2251
oeditor
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 19:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this but I don't want to do it myself. I think if we are
> to do something like this it needs to be much simpler and more focused
> that Talk Origins. Somewher I have ready to post today a short
> article/paragraph on the hot air nature of the non-existant scientific
> theory of creationism, for example.
>
> Have we got something likewise on the non-existant scientific theory of
> ID.?
>
Sorry Roger, I wasn't trying to pile more work on your shoulders. I'm
quite happy to knock something up myself. Being a wiki, others can
correct any blunders. I think, too, that parts can be made invisible
until ready.
Brian
2252
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 19:53:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
>> I also think there should be a brief explanatory article on human
>> evolution, as well as a separate article with an anthropological
> slant
>> showing there is no such thing as "race" (thinking of Ken Ham's
> garbage).
>
> This would need to be written by someone with some gravitas to display.
I was thinking of writing the two custom pieces myself.
2253
George Jelliss
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 20:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I also think there should be a brief explanatory article on
human
> > evolution, as well as a separate article with an anthropological
> slant
> > showing there is no such thing as "race" (thinking of Ken Ham's
> garbage).
>
> This would need to be written by someone with some gravitas to
display.
> Is there anything on you web site, Mikey, that we may use or
something
> that is in the public domain elsewhere where we won't be breaching
> copyright rules?
>
> Would anyone case to volunteer to do this? It's one I shouldn't do
> because I have the wrong qualifications but I, of course, don't
mind
> helping in drafting and editing.
>
I've included a link to BCSE on the "countering creationism" section
of the Leicester Secular Society website. I've also been developing
a simple introduction to evolution, and science generally:
http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/science.htm
But there is a lot more to be done on it. This is going to keep me
busy, so I'm not volunteering for more work, but will keep in touch
with what BCSE is doing.
2254
ukantic
Changes to website
16/08/2006 22:43:00
Hi Roger,
On BS, I have put lines between the sidebar headings to separate them
out, as they were looking a bit confusing.
I have also added another link to the sidebar called, "more" that is
an entry point for anyone wanting to add other content. For example, I
have added a few random pages – links & forums & another called admin
where members can add comments about PmWiki mark up; little hints &
tips etc. I have created a page in this called GroupHeader which is
necessary for placing useful user defined functions in. To get the
ball rolling I have added the user defined functions &
which will highlight a block of text in pink marker & blue marker
respectively if placed before the text.
Hope this is of help
Alan.
2255
Roger Stanyard
Re: Changes to website
17/08/2006 10:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> On BS, I have put lines between the sidebar headings to separate them
> out, as they were looking a bit confusing.
>
Thanks Alan, this is actually a relief to me. It's hepled a lot in
getting together some that looks tidy.
Getting something together that is easily navigable for others isn't
easy on my first ever try at a web site.
2256
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
17/08/2006 10:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
>>
> I've included a link to BCSE on the "countering creationism" section
> of the Leicester Secular Society website. I've also been developing
> a simple introduction to evolution, and science generally:
>
> http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/science.htm
>
> But there is a lot more to be done on it. This is going to keep me
> busy, so I'm not volunteering for more work, but will keep in touch
> with what BCSE is doing.
This needs a reciprocal link to you web site. I should have this up
shortly.
Roger
2257
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
17/08/2006 10:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I was thinking of writing the two custom pieces myself.
>
Thanks Mikey. Now that will really add some gravitas.
2258
Roger Stanyard
Keys to Our Web Site/Wiki
17/08/2006 10:49:00
It's time today to open up the wiki to contributions and editing from
group members. I think it now has a reasonable structure.
So, if anyone wants the keys to contribute, email me off site.
I'll be away from my desk this afternoon till about 5 pm (latest).
The only thig I would ask is that it needs a links page and I want to
get that organised in the next couple of hours. Have a lokk at my
intial work on it first before adding/editing.
Roger
2259
ukantic
Re: Keys to Our Web Site/Wiki
17/08/2006 11:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> It's time today to open up the wiki to contributions and editing from
> group members. I think it now has a reasonable structure.
>
> So, if anyone wants the keys to contribute, email me off site.
>
> I'll be away from my desk this afternoon till about 5 pm (latest).
>
> The only thig I would ask is that it needs a links page and I want to
> get that organised in the next couple of hours. Have a lokk at my
> intial work on it first before adding/editing.
>
> Roger
>
I have added a page for links, which is under, "More", in the sidebar.
The ? signifies that there is currently no content. It is a good idea
to add in front of offsite links so that the links open in a
new window & you do not have to keep trying to relocate the site by
using the back button.
The sidebar is starting to get full. I do not think it is a good idea
to add too much more to this at present. If you want the links page
in the sidebar, perhaps it could be swapped with something else that
is not so important.
Alan.
2260
ukantic
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
17/08/2006 11:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...> wrote:
>
> I think we need at least one more spokesperson (not me at present).
>
> I think occasional or regular articles from others such as Lenny,
> Timothy Chase, Mikey Brass, Michael Sutkus, Dave Oldbridge etc. would be
> a good idea.
Michael Sutkus & Dave Oldbridge are not actually members of the forum,
but they are both experienced anticreationists whose expertise would
be more than welcome. Perhaps it might be an idea to offer them an
invitation to join BS if only to offer it a bit of moral support &
help build its reputation.
Alan.
2261
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
17/08/2006 15:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@>
wrote:
> >
> > I think we need at least one more spokesperson (not me at present).
> >
> > I think occasional or regular articles from others such as Lenny,
> > Timothy Chase, Mikey Brass, Michael Sutkus, Dave Oldbridge etc.
would be
> > a good idea.
>
> Michael Sutkus & Dave Oldbridge are not actually members of the forum,
I think Tim Chase has already asked Dave Oldridge. I wish we could get
both Michael and Dave in on this. Anyone here thinks they can pull them
in?
Roger
2262
andy_shill
New Website
17/08/2006 16:35:00
Hi Roger
I know you want the web site to be a primary PR tool and to attract
researchers and journalists. You have expressed your desire that it
would demonstrate a postive impression of the calibre of those
involved. My comments are motivated by that concern and are not
intended to denigrate the amount of work that you have put in to this
project.
CONFUSION
The immediate impression on scanning the site is one of confusion.
BCSE and BSCE appear interchangeable throughout. From the
introduction on, the British Centre for Science Education seems to
develop schizophrenia and by the time you get to "Research" multiple
personalities are developing. In a very short section we have BSCE
Research, BCSR Research and BCSE.
PROOF READING
Good proof reading of material is essential before it is made public.
The authors in the group have debated this already - acknowledging
that typos in emails and discussion fora are unimportant but on a web
site they are vital. This is especially important when you are
questioning the intellectual capacities of creationists and mocking
some for their inability to spell correctly and their grammatical
failings.
