2551
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
05/09/2006 12:39:00
findingfossils wrote:
> /Yes, that is what happened. He was probably the only one whose lips
> weren't moving and is fairly easy to spot as he holds himself rigid and
> upright and wouldn't have been bent over or holding his hands together
> either).
I have done a web search and it was indeed compulsory for schools to
hold daily prayers and for the students to pray. Students who wished to
opt out could do so with a letter from their parents. Now, students over
the age of 16 can opt out of praying without a parental letter. More
details at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4794993.stm .
2552
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 12:59:00
>
> Sadly. It is also true that the vast majority of list members are
> silent participants and the core group of people who do have the time
> and resources, although the former in small quantities, are presently
> too few in number.
>
Alas, that is true in ANY political organization --- there is always
a small core of people who do all the work, and a large penumbra who
just hang around and do virtually nothing.
That will never change.
===================================
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
2553
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 13:06:00
>
It is of great concern to us that we do not have a
> mole in the group.
Don't get paranoid over it. I've always just operated on the
assumption that the fundies know everything we are going to do. They
can't do anything about it anyway.
On the other hand, the fundies are absolutely utterly dependent upon
people not knowing what they are really up to. So a few moles in
THEIR groups would be very helpful.
===================================
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
2554
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
05/09/2006 13:07:00
> findingfossils wrote:
>
> > /Yes, that is what happened. He was probably the only one whose lips
> > weren't moving and is fairly easy to spot as he holds himself rigid
> > and upright and wouldn't have been bent over or holding his hands
> > together either).
>
> I have done a web search and it was indeed compulsory for schools to
> hold daily prayers and for the students to pray. Students who wished
> to opt out could do so with a letter from their parents. Now, students
> over the age of 16 can opt out of praying without a parental letter.
> More details at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4794993.stm .
>
You folks need a First Amendment. ;)
===================================
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
2555
Roger Stanyard
Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
05/09/2006 13:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> You folks need a First Amendment. ;)
We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
Roger
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
2556
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 14:38:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> Alas, that is true in ANY political organization --- there is always
> a small core of people who do all the work, and a large penumbra who
> just hang around and do virtually nothing.
The difference is, of course, that any successful organisation must have
a large enough core of active participants to cover and undertake the
necessary work.
2557
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 14:36:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> Don't get paranoid over it. I've always just operated on the
> assumption that the fundies know everything we are going to do. They
> can't do anything about it anyway.
I agree, which is why I'm the lone dissenter in the pole voting against
the list becoming closed.
2558
Roger Stanyard
Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 14:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > Don't get paranoid over it. I've always just operated on the
> > assumption that the fundies know everything we are going to do.
They
> > can't do anything about it anyway.
>
> I agree, which is why I'm the lone dissenter in the pole voting
against
> the list becoming closed.
>
There are some work in progress bits that I am worried about getting
into fundie hands before completition. I supect that the two of us
who are working on one at the moment will be posting details tomorrow.
There is also the problem of very tough libel laws in the UK. We do
need to protect ourselfs against these.
Roger
2559
Roger Stanyard
Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 18:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "andy_shill" <andy_shill@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> > Firstly, a message to Andy Shill. Will you please identify yourself
> or
> > at least make an introduction.
>
> Hi Guys
>
> Just returned from an enjoyable family holiday in the Canary Islands
> which may provide some sort of semi-plausible explanation for my
> couple of weeks of "cybersilence" which has evidently caused some
> degree of consternation, conjecture and a lot of googling to uncover
> my identity!
Andy,
Just for the record I dug out the definition of Shill from answers.com.
Here it is:
"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."
Best Regards
Roger
2560
George Jelliss
Re: George - Re Ken Ham
05/09/2006 20:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> wrote:
> >
>
> George, do you realise that you are a guest star on Answers in
> Genesis's web site!
>
>
>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/09/02/secular-
> society-protests-ken-ham-in-leicester/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ggq4t
>
> Well done.
>
> Ham claims that his do attracted 400 people. What was he doing,
> giving free beer away?
>
> Seems to me highly implausable that he got 400 people there at
> short
> notice. It's summer break time at the university, the event was at
> short notice and a bummer to get to on an early Friday evening as
> I well found out.
>
> Any ideas, Is Ham pushing pork again?
>
> Roger
>
I thought they might try to make some publicity out of it! There's
no exaggeration about the 400 people. Our member Allan Hayes went
into the meeting and that was also his estimate. There's no shortage
of evangelicals around Leicester. Last year they filled a large area
in the Aylestone leisure centre. And when Ken Ham was here in 2002
he filled the overflow hall downstairs as well. It just shows what
we are up against. Allan's wife said she found some of the people in
the audience more frightening than Ken Ham himself! He's a good
speaker, able to hold an audience for two hours.
