2301
Mikey Brass
Archaeology courses on offering
18/08/2006 21:23:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Dear all,
I am going to be offering my online archaeology courses again over the
course of the coming six months. The courses and the
schedules are given below:
Saharan archaeology
Duration: 10 weeks, Sunday 21 January - Saturday 31 March 2007
Cost: £40 / $80
Details: http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_NorthAfrica.html
World Archaeology (human evolution)
Duration: 8 weeks, Sunday 24 September - Saturday 18 November August
2006
Cost: £30 / $60
Details: http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_worldarchaeology.html
The Ancient Egyptian Past
Duration: 6 weeks, Sunday 24 September - Saturday 04 November 2006
Cost: £30 / $60
Details: http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_AE_general.html
--
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)
2302
Roger Stanyard
Some Site Rules
18/08/2006 22:04:00
I'll be gentle tonight and point out some house rules that everybody
intuitively knows but sometimes need proding on.
Firstly, a message to Andy Shill. Will you please identify yourself or
at least make an introduction.
Secondly, whilst within the group there is a fundamentalist who I don't
care how anybody addresses, NOBODY starts using the F word when
addressing other regular members of this group.
Roger
2303
Martin Young
NtA bank account open.
18/08/2006 22:52:00
Folk,
As previously discussed NtA now has a bank account. I'll save BS the
tawdry details but there's a full explanation over at the NtA forum,
here <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202#202>,
or just for the thread in the General Discussion section.
Anybody who wants to contribute should contact Marc and ask for my
address where cheques will be gratefully received. (If you're the
trusting sort you ask me directly, of course.) I've started a new
thread at NtA to discuss what should be done with the millions that
will undoubtedly pour in. Just for interest sake, I opened the
account with the £20 which would have gone to the poster campaign had
Pete cashed the cheque.
What might be interesting even to non-NtAers is the conversation I had
with the chap at the bank.
He told me he used to live near the City Academy in Bristol which he
didn't like for reasons he didn't state It's interesting that he was
generally hostile even to a non-religious Academy (City has a sports
specialism and is sponsored by the local football team's owner).
There's a seam of general reactionary dislike for Academies waiting to
be mined, I think.
Prior to that he worked in Brighton where the Scientology wingnuts
live. I pointed out that the Scientologists could, in theory, open an
Academy too which provoked quite a strong reaction. Good! There's
scope for discrediting the religiously driven through association with
lunatics and known scamsters. "Creationists, fundamentalists and
Scientologists all agree that... etc etc"
He offered to put up a poster in the Halifax ("We're not supposed
to!") but I suspect him of being a little too enthusiastic by that point.
-Martin.
2304
Marc Draco
Re: NtA bank account open.
18/08/2006 23:27:00
ROFLOL!
Give that man a medal! ;-)
Martin Young wrote:
>
> Folk,
>
> As previously discussed NtA now has a bank account. I'll save BS the
> tawdry details but there's a full explanation over at the NtA forum,
> here <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202#202
> <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202#202>>,
> or just for the thread in the General Discussion section.
>
> Anybody who wants to contribute should contact Marc and ask for my
> address where cheques will be gratefully received. (If you're the
> trusting sort you ask me directly, of course.) I've started a new
> thread at NtA to discuss what should be done with the millions that
> will undoubtedly pour in. Just for interest sake, I opened the
> account with the £20 which would have gone to the poster campaign had
> Pete cashed the cheque.
>
> What might be interesting even to non-NtAers is the conversation I had
> with the chap at the bank.
>
> He told me he used to live near the City Academy in Bristol which he
> didn't like for reasons he didn't state It's interesting that he was
> generally hostile even to a non-religious Academy (City has a sports
> specialism and is sponsored by the local football team's owner).
> There's a seam of general reactionary dislike for Academies waiting to
> be mined, I think.
>
> Prior to that he worked in Brighton where the Scientology wingnuts
> live. I pointed out that the Scientologists could, in theory, open an
> Academy too which provoked quite a strong reaction. Good! There's
> scope for discrediting the religiously driven through association with
> lunatics and known scamsters. "Creationists, fundamentalists and
> Scientologists all agree that... etc etc"
>
> He offered to put up a poster in the Halifax ("We're not supposed
> to!") but I suspect him of being a little too enthusiastic by that point.
>
> -Martin.
>
>
2305
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: New Website
18/08/2006 23:38:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> >
there's not even a volunteer to
> read the > damn national curriculum?
Is that a hand raise I see there . . . . ?
;)
===================================
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
2306
Roger Stanyard
Re: NtA bank account open.
18/08/2006 23:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@...> wrote:
>
> Folk,
>
> As previously discussed NtA now has a bank account. I'll save BS
the
> tawdry details but there's a full explanation over at the NtA forum,
> here <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?
p=202#202>,
> or just for the thread in the General Discussion section.
>
Martin,
Well done, someone who actually has managed to get off their
backsides and do something. Peter Hearty would be proud of you.
I'll email Marc off site tomorrow to get a donation off.
Roger
(Well that totals five people in the anti-creationist movement in the
UK today who have done more than winge, use the F word or refuse to
say who they are.)
2307
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
18/08/2006 23:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
> > >
> there's not even a volunteer to
> > read the > damn national curriculum?
>
>
>
> Is that a hand raise I see there . . . . ?
>
> ;)
>
Not in Ian's case.
Roger
2308
John Germain
RE: NtA bank account open.
18/08/2006 23:56:00
I don't trust 'im, looks far too dodgy... so, Marc, YOU send me Martin's
address: that way
I know it'll be safe... ermmm, ah,, ah, Buggritt!
Would ONE of you, please?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc
Draco
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:27 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] NtA bank account open.
ROFLOL!