The following need to be corrected: completly; is riddle; general
understand; seems to suggests; featore; the extend; lost of press
coverage; who it has been; thw; 6m000; smeering; roaing; organisated;
Pentecoastal; Pentacostal; the follow is; you recent; you gap year;
you holidays; you claims; you car. Obviously, a simple spell check
is not sufficient to deal with grammatical inaccuracy. However, the
failure to attend to this will not convey the impression of
intellectual heavyweights and will open the door to serious
lampooning when others are being derided for their inability with the
English language.
HYPERBOLE
I would suggest that you need to beware of the danger of rhetoric and
hyperbole. They may be well suited to a blog or discussion group but
have potential to undermine your purpose in being perceived
seriously. For example to identify Leeds and Leicester Universities
as "leading and prestigious" may draw wry smiles from many faces. If
a survey was done on prestigious UK Unis I wonder how many people
would identify either of them. I can imagine the way that Anne
Robinson would react to that description of those institutions.
Similarly, "many of us are active in other parts of the world"
conveys an impression that could easily be attacked. The web site is
inviting people to go to the Black Shadow discussion forum where any
journalist could read of recent discussions on the inability to get
more than a handful of people actively involved. The frustration of
the few at the inactivity of the many (from a total of 50 members)
would be easily exposed.
FACTUAL ACCURACY
In order not to come across as ignorant individuals who have stepped
beyond the borders of any personal expertise you need to be factually
aware. For example, the AoG is probably the largest Pentecostal
denomination in Britain (lttle between them and Elim) but they are
not even mentioned in what is meant to be a description of the
Pentecostal churches in Britain. Further when you consider the
massive size of Assemblies of God in USA and the rest of the world it
would seem really strange not to identify them.
"Our analysis of the National Curriculum" would lead to huge
embarrassment if any journalist asked about the detail of same.
Black Shadow records clearly the difficulty in finding someone who
has the time to read it (let alone analyse it) and this is obviously
a work in progress not a completed task. Identifying creationists as
liars and then failing to be factually accurate is not wisdom.
Finally, under this head, did the 27 signatories ever identify
themselves to Estelle Morris as an ad hoc group or does the BCS refer
to them as this before publishing their letter. I personally, am not
certain about this but I do think that you should ask the question
before going public. If it is the latter then you would need to
seriously consider how you approach this. If it is the former then
before accusing people of a deliberate intention to mislead it might
be wise to consider the definition of "ad hoc".
"For this(purpose)" is my understanding, therefore an ad hoc group
would be a group of individuals who came together for a specific
purpose but do not act together on an on going basis outside that
purpose. The fact that 15 of them are part of another group and there
are some connections between all of them is neither strange nor
dishonest - necessarily. Any ad hoc group must have some connections
otherwise they would never become a group! If 12 out of 15 are not
part of BCS and BCS has a wider purpose(I am not familiar with their
stated aims) than to seek to influence what is taught in education
then ad hoc seems an entirely accurate description. I wouldn't want
to be defending the accusation in a court of law.
UMBRELLA
I am almost embarrassed to point out the obvious, however, don't you
think it is appropriate to identify on the website those
organisations that are under the umbrella of BCSE. That being the
purpose of BCSE and not replicating the work done by existing
organisations it would seem really weird for a journalist to visit
the site of an umbrella organisation and not know which organisations
were sheltering there.
There seems a real danger of going off "half-cocked" and this will
make it really difficult for people to take you seriously in the
future. I think you should have got agreement from key organisations
before putting the web site out there, but it is essential that you
get key organisations on board now. It is not enough to have a number
of web sites, any journalist worth his salt can easily tell the
difference between a serious organisation with academic credibility
and sad boys sitting typing in their bedrooms.
IN CONCLUSION
Roger, you are obviously passionate about this and giving significant
time and energy to the cause. You have regularly sought help and
clarification from others but it is obvious that for many this is not
a primary issue that receives priority and in recent days many have
stated as much. It is easy to respond to the new website by
saying "great work Roger", "well done", "looks good to me", but those
superficial responses will not save you from public humiliation. It
doesn't take an in depth study (a cursory glance lasting minutes is
all that is necessary) to see the mixture of BCSE, BSCE, BCSR etc.
Looking only at the first two pages would draw this to anyone's
attention and yet none of your colleagues took the time to point this
out or to consider it properly.
Those things are really easy but they have not done them. What about
advice on possible hate crime, libel etc. You have stuck your neck
out making strident accusations against the protestant evangelical
fundamentalist Christians in a way that could currently be
investigated as a hate crime. You have made specific accusations
against UK creationist groups on the basis of Ahmanson's association
with Chalcedon. Any of those groups (they are all included but may
not all have association)who take exception to that could take action
against you that would be detrimental to the cause. I appreciate that
this is a calculated risk when engaging in such a struggle but I
would advise against including anything that you are not absolutely
certain of or that is not really going to make a difference to
serious visitors to your site.
You identified your willingness to be a spokesperson and got little
sensible advice. A professional in Satellite Communications with an
MBa needs some serious backup from appropriate disciplines to
substaniate your position as spokesperson. You have attacked,
vehemently, Professors of Thermodynamics and Mechanical Engineering
as speaking outside their areas of expertise when they address this
subject. I think that the press and researchers could easily believe
they were much more fully qualified than you to speak to these
issues. Knowing how strongly you have attacked the academic
qualifications of others I would have thought some of the guys would
have questioned the wisdom of you being the primary spokesperson
because you have made yourself an easy target.
At the very least they should have advised you to include a list of
qualified pesonnel on the site whom you are speaking on behalf of and
together you need to consider an appropriate spin on your position as
spokesman.
I trust that you will forgive my forthright approach but I fear that
others around you are either too busy or else afraid that they might
upset you by speaking up. I can't imagine why else they would have
failed to identify some of these issues.
Regards
Andy
2263
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 19:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "andy_shill" <andy_shill@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roger
>
> I know you want the web site to be a primary PR tool and to attract
> researchers and journalists. You have expressed your desire that it
> would demonstrate a postive impression of the calibre of those
> involved. My comments are motivated by that concern and are not
> intended to denigrate the amount of work that you have put in to this
> project.
>
Hello Andy and welcome to the group.
Alas Andy I can't go through your points one by one until tomorrow.
There are just too many of them.
As a rough comment I woykld say that you appear to be confused betwen
my blog and what is on the web wiki/ They are two different things.
Thanks for the offer of helping with editing. As you appreciated the
web site is a wiki and indeed, was thrown open for editing and
contributions this morning.
You obviously have a very extensive knowledge of the creationist
movement in the UK and have been to a leading university.
It might be a very good idea if you could introduce yourself here or
even point the members to you blog/web site or whatever.
Good to see new members to the group.
Roger
2264
Mikey Brass
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 20:19:00
andy_shill wrote:
> but I fear that
> others around you are either too busy
With me, yes. More people from the silent majority need to speak up -
your post shows just how valuable a contribution can be made.
