Roger
Mind-you there are some entertaining ways of getting round libel
actions. In one case we nailed up the letterbox of my office so the
Royal Mail couldn't deliver the writ. I then took a week's cycling
holiday off road. All the time I was almost begging for the lawyers
to turn up and deliver the writ whilst I cycled off into the distance
with them pursuing me across country on foot – a Monty Pythonish
scenario if every there was one.
In the Maxwell case we offered to tone down the criticism and offered
him a choice such as "only as crafty has half a barrowload of
monkeys" or "as crafty as a barrow with only a few monkeys in it"
or "as crafty as a barrow with no monkeys" or "as crafty as a load of
monkeys without a barrow"….. (I jest).
1595
Roger Stanyard
Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 11:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
Ian,
This thing is impossible to reconcile. Vaste numbers of people south
of the boader consider themselves British rather than English or
Welsh. Many Muslims and black people thing very strongly about this
and are very assertive at calling themsleves British rather than
English.
It seems to me that it is essential that this movement is open to and
attractive to both. There would be something damn well wrong if it
wasn't. I guess that well over 10% of people resident in England do
not consider themselves to be English but consider themselves to be
British. That is as many people who are resident in Scotland.
I happen to usually call myself British rather than English - not
least because I have Scottish ancestory on my mother's side.
How do we treat Scottish people resident in England or Wales - as
foreigners?
If we start having to say British doesn't include Scottish, we are
going to upset a hell of a lot of people.
There is also the issue of Northern Ireland where creationism is
perhaps at its strongest.
To put it mildly, people in Northern Ireland do not identify with
Britain meaning England and Wales. Especially if they are Protestant.
Northern Ireland is a big issue in the anti-creationist movement
because creationism is perhaps at its most prevelent there amongst
the Islands of the North Atlantic.
We also have another problem in that one of the leading lights in
this group is from the Channel Isalnds. They are a crown dependency
that consider themselves to be British rather than English. Jeez,
they even speak a Norman-French patois there.
OK, you are right to point out my slip about GCSE to which my reply
is:
1. To point out your own slip. Many Scottish pupils do take GCSEs.
They are the ones resident in England and Wales. There are a lot of
Scottish people in England.
2. Just about in every post I have made with the Americans I have
pointed out the differnces in Scotland regarding education (and a lot
of other differences as Tim Chase will tell you). I also point it out
by habit in this group - for example, on my comments on the Charity
Commission
I think we are all aware of those differences and act acordingly.
I've also got a feeling if we used UK in the name of the movement
rather than British it will backfire on us. Note that UKIP is
universally percieved as an English national party.
There is also a technicality in that the GB item still remains. The
technical name of the UK as set in 1927 is the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The name Britain applies to the mainland island and its origins and
general use have nothing to do with politics. The term long predates
the Roman invasion and IIRC is Celtic in origin and refers to
legendary giants.
The term Great Britian is seen as archaic and is, as far as I am
aware, not used south of the border (I gather, though, that the
French still use the term Grande Bretagne).
I think that if we are being asked to drop the word British because
it is a dirty word is, well, as preposterous as it is insulting. If
some Scottish nationalists don't like it, then tough - let them go
and set there own group up. This isn't a group fighting for Scottish
nationalism.
I guess most of the people from South of the border involved in the
anti-creationist movement are basically very liberally minded rather
than nationalistically minded and, indeed, broadly and quite strongly
sympathetic with and respectful of Scotland and the Scottish (see
Jeremy Paxman's work on this). However, that stops stone dead with
Scots who think British is a dirty word.
Yep, OK, the term North British has long been insulting to Scots
(just as West Brit is an insulting term in Ireland). But nobody has
used the term for donkeys years.
However, bearing that in mind, and not giving a damn shit whether
anyone thinks I am English, British, European or a citizen of the
world, I do think it important to remember that there are Scottish
sensibilities, cultural differences and a very different legal and
educational system there.
We also have to remember in lobbying, for example, that what we
propose may have to be different for the two parts of the UK.