2561
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 23:35:00
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > Alas, that is true in ANY political organization --- there is always
> > a small core of people who do all the work, and a large penumbra who
> > just hang around and do virtually nothing.
>
> The difference is, of course, that any successful organisation must
> have a large enough core of active participants to cover and undertake
> the necessary work.
>
Yeah verily.
===================================
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
2562
ukantic
Reply to Andy
06/09/2006 00:10:00
< Andy > Hi Guys
< snip >
< Andy > INTRODUCTION
I never said, suggested, implied or alluded to the fact that my name
was Shill - it's an email address! Those of you with relatively
common names have surely found that when choosing email addresses
your name is not normally available as it is already in use by
someone else with said moniker. I did not assume that ukantic,
vulcanuk, or wankle rotary pyjamas were names. How long will it be
before you start to panic about the identity of "findingfossils" and
debate offline who "H" really is or what it might stand for?
< Alan > Come on Andy, there was a bit of discussion as to your
identity, the meaning of the term shill & the fact that you did not
respond to enquiries. How were we to know you had gone on vacation?
< snip >
< Andy >I have neither
website nor blog that I can point you to that will introduce me or my
opinions to you and yes I did set up a Yahoo profile on the day I
posted because it was part of the process of applying to join your
Yahoo group. There is no info on it because my purpose was to give
time to a considered post(prior to leaving on a family holiday) not
write a profile page that had little sense of urgency or importance
to me.
< Alan > Don't worry about it, very few people bother with Yahoo
profile anyway.
< snip >
< Andy > My interest in this subject developed significantly
about two years ago at the time of increasing media attention to ID.
That led me, more recently, to some of the anti-creationist sites
from which I linked to a number of the creationist websites. I came
to BS through SJS and Roger's blog. I have observed the discussion
as an outsider and focused particularly on BS because of the
intensity and passion that was being expressed with a view to
strategic action. Voyeuristic? maybe - but I personally, found your
discussions, petty squabbles
< Alan > We have had a few minor disagreements & so what – nobody
said it would be easy.
< Andy > and big ambitions
< Alan > Our ambitions are rather modest compared with those of the
creationists, who are, you may have noticed, taking over many UK
schools.
< Andy > a great deal more entertaining than
wasting time watching reality TV. Metaphysics, philosophy and the
socio-political implications of these issues hold far more personal
interest for me than the raw science.
< Alan > A school not 10 miles from where I live was recently taken
over by the VF. Although I have not been as unlucky as someone such
as Marc who was forced to withdraw his children from one of these
schools, it could nevertheless had just as easily have been my local
school & my children that were affected. I am an atheist with strong
views on secular issues. I am a member of the National Secular
Society & believe that governments should be democratic, making laws
on the basis of rational, reasoned argument, free from the tyranny
of this person or that persons, personal irrational, superstitious
beliefs. Do you really think I would desire to send my children to a
school (there is only one local one) run by a bunch of homophobic
religious bigots preaching hell-fire, telling lies about science,
discriminating against staff (how many atheists are ever going to
get a job as principle?) & saturating the school environment with
THEIR religious symbols? Why should I as a hard-working, law abiding
citizen of this country be discriminated against in such a heinous
fashion? In short this is really about religious extremism & the
injustice it generates – it has nothing whatsoever to do with
metaphysics or philosophy.
< snip >
< Andy>A RATIONAL RESPONSE
I wrote a carefully considered opinion that you, as intelligent
individuals, had an opportunity to weigh to decide whether or not
there was any merit to my argument. If what I said was rubbish then
you were free to dismiss it but if it stood up to scrutiny then it
may serve to direct your next course of action. However, rather than
engage with the argument as stated, it appears that paranoia and
panic set in.
< Alan > Paranoia is an irrational fear of persecution; however,
given the nature of this subject, there is absolutely nothing wrong
with being suspicious of newcomers or their motives. You only have
to look at the problems Stefan is presently having with an
individual who is very knowledgeable with the situation at King's
Academy & well versed in the art of creationist double speak, to
realise that this sort of thing actually goes on. I have been
following anti-creationist forums for years now & have found that it
is not uncommon for creationists to set out deliberately
misrepresenting their positions.
< Andy > One member is put on moderation for engaging too eagerly
with the post, though Alan engaged with it earlier, agreeing with
much and expressing quite radical views(in as much as they had not
been mentioned at any time previously)but he was not put on
moderation! What was Ian's particular sin?
< Alan > Well I used to run the forum before Roger, so I guess I get
a little extra leeway. Here, watch this – Shit, Fuck & Bollocks.