2265
ukantic
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 21:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "andy_shill" <andy_shill@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roger
>
> I know you want the web site to be a primary PR tool and to attract
> researchers and journalists. You have expressed your desire that it
> would demonstrate a postive impression of the calibre of those
> involved. My comments are motivated by that concern and are not
> intended to denigrate the amount of work that you have put in to this
> project.
<snip>
HI Andy,
Thanks for taking the time to put forward your constructive criticism
of the BCSE website & its planning. Obviously, there are a lot of
problems to be sorted out.
I handed over control of the BS forum to Roger some months ago, mainly
in order to devote as much time as possible to the task of moving my
business premises, which has involved a considerable amount of work.
Therefore my input into the formation of BCSE has been very limited.
However, I did try to at least point it in the right direction by
suggesting it should remain neutral on the issues of religion & politics.
I handed the forum over to Roger because since joining BS he had been
an enthusiastic contributor who seemed to be able to get on with
anyone. This naturally made him the obvious choice as someone with the
potential to take the group further.
Roger however cannot do all of this himself & I am worried about the
whole thing imploding under the strain. We have already had one group
(secular newsline) crash & burn after the owner quit & we don't want
that happening here.
I was aware of typos in the wiki contents; I even corrected a couple
on one page. I had made a mental note to do something about it but
refrained from saying anything because I did not want to make any
negative comments. I know there are people on the forum with very good
English skills & I was going to suggest that someone was put in charge
of editing articles for spelling mistakes, grammatical errors & verbosity.
My personal view is that if the support that Roger requires is not
forthcoming, he should abandon the idea of BCSE (which will require a
website by that name – which I am willing to host) & perhaps goes for
the less ambitious but more achievable goal of a smaller group
campaigning under the BS banner. It could maintain some of the goals
of the BCSE & many of the associated articles & could continue
campaigning with a lower profile – one that does not put itself out on
a pedestal or attract accusations of pretentiousness. It would also
carry a consistent branding. There would be the BS forum for
discussion & news reports, the BS website (which remember can be
accessed from www.blackshadow.co.uk as well as www.blackshadow.me.uk
where the wiki resides) which all members could contribute to, & which
could contain BCSE type material under the heading of say, "BS Campaigns".
With regard to Burgess, it is a simple fact that he is not qualified
as an expert in evolution. Regardless of how impressive his
qualifications may be, they are simply irrelevant & he is no more
qualified to pontificate his creationist misunderstandings of
evolution than the janitor who empties his bins. Roger does not need
any qualifications of any description in order to point this out.
Regards,
Alan.
2266
oeditor
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 22:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "andy_shill" <andy_shill@...> wrote:
> PROOF READING
> Good proof reading of material is essential before it is made >public.
True, but this has been built up in a hurry. I don't think anyone yet
sees it as a polished product.
> HYPERBOLE
> For example to identify Leeds and Leicester Universities
> as "leading and prestigious" may draw wry smiles from many faces.
Not mine. I have two degrees from Leeds. Leicester might be another
matter <joke>
>If
> a survey was done on prestigious UK Unis I wonder how many people
> would identify either of them. I can imagine the way that Anne
> Robinson would react to that description of those institutions.
Who she? A Girl from Girton?
> Finally, under this head, did the 27 signatories ever identify
> themselves to Estelle Morris as an ad hoc group or does the BCS
refer > to them as this before publishing their letter. lead it might
> be wise to consider the definition of "ad hoc".
<snip>
Point taken, but I think Roger's argument stands - the authors may
have assembled for the purpose, but the public impression is that they
have come together from all over, not from their creationist
organisation. Like the college of cardinals, coming from all over the
world to select a pope.
> UMBRELLA
> I am almost embarrassed to point out the obvious, however, don't you
> think it is appropriate to identify on the website those
> organisations that are under the umbrella of BCSE.
I must admit to being unhappy about this. But I think a twist of
emphasis might enough.
> Those things are really easy but they have not done them. What
about > advice on possible hate crime, libel etc.
Hate crime? Calling a cretin a cretin? Calling a preacher a liar?
Perhaps we should just give up or hand ourselves in to the Thought Police.
> You have made specific accusations
> against UK creationist groups on the basis of Ahmanson's association
> with Chalcedon. Any of those groups (they are all included but may
> not all have association)who take exception to that could take
>action > against you that would be detrimental to the cause.
While it might be foolhardy to risk litigation, it might also bring
matters to a head and show the cretinists for what they are. Count me
out, though, I'm afraid. [literally]
> A professional in Satellite Communications with an
> MBa needs some serious backup from appropriate disciplines to
> substaniate your position as spokesperson.
Like a fuel technologist needs a few god-botherers on board?
> You have attacked,
> vehemently, Professors of Thermodynamics and Mechanical Engineering
> as speaking outside their areas of expertise when they address this
> subject. I think that the press and researchers could easily >
>believe > they were much more fully qualified than you to speak to
>.these > issues.
They'd be wrong, though. The professors are quoting religious tracts
as though they were scientific journals. Neither has a qualification
in a relevent subject and they could be regarded as bringing
creationism into disrepute. Answers In Genesis, for instance, advises
its proponents to drop thermodynamics as a battleground.
> Knowing how strongly you have attacked the academic
> qualifications of others I would have thought some of the guys would
> have questioned the wisdom of you being the primary spokesperson
> because you have made yourself an easy target.
Not their academic qualifications. I'm sure that Andy McIntosh is an
excellent fuel technologist. That, however, has nothing to do with the
price of fish.
>
> I trust that you will forgive my forthright approach but I fear that
> others around you are either too busy or else afraid that they might
> upset you by speaking up. I can't imagine why else they would have
> failed to identify some of these issues.
Not so. I've been critical in the past but thought it early days to
argue about the site before it is more developed. Typos are a
distraction. That said, I must admit that we're pitching ourselves
against a slick and well funded machine. David & Goliath come to mind,
if you'll excuse the simile. We need a very well honed sling, if
you'll exuse the mixed metaphore.
Brian
2267
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 23:10:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
Just a wuick reminder to all. The wiki is now open to everybody to
edit, proof read, contribute to and so on. Obviously I can't post the
keys in public to give you access but all you need do is email me off
site.
There has been a lot posted to the site today.
Roger
2268
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 23:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
We are working our way forward reasonable fast but we have made a lot
of progress this month. This is absolutely the right time of the year
to concentrate on internals such as the web site and preparation.
We've got a big enought base of members to move foreward. The
movement has barely even been advertised amongts anti-creationist
groups.
Alan made a big effort this month in providing us with a wiki; that
would have taken me donkeys to sort out and quite frank;y I don't
think it would have been done this month without Alan.