Give that man a medal! ;-)
Martin Young wrote:
>
> Folk,
>
> As previously discussed NtA now has a bank account. I'll save BS the
> tawdry details but there's a full explanation over at the NtA forum,
> here <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202#202
> <http://www.notoacademies.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=202#202>>,
> or just for the thread in the General Discussion section.
>
> Anybody who wants to contribute should contact Marc and ask for my
> address where cheques will be gratefully received. (If you're the
> trusting sort you ask me directly, of course.) I've started a new
> thread at NtA to discuss what should be done with the millions that
> will undoubtedly pour in. Just for interest sake, I opened the
> account with the £20 which would have gone to the poster campaign had
> Pete cashed the cheque.
>
> What might be interesting even to non-NtAers is the conversation I had
> with the chap at the bank.
>
> He told me he used to live near the City Academy in Bristol which he
> didn't like for reasons he didn't state It's interesting that he was
> generally hostile even to a non-religious Academy (City has a sports
> specialism and is sponsored by the local football team's owner).
> There's a seam of general reactionary dislike for Academies waiting to
> be mined, I think.
>
> Prior to that he worked in Brighton where the Scientology wingnuts
> live. I pointed out that the Scientologists could, in theory, open an
> Academy too which provoked quite a strong reaction. Good! There's
> scope for discrediting the religiously driven through association with
> lunatics and known scamsters. "Creationists, fundamentalists and
> Scientologists all agree that... etc etc"
>
> He offered to put up a poster in the Halifax ("We're not supposed
> to!") but I suspect him of being a little too enthusiastic by that point.
>
> -Martin.
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
2309
Lenny Flank
RE: NtA bank account open.
19/08/2006 00:26:00
> > Prior to that he worked in Brighton where the Scientology wingnuts
> > live.
I live less than fifteen minutes from Clearwater, Florida, the, uh,
"intergalactic headquarters" for the Scientologists.
They are, uh, nutty.
It's a good thing, though, that they make no real attempts to gain
political influence or control (they seem to be far more interested
in simply soaking up as much money from their gullible flock as they
can). They would be EXTREMELY difficult opponents to fight in the
political arena.
===================================
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
2310
oeditor
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 01:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > there's not even a volunteer to
> > > read the > damn national curriculum?
> Not in Ian's case.
>
> Roger
>
All right, I'll read the fucking thing over the weekend. But pass the
sick bucket first - it's sure to induce more than indigestion :-(
Brian
2311
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 10:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> >
> All right, I'll read the fucking thing over the weekend. But pass the
> sick bucket first - it's sure to induce more than indigestion :-(
>
> Brian
Thanks Brian but I think you'll find that there are quick ways to
handle this. I believe that Marc's personal web site might be a very
good starting point. IIRC Marc has already identified the worrying bits.
I don't know Marc's URL but find his lastest posting and check through
that.
I'm going to be tied up for most of the erst of today. I have to go to
London to meet a couple of the people from Science Just Science. They
may also be able to point you in the right direction.
My own guess with such research and checking is that it shouldn't take
long if you get a little bit of input from others in the anti-
creationist movement.
Can anyone help Brian on pointing him in the right direction. I'll do
my best today but I may not get something posted until early tomorrow..
Roger
2312
ukantic
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 14:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Can anyone help Brian on pointing him in the right direction. I'll do
> my best today but I may not get something posted until early tomorrow..
>
As far as I can see there is nothing to investigate; it is common
knowledge that the, "controversies in evolution" used to justify the
creationist, "teach the controversy" strategy revolves around the
deliberate (yes, deliberate) misinterpretation of a single badly
worded sentence with the National Curriculum KS4 so as to suggest that
evolution is controversial when in fact that is clearly not the case.
The sentence in question is:
Pupils should be taught:
b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
evolution]
This simply does not make sense. Although scientific evidence can be
interpreted in different & conflicting ways, surely it is obvious that
the example given, i.e. Darwin's theory of evolution is neither a
"scientific controversies" or a "different ways of interpreting
empirical evidence".
Apparently, the correct interpretation of this as taught in all other
schools in the country apart from those run by Vardy, is that
interpretations of empirical evidence (example: the fossil record) can
give rise to different & conflicting *scientific* (as opposed to
someone with a lot of money, arbitrary religious opinions) evidence.
And the example in this case is the controversy that arose in the 19th
century between Darwinian & Lamarckian evolution.
How this sentence came to be so badly worded is unknown, but I am
going to suggest yet again that it is result of deliberate sabotage by
someone with creationist leanings & I even have a suspect although I
am not going to go around making wild accusations without proof.
What is of more concern is that despite the fact that there has been
concern about the wording of this one sentence stretching back years,
no one has made any attempt to correct it. For example the following
letter was sent to the government in March of 2002:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1352
& no one did a damn thing about it.
(This incidentally was about a month before the creationists sent
their letter to Estelle Morris).
It would be worth investigating who wrote the offending wording of the
NC KS4 & why the error was not corrected immediately when pointed out
by the scientific establishment.
Also as the misused phraseology was of such distinctive character, it
would also be worth investigating why some of the statements made by
government at this time seemed to share it, because it seems to
suggest that they have been getting much of their advice from
creationists or their websites (Like the one run by the Emmanuel
Schools Foundation that pretends to be a school website).
In I think September of this year, a new NC syllabus is coming into
force that makes no mention of the offending sentence used by the
creationists attempting to further their demented ambitions. Therefore
if I am right, in less than 2 weeks time, not only will the Vardy
Foundations Website be seriously misrepresenting the KS4 curriculum,
it will also be out of date.
Have I missed anything?
Alan.
2313
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: New Website
19/08/2006 14:40:00
>>
> Pupils should be taught:
>
> b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
> interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
> evolution]
>
> How this sentence came to be so badly worded is unknown, but I am
> going to suggest yet again that it is result of deliberate sabotage by
> someone with creationist leanings
Absolutely no doubt about that. The wording is identical to similar
actions in the US. It is pure ID/creationism boilerplate.