Scotland accounts for about 10% (or a little less) of the population
of the UK. From what research I have done so far, Scotland does have
a problem with the creationists but, proportionate to its population,
it probably isn't as bad as South of the border. As Ian points out,
they don't have the problem of academy schools.
Much of West Scotland is also very Catholic. I am unaware, though, of
the extent to which the fundamentalists are infiltrating the Church
of Scotland. Protestant Scotland is more Calvinistic that England.
Roger
> When thinking about names, please remember that the UK isn't quite
so "U" as
> you might think.
>
> Note: before I say another word, please note that I, the messenger,
do not
> need to be shot.
>
> > Well, an alternative would be to call it the British Centre for
Science
> Education (despite the fact we spell centre differently).
>
> Be wary of "British" - we are not Great Britain any more, we are
the "United
> Kingdom(s)".
>
> Scotland may well have to be a separate fight, with it's own legal
system,
> parliament, education policy (we don't have academies, for
instance), but:
> "British" is a dirty word in much of Scotland, where "UK" doesn't
have the
> same stigma. And here's why:
>
> > The acronym is quite easy to remember for British people because
BCSE
> is close to GCSE, the main educational qualification taken at 16.
>
> Point in case - you said "British people", when you actually mean
English
> and Welsh - Scottish students don't do GCSEs (or A levels) at all -
we do "O
> grades", the "Highers".
>
> If you use British, which is supposed to be inclusive, then use it
as a
> shorthand for "English and Welsh", it excludes Scotland - hence,
bad blood,
> lack of support and... the whole reason "British" is an unpopular
> description up here in the first place.
>
> CSEUK is not as neat (although it avoids the whole mad cow thing...
>
> Righty, not before anyone replies, remember - messenger, as in
don't shoot
> the.
>
> Ian
>
1596
JAF
Re: Re: Letting Fundamentalists Into the Group
13/07/2006 11:27:00
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:37:15 +0100, you wrote:
>Thoughts?
IMO, a moderated, 'closed' group is a good idea.
It's not a good idea to tell your 'enemy' (a word I don't like to use,
normally) all your plans when a campaign is in the offing.
Not that it's up to me to tell anyone how to do stuff, I've only just got
here. . .
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
1597
Andrew
Re: Unison report on Academies
13/07/2006 12:13:00
I notice section eight ends by commenting that Academies are outside the
scope of the Human Rights Act.
I was unaware that anywhere (apart from Gunatanamo Bay etc) in the
supposedly civilised world is exempt from human rights legislation.
I've actually just written back to my local Lib Dem person (not the local
MP, unfortunately) and mentioned the restrictions on toilet access at the
Vardy schools as a possible European Court issue. It now seems from the
Unison document that the Academies are already protected from this (or maybe
all schools are exempt?).
It seems to me this is another major issue that should be brought to the
attention of parents. The toilet access restrictions should be cause enough
for concern, but when Academies are instituting rules like that and they're
exempt from the human rights legislation that might be expected to provide
protection, I think there are very serious questions.
As so often with this stuff, I find it hard to believe we're having to
address these issues. I certainly never expected school regulations in my
country to ever require investigation because of human rights issues.
1598
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: what we want, how we are gonna get it
13/07/2006 12:50:00
> This thing is impossible to reconcile.
Yeah, there's a perverse "damned if you don't, damned if you do" element to
it.
To be honest, I was mulling it over a bit more, and British fits - the
problems faced in England and Wales are absolutely different from those in
Scotland - we have a crop of newer fundie churches, rather than infiltration
of the CoS, our parliament is absolutely set against academies (I believe
that the Labour party in Scotland is much more "old labour" than "new
labour", and therefore dislikes the stealth privatisation aspects of
academies) and so on.
> To put it mildly, people in Northern Ireland do not identify with
Britain meaning England and Wales. Especially if they are Protestant.
Aye, good point!