< Andy > A summary of my opinion, bluntly expressed, would have been
you will appear as a disorganised, ill-informed,
< Alan > There is absolutely nothing ill-informed about this group.
Whether active or inactive, it includes many seasoned
anticreationists with experience stretching back years that covers
just about anything you can think of in the field of creationism. I
don't personally know how you arrived at this conclusion, but the
fact that you may disagree with some of our conclusions or have
noted that we are uncertain about some things, does not warrant
jumping to that conclusion.
< Andy > amateur and illiterate group
< Alan > Again you seem to be jumping from an instance to a
generalisation of the whole group. My experience of this forum is
that the spelling tends to be of a reasonably high standard & a lot
better than you would find on many other forums. However, if you
want some examples of truly bad spelling, go to Lenny's forum & look
at some of the things written by creationists.
< snip >
< Andy >However, such a straight summary would, I am sure, have been
dismissed as the attack of an unsympathetic antagonist. Therefore, I
took some time to demonstrate my opinion in less blunt terms and
with specific reference. Your reaction? Do you change four letters
in the website to consistently say BCSE - NO! It still says BSCE in
titles and down the sidebar - WHAT IS BSCE? I detailed the list of
typos and you ask for more info? I'm lying in the sun - nowhere near
a computer - and your wasting time trying to provoke a response from
me that could have been used to get the name right in your primary
medium of public introduction!
< Alan > No Andy, several members of the group did, not all of them –
once again you are generalising. Secondly, although the forum is
more orientated towards the BCSE, it is nevertheless still serving
its initial purpose as a place where people can exchange information
on creationism, etc & talk about anything they please without being
held responsible for any of your perceived shortcomings in the BCSE
campaign.
< Andy > You engage yourselves in pontificating on the identity
of this dangerous interloper, while your organisation has no
structure, no strategic plan and is currently acting as umbrella
for ?????? What great danger did I present to you?
< Alan > No one ever said you did
< snip >
VEILED THREAT
Relax Roger, there was no veiled threat from me. I did not confuse
your blog, BS, SJS or the website. I questioned the wisdom of you
being spokesperson without some clear strategy to explain why you had
the role and who you represented. I was not contesting your right to
speak to this issue. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that
you are easily associated with your blog which scathingly denounces
the academic credibility of professors and others to express their
opinions outside their specific discipline. Question: Why would
others not turn your own tactic against you by demonstrating your own
lack of qualification to speak to some of these scientific issues?
When you strongly denounce the credibility of others the press often
want to establish your own credibility. Does this disqualify you? No,
but it seems ill prepared not to consider the issue and prepare an
intelligent defence for obvious questions?
< Alan > No one can turn the argument used by Roger, against Roger
because they are clearly not of an equal kind. As I have previously
pointed out:
< Alan > "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."
< Alan > Furthermore, I don't believe that anyone in the press will
have difficulty understanding this. With all respect Andy, the
difficulty appears to be yours. It is wrong for someone to misuse
their academic reputation in one field to gain authority in another
in which they have no professional knowledge, but it is not wrong
for someone else to point this out even if they do not have the
required professional knowledge. However let's just assume Roger was
required to find someone with the scientific expertise to refute
Burgess' claims. Would he have any difficulty? I don't think so
somehow as just about every professional scientific body going,
representing possible hundreds of thousands of scientists have
condemned creationism & the creationists attempts to circumvent the
normal rules of scientific etiquette by attempting to present their
scientific (read religious) views directly to schoolchildren rather
than presenting them to the process of peer review. Some of the
groups can be found here:
http://www.furl.net/members/bsgroup?enc=UTF-
8&search=browse&sort=&dir=&pos=&keyword=&x=18&y=9&category=390260&dat
e=0
http://tinyurl.com/pmrvz
< snip >
< Andy >Miffed
< Alan > Sorry you feel that way.
2563
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Some Site Rules
05/09/2006 23:35:00
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > Don't get paranoid over it. I've always just operated on the
> > assumption that the fundies know everything we are going to do.
> > They can't do anything about it anyway.
>
> I agree, which is why I'm the lone dissenter in the pole voting
> against the list becoming closed.
>
I haven't voted (not being a Brit, it's really not my place to say).
===================================
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
2564
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
05/09/2006 23:34:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> > > > > You folks need a First Amendment. ;)
>
>
> We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
>
Well, feel free to do what we did in 1776-1789. :)
===================================
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
2565
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
06/09/2006 01:07:00
On 05/09/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> > > > > > You folks need a First Amendment. ;)
> >
> >
> > We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
>
> Well, feel free to do what we did in 1776-1789. :)
>
If successful, they may wish to avoid retiring to France unless they
know someone who wears a raccoon skin hat.