Yes, I am deeply worried about libel laws. I've been subject to them
in the past. All I can do is direct everybody to the flaws in the
idea (not libelous) rather than the flaws in individuals (potentially
libelous).
Roger
2269
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
17/08/2006 23:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> With regard to Burgess, it is a simple fact that he is not qualified
> as an expert in evolution. Regardless of how impressive his
> qualifications may be, they are simply irrelevant & he is no more
> qualified to pontificate his creationist misunderstandings of
> evolution than the janitor who empties his bins. Roger does not need
> any qualifications of any description in order to point this out.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan.
Quick one Alan; er I have not posted an article on Stuart Burgess to
the web site. Nor Andy McIntosh. Nor David Tyler. Those are the three
that I singled out weeks ago. I've kept the articles off because of
past comments. Moreover, they are out of date.
The only article of any significance I have posted on an individual is
Paul Taylor and that's becauuse Taylor tried to pull apart a member of
this group, George Bellis, in the Leicester Mercury newspaper.
>
2270
Lenny Flank
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 00:12:00
You have made specific accusations
> against UK creationist groups on the basis of Ahmanson's association
> with Chalcedon.
It should be noted that Ahmanson is no longer a member of Chalcedon,
and has made some efforts in the press over the past few years to
disassociate himself from the, uh, TWENTY YEARS he spent financing
Rushdooney and his ilk. It of course seems awfully apparent to me
that this is just PR and that Ahmanson is still just as nutty as he
always was, but I would not want to be in the position of needing to
prove that in a court of law -- after all, I can't print out a copy
of whatever is inside the guy's head.
(Although I *wish* Ahmanson would sue me --- I'd *love* the
opportunity to go traipsing through all his files to see who he has
been giving his money to for the past few years . . . . )
===================================
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
2271
ukantic
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 00:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > With regard to Burgess, it is a simple fact that he is not qualified
> > as an expert in evolution. Regardless of how impressive his
> > qualifications may be, they are simply irrelevant & he is no more
> > qualified to pontificate his creationist misunderstandings of
> > evolution than the janitor who empties his bins. Roger does not need
> > any qualifications of any description in order to point this out.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alan.
>
> Quick one Alan; er I have not posted an article on Stuart Burgess to
> the web site. Nor Andy McIntosh. Nor David Tyler. Those are the three
> that I singled out weeks ago. I've kept the articles off because of
> past comments. Moreover, they are out of date.
>
> The only article of any significance I have posted on an individual is
> Paul Taylor and that's becauuse Taylor tried to pull apart a member of
> this group, George Bellis, in the Leicester Mercury newspaper.
>
Hi Roger,
I was responding to the last paragraph of Andy's post:
"You have attacked, vehemently, Professors of Thermodynamics and
Mechanical Engineering as speaking outside their areas of expertise
when they address this subject. I think that the press and researchers
could easily believe they were much more fully qualified than you to
speak to these issues. Knowing how strongly you have attacked the
academic qualifications of others I would have thought some of the
guys would have questioned the wisdom of you being the primary
spokesperson because you have made yourself an easy target."
These are a reference to Stuart Burgess & Andy (I just hope that is a
coincidence) McIntosh. I just picked Burgess at random to make a point.
See for example:
http://www.rationalist.org.uk/newhumanist/issue02summer/creationism.shtml
"Andy C McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory,
University of Leeds and Dr. Stuart Burgess is Reader in Engineering
Design, University of Bristol"
Alan
2272
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 08:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
> You have made specific accusations
> > against UK creationist groups on the basis of Ahmanson's
association
> > with Chalcedon.
>
>
> It should be noted that Ahmanson is no longer a member of
Chalcedon,
> and has made some efforts in the press over the past few years to
> disassociate himself from the, uh, TWENTY YEARS he spent financing
> Rushdooney and his ilk. It of course seems awfully apparent to me
> that this is just PR and that Ahmanson is still just as nutty as he
> always was, but I would not want to be in the position of needing
to
> prove that in a court of law -- after all, I can't print out a copy
> of whatever is inside the guy's head.
>
> (Although I *wish* Ahmanson would sue me --- I'd *love* the
> opportunity to go traipsing through all his files to see who he has
> been giving his money to for the past few years . . . . )
>
>
Um, I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, Lenny. It doesn't seem
to me that showing Ahmanson has been a board member of and funded the
Chalcedon Foundation is actionable against us in a court of law. Nor
is the fact that he has funded the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
or the Discovery Institute (even whilst he was still a board member
of the Chalcedon Foundation). Nor is it actionable that we stated
Rushfoony advocated murder. Stoning people to death for their
religious beliefs in both British and American law is murder.
Nor have I ever said that the five or so creationist movements in the
UK are in any way funded by Ahmanson.
My problem is this. BCSE is not about showing that fundamentalist
science is wrong. We are not a team of scientists. It's a public
policy advocacy organisation - to keep creationism out of science
education.
It seems to me that in public relations, all we can do is cast
serious doubts on the creationist movement. It seems to me that
showing where the money coms from for such organisations as the DI is
absolutely essential. Moreover, as an organisation that wants
religion on side, it is right and proper for us to point out the
damage Ahmanson is doing to organised religion in the UK. He is
funding the breakup of the Anglican movement.
There is a big cultural and political issue here. The CofE is as, its
name impled, THE Church oF England, not just another denomination.
It's an established church and the head of state is, in effect, head
of it. The Prime Minister recommends on the appointment of bishops
(and, IIRC can veto such appointments). It's bishops are politicians.
26 of them site in the upper house.
Moreover, as an established church, most people in England at least
view it as "our" church even though they never go anywhere near its
services. This is a cultural issue.
I think we should this play the Ahmanson card for all that it is
worth.
Comments and advice appreciated, please.
Roger
2273
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: New Website
18/08/2006 09:26:00
Leeds and Leceister have reasonable archaeology programs. Contrary to
public perception, one chooses the university or universities which are
the best in your particular discipline. The problem with this is, of
course, the "public perception".
Anne Robinson is the host of "The Weakest Link" quiz show.
The press, much of the public and researchers recognise the problem of
scholars stepping outside their particular areas of speciality. I do not
believe for a second that a respectable journalist would take the word of
a professor of engineering as definitive on biological evolution.
--
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)
2274
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 10:10:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Leeds and Leceister have reasonable archaeology programs. Contrary
to
> public perception, one chooses the university or universities which
are
> the best in your particular discipline. The problem with this is, of
> course, the "public perception".
It's even more complex that that. At post-grad level methinks the
process is even more finiky than at undergraduate level because post-
grad nearly always involves much more specialisation that
undergraduate work.
We are probably wrong, within the context I have presented it, as
describing Leicester as prestigus, though. My personal opinion is
that it is a pretty good university * but the issue is that we are
talking to the public who might see it otherwise. I have no qualms
about describing Leeds as prestigous because it is a Russell League
university (IIRC) and is thus generally recognised as such.