>OK, you are right to point out my slip about GCSE to which my reply
is:
I really wasn't having a go Roger - it's just what happens, British is used
as a shorthand for English when it's convenient, and the distinction is a
very fuzzy one. There used to be a rule on the BBC (not any more!) that in
any sporting event if we lost we were Scotland, but somehow if we won, we
suddenly became British - these things cause a disproportionate amount of
hassle.
> I've also got a feeling if we used UK in the name of the movement
rather than British it will backfire on us. Note that UKIP is
universally percieved as an English national party.
And that's another darn good point, probably what convinced me most!
> I think that if we are being asked to drop the word British because
it is a dirty word is, well, as preposterous as it is insulting.
Easy tiger! Messenger, remember? I am describing the situation, not
defending it.
>I do think it important to remember that there are Scottish
sensibilities, cultural differences and a very different legal and
educational system there.
The legal and education issues are the only ones which matter in this
context I would think - and for that part, I'd say concentrate on the
English system - because of the political differences I have mentioned
above, we seem more robust against the fundies at the moment - their
attempts to get people elected were laughable (around 2000 people in the
entire country voted for "Operation Christian Vote" candidates, and they
lost their deposit everywhere) and the dominant churches (catholic and
Church of Scotland) are both anti-YEC.
England (and NI) is the one facing the biggest problem right now.
> We also have to remember in lobbying, for example, that what we
propose may have to be different for the two parts of the UK.
Yeah - Education policy is devolved, so handled by the Scottish parliament.
I.
PS> just an addendum, and purely for interest. North of the border, I am
much more used to seeing United Kingdoms, whilst the English almost always
use United Kingdom. Quite telling, really. Anyhoo, on with the proper stuff.
1599
Roger Stanyard
Re: Unison report on Academies
13/07/2006 13:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I notice section eight ends by commenting that Academies are
outside the
> scope of the Human Rights Act.
>
Andrew,
This is way outside of my knowledge. I have virtually no training in
law.
However, what would be really interesting to find out is who pushed
to get the academies exempt from the Human Rights Act and why.
You may be aware that The Chrisian Institute, which is a big lobbier,
is really keen on corporal punishment - smacking children. One
wonders whether the exemption allows academies to have the freedom to
use corporal punishment. I'm not aware of any of them do use it,
though. It's probably far to a sensitive issue.
(For Americans in the group, the Human Rights legislation in the UK
originated after the end of WW2 and was specific the mainland Europe
although put together by the British. The central court is the
European Court of Human Rights (in the Netherlands, IIRC). It's not a
European Union institution and is completely seperate from the
European Court of Justice (which is).
However, because we don't really have a written constitution (and I
guess because we have common law), it was gradually incorporated into
British law and was formally adopted as British law in the late
1990s. Indeed, I guess it can be argued that the Human Rights Act is,
in effect, now a written part of the British constitution.
I asked the above questions because there seems to be a
contradiction - a Labour government introducing the Human Rights Act
and then given institutions it was resposible for creating,
exemption. Why?)
Roger
I was unaware that anywhere (apart from Gunatanamo Bay etc) in the
> supposedly civilised world is exempt from human rights legislation.
>
> I've actually just written back to my local Lib Dem person (not the
local
> MP, unfortunately) and mentioned the restrictions on toilet access
at the
> Vardy schools as a possible European Court issue. It now seems
from the
> Unison document that the Academies are already protected from this
(or maybe
> all schools are exempt?).
>
> It seems to me this is another major issue that should be brought
to the
> attention of parents. The toilet access restrictions should be
cause enough
> for concern, but when Academies are instituting rules like that and
they're
> exempt from the human rights legislation that might be expected to
provide
> protection, I think there are very serious questions.
>
> As so often with this stuff, I find it hard to believe we're having
to
> address these issues. I certainly never expected school
regulations in my
> country to ever require investigation because of human rights
issues.
>
1600
oeditor
(OT?) What about Europe
13/07/2006 14:00:00
The discussion about whether we are English/British/United or whatever
got me wondering. The American fundies have wound up Christians here,
and Muslims here and in the Middle East. Does anyone know whether they
are spreading their poison into schools im mainland Europe?
Brian