I'm just sayin...
2566
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
06/09/2006 09:23:00
>> We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
>
>Well, feel free to do what we did in 1776-1789. :)
Working on it...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Home
:D
2567
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
06/09/2006 13:07:00
Actually, we need an elected house that will actually LISTEN to people
who put them there.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You folks need a First Amendment. ;)
>
> We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
>
> Roger
>
2568
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
06/09/2006 13:18:00
> >> We need a constitution first so that we can amend it.
> >
> >Well, feel free to do what we did in 1776-1789. :)
>
>
> Working on it...
>
> http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Home
>
> :D
>
FRREEEEDDDDOOOOMMMMM !!!!!!!!
:>
===================================
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
2569
Marc Draco
Re: Re: George - Re Ken Ham
06/09/2006 13:12:00
That picture of Ham with George is priceless.
Lenny Flank wrote:
>
>
> Well, now we all realise
> > (as if you and Lenny didn't keep telling us) that cretinists play
> > dirty.
>
> They are dishonest liars, every one. I don't trust any of them as
> far as I could throw them.
>
> ===================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank <http://www.geocities.com/lflank>
>
> My Reptile Page
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
> <http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html>
>
>
2570
George Jelliss
Re: Made a video
06/09/2006 14:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "vulcannuk" <vulcannuk@...> wrote:
>
> I have finished my video on ESF. I have posted it on my website:
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/cityacademies/video.htm
>
> It does take a while to download, but not terribly long. I have
> posted
> it on youtube.com so it should be on tommorow. When you go on the
> page
> you have two options. I suggest "click here to download". It doesn't
> actually download it, but opens it up in windows media player. That
> way you can check the buffering process.
>
> Tell me what you think.
>
> Stefan
>
Great! These short edited video presentations seem to be a good way to
get points across these days.
Could you advise an old fogey like myself on the minimum technology
necessary to produce one? Presumably a video camera and some sort of
editing software.
Every time I think I'm catching up with technology, something new
appears and everything I know is out of date!
2571
Roger Stanyard
ESF Testimony
06/09/2006 19:05:00
Here iss another recent testimony from an ex-ESF student:
Submitted by James Johnston (not verified) on Fri, 2006-06-16 11:38.
Exstudent of emmanuel, i can honestly say, that this doent effect the
sciences, but every single moment you spend in that building, the daily
bible readings called "the thought for the day" to teachers stopping me
in the corridor asking what i learned from that assembly, and me having
to give the answer jesus died for our sins for fear of punishment, a
school, where opinions are crushed, they told my parents to stop me
reading any phillip pullman, dan brown or harry potter books, told her
to throw away any CDs i had of rock music.... endless tales of this
2572
Roger Stanyard
New North East Creationist Group
06/09/2006 19:41:00
I've just found another creationist group although it doesn't appear
to have registered its domain name:
Creation Matters
PO Box 38
Washington
Tyne and Wear NE 38 9YX
Contact: Dr David S Walton 0191 410 2997
e-mail: ask@creationmatters.org.uk
http://www.creationmatters.org.uk
David Walton is a trustee of the Christian Institute and a signatory
to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter.
Roger
2573
ukantic
Incitement to religious hatred.
06/09/2006 20:58:00
Further to recent discussion on the Religious Hatred Bill, I have
included a link to an FAQ on the subject for the benefit of anyone
interested. See:
Some commonly-asked questions about the Racial and Religious Hatred
Bill
http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/publicaffairs/rrh_bill_qa.html
Alan.
2574
Marc Draco
Re: New North East Creationist Group
06/09/2006 21:14:00
Domain is registered, there's just no website there yet.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> I've just found another creationist group although it doesn't appear
> to have registered its domain name:
>
> Creation Matters
> PO Box 38
> Washington
> Tyne and Wear NE 38 9YX
> Contact: Dr David S Walton 0191 410 2997
>
> e-mail: ask@creationmatters.org.uk <ask%40creationmatters.org.uk>
>
> http://www.creationmatters.org.uk <http://www.creationmatters.org.uk>
>
> David Walton is a trustee of the Christian Institute and a signatory
> to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter.
>
> Roger
>
>
2575
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
06/09/2006 17:27:00
IIRC, the NSS has been campaigning on this for years. While most primary
schools follow the law, many comps (seniors) do not.
To me, you should be excluded by right and included by parental letter,
not the way it is now!
This is the historical grip that churches have on our schools and it's
time the law was corrected to suit this secular age.
Mikey Brass wrote:
>
> findingfossils wrote:
>
> > /Yes, that is what happened. He was probably the only one whose lips
> > weren't moving and is fairly easy to spot as he holds himself rigid and
> > upright and wouldn't have been bent over or holding his hands together
> > either).