I'll check out and confirm its status later this morning.
Roger
2275
Roger Stanyard
Prestigous British Universities
18/08/2006 10:26:00
I've just done a quick check on Leeds and Leicester universities.
Leeds is a Russell League university but Liecester is in an anomolus
position. The Russell League is basically self-selecting. The source I
looked at (http://russell.league.en.infovx.biz/) seems ot confirm my
opinion that it is, indeed, a good university, placing it at number 18
out of the British universities. That is to say, it is on a par (just)
with Russell League universities.
I don't want to be drawn into the ambiguities of ranking universities.
However, there are now more than 100 universities (that is institutions
that can award their own degrees by virtue of a royal charter) in the
UK, excluding those that only offer post graduate qualifications*. In
other words both Leeds and Leicester look to be well within the top 20%.
It is therefore a matter of semantics whether we describe them as
prestigous or not.
I know that I am labouring a bit on this but it is important to address
Andy Shill's points one by one.
Roger
* Yes, I do recognise the issue here of the University of London. I've
slightly fudged on this by assuming that each college awards its own
degrees. Only Imperial has done this so far but UCL is moving in that
direction.
2276
Mikey Brass
For Leicester
18/08/2006 10:38:00
For Leicester University, and others, I think they should be referred to
as "established universities".
2277
Roger Stanyard
Re: For Leicester
18/08/2006 11:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> For Leicester University, and others, I think they should be referred
to
> as "established universities".
Point taken. How about using the term "well respected and established
universities".
2278
Roger Stanyard
The Estelle Morris Letter
18/08/2006 11:25:00
For everybody's information here is the full text of the Estelle
Morris letter taken from AiG's web site:
Dear Secretary of State
Teaching of Origins in Schools
The undersigned academics, scientists and educationists are deeply
concerned that the reasonable position taken by the QCA in National
Curriculum science and by Ofsted concerning the teaching of origins
at secondary level has been challenged. (We write as a group of
individuals and consequently the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the view of those organisations with which we are
associated).
The National Curriculum requires that Darwinian evolution is put
across as the dominant scientific theory but also requires that
pupils are taught "how scientific controversies can result from
different ways of interpreting empirical data". Science should be
taught with the critical appraisal of alternative theories. Such
debate concerning opposing theories provides rigour in scientific
method and contributes to the development of critical thinking by
pupils.
We find it most inappropriate that some well-meaning scientists have
given the impression that there can only be one scientific view
concerning origins. By doing so they are going way beyond the limits
of empirical science which has to recognise, at the very least,
severe limitations concerning origins. No one has proved
experimentally the idea that large variations can emerge from simpler
life forms in an unbroken ascendancy to man. A large body of
scientific evidence in biology, geology and chemistry, as well as the
fundamentals of information theory, strongly suggest that evolution
is not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe.
We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open
and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at
the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to
deliver a rigorous education.
Yours sincerely
Andy McIntosh BSc, PhD, DSc, FIMA, CMath, FInstE, CEng, FinstP
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, University of
Leeds
Edgar Andrews BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIM, C.Eng, C.Phys.
Emeritus Professor of Materials Science, University of London.
David Back BSc, PhD
Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of Liverpool
Stuart Burgess BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE
Reader in Engineering Design, University of Bristol
Sylvia Baker BSc, MSc
Head, Trinity Christian School, Stalybridge
Nancy Darrall BSc, MSc, PhD, MIBiol
formerly Research Officer, Central Electricity Generating Authority
Graham Everest BSc, PhD
Professor of Mathematics, University of East Anglia
Ian Fuller BSc, PhD
Lecturer in Physical Geography, Northumbria University
Nick Fuller BSc, PhD
Post-doctoral research (Molecular Biology), University of Warwick
Colin Garner BTech, BEng, PhD, CEng, MIMechE, MSAE
Reader (Applied Thermodynamics), University of Loughborough
Paul Garner BSc, MIInfSc, FGS
Senior Information Scientist, Cambridge Science Park
D B Gower BSc, PhD, DSc, CChem, FRSC, CBiol, FIBiol
Emeritus Professor of Steroid Biochemistry, University of London
Terry Hamblin MB, ChB, DM, FRCP, FRCPath
Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton
Arthur Jones BSc, MEd, PhD, CBiol, MIBiol
Science Education Consultant
Nigel Jones MS, FRCS
Consultant Vascular Surgeon, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne
Geoffrey Lewis MA, FSA, FMA, HonFMA
formerly Director of Museum Studies, University of Leicester
past President, International Council of Museums
Derek Linkens BSc(Eng), MSc, PhD, DSc(Eng), ACGI, CEng, FIEE, FinstMC
Research Professor in Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield
formerly Dean of Engineering, University of Sheffield.
past President, Institute of Measurement and Control
Jeff Lowe MSc, MCGI, DMS
formerly Principal Lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan University
John Peet BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC
formerly Science Coordinator, Guildford College of Further and Higher
Education
David Rosevear PhD, CChem, FRSC
formerly Senior Lecturer, University of Portsmouth
Nigel Robinson BSc, PhD
Post-doctoral research, University of Leicester (Currently teaching
Chemistry)
Stephen Taylor BSc, MEng, PhD, ACGI, MIEE
Reader in Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of
Liverpool
David Tyler BSc, MSc, PhD, CertEd, MinstP, CPhys, ACFI
Senior Lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan University
David Walton BSc, PhD
Visiting Lecturer, Dept of Computer Science, University of Durham
Information Systems Consultant
David Watts PhD, FRSC, FInstP, FADM
Professor of Dental Biomaterials Science, University of Manchester
Dental School
Tim Wells BSc, PhD
Lecturer in Neuroscience, University of Cardiff
Bill Worraker BSc, PhD
Senior (Software) Development Engineer, Hyprotech UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
This was an ad hoc group, which came together to sign this letter.
The letter was not sent by any organization. The views expressed by
the signatories do not necessarily represent the views of their
respective organizations.
My comments are as follows:
The letter makes clear that the signatories did not necessarily
present the views of the organisations that they we associated with.
That is horribly ambiguous because the letter is (or was) posted on
BCS's web site and 15 of the signatories had been associated with
that organisation including the then head of the BCS, Edgar Andrews.
Moreover the BCS's web site makes it abundantly clear that the letter
represents its views as an organisation. The BCS has posted the
latter to its web site and the whole of the website is dedicated to
the fact its members believe mainstream science to be wrong on both
evolution and the old age of the earth.
Moreover, this page shows that not only does BCS advocate teaching
creationism in science lessons, it actually is:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/talks/itineraryGarnerNI.htm. I
will post the full details in a minute.
The footnote clearly says that it was an ad hoc group.
The letter makes no mention of the creationist organisations with
which they were associated. Yet the letter was posted to AiG's web
site together with comments from Andy McIntosh who was spokesman for
the group and also onto the web site of the BCS.