Identify who it was who inserted this, and how, and you will have
your target for campaigning and a plan for action.
So, what's the political procedure for REMOVING this section and
replacing it with something else?
===================================
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
2314
Marc Draco
Re: Re: New Website
19/08/2006 14:38:00
Damn this HTML! Anyway, Alan, you might (not) be surprised to learn that
the Vardy schools have applied for Faith status, which probably means
that they can teach this shit anyway. Either way, the academies DON'T
have to teach the NC either. So they have it any way we look- thanks to
Tony, Andrew and Ruth for that one.
>
> .
>
> In I think September of this year, a new NC syllabus is coming into
> force that makes no mention of the offending sentence used by the
> creationists attempting to further their demented ambitions. Therefore
> if I am right, in less than 2 weeks time, not only will the Vardy
> Foundations Website be seriously misrepresenting the KS4 curriculum,
> it will also be out of date.
>
> Have I missed anything?
>
> Alan.
>
> _
2315
oeditor
National Curriculum - was Re: New Website
19/08/2006 15:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone help Brian on pointing him in the right direction. I'll do
> > my best today but I may not get something posted until early
tomorrow..
> >
>
> As far as I can see there is nothing to investigate; it is common
> knowledge that the, "controversies in evolution" used to justify the
> creationist, "teach the controversy" strategy revolves around the
> deliberate (yes, deliberate) misinterpretation of a single badly
> worded sentence with the National Curriculum KS4 so as to suggest
that > evolution is controversial when in fact that is clearly not the
case.
>
<snip>>
> In I think September of this year, a new NC syllabus is coming into
> force that makes no mention of the offending sentence used by the
> creationists attempting to further their demented ambitions.
>Therefore > if I am right, in less than 2 weeks time, not only will
>the Vardy> Foundations Website be seriously misrepresenting the KS4
>curriculum,> it will also be out of date.
>
> Have I missed anything?
>
My understanding is that the offending words have been removed from
the new edition - but I still have to read it. There are two web sites
from which it can be downloaded and at least one is a total nightmare.
That's the one with the Secondary NC. If anyone's interested, it can
be downloaded in three parts from:
http://tinyurl.com/k2qy2
http://tinyurl.com/eueru
http://tinyurl.com/l2pu5
Primary curricula seem to be printed by subject and available from
http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/download.shtml
So far, I've read just the very beginning of the primary science
booklet and it doesn't get off to a very auspicious start. It tells us
what science is good for, and begins:
"Promoting pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural
development through science
For example, science provides opportunities to promote:
* spiritual development, through pupils sensing the natural, material,
physical world they live in, reflecting on their part in it, and
exploring questions such as when does life start and where does life
come from? "
When I were a lad, the only spiritual thing about science was making
and distilling alcohol.
Brian
PS: that quote is from the pdf version of the document. I can'd find
it in the text (rtf) version from the same location. You wouldn't
think they were the same document.
2316
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 15:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >>
> > Pupils should be taught:
> >
> > b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
> > interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
> > evolution]
> >
>
>
>
> > How this sentence came to be so badly worded is unknown, but I am
> > going to suggest yet again that it is result of deliberate
sabotage by
> > someone with creationist leanings
>
>
> Absolutely no doubt about that. The wording is identical to
similar
> actions in the US. It is pure ID/creationism boilerplate.
>
> Identify who it was who inserted this, and how, and you will have
> your target for campaigning and a plan for action.
In the UK we have a freedom of information act. I guess that it
should not be difficult to get to the bottom of this bit. Does anyone
have any experience of obtaining information under the freedom of
information act?
My understanding is that we can obtain information through the
appropriate government web site. Am I correct?
>
> So, what's the political procedure for REMOVING this section and
> replacing it with something else?
>
Well, this gives me a very good reason for writing to my MP, Mark
Oaten, which may begin to open doors. He's twiddling his thumbs a bit
these days as he is no longer a Lib Dem spokesman with ambition. (Got
himself caught in a three in a bed romp.) Oaten is a Liberal Democrat
with no apparent sympathies with fundamentalists.
Roger
2317
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: New Website
19/08/2006 15:41:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Does anyone
> have any experience of obtaining information under the freedom of
> information act?
Afraid not. However, an e-mail to the Education Dept, copied to Oaten,
might yield a result.
2318
oeditor
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 15:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > > Pupils should be taught:
> > >
> > > b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
> > > interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
> > > evolution]
I've just posted extracts from the new science curriculum in the
National Curriculum thread, but it seems to have gone into limbo. If
it doesn't appear, I'll re-do it. Meanwhile, the above has definitely
gone. I'm not altogether happy with the new version, though.
Brian
2319
oeditor
Re: National Curriculum - repost
19/08/2006 16:28:00
and re-write. Will I ever learn to save my posts before Yahoo loses them?
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the offending words have been removed from
> the new edition - but I still have to read it. There are two web sites
> from which it can be downloaded and at least one is a total nightmare.
> That's the one with the Secondary NC. If anyone's interested, it can
> be downloaded in three parts from:
> http://tinyurl.com/k2qy2
> http://tinyurl.com/eueru
> http://tinyurl.com/l2pu5
>
> Primary curricula seem to be printed by subject and available from
> http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/download.shtml
>
> So far, I've read just the very beginning of the primary science
> booklet...
The wrong one! There's a pdf claiming to be the new KS4 science
curriculum, but it's actually the whole caboodle with a fancy new
cover and intro. It still has the weasle-words about spirituality, but
the Darwin/controversy stuff has gone. Darwin doesn't even get a
mention. The new version is:
"How science works
Data, evidence, theories and explanations
1
Pupils should be taught:
a how scientific data can be collected and analysed
b how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides
evidence to test ideas and develop theories
c how explanations of many phenomena can be developed using scientific
theories, models and ideas
d that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer,
and some that science cannot address. "
d is too vague and leaves the door open to the likes of Nick Cowan.