>
> I have done a web search and it was indeed compulsory for schools to
> hold daily prayers and for the students to pray. Students who wished to
> opt out could do so with a letter from their parents. Now, students over
> the age of 16 can opt out of praying without a parental letter. More
> details at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4794993.stm
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4794993.stm> .
>
>
2576
Roger Stanyard
Re: Some Site Rules
06/09/2006 23:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "andy_shill" <andy_shill@...> wrote:
>
> The point on hate crime is simple. Anyone watching the news will be
> fully aware of the contstant reference to this issue in relation to
> religious statements. Anything that might be considered as inciting
> hatred in others on religious grounds could be pursued under recent
> legislation. It's very vague and therefore difficult to assess the
> risk from. My advice was - don't say anything that is not absolutely
> relevant to your primary purpose. You disagree - ignore my opinion
> sure but get a martyr complex? Sorry!
Um, this is not a useful explanation. our considered view is that it's
an unsubstantiated opinion that we don't believe stacks up (by a long
margin).
2577
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Just a quick hello (new member)
07/09/2006 00:10:00
> IIRC, the NSS has been campaigning on this for years. While most
> primary schools follow the law, many comps (seniors) do not.
>
> To me, you should be excluded by right and included by parental
> letter, not the way it is now!
>
> This is the historical grip that churches have on our schools and it's
> time the law was corrected to suit this secular age.
>
Dudes, don't get sidetracked.
One fight at a time.
===================================
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
2578
Lenny Flank
Re: Incitement to religious hatred.
07/09/2006 00:10:00
> Further to recent discussion on the Religious Hatred Bill, I have
> included a link to an FAQ on the subject for the benefit of anyone
> interested. See:
>
> Some commonly-asked questions about the Racial and Religious Hatred
> Bill
>
> http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/publicaffairs/rrh_bill_qa.html
>
Since creationists declare openly that anyone who is not a YEC is
"not a real Christian", and that certainly sounds to ME like
"incitement to religious hatred", may I suggest that someone bring
prosecution against them under this law . . . . . ?
===================================
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
2579
Roger Stanyard
Yahoo Group Changes
07/09/2006 00:18:00
This group became a closed user group site at just after midnight (I
hope). That means outsiders are unable to read postings.
It is not a decision I have taken lightly and I still have doubts about
it. It was not an obvious conclusion from the poll and private email
messages. 69% who replied to the poll wanted it as closed user group.
Three were indifferent and one opposed it. However, two members
expressed doubts in off site emails and one on site. Had those three
expressed doubts in their voting it is possible the vote would have
been a straight 50-50 split.
Over the next few days there should be a number of interesting
postings, though, which would not otherwise have occured.
2580
Roger Stanyard
Re: Incitement to religious hatred.
07/09/2006 00:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Further to recent discussion on the Religious Hatred Bill, I have
> > included a link to an FAQ on the subject for the benefit of anyone
> > interested. See:
> >
> > Some commonly-asked questions about the Racial and Religious
Hatred
> > Bill
> >
> > http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/publicaffairs/rrh_bill_qa.html
> >
>
>
> Since creationists declare openly that anyone who is not a YEC is
> "not a real Christian", and that certainly sounds to ME like
> "incitement to religious hatred", may I suggest that someone bring
> prosecution against them under this law . . . . . ?
And, er, there is the little problem of the anti-Catholicism of the
fundamentalists, notably in Northern Ireland where the leading
politician is a YECer.
>
>
>
2581
Roger Stanyard
Re: Incitement to religious hatred.
07/09/2006 00:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Further to recent discussion on the Religious Hatred Bill, I have
> > included a link to an FAQ on the subject for the benefit of anyone
> > interested. See:
> >
> > Some commonly-asked questions about the Racial and Religious
Hatred
> > Bill
> >
> > http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/publicaffairs/rrh_bill_qa.html
> >
>
>
> Since creationists declare openly that anyone who is not a YEC is
> "not a real Christian", and that certainly sounds to ME like
> "incitement to religious hatred", may I suggest that someone bring
> prosecution against them under this law . . . . . ?
Yhis is worth digging around on because the fundies in the UK, led by
the Christian Institute IIRC lobbied very hard to get the bill
stopped. Now why was that?
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
2582
oeditor
MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 00:22:00
I accidentally came across MacKay being interviewed by Gavin Esler on
Hardtalk. I missed the first 10mins or so, but hope I have recorded
the remaining 20mins. It seems to have been a repeat, and probably not
being repeated again... can anyone find a full version and save it?