2279
Roger Stanyard
Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 11:29:00
The following is the itinery of Paul Garner, head of the BCS, for
November 2006. It shows that he is presenting to a science lesson
(biology) for 13 year olds. On the 24th November he will address a
biology lesson for 13 year olds (it appears) at Omagh Academy. I'll
check out the academy in a moment:
Itinerary
Thursday 24 November
9.30 - 10.00 am Assembly or RE lesson (5-8 years),
Model Primary School, Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh
1.45 - 2.20 pm RE lesson (Year 10)
Omagh Academy, Co. Tyrone
2.20 - 2.55 pm RE lesson (Year 11)
Omagh Academy, Co. Tyrone
2.55 - 3.30 pm Biology lesson (Year 13)
Omagh Academy, Co. Tyrone
7.45 - 9.45 pm Public Lecture: "Is Evolution True?"
Devenish Room, Lakeland Forum Leisure Centre, Enniskillen,
Co. Fermanagh
Friday 25 November
11.45 am - 12.45 pm Sixth Form Enrichment Programme,
Portora Royal School, Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh
7.00 pm Public Lecture: "Walking With Dinosaurs" Youth Fellowship,
Stonepark Baptist Church, Brookeborough, Co. Fermanagh
Saturday 26 November
7.30 pm Youth meeting (10-15 years),
Sion Mills Baptist Church, Co. Tyrone
Sunday 27 November
11.30 am "The Genesis Foundation", Morning service,
Mullaghmeen Baptist Church, near Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh
6.30 pm "The Genesis Foundation", Evening service,
Ballymoney Baptist Church, Ballymoney, Co. Antrim
Monday 28 November
8.00 pm "Mt St Helens: Monument to Catastrophe"
Ballycraigy Congregational Church, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim
Contact: Henry Montgomery (02890 833267)
Tuesday 29 November
12.00 - 2.00 pm Student café,
Stranmillis Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Belfast, Co.
Antrim
Contact: Gareth Burke (02890 450900)
3.45 pm Sixth-form Christian Union
Methodist College, Belfast, Co. Antrim
8.00 pm "Is Evolution True?"
Groomsport Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Donaghadee Road,
Groomsport, Co. Antrim
Contact: Jeff Ballantine (02891 450198)
2280
Roger Stanyard
Omagh Academy is a State School
18/08/2006 11:33:00
I've just checked it out and Omagh Academy has been a state school
since 1934: see http://www.omaghacademy.co.uk/aboutus.html
2281
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: For Leicester
18/08/2006 12:48:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Point taken. How about using the term "well respected and established
> universities".
Gets the point across well.
2282
oeditor
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 13:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> The following is the itinery of Paul Garner, head of the BCS, for
> November 2006. It shows that he is presenting to a science lesson
> (biology) for 13 year olds. On the 24th November he will address a
> biology lesson for 13 year olds (it appears) at Omagh Academy. I'll
> check out the academy in a moment:
>
> Itinerary
> Thursday 24 November
I think that's 2005 - Nov 24th this year is a Friday. The BCS link
which you posted confirms that - but only if you read it very closely.
They mention 2006 then give the 2005 dates.
Brian
2283
Roger Stanyard
The Esatelle Morris Letter
18/08/2006 13:10:00
I have gone back (again, for the nth time in the last few months) to
check exactly what is on the Biblical Creation Society's web site
about the 2002 Estelle Morris letter. The letter is published there
are the site does say that it was written by an ad hoc group and
doesn't mention that 15 of the signatoroes were or had been
associated with the BCS including the then head of the BCS and its
current head.
The letter can be found at
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educational_issues/bcs116.html
The statement that it was an ad hoc group is not in the letter.
However, the BCS's introduction to the letter confirms the footnote
on the AiG web page that it was an ad hoc group. It seems that as 15
members of the BCS were signatories to the letter, it is wholly
implausible that the statement is wrong.
However, we do have a minor problem in that we cannot at this stage
prove that Estelle Morris was told at the time that it was an ad hoc
group. The problem is that the AiG page seems to suggest she was (as
a foot note) but the BCS page does not.
Anyone got any comments on this? What is for certain is the
signatories have let it been known in public that it was an ad hoc
group. What we don't know is precisely when.
Roger
2284
Roger Stanyard
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 13:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > The following is the itinery of Paul Garner, head of the BCS, for
> > November 2006. It shows that he is presenting to a science lesson
> > (biology) for 13 year olds. On the 24th November he will address a
> > biology lesson for 13 year olds (it appears) at Omagh Academy. I'll
> > check out the academy in a moment:
> >
> > Itinerary
> > Thursday 24 November
>
> I think that's 2005 - Nov 24th this year is a Friday. The BCS link
> which you posted confirms that - but only if you read it very closely.
> They mention 2006 then give the 2005 dates.
>
Brain,
Help!
What link? The only link I have posted to BCS is on my blog. When I
went back to check what you have said the contents that I posted to
this site showing Garner's intinerary had disappeared. Could you let me
know the URL which to checked against?
I have just spent the last 20 minutes or so trying to find on the BCS's
web site what I posted earlier this morning.
Can you double check to see if the page you visited has been altered
today?
Roger
2285
Roger Stanyard
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 13:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > The following is the itinery of Paul Garner, head of the BCS, for
> > November 2006. It shows that he is presenting to a science lesson
> > (biology) for 13 year olds. On the 24th November he will address a
> > biology lesson for 13 year olds (it appears) at Omagh Academy. I'll
> > check out the academy in a moment:
> >
> > Itinerary
> > Thursday 24 November
>
> I think that's 2005 - Nov 24th this year is a Friday. The BCS link
> which you posted confirms that - but only if you read it very closely.
> They mention 2006 then give the 2005 dates.
>
> Brian
>Brian,
Now I am utterly confused because I have not posted a link in this
group to Garner's intinerary.
I assume that you used to one I posted to my blog; this is
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/talks/itineraryGarner.htm
However, when I looked at this about 30 minutes ago, the bit I posted
about Garner's itinerary had gone.
Can you confirm the URL you checked?
I think this may be very important because we may be being monitored by
BCS.
I could be paranoid here a bit!
Roger
2286
Roger Stanyard
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 13:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > The following is the itinery of Paul Garner, head of the BCS, for
> > November 2006. It shows that he is presenting to a science lesson
> > (biology) for 13 year olds. On the 24th November he will address a
> > biology lesson for 13 year olds (it appears) at Omagh Academy. I'll
> > check out the academy in a moment:
> >
> > Itinerary
> > Thursday 24 November
>
> I think that's 2005 - Nov 24th this year is a Friday. The BCS link
> which you posted confirms that - but only if you read it very closely.
> They mention 2006 then give the 2005 dates.
>
> Brian
>
2287
oeditor
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 14:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> Now I am utterly confused because I have not posted a link in this
> group to Garner's intinerary.
