Thank you... I knew you weren't really completely a lamer

Post #133,694 by danreck 1/5/04 3:54:02 PM Reply	Thank you... I knew you weren't really completely a lamer You were just napping, Herr Cyclic? What you said, twice... but, there is this sticky thing that neither or you two Einstein's have addressed which I, personally , find most disturbing about the original topic... Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Bold added for emphasis by me. This is an (American) national park bookstore. Just because of political corruption and lack of understanding of a pretty straight forward sentence, the "separation of church and state notion" prevalent in our times has nothing at all to do with the actual First Ammendment. Just how in the fuck do either of you justify banning any book that says anything at all about the age/formation of the Grand Canyon? I have a $50 side bet that any "scientific" explanation for the age/formation will be proven innaccurate/WRONG in the next ten years. Any takers? How are those bullshit books any better than any else? Yeah, that's what I thought... Just my $.02 Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,697 by ben_tilly 1/5/04 4:13:02 PM Reply	On that side bet Who judges whether or not current scientific explanations for the age/formation has been proven wrong? There is not shortage of people who are willing to stand up and scream that it has been, with arguments that I don't accept but you might. Deal with that detail and I have no problem accepting your $50 in 10 years. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,709 by danreck 1/5/04 5:20:20 PM Reply	Re: On that side bet We judge. We buy a book at the bookstore on the geological formation of the Grand Canyon today and compare it to a book we buy at the same bookstore 10 years hence and see if the details match. You know it's a sucker bet as much as I do. I'm not about to engage in the "validity of scientific knowledge debate (fact or fiction or Easter Bunny) in this context - merely stating that you seem concerned with providing "easily influenced minds" with accurate information (as some sort of public service)? Which is why you seem to object to the notion of selling "creationist" literature at a Grand Canyon bookstore. Correct? My point is that the information in either books will be innacurate by the time the child comes of age. Why is your garbage any better than theirs? It kind of flies in the face of presenting all views and letting a "free" American citizen decern what is accurate or innacurate. From the threads in the Religious Fora, I've noticed that you have not used the words scientific and fact in any sort of juxtaposition, let alone side by side. I see this as great progress in these past years, Ben, really. No matter what your philosophical or religious belief, this is about freedom of expression/speech (see First Ammendment), as much as banning Vonnegut's books in high schools. I notice you didn't address that aspect of my post. Must have been an oversight... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,710 by admin 1/5/04 5:24:17 PM Reply	Dumbass. It's "discern" and "amendment", dipshit. No content... this IS the flame forum, after all. ;-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #133,834 by danreck 1/6/04 9:45:33 AM Reply	Ouch... Spelll it and they will come. Grammarians at the gates. Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,835 by danreck 1/6/04 9:54:35 AM Reply	Oh, and by the way... you pussy of a water buffalo (comes from my Filipino friend), although unintentional, [link\|http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=decern\|http://thesaurus.ref...arch?r=2&q=decern]. I actually did look up the word because it looked wrongish on screen... Hell, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it is on military time, etc.) Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,836 by deSitter 1/6/04 10:00:47 AM Reply	Re: Oh, and by the way... Moderne Manne cannot be expected to Knowe all thefe crufty Worde Formes, for his Tyme is Valueable and not to be lightley Squandered, there being Various Gaineful Purfuites in which he might occupye Himfelf more profitably. -drl
Post #133,844 by admin 1/6/04 10:38:11 AM Reply	Re: Oh, and by the way... [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=decern\|"decern"] Speak English, not Old English, you buffoon. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #133,845 by deSitter 1/6/04 10:52:15 AM Reply	Old English UNIX # man fsck "fsck" is a Programme to be Ufed, to Checke and perhapes Repaire various File Syftemes often founde in Linucks. The proper Ufage of this Commande is as followes: "Filefys" may be taken to Reprefente a Device Name, a Mounte Pointe, or even a Lable or UUID Specifier. Under the moft Commone Circumftances, this Programme will attempte to run Filefyftems on Various Phyfical Difkes and uncover the Errores thereon, at one and the same Tyme, therebye Reduceing the totale Amount of syfteme Refources apportionede by the Hoft Syfteme thereunto. -drl