Esler, whilst fairly forceful, was way out of his depth and seemed to
be working from a script. MacKay was as crafty as a bunch of monkeys -
from which he's clearly evolved just a bit - and of course had all the
answers off pat. If I were seeking snake oil, I might buy a bottle
from him!
What worries me is
1) I thought he was out of the news at the moment
2) He claimed to have been teaching creationism in science classes in
a UK "public" school in the last fortnight.
So far as I know, Hardtalk (no space between the words, if you're
looking it up) is supposed to be topica, which suggests that he's
talking about something long since the Blackpool fiasco.
I'll try to bring myself to play it back tomorrow and make some notes.
Brian
2583
Roger Stanyard
Nick Cowan & the Blackshadow Group
07/09/2006 00:31:00
Nick Cowan is no longer a member of Blackshadow. I removed him tonight.
Roger
2584
oeditor
Re: MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 00:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> I accidentally came across MacKay being interviewed by Gavin Esler on
> Hardtalk. I missed the first 10mins or so, but hope I have recorded
> the remaining 20mins. It seems to have been a repeat, and probably not
> being repeated again... can anyone find a full version and save it?
>
It seems it's from August 30th and there's a link to watch it again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/5321286.stm
= http://tinyurl.com/g92p7
It comes up ok in Real Player but I can't see any way to save it. I
don't seem to have missed more than the first minute though, if my
recording has worked.
Brian
2585
Mikey Brass
Re: Yahoo Group Changes
07/09/2006 07:48:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> This group became a closed user group site at just after midnight
Time will tell whether this was a mistake, as I think and voted, or not.
For one thing, Cowan's posts usually provided some sort of "leak" which
various members then followed through. Thanks to this wrongly becoming a
closed list, that particular avenue has been cut off.
I don't like this, I don't like it at all.
2586
Roger Stanyard
Re: Yahoo Group Changes
07/09/2006 08:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
> > This group became a closed user group site at just after midnight
>
> Time will tell whether this was a mistake, as I think and voted, or
not.
> For one thing, Cowan's posts usually provided some sort of "leak"
which
> various members then followed through. Thanks to this wrongly
becoming a
> closed list, that particular avenue has been cut off.
>
> I don't like this, I don't like it at all.
Let's run it this way for a couple of weeks and see how it goes. I
have my doubts as well.
>
2587
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Yahoo Group Changes
07/09/2006 08:37:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Let's run it this way for a couple of weeks and see how it goes. I
> have my doubts as well.
It's not the short term I am worried about (after all, Cowan, merely to
use an example, did not post often). It is the longer term. I also think
that by closing the door, we are cutting off some of our future best
supply of information: creationists who love blurting about their
successes and plans.
I personally think this is a mistake for which Blackshadow will pay for
in the long run.
2588
Roger Stanyard
Re: MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 09:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
>> It seems it's from August 30th and there's a link to watch it again:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/5321286.stm
> = http://tinyurl.com/g92p7
>
> It comes up ok in Real Player but I can't see any way to save it. I
> don't seem to have missed more than the first minute though, if my
> recording has worked.
>
> Brian
>
Mackay's presence in the UK looks to reflect a big change of tactics.
Neither Mackay's Australian web site not that of Creation Research UK
makes any mention of what he is currently doing in the UK (the UK site
though, is pushing the BBC interview). This looks to be a complete
reversal of the position in the Spring when Mackay ended up being
desribed as an extremist by Millfield School. Alan had something to do
with that but the Rev Michael Roberts appears to have been heavily
involved. He told me that the real reason why Millfield dumped Mackay
was because of the adverse publicity for the school. (now we are a
closed group, that''s something I am happy to add).
As far as I am aware, the school governors were approached by Roberts
before Mackay was due to speak. I have a distinct feeling that the
headmaster was leant on by them.
However, Mackay's new tactics means his presence in schools is now a
secret. Nobody knows what he is up to; nobody can complain beforehand
to newspapers of governors or headmasters or local education
authorities.
Mackay is thus out of control.
I assume his appearence this week is due to the fact that schools
returned from holidays a week or so back although he seemed to suggest
in the BBC interview that he had also been into Eastern Europe and had
been talking with "academics".
Later today I will email the BBC interviewer. I don't know his email
address but I don't think that will be difficult to work out. If anyone
has any comments that they would like me to put to him, feel free to
post (it's a closed group for the time being so security is not a great
problem. There is only one person on the list I am unsure about and I
have asked him to identify himself. He hasn't so far. It's a risk we
can take, I guess.)
An alternative is for members of this group to write to the presenter
in their won names as well. It would help get the message across.
My own feeling was that the presenter got walked over by Mackay because
he let Mackay set the agenda - science. Had the presented started
questioning him on Millfield and te current secrecy plus some of
Maackay's apparently extreme political views, Mackay may have been
shown up to be the fraud he is.