But at least it doesn't push anyone through it.
I've searched for key words, and got:
Darwin 0
Controversy 0
Origin 3 - all satisfactory
Evolution 1 - too weak:
5b "variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and
similarities and differences between species can be measured and
classified."
Which would suit any cretininst who accepts microevolution.
So, is it a ham-fisted revision or a cunningly crafted one?
Brian
2320
Lenny Flank
Re: National Curriculum - was Re: New Website
19/08/2006 17:03:00
> >
> My understanding is that the offending words have been
> removed from the new edition
If so, that gives you a potent legal weapon to use against the
creationists.
===================================
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
2321
ukantic
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 18:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Apparently, the correct interpretation of this as taught in all other
> schools in the country apart from those run by Vardy, is that
> interpretations of empirical evidence (example: the fossil record)
can
> give rise to different & conflicting *scientific* (as opposed to
> someone with a lot of money, arbitrary religious opinions) evidence.
Sorry, in the last line,"evidence" should have been, "theories".
Different interpretations of empirical evidence (example: the fossil
record) can give rise to different & conflicting *scientific* theories.
Alan.
2322
ukantic
Re: New Website
19/08/2006 23:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Damn this HTML! Anyway, Alan, you might (not) be surprised to learn
that
> the Vardy schools have applied for Faith status, which probably means
> that they can teach this shit anyway. Either way, the academies DON'T
> have to teach the NC either. So they have it any way we look- thanks to
> Tony, Andrew and Ruth for that one.
I seem to remember you stating that a bit back Marc. However, I find
it hard to believe. What self respecting creationist wants to preach
to the converted when he or she can have the children of genuine
atheists & agnostics to indoctrinate? I just don't get it. Have you
any proof?
Alan.
2323
oeditor
Re: New Website
20/08/2006 00:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Damn this HTML! Anyway, Alan, you might (not) be surprised to
learn > that > > the Vardy schools have applied for Faith status,
which probably means > > that they can teach this shit anyway.
>
> I seem to remember you stating that a bit back Marc. However, I find
> it hard to believe. What self respecting creationist wants to preach
> to the converted when he or she can have the children of genuine
> atheists & agnostics to indoctrinate? I just don't get it. Have you
> any proof?
>
Proof of what? Vardy is taking over local schools, against the wishes
of local (non-fundy, I would imagine) parents. Any parents in the area
have to send their children to a Vardy school, or struggle to find an
alternative. Vardy wouldn't build schools for the children of
cretinists, he's already got them coralled in churches. No, it's to
force non-religious children into religious schools, by making sure
that there's no where else for them to go.
Brian
2324
Marc Draco
Re: Re: New Website
20/08/2006 00:32:00
The faith status bit I've heard verbally from the Union reps (who are
rightly worried because their members will suffer).
On the NC bit, that's part of the Academy remit - they don't have to
stick to ANY published curriculum; although obviously, they have to
teach basics or the kids will fail.
Interestingly, they put a lot of store in their Xian BS as proving that
they can do good stuff: kids in a recent survey (nowt to do with Vardy,
but reported by the NSS) suggested that the vast majority of children
didn't need (and probably didn't want) God in their lives to teach them
anything.
You probably get Newsline Alan, but I mention it here for those that
don't. Damn, I need a scotch. A large one!
ukantic wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Damn this HTML! Anyway, Alan, you might (not) be surprised to learn
> that
> > the Vardy schools have applied for Faith status, which probably means
> > that they can teach this shit anyway. Either way, the academies DON'T
> > have to teach the NC either. So they have it any way we look- thanks to
> > Tony, Andrew and Ruth for that one.
>
> I seem to remember you stating that a bit back Marc. However, I find
> it hard to believe. What self respecting creationist wants to preach
> to the converted when he or she can have the children of genuine
> atheists & agnostics to indoctrinate? I just don't get it. Have you
> any proof?
>
> Alan.
>
> __._,
>
>
2325
Marc Draco
Re: Re: New Website
20/08/2006 00:36:00
Sorry Alan, addled me brain with too much Flash 8...
Addendum. Faith status gives them the right to pick 10% of intake on
religious grounds. They can do what they want - but I guess if you have
a 10% of rotten apples to start with, there's a lot of pressure on the
other 90%. It also means that they can select staff who tow the same
line - and that IS more dangerous.
Faith status actually does cement their position and worse still, it
forces parents to accept their BS even more. Kings is smack in a
residential area and replaces other schools - it does not supplement
them. That's the problem. It's either Kings (in my case) OR your kids
have a bus ride to school - which *unlike* the faithful minority, we
have to pay for! Nice.
ukantic wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Damn this HTML! Anyway, Alan, you might (not) be surprised to learn
> that
> > the Vardy schools have applied for Faith status, which probably means
> > that they can teach this shit anyway. Either way, the academies DON'T
> > have to teach the NC either. So they have it any way we look- thanks to
> > Tony, Andrew and Ruth for that one.
>
> I seem to remember you stating that a bit back Marc. However, I find
> it hard to believe. What self respecting creationist wants to preach
> to the converted when he or she can have the children of genuine
> atheists & agnostics to indoctrinate? I just don't get it. Have you
> any proof?
>
> Alan.
>
S
>
> __.
>
>
2326
oeditor
Re: New Website
20/08/2006 00:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> Proof of what? Vardy is taking over local schools, against the wishes
> of local (non-fundy, I would imagine) parents.
I forgot to add...
and getting away with it because he diluted the religious element.
What chance that the parents would have put up with his plans had he
announced in advance that they were to be run as religious
establishements lock, stock and barrel? Who needs madrassas and the
taleban, when we have Blair and his cronies?