>
> I assume that you used to one I posted to my blog; this is
> http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/talks/itineraryGarner.htm
>
> However, when I looked at this about 30 minutes ago, the bit I posted
> about Garner's itinerary had gone.
>
> Can you confirm the URL you checked?
You gave the link towards the end of message 2278about the Estelle
Morris letter. I had to search Yahoo to find it again! It's
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/talks/itineraryGarnerNI.htm
The confusing text is this:
"2006 and beyond
Paul and the BCS Committee hope that this will be the first of many
speaking visits by Paul to Northern Ireland. You can be thinking and
praying now as to how you could use Paul in further visits in 2006 and
beyond.
Itinerary
Thursday 24 November "
I've since discovered his actual 2006 list at
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/talks/itineraryGarner.htm
(which is the one you've posted above)
He appears to have taught at Castle Corfe School in Dorset this July.
This is a CofE voluntary aided first school.
There's also the much-heralded October week of "Creation Meetings" in
North Yorkshire - still with "details to follow".
Hope this helps,
Brian
2288
oeditor
Re: Biblical Creation Society Teaching in Science Lessons
18/08/2006 15:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> There's also the much-heralded October week of "Creation Meetings"
in > North Yorkshire - still with "details to follow".
>
This link confirms the North Yorkshire BCS campaign, but again with no
details.
http://www.samchapman.f2s.com/AnEindex.htm
While digging, I found that Paul Taylor will be in North Yorkshire at
the same time. Could this be a Gathering?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5032
= http://tinyurl.com/jrjb7
Also, Blackpool revisited: Dr Monty White (a chemist,like Nick Cowan,
btw) head of AiG-UK will be in Southport and Blackpool on 22 & 23
September 2006.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=16
= http://tinyurl.com/hkl4l
Brian
2289
Ian Lowe
RE: New Website
18/08/2006 15:49:00
Andy makes some very convincing points.
I have been away on business, and it's pretty sobering to see that we are
not one step further forward on the important stuff. Seriously, nobody else
came forward to have a look at the National Curriculum? But we have lots of
edits being done on the website?
Sorry guys, but I'm just shaking my head in disbelief at this. Doesn't this
strike anyone else as a bit "fur coat, no knickers"?
At this point, we don't have a campaign to speak of - what in the name of
hell is the point of going public in such an embryonic state?
I don't know if you guys are aware, but large sections of the web get
archived, and these older versions of websites can be highly embarrasing
when dragged out at just the wrong moment in the future. I would have
suggested that the website was developed in private, then placed live in a
formal launch event (which, of course, gives a perfect reason to contact the
press with a release and maybe get some column inches)
Some points:
1) We have not defined what we are actually campaigning for.
Doing so is hard work, a lot more so than throwing text into a website, but
it has to be done. More significantly, it has to be done *first* - long
before anyone starts talking to the press. The question "what do you want"
has to be answered clearly and in detail, not as a vague nebulous goal.
Someone *must* spend the time doing this before we go any further with
public exposure.
2) Basic issues such as the legal status have to be addressed - potential
exposure to libel is only one aspect of this - what about financial
structure (inland revenue needs to made aware of any UK organisation within
18 months), charter for the organisation (a bank will not allow a group to
open an account without a formal memorandum of association or similar
document).
Who makes decisions, and how are these validated? Is there a
council/committee/leadership group? How are officials chosen? Should the
group apply for charity status?
These things have to be sorted out - they cannot be ignored just because
they are difficult.
As a further point, the "black shadow" thing is a concern, because the
meaning needs to be explained, and could be very easily confused as
something racist.
I'm here if anyone needs help with specifics. I do *not* have the time to
become a major player in this campaign.
My heartfelt advice at this point - if you don't start getting significant
offers of assistance, walk away now before you expose yourself any further.
There is too much work here for a one man crusade, and you need people who
will help do the hard, slow and undesirable jobs, not the fun and games of
populating a website.
I.
2290
Ian Lowe
RE: Omagh Academy is a State School
18/08/2006 15:58:00
Roger,
Omagh Academy is in Northern Ireland.
I thought there was a concensus that English schools and the English system
were the place to be focusing efforts?
*this* is what I am talking about. Without a formal statement of what the
organisation is campaigning for etc, it turns into a completely reactive
thing.
So the head of BCS is going to a school in Ulster. SO WHAT. Does trying to
take the fight to Ulster help fight the creationists in England?
We had already discussed NI - it's too big a challenge to take on, because
religion in the province is entwined with the entire political scene. Any
attack on the (protestant) creationists will be seen as support for Rome,
and therefore support for Sinn Fein. You are onto a hiding to nothing in
Ulster.
Save your powder, and spend any time you were going to spend on digging
further into Omagh on sorting out the basics.
I.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 18 August 2006 11:34
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Omagh Academy is a State School
I've just checked it out and Omagh Academy has been a state school since
1934: see http://www.omaghacademy.co.uk/aboutus.html
2291
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 16:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Andy makes some very convincing points.
>
> I have been away on business, and it's pretty sobering to see that
we are
> not one step further forward on the important stuff. Seriously,
nobody else
> came forward to have a look at the National Curriculum? But we have
lots of
> edits being done on the website?
>
We started the web on Monday. I'm the only one doing any editing
(except for some small amount of help from Alan).
The keys to it were offered to everyone on Wednesday so if anyone
wnats to help to get it out of the way feel free.
Sorry guys, but I'm just shaking my head in disbelief at this.
Doesn't this
> strike anyone else as a bit "fur coat, no knickers"?
>
> At this point, we don't have a campaign to speak of - what in the
name of
> hell is the point of going public in such an embryonic state?
The campaign is being worked on. Today and tomorrow. Some of us are
trying as you appreciate.
>
> I don't know if you guys are aware, but large sections of the web
get
> archived, and these older versions of websites can be highly
embarrasing
> when dragged out at just the wrong moment in the future. I would
have
> suggested that the website was developed in private, then placed
live in a
> formal launch event (which, of course, gives a perfect reason to
contact the
> press with a release and maybe get some column inches)
How on earth are we going to get a formal launch event together? We
have to get more members first.
>
> Some points:
>
> 1) We have not defined what we are actually campaigning for.
>
> Doing so is hard work, a lot more so than throwing text into a
website, but
> it has to be done. More significantly, it has to be done *first* -
long
> before anyone starts talking to the press. The question "what do
you want"
> has to be answered clearly and in detail, not as a vague nebulous
goal.
>
> Someone *must* spend the time doing this before we go any further
with
> public exposure.
>
> 2) Basic issues such as the legal status have to be addressed -
potential
> exposure to libel is only one aspect of this - what about financial
> structure (inland revenue needs to made aware of any UK
organisation within
> 18 months), charter for the organisation (a bank will not allow a
group to
> open an account without a formal memorandum of association or
similar
> document).