I'm going to post something on our web today about the BBC interview.
I've watched a bit of it but I need to spend an hour over lunch
watching the whole thing. Any comments on the programme would help.
Roger
2589
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New file uploaded to BlackShadow
07/09/2006 09:22:00
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the BlackShadow
group.
File : /MARCH 2004.htm
Uploaded by : stanyardroger <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
Description : Take Heed Newsletter, Original
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://files/MARCH%202004.htm
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
stanyardroger <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
2590
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New file uploaded to BlackShadow
07/09/2006 09:24:00
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the BlackShadow
group.
File : /MARCH 2004Replace.htm
Uploaded by : stanyardroger <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
Description : Take Heed Newsletter, Doctored
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://files/MARCH%202004Replace.htm
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
stanyardroger <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
2591
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Incitement to religious hatred.
07/09/2006 09:25:00
Yhis is worth digging around on because the fundies in the UK, led by
the Christian Institute IIRC lobbied very hard to get the bill
stopped. Now why was that?
Actually, because of the muslims.
I had a series of discussions in the run up to this bill coming before
parliament, and the one thing the evangelical alliance and their brood came
back to over and over again was that this law would prevent them from saying
what they thought about Islam.. and given what they have to say about Islam,
that's hardly surprising.
Ian.
2592
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science - Doctoring the News
07/09/2006 09:49:00
I have loaded to the file section of this group two copies of the
March 2004 newsletter from Take Heed Ministries in Northern Ireland.
So what, you may ask? Well that newsletter is where we found out all
our details of Truth in Science, the secretive creationist group that
McIntosh, Burgess and a whole host of other leading creationist
activists appear to be involved in. TIS appears to be connected to
the Lord's Day Observance Society (now Day One) and Evangelical Times
as well.
Until the last couple of days or so, that has been the only source of
information we have had on Truth in Science. It appears that the
newsletter basically rehashed a report in the January 2004 issue of
Evangelical Times but when I did the research, back in June, this
report appears to have been culled.
At the time, I smelled a rat and therefore saved to disk the html
version of the March 2004 newsletter. That must have been around the
last week in June.
Well, between that date and 4th September something very odd
happened. Take Heed Ministries doctored its then over 2 year-old
newsletter, removed all reference to Truth in Science and then
reposted the now smaller newsletter back to its web site. (It is now
113 Kbs against 122 Kbs for the original.)
Have a look – the original I have called March 2004 and the doctored
version (the one now currently on the Take Heed site) March
2004replace.
Now why would a one-man band itinerant ministry from the obscurity of
Northern Ireland do this after having let the newsletter site there
for well over two years? We know that Truth in Science still exists
(more of that in coming weeks), so the report is not irrelevant. Nor
was the report adverse – it was glowing about TIS. I can't say that
it was in breach of copyright of Evangelical Times material as I
haven't seen the latter's report. But, it does give credit to ET and
I guess that, given the brief length of it, it would be unlikely to
be in breach of copyright.
Indeed, the whole matter looks astonishing. The Take Heed Ministries'
newsletter is nothing more than a parish newsletter, brief, parochial
and rather amateur. Why does it self-censor itself over two years
after the event.
I will be writing to the minister involved today.
Roger
2593
Roger Stanyard
Re: Incitement to religious hatred.
07/09/2006 09:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Yhis is worth digging around on because the fundies in the UK, led
by
> the Christian Institute IIRC lobbied very hard to get the bill
> stopped. Now why was that?
>
>
> Actually, because of the muslims.
>
> I had a series of discussions in the run up to this bill coming
before
> parliament, and the one thing the evangelical alliance and their
brood came
> back to over and over again was that this law would prevent them
from saying
> what they thought about Islam.. and given what they have to say
about Islam,
> that's hardly surprising.
>
> Ian.
>
Thanks for the tip, Ian.
I think that this is going to prove to be very important.
IIRC the Christian Institute similarly lobbied abainst the bill for
much the same reasons.
It appears that some of the fundis have got pissed off with the
Christian Institute and are trying to refocuse around just lobbying
to allow creationism into schools. The CI is not neutral on
creationism. It is a creationist organisation full stop. It seems
that the CI, though, is hamstrung because of its association with the
Vardy schools (they are one and the same movement as far as I am
concerned).
As far as I am aware, the Evangelical Alliance is nominally sitting
on the fence over creationism.
I hope that we can add more details over the next week or so.
Roger
2594
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Yahoo Group Changes
07/09/2006 11:10:00
> It's not the short term I am worried about (after all, Cowan, merely to
use an example, did not post often). It is the longer term. I also think
that by closing the door, we are cutting off some of our future best
supply of information: creationists who love blurting about their
successes and plans.