Brian
2327
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Website
20/08/2006 02:09:00
--- 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.
>
Andy,
I've worked through a lot of your points which have been replied to
within the group over the last couple of days.
You obviously are an expert on the fundamentalist movement in the UK
and put a lot of effort into your letter which was appreciated.
I wonder if you might like to help clearing up some of the other bits
re typos and so on.
Roger
2328
freefromchrist
Re: New Website
20/08/2006 10:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > > Pupils should be taught:
> > >
> > > b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
> > > interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
> > > evolution]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > How this sentence came to be so badly worded is unknown, but I am
> > > going to suggest yet again that it is result of deliberate
> sabotage by
> > > someone with creationist leanings
> >
> >
> > Absolutely no doubt about that. The wording is identical to
> similar
> > actions in the US. It is pure ID/creationism boilerplate.
> >
> > Identify who it was who inserted this, and how, and you will have
> > your target for campaigning and a plan for action.
>
> Does anyone have any experience of obtaining information under the
freedom of information act?
Yes. it's a fairly simple process.
Firstly, you write to the body in question - in the case of central
government policy like this, it would either be to DFES, or to your MP
(who will send the request to the MP who heads the appropriate working
group/committe)
your request doesn't have to state that it is a request under the
freedom of information act, however, most people do. The request
should contain Your name, an address and a *detailed* description of
what you want.
They have 20 working days to respond. If they think your request is
too broad in scope (and will cost more than £600 for them to do) they
can refuse it.
If it's refused, they have to tell you why.
There's a right of appeal, but I think that's different in England. I
have never had to use the appeal process anyway, as it's typically
only military stuff that gets restricted.
> My understanding is that we can obtain information through the
> appropriate government web site. Am I correct?
Kinda. organisations have a duty to respond to FOI requests - they do
not (yet) have a duty to respond to emails. It's better to put it in
writing, as all letters written to government departments have a legal
duty of response, even if just to acknowledge.
I.
2329
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: New Website
18/08/2006 20:53:00
> what's *wrong* with being campaign organisation 101?
It was meant as a university class reference - as in, "Physics 101" being
the most basic step, the first thing to be done, on which further things are
based.
> All the flack the group in general, and Roger in particular, is getting
hinges on the "umbrella organisation" concept.
Not from me it's not.
The flack the group is getting is directly squarely at the silent mass,
watching and offering no assistance when there's clearly too much work for a
small group to do.
The only flack Roger is getting from me - is that his efforts are being
misplaced by focusing on the website. There's no doubting the amount of
personal time he has expended on this. In a better situation, there would be
enough offers of assistance that there was plenty of time available to spend
on the website, as well as actually getting the campaign goals sorted out.
As it is...
> This in turn hangs on Lenny's questions. Suppose we just concentrated on
rooting out evidence of the creationists' dire doings and exposing them? I'm
sure that getting a handle on the dubious survey reported in the Guardian
would be very worthwhile, for instance. Design a better mousetrap...
To be honest, Brian it strikes me that there are plenty of groups happy to
discuss the ever worsening situation and expose it - I firmly believe that
what is needed is a group willing to actually attempt to do something about
it: close the school door on the creationists.
That's not going to happen as a result of piece meal action.
I.
(cc'ed as it appears that my mails are now being moderated on the list)
2330
Roger Stanyard
Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 11:45:00
Statement
I've hung fore on answering Andy Shill's email for several days. I've
asked Andy three times to identify himself and have asked for a
contribution to our efforts. On face value Andy is clearly
exceedingly knowledgeable about the creationist scene in the UK and a
leading expert on it. However, none of us appear to have ever heard
of him.
After several Google searches I was unable to find anyone in the UK
(or anywhere) by the name of Andy Shill who could remotely be
described as an anti-creationist. Indeed, it appears to be a very
rare name indeed.
I've been in discussion off site with a group member and the matter
came up for discussion yesterday in a meet-up in London with other
anti-creationists. They have never heard of Andy either.
What is of concern to those I have talked with is that Andy's posting
started off constructively but became increasingly condescending as
we read through it. Alan has suggested that later the posting
degenerated into a thinly veiled attack on the group (my view is that
it was a thinly veiled threat).
Moreover, I have now been told that "shill" is a noun used in the USA
basically to describe a front man – for example the lawyer of a drug
dealer. I did a search on the term shill in the early hours of this
morning and found this definition on Answers.com:
"Shills on message boards
In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion
forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts,
satisfied consumers, or "innocent" parties with specific opinions in
order to further the interests of an organization in which they have
an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group."
I may be completely wrong about this and, if so, owe Andy an apology.
However Andy is a complete stranger to this group and now must
clearly respond given my concerns.
I put one group member on moderated status because I think he "bit"
the posting without seeing the obvious oddities in it which, if I am
right about Andy Shill's posting, just increased the damage from the
attack on us.
Comments as usual gratefully received.
Roger
.
2331
Marc Draco
Re: Re: New Website
20/08/2006 11:46:00
Diluted? Hey, Brian, the bastards didn't even MENTION it until the whole
thing was signed, sealed and practically being built. Even then, no on
here had the slightest inkling of what he was REALLY about.
oeditor wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Proof of what? Vardy is taking over local schools, against the wishes
> > of local (non-fundy, I would imagine) parents.
> I forgot to add...
> and getting away with it because he diluted the religious element.
> What chance that the parents would have put up with his plans had he
> announced in advance that they were to be run as religious
> establishements lock, stock and barrel? Who needs madrassas and the
> taleban, when we have Blair and his cronies?
>
> Brian
>
>
>
2332
Marc Draco
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 12:32:00
Almost seems too obvious to me Roger.
A "shill" is a front man - like the guy who appears from the crowd and
buys snake oil. "The Simpsons" parodied it when Grampa Simpson employed
Homer - and later in the episode commented "you're the worst shill I've
ever used".