>
> Who makes decisions, and how are these validated? Is there a
> council/committee/leadership group? How are officials chosen?
Should the
> group apply for charity status?
>
Oh no, this is far too fast and ambitious to be planning at this
state. It won't work with just 50 members. At this early stage it
must be much more informal.
> These things have to be sorted out - they cannot be ignored just
because
> they are difficult.
>
> As a further point, the "black shadow" thing is a concern, because
the
> meaning needs to be explained, and could be very easily confused as
> something racist.
>
> I'm here if anyone needs help with specifics. I do *not* have the
time to
> become a major player in this campaign.
>
> My heartfelt advice at this point - if you don't start getting
significant
> offers of assistance, walk away now before you expose yourself any
further.
> There is too much work here for a one man crusade, and you need
people who
> will help do the hard, slow and undesirable jobs, not the fun and
games of
> populating a website.
>
Well, let's wait and see. It's wholly unrealistic to expect much
during mid-August; that's the reason for getting the web site out of
the way quickly.
My own attitude to this is that I have taken time off work to get
some of the basics in place this week. However, I am worried that it
seems all of the comments are negative. As it stands, updating of the
web site is on hold for 24 hours because of criticisms. The basic web
would have been completed this weekend otherwise.
2292
Roger Stanyard
Re: Omagh Academy is a State School
18/08/2006 16:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> So the head of BCS is going to a school in Ulster. SO WHAT. Does
trying to
> take the fight to Ulster help fight the creationists in England?
>
> We had already discussed NI - it's too big a challenge to take on,
because
> religion in the province is entwined with the entire political
scene. Any
> attack on the (protestant) creationists will be seen as support for
Rome,
> and therefore support for Sinn Fein. You are onto a hiding to
nothing in
> Ulster.
>
> Save your powder, and spend any time you were going to spend on
digging
> further into Omagh on sorting out the basics.
>
Just a tip, Ian. Um Peter Henderson wanted to handle this as part of
SJS. He is living in Northern Ireland so it would never have been our
baby anyway.
Roger
2293
Wilson Alan
Invitation to join Blackshadow groupUK
18/08/2006 16:26:00
Anti-creationism in schools members of DC, particular those who
can give support and advice and especially those who would submit regular or occasional
articles, are invited to join the UK Blackshadow group
Michael E. Suttkus and Dave Oldridge were mention in
particular J
Alan W
2294
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
18/08/2006 16:18:00
bgcolor="white"
That should have been Michael E. Suttkus
and Dave Oldridge.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ukantic
Sent: 17 August 2006 11:53
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Web
Site - Request for Comments
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...> wrote:
>
> I think we need at least one more spokesperson (not me at present).
>
> I think occasional or regular articles from others such as Lenny,
> Timothy Chase, Mikey Brass, Michael Sutkus, Dave Oldbridge etc. would be
> a good idea.
Michael Sutkus & Dave Oldbridge are not actually members of the forum,
but they are both experienced anticreationists whose expertise would
be more than welcome. Perhaps it might be an idea to offer them an
invitation to join BS if only to offer it a bit of moral support &
help build its reputation.
Alan.
2295
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: New Website
18/08/2006 17:28:00
> How on earth are we going to get a formal launch event together? We have
to get more members first.
Formal launch event does not equate with physical launch event.
It's simply a case of putting it live at a specific time, getting a couple
of "faces" lined up with nice supportive comments, and sending out a press
release.
> Oh no, this is far too fast and ambitious to be planning at this state.
I did some work with a couple of voluntary groups in glasgow last year as
part of the healthy organisations program - and the one thing that blights
campaign groups more than anything else is not defining how the organisation
operates, but just carrying on in an ad hoc way.
Quite to the contrary of being too ambitious at this stage, this is the best
stage to do this at!!
There's plenty of resources available about this. The website of the SCVO
(www.scvo.org.uk) has a decent intro.
> It won't work with just 50 members. At this early stage it must be much
more informal.
That's a mistake.
> It's wholly unrealistic to expect much during mid-August;
Quite to the contrary, the school term starts in two weeks and DFES are
sending out updated guidance to schools for 06-07 this week.
This was *the* time to be getting the political goals figured out.
> My own attitude to this is that I have taken time off work to get some of
the basics in place this week.
You are taking time off work, and there's not even a volunteer to read the
damn national curriculum? What is going to happen when the shit hits the fan
and you really do need support?
This isn't rocket science - as Mikey said on Wednesday, you seem to be doing
most of the work here, If you can't even get someone to help leaf through
the NC to figure out what needs fixing, what's going to happen if some
fundie hits you with court action?
That's one of the situations where a properly structured organisation with a
memo of association acts as a legal shield - and without it, it's just you
with a circle painted on your chest.
The sound of tumbleweed rolling past was pretty much the only thing heard
when we asked about getting some help in here - How reassuring would that
sound when it's your neck on the line, and you need some people you can rely
on?
> However, I am worried that it seems all of the comments are negative.
> As it stands, updating of the web site is on hold for 24 hours because of
criticisms.
Roger, seriously, the pouted lip really doesn't suit you.
What would you prefer here?
Some smoke blown up your ass about how great the website is, or the cold
hard facts - that the website is nowhere near as important as the actual
meat and bones of the organisation?
It's weeks ago now (months?) that Lenny was talking about sorting out the
basics - what do we want, who can give it to us, and what do we have to do
to make them do so?
The attempt to figure exactly that out is falling flat on it's face - and
it's campaign organisation 101.
>The basic web would have been completed this weekend otherwise.
Who cares?
The basic web is worthless if the organisation doesn't have a clear steer on
what it hopes to achieve. It's window dressing, nothing more.
I.
2296
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Omagh Academy is a State School
18/08/2006 17:43:00
> Just a tip, Ian. Um Peter Henderson wanted to handle this as part of SJS.
He is living in Northern Ireland so it would never have been our baby
anyway.
"Just a tip"?
I'm not sure whether that was supposed to be condescending or just off the
cuff, either way, it's missing the whole point.
If you are simply reactionary to what the BCS are doing, this organisation
will be as much use as a chocolate teapot.
The relevance of the BCS visiting a school is only insomuch as it allows you
to further your own goals with the press and elected representatives.
In the right context, you could use this as something to write to the press
and education secretary about, using it to indicate how serious the threat
they pose is - and how this vindicates your call for blah blah blah
regulation to be tightened/enforced.
Without having those goals in a clear presentable form, it's just another
complaint, and helps foster the notion that it's just two equally valid
positions making a noise.
For an example of this done right, watch the campaign of the RC church to
get the act of settlement revoked. It's an issue that very few people care
about, but the handling of the political campaign so far has been superb.
I.
2297
Roger Stanyard
Re: Omagh Academy is a State School
18/08/2006 17:51:00
--- In