I personally think this is a mistake for which Blackshadow will pay for
in the long run.
This is (imo) a false quandary caused by sticking with the Yahoo group.
In a integrated mailing list/forum it is *trivial* to create a public fundie
baiting forum where they can come and crow as much as they like, and a
private discussion forum where proper campaigning can be organised without
them reading over our shoulders.
See what has happened with Mackay - they planned in public, and we used it
against them. If they had not been so vocal in spreading the news on their
visible website and newsletters, we would not have seen a reaction against
them.
Each and every discussion here about McQuoid, the ESF etc will have ended up
in their mailboxes, and they have more money and influence to use that
information.
Rather than accepting an artificial dilemma of open or closed, can we not
consider a solution which allows both?
There is no pain involved, it's trivial and easy to use.
I am willing to provide webspace with these features integrated, free of
charge. To make it happen I need:
1) A domain registered using someone like www.123-reg.co.uk for the grand
sum of £4 a year or thereabouts.
2) The NS (name servers) for that domain pointed at my hosting server (I can
do this for you if needed)
And that's it. The rest will involve no more effort than visiting a website,
registering an account, and signing up for a mailing list... from there on,
it's exactly as before.
I was hesitant about offering this before, simply because I am involved with
the SAC, and don't want to over commit.
I would need someone else to act as a moderator for the new list, as I am
unable to do so. I would expect the moderator(s) of this list to perform the
same duties on the forum I provide.
Ian.
2595
oeditor
Re: MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 11:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Mackay's presence in the UK looks to reflect a big change of
tactics. > Neither Mackay's Australian web site not that of Creation
Research UK > makes any mention of what he is currently doing in the
UK (the UK site > though, is pushing the BBC interview).
The more I look at this, the more I think it's an old recording.
Unfortunately, I can't find any dates to confirm it - apart from ons.
a) he was on the radio with Steve Jones 2 weeks ago
b) he debated at Nottingham University 2 weeks ago
c) He came from Hungary on Saturday (Asc.com says he was there
15-23Jun and was passing through the UK on the way back to Oz)
d) He was in a UK "public school2 2 weeks ago
d) gives the lie: 2 weeks before 30 Aug schools in this country were
on holiday. Agreed he might have had a lecture on the premises, but in
that case why hide it? Why come over here at the height of the holiday
season anyway?
So I think it was recorded in June and he was referring to his May
antics - just a week or two out of synch. Jetlag?
I've written to Hard Talk to ask when the interview was recorded.
Brian
2596
oeditor
Re: MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 12:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Neither Mackay's Australian web site not that of Creation Research UK
> makes any mention of what he is currently doing in the UK (the UK site
> though, is pushing the BBC interview).
I couldn't find the bit about the interview. Have you a link, please?
Brian
2597
jds_blackcougar
New Member
07/09/2006 12:05:00
Hi,
My name's Josh (sorry no surname as that's one of my online forum rules)
I'm based in Derby and am currently 2 years into studying for a
Honours Degree in Mathematics and Computer Sciences with the Open
University.
I also work part time as an IT Consultant.
I am a creationist although I disapprove of some of the tatics which a
lot of my fellow creationists use.
My reason for joining this group is to try to get a better
understanding of the views that are expressed in this group. ;)
I'm working on a tongue-in-cheek creation/evolution website which I
would eventually value your critical analysis of when it is officially
up and running. More on that later ...
Due to spam my yahoo address is useless so if you need to contact me
directly please use the following email address:
jc0tt0n *at* hotmail *dot* com
Thanks
2598
Roger Stanyard
Re: MacKay on BBC News 24
07/09/2006 13:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Neither Mackay's Australian web site not that of Creation Research
UK
> > makes any mention of what he is currently doing in the UK (the UK
site
> > though, is pushing the BBC interview).
> I couldn't find the bit about the interview. Have you a link, please?
>
> Brian
>
Brian
Here at http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/index.htm
2599
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Member
07/09/2006 14:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jds_blackcougar"
<jds_blackcougar@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My name's Josh (sorry no surname as that's one of my online forum
rules)
Sorry Josh,
Identify yourself or go.
It's better you join CED or debunkcreation.
Roger
>
2600
oeditor
Re: New Member
07/09/2006 14:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jds_blackcougar"
> <jds_blackcougar@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My name's Josh (sorry no surname as that's one of my online forum
> rules)
>
> Sorry Josh,
>
> Identify yourself or go.
>
> It's better you join CED or debunkcreation.
What's the point of making the group private and expelling Nick Cowan,
if admitted creationists like Josh can join at will?
Surely some mistake?
Brian