"Shill bidding" happens on eBay (indeed, even in live auctions) when two
(or more) people drive the price of an item up artificially by bidding
on it themselves forcing genuine bidders to pay more.
However, the surname is real - probably a bastardisation of Schill.
Coincidentally, I did find one Andrew Shill listed in the 1880 US
Census. I suspect that unless his qualifications can be verified, we
have to treat him with caution.
Marc
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> Statement
>
> I've hung fore on answering Andy Shill's email for several days. I've
> asked Andy three times to identify himself and have asked for a
> contribution to our efforts. On face value Andy is clearly
> exceedingly knowledgeable about the creationist scene in the UK and a
> leading expert on it. However, none of us appear to have ever heard
> of him.
>
> After several Google searches I was unable to find anyone in the UK
> (or anywhere) by the name of Andy Shill who could remotely be
> described as an anti-creationist. Indeed, it appears to be a very
> rare name indeed.
>
> I've been in discussion off site with a group member and the matter
> came up for discussion yesterday in a meet-up in London with other
> anti-creationists. They have never heard of Andy either.
>
> What is of concern to those I have talked with is that Andy's posting
> started off constructively but became increasingly condescending as
> we read through it. Alan has suggested that later the posting
> degenerated into a thinly veiled attack on the group (my view is that
> it was a thinly veiled threat).
>
> Moreover, I have now been told that "shill" is a noun used in the USA
> basically to describe a front man – for example the lawyer of a drug
> dealer. I did a search on the term shill in the early hours of this
> morning and found this definition on Answers.com:
>
> "Shills on message boards
>
> In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion
> forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts,
> satisfied consumers, or "innocent" parties with specific opinions in
> order to further the interests of an organization in which they have
> an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group."
>
> I may be completely wrong about this and, if so, owe Andy an apology.
> However Andy is a complete stranger to this group and now must
> clearly respond given my concerns.
>
> I put one group member on moderated status because I think he "bit"
> the posting without seeing the obvious oddities in it which, if I am
> right about Andy Shill's posting, just increased the damage from the
> attack on us.
>
> Comments as usual gratefully received.
>
> Roger
>
> .
>
>
2333
Lenny Flank
free e-book available
20/08/2006 13:55:00
A book-length version of my Creation "Science" Debunked website is
now available as a free e-book at the Talk.Reason site:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/deception.cfm
It contains a history of fundamentalism in the US, a history of the
ID/creationist movement, a short legal history, and detailed looks at
the Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Ohio and Dover cases.
===================================
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
2334
oeditor
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 14:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Almost seems too obvious to me Roger.
>
> A "shill" is a front man - like the guy who appears from the crowd and
> buys snake oil.
It looks as though he set up a Yahoo ID on the same day as he posted.
That, or he removed any details from his profile that day. So he's
probably been viewing the group from outside and signed-up to Yahoo
just to post that message. Whether he's benevolent or benign it shows
the trouble with making the messages visible to all-comers.
As for the name, he dosen't sound a humorous-enough an individual for
such irony. OTOH, he does seem terribly wound up about professors of
thermodynamics and engineering. For 'Shill' read 'a professor of
thermodynamics'?
Brian
2335
ukantic
Is one area set to get the lions'' share again?
20/08/2006 14:13:00
Is one area set to get the lions' share again?
17 August 2006
I THOUGHT we still had several weeks of the school summer holidays to
go, but apparently this doesn't matter to Northumberland County Council.
Despite DfES guidelines which tell them not to engage in consultation
for planned changes to schools during school holiday periods, and
despite having already been criticised by a High Court Judge for their
handling of the Cramlington consultation process, they have written to
householders in Blyth with their plans for the Vardy Emmanuel Academy
School – planned to compete with the existing newly built Blyth
Community College.
I can understand why the public need to be persuaded of the need for
the academy.
The national protests about high costs of such schools; the mortgaging
of school buildings to private investors; court cases about failure to
consult on their desirability within communities; issues about whether
"city" academies for areas of high deprivation really suit
Northumberland's city-less county; concerns about the religious
influence by the Vardy Foundation, all need to be addressed.
But other council tax payers could be rightly jealous that the one
area of the county which has already received the most recent funding
and investment for high school provision looks to be getting the
lions' share again, whilst the rest of the county has to make do and
mend with precious little investment in out-dated and barely fit for
purpose buildings.
L R
Longframlington
http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1857&
ArticleID=1697056
http://tinyurl.com/g9c68
2336
oeditor
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 15:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Statement
>
> I've hung fore on answering Andy Shill's email for several days. I've
> asked Andy three times to identify himself and have asked for a
> contribution to our efforts. On face value Andy is clearly
> exceedingly knowledgeable about the creationist scene in the UK and
a > leading expert on it. However, none of us appear to have ever
>heard > of him.
>
I think you've just raised the Ultimate Question, Roger:
"Did he evolve, or was he created?" ;-)
Brian
2337
Roger Stanyard
Re: free e-book available
20/08/2006 16:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
I've read most of these some while back and highly recommend them. They
are very much to the point and lack verbosity (as with anything Lenny
writes).
Roger.
> A book-length version of my Creation "Science" Debunked website is
> now available as a free e-book at the Talk.Reason site:
>
> http://www.talkreason.org/articles/deception.cfm
>
2338
Roger Stanyard
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 16:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Almost seems too obvious to me Roger.
> >
> > A "shill" is a front man - like the guy who appears from the
crowd and
> > buys snake oil.
>
> As for the name, he dosen't sound a humorous-enough an individual
for
> such irony. OTOH, he does seem terribly wound up about professors of
> thermodynamics and engineering. For 'Shill' read 'a professor of
> thermodynamics'?