Post #133,859 by jb4 1/6/04 12:19:36 PM 1/6/04 12:20:20 PM Reply	If yer gonna Old English, do it right, dufus The 'f'-looking s you're trying to misuse is supposed to be the hard-s, roughly equivalent to the s-zed in German (\ufffd) in usage (or mis-usage). So "Ufed", is flat-assed wrong! "Ufage" is also wrong, because the hard-s is traditionally signalled at the end of a word (where ambiguities in the pronounciation of an ending ess is common in Teutonic languages). "Syftems" is a puzzlement, so we'll give you a pass (or pafs) on that... But "Filefys"?!? C'mon, you illiterate flut! It's "filesyf"! Get it right! ;-) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT Edited by jb4 Jan. 6, 2004, 12:20:20 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,865 by pwhysall 1/6/04 12:35:56 PM Reply	That's not Old English, fuckwit. This is Old English: This Pardoner hadde heer as yelow as wex, But smothe it heeng as dooth a strike of flex; By ounces henge his lokkes that he hadde, And therwith he his shuldres overspradde; But thynne it lay, by colpons oon and oon. Fucking ignorant colonial philistinic baboon. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #133,886 by danreck 1/6/04 2:14:58 PM Reply	Dorkus Maximus... Whom are you calling colonial? Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,890 by folkert 1/6/04 2:35:05 PM Reply	Ignorant? -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [insert witty saying here]
Post #133,916 by Arkadiy 1/6/04 4:51:52 PM Reply	I once ahad a coworker who considered "James, you intelligent slut!" a compliment. -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks
Post #133,932 by jb4 1/6/04 6:06:44 PM Reply	And damn proud of it too, butthole! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #133,716 by deSitter 1/5/04 5:49:36 PM Reply	Re: On that side bet Actually the canyons in the West have a very simple explanation that will not change because there can't possibly be any simpler explanation. The continents are like foam on hot chocolate - they are the rocky material that floated to the top when the Earth was molten (or locally, when struck by a large body). The entire West is rising rapidly in the geologic sense - as it rises, the rivers snaking across it eat away at the rock far faster than the rising land can supply new material. After a long time the land has literally risen up around the river valley. You get a better sense of this at a smaller canyon like the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The same river goes from level with the land to being 2000 feet below it over a few 10s of miles. What has happened is - a local bulge had pooched out of the crust right under an established river. It happened so fast that the sides have not had time to erode away - so you have an extraordinary gorge that is deeper than it is wide. -drl
Post #133,847 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 11:26:56 AM Reply	Who chooses the book? I'm serious. I've been burned by shit like this before, and I want the details nailed down. Pick a good bookstore and it is trivial to find books that disagree with each other on all sorts of details. Furthermore in a decade I expect that science will have a clearer picture, and so there will be details that differ. For instance the exact timescale that the Colorado has been in its present course, wearing down the Grand Canyon, is one which is unsettled (as is, so I understand, the previous course of the Colorado. On the other hand let me offer my version, see if you think that it is acceptable. I predict that in 10 years the following will still be accepted within the scientific community (yes, I'm deliberately not accepting the ICR's claims) about the Grand Canyon: It was created by erosion, including obviously that from the Colorado River. It was created in the last 10 million years, and more than 100,000 years ago. I'm putting wide error bars because I'm trying to sandwich current estimates of 1-6 million years. (Getting an exact time is hard because the river now flows in solid rock that is very hard to erode. The nature of erosion is that as it goes on, it wears away the record of when stuff was taken away before. Therefore it is hard to determine when the canyon got started.) The major layers described in, say, [link\|http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/BeroN/Bero.htm\|Grand Canyon Rock Layers] will still exist, still be thought to have been formed the same way, and their estimated ages will still be within 15% of what we currently estimate them at. Is this a bet that you can accept? If so, then I'll gladly accept $50 from you in 2014. On scientific facts, I've always been precise about what I use that phrase for. In return I must say that I've appreciated how little I've talked to you in the last few years, and I'm somewhat disappointed that my lucky streak is broken. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,899 by danreck 1/6/04 3:39:59 PM 1/6/04 3:43:19 PM Reply	Re: Who chooses the book? Ben, I wouldn't burn you. To be fair, we should pick the same book by the same author with the same publisher with a 2003/2004 copyright and compare it to one in 2013/2014. Of course, its only fair that you would want to hedge a sucker bet. The book 2013/2014 book cannot in any factual way contradict the 2003/2004 book. Period. Even if they find out that maybe the meteor strike in the (current) Gulf of Mexico was responsible for accelerating it's formation, if it's not in the book, it can't be ten years hence. But neither of us will bite on this bet, will we. The reason why I'm not biting is because any books that are currently selling (today on the shelf) regarding the creation of the Grand Canyon must be 100% factually complete or else they too should be banned. You know, we wouldn't want our national parks selling BS to poor, impressionable minds. In that regard, Paul Bunyon should be taken out as well. We shouldn't sell any books there as they all most probably are fiction with a grain of incomplete truth. But back to reality. I am operating under the assumption that you take offense at the park service selling a Creation based book because it may be innaccurate (more precisely because you and many like you believe it to be innaccurate). I posted the the 1'st, reiterated this point twice (in separate posts) and still you choose to not address it. Why? Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places? I don't see it that way. This is not akin to putting the Ten Commandments over the door to the bookstore. I would have a problem with that. Is it that the religion of consumerism outweighs the Christian religion? Let me pose this question to you one more time in exactly the same way I posed it four sentences ago, "Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places?" This is what is at the heart of this whole thread. Just as I'm very vocal about not wanting the Ten C's on my dime, I'm more vocal about banning books. In case you missed it, "Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places?" Just a few of the same question for three damned posts, Danno Edited by danreck Jan. 6, 2004, 03:43:19 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,922 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 5:25:32 PM Reply	And that is a sucker bet The book 2013/2014 book cannot in any factual way contradict the 2003/2004 book. Period. Science is a process, not an end. The things that we think we know, we have different degrees of uncertainty about. Very few popular books try very hard to address this, and no author, no matter how they try, is able to both quote lots of detail and also constantly qualify each detail with information on how certain we are about the item quoted. Furthermore in any book, there are bound to be honest mistakes. If we take 2 books and compare them, any mistake in either and you have your sucker bet. Heck, no need to wait 10 years. Buy 2 books about the Grand Canyon right now and the odds are very good that, if you read closely, they contradict each other right now in some way! Heck, take two editions of the same book by the same publisher, look at the errata, and there you go! So I offered a version of the bet which listed conclusions that I believe we are pretty confident about. Therefore those conclusions shouldn't change within 10 years. More detailed current theories will change (that is the scientific process at work), but the ones that I offered won't. Of course you won't take that bet because you know that I'd win it easily. So we don't have a bet. Not because anyone here lacks confidence in science, but because I refuse to bet against human error and the scientific process, while you refuse to bet against the outcome of the scientific process. On the topic of selling creationist literature, there is a simple reason that I didn't respond to that question. I never spoke out against that, and so didn't see any point in defending what I never said. My position is that if they want to devote a section of the bookstore to Creationist literature, go ahead. Just don't put it in the science section, and let people know that it doesn't belong there. Don't believe me? Take a look at [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133412\|this post] to see me raise the issue. Take a look at the whole damned thread with Wade in religion to see me repeatedly saying that Creationism shouldn't be presented as science. I never once said that Creationism should never be presented. I said that it shouldn't be presented as science. Please read the whole thread again (in all 3 forums) to verify that. Once you have verified that you were flaming me for something that I never said, I'd appreciate it if you would get back to me with an apology. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,929 by hnick 1/6/04 5:49:28 PM Reply	An apology from the FLAME FORUM? Urm... Ben... You're out of your fucking mind. It is contrary to the system. If you want a real dialog, take it out of here to a sane (for limited definitions of sane) forum. There's RULES here, ya see...
Post #134,064 by danreck 1/7/04 9:48:12 AM Reply	Fair enough... I have reread and stand corrected. I apologize for trying to put words in your mouth. Not a totally meaningless discourse on my end, however. In the spirit of this particular forum heading (and because of the jeers about "get a hotel room, etc." sure to follow :-0 ), I still feel compelled to at least call you a butthead. Ben, you are butthead. Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #133,912 by CRConrad 1/6/04 4:40:20 PM 1/6/04 4:44:13 PM Reply	[Edit: Typo] Been going to say this for a while: Take a number, Bub; alternatively, the line for people without numbers starts over there. So many morons to flame; so little time... [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Resident [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=119792\|zIWETHEY pilkunnussija] Edited by CRConrad Jan. 6, 2004, 04:44:13 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,918 by Silverlock 1/6/04 4:51:54 PM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #133917 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133917\|ICLRPD] ----------------------------------------- "After months of searching and billions of dollars, we've finally captured the man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 !" -Rob Cordry, The Daily Show

Welcome to IWETHEY!