>
> Brian
Well, now, Brian, that appears to be three of us thinking the same
thing. Shill, of course, being a shortened version of Tinshill where
a certain professor is active in the local church.
Roger
2339
oeditor
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 16:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Well, now, Brian, that appears to be three of us thinking the same
> thing. Shill, of course, being a shortened version of Tinshill where
> a certain professor is active in the local church.
>
But why would such a person wear a wry smile at the thought of Leeds
University being "leading and prestigeous"?
Well, perhaps he is into irony after all: it is a university which
both hosts a prominent creationist and at the same time has compulsory
lectures against creationism.
Brian
2340
freefromchrist
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 16:29:00
I have to admit, I had assumed that the name was false - although, as
an "old skool" internet user, I don't see that as automatically
meaning that he was not to be trusted. One of the long time users on
secular_newsline (and I am sure I spotted a post here the other day!)
used the posting handle "wankle rotary pyjamas", which safe to say, is
not his real name - and just to show how little you can judge a book
by the cover, WRP was incredibly active - handing out home made
leaflets in the local shopping centre etc.
The guy's surname is dubious enough - "shill", as in shill bidding -
add the initial "a. shill" and it seems a pretty obvious nom de plume.
From the mail headers, you can see that he posted from an AOL account,
but I doubt that means anything - using a false name used to be common
practice online, and still is in some circles.
> Alan has suggested that later the posting degenerated into a thinly
veiled attack on the group (my view is that it was a thinly veiled
threat).
Just read it again, and whilst it is certainly condecending (I think
it's that way from the start, rather than becoming so) I don't see a
threat there?
Perhaps my perspective is skewed by not reading the group as it was
posted day by day, but in one big lump. Clearly, posting a "hit and
run" list of failings, rather than anything particularly constructive
marks the guy as not being helpful, but I can still see a few things
of value in what he said.
For one thing, the fact that he appears to be using some of my
comments about the lack of general activity by the greater membership
highlights one thing again - this group can be read by anyone, and
clearly everyone who is reading is not "on side".
I have already pointed out that I think the treatment Nick Cowan
recieved on this list could backfire.
A group that is being used to plan and work out a campaign can either
be somewhere where people can speak freely, or it can be somewhere
where everything you say has to be measured because it can (and
probably will) be used against you at some point.
I'd suggest changing this group to allow only members to read the
message archive.
> I put one group member on moderated status because I think he "bit"
> the posting without seeing the obvious oddities in it which, if I am
> right about Andy Shill's posting, just increased the damage from the
> attack on us.
and that would be me, presumably.
What rankles, is that you replied to a post of Lenny's giving the
impression that I was not forthcoming with assistance on the National
Curriculum - which is not the case.
A moderators actions should be transparent and above all fair. If you
feel the need to moderate someone, then you should not make posts
*about* that person to the forum, or at the very least, indicate that
they cannot reply to a question *because* they have been moderated.
Anyway, on the matter at hand, If the suspicion that this guy is one
of the other camp is correct, they have just ran through how they
would attack you. I would suggest reading Shill's post with a critical
eye - treat it as an early sight of the attacks which would be made
against the group, and take action accordingly.
2341
Roger Stanyard
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 17:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > Well, now, Brian, that appears to be three of us thinking the same
> > thing. Shill, of course, being a shortened version of Tinshill
where
> > a certain professor is active in the local church.
> >
> But why would such a person wear a wry smile at the thought of Leeds
> University being "leading and prestigeous"?
> Well, perhaps he is into irony after all: it is a university which
> both hosts a prominent creationist and at the same time has compulsory
> lectures against creationism.
>
> Brian
Well he would have given the game away had he said that we were wrong
in describing Leicester as leading and prestigous but leaving Leeds as
was.
Still, I don't think we have a conclusive idea who made the posting or
why.
Roger
>
2342
Roger Stanyard
Re: Statement Re Andy Shill
20/08/2006 17:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "freefromchrist" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> I have to admit, I had assumed that the name was false - although,
as
> an "old skool" internet user,
Points takem. I loath the idea of using my moderator power in this
group. It was just temporary will I checked out the Andy Tinshill
post. Robust opinions in this group are important. We all have them.
I have asked Andy Shill to reply and nothing at all has been
forthcoming although it is very clear that he did a lot of work in
researching beforehand - he read through the entire web site and,
presumably, my blog, and the posting was not hurridly put together.
He had also read through past posts.
Methinks that several hours work at least went into that post. I
acn't ever recall myself spending several hours on a post.
It's taken me an inordinate amount of time to work on it.
Methinks that if we go to a closed group (which I strongly disagree
with) we should give Andy Shill some time to respond before hand. For
self evident reasons there is no point going to a closed group unless
we prevent people we don't want to see our emails from entering it.
In the case of the likes of Andy Shill I have to remove his
membership to do so.
At this stage we still have to give Andy Shill the benefit of doubt.
We could be hopelessly wrong about him.
I'm not going to re-read Andy Shill's post again but IIRC he
suggested that we may be inciting hatred (IIRC). That to me is a
veiled threat as well as aveiled attack.
Roger
2343
Lenny Flank
creationist schedules
20/08/2006 17:37:00
Curious --- does anyone have an itinerary for any of the creationsit
speakers in the UK (where they will be and when)?
If so, may I suggest we put together a Welcoming Committee?
If not, may I suggest that we might be in need of a "mole" -- a
sympathetic insider who can join the various creationist groups and
then quietly funnel us such information as we might need?
===================================
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
2344
Roger Stanyard
London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 18:05:00
Just a quick report to say that I spent yesterday evening in London
with four members of Science Just Science. I think it is important to
press the flesh in what is still the nascent British anti-creationist
movement. Working in cyberspace is at the best of times a somewhat
sureal experience. We have a bit of an advantage over the position that
American creationists have because the UK is much more of a centralised
society - a quarter of the population of the UK live within London and
the towns in its orbit.
The meeting had been very quickly arranged after Lou, a Panda's Thumb
and SJS regular, turned up from the USA on holiday with his wife and
family.
Lou gave me a long background briefing on the position in the USA. SOme
of it I can't reproduce here for both libel reasons and other presonal
factors.
However, Dembski's star is seriously on the wane and he seems to be now
concentrating on the revenue side of his activities (that's a
euphemism). It seems that he is basically giving up on the pretence
that ID is not religious. Lou believes that he has made some big
tactical mistakes and had he not done so, he may still have been a
rising star.
Apparently Phillip Johnson is relatively little known amongst the
general public as a creationist/IDer. He's the back room fixer.
Lou also believes that the general public in the USA has increasingly
seen through the DI post-Dover and it is now widely regarded as a front
for religion.
As Lenny has also pointed out, the Bush administration has basically
failed to deliver what the fundies want. As a result the fundies are
increasingly looking to export their hocus pocus to Europe.
Lou told me that the most prominent fundie in the USA remains Pat
Robertson, with his 700 Club being a major force. Lou was scathing
about Robertson and other such fundies, describing them as people on
the make who basically don't believe the fundie nonsense they preach.
They are businessmen. (We've known this all along but it is a reminder
of the position.)
He was even more scathing abour Dembski's sidekick, Dave Scott (who has
apparently moved on). Scott is an ex-marine with no appropriate
qualifications whatsoever.
One idea that sprung up is SJS holding regional meetups. SJS is working
on that I would be happy to attend just to press the flesh.
However, I must admit I had a thoroughly enjoyable night out with the
peole from SJS. We met up in the West End (Leicester Square). It's the
first Saturday night I have had out in London since the early 1990s.
Jeez, has London changed! It makes a big change from being 65 miles out
in the Styx and ten years behind the Smoke.
Five of us were there - plus Lou's wife and two children. The other SJS
people were Kyu, Ben and Dean Morrison - basically a group of
professional people.
One minor idea that members of this group may wish to think about is a
logo for us. For various reasons, the idea of an apple came up. An
apple is an easy way of identifying yourself in meeting unknown faces
in busy venues. But, it is also associated with Newton, is easily
produced as a logo and is a slap in the face to fundies who associate
science with forbidden knowledge and the fall of man.
Comments welcome. Even better if someone volunteers to produce an apple-
based logo for our web site.
Roger
real
2345
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
20/08/2006 18:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Curious --- does anyone have an itinerary for any of the
creationsit
> speakers in the UK (where they will be and when)?
This is doable except in Northern Ireland. I thing it essential to
bring SJS on board if we are going to establish welcoming comittees.
The position is that it appears that the fundies largely don't keep
quite about their venues but Mackay did earlier this year - so we
have a half understanding when and where they are going to turn up.
If anyone wants to, er, be a sympathetic insider, all I can say is
that you get my strongest support. It's a great idea.
It seems to me that "welcoming comittees" outside school gates would
get maximum publicity, as distinct from turning up at obscure
backstreet chapels and churches with tiny congretations (which seems
to be the norm). A demo outside a large school has a lot more PR
value.
(My thinking here also refelects that the public won't actually seen
the welcoming committees in backstreets.)
Moreover, methinks some simple leaflets for such an occasion would be
very vaulable.
The biggest issue though with welcoming committees outside of school
gates is that it means taking time off work.
The alternative is for welcoming committes to the various venues that
they hire for larger occassions.
In terms of organising this, Blackshadow (and SJS) members are spread
all over the UK. Methinks that those that take the initiative to
state that they want a demo/welcoming comittee raise the matter from
which we will then do a trawl through Blackshadow and ask SJS for
support.
I am willing to turn up and be part of every and all welcoming
committees.
There is actually a venue that I have in mind. Email me off site for
more info.
So the whole of Lenny's suggestion has now been thrown open to the
floor. Suggestions, offers of help, proposals etc. now welcome.*
Roger
* Don't state here which event because that will give the game away.
2346
oeditor
Re: creationist schedules
20/08/2006 18:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Curious --- does anyone have an itinerary for any of the creationsit
> speakers in the UK (where they will be and when)?
>
There's a general list here: www.samchapman.f2s.com/AnEindex.htm
and an AiG list: www.answersingenesis.org/events/
Also, www.amen.org.uk lists John MacKay's doings when he's on the prowl
Brian
2347
Mikey Brass
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 18:50:00
An apple logo is a good idea.
2348
oeditor
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 20:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> An apple logo is a good idea.
>
I can drag out my graphics software tomorrow. How about a sort of
'prohibition sign' in reverse? A greyed-out circle with a diagonal
snake, with a much brighter apple superimposed? The main difficulty
with this sort of thing is letting enough of the snake/bible/ranter/or
what have you showing through enough to be easily recognised.
If nobody else fancies doing it, I'll take it on - suggestions
welcome. I have the technology, but not a lot of talent.
Brian
2349
oeditor
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 20:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@> wrote:
> >
> > An apple logo is a good idea.
> >
OTOH, what about a Darwinfish? I can't imagine that there would be
copyright problems.
How about a Darwinfish crushing a car?
Brian
2350
oeditor
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 21:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> We have a bit of an advantage over the position that
> American creationists have because the UK is much more of a
>centralised > society - a quarter of the population of the UK live
>within London and > the towns in its orbit.
>
More's the pity. It could equally well be argued that the UK's ills
stem from exactly that geographical phenomenon. For example,
apparently consumers are ripped-off in the UK because company reps
have to deal with just a few megastore buyers in London. Not possible
in more diffuse economies. Likewise with the centralisation of
control: nutters need just suborn an unrepresentative but powerful
few. The poor bloody punters haven't a chance. Democracy? Perhaps the
nay-sayers are right after all :=((
Brian
