Posts by Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

BYE!

Forscher

12

maybe I'm making too much out of it.......

by under74 in

jw
friends

i'm going to try to make a long story short.... i moved away from my home city for grad school 2 years ago and left a couple boxes at my mom's for safe keeping.

my mom ended up moving to a new place during the 2 years i was in school.

i noticed on visits that there was only one box i recognized stored out in her new garage and asked her about it...she got defensive and said she took all that was boxed.

Forscher

An interesting article.

I don't think that the oil companies will allow any competing alternatives on the market in any significant way until the oil wels dry up and they own production of the alternatives. Efficient carburators are not the only thing they've kept off the market. Back in the 70's, I think, an engineer came up with a super-efficient engine that could get over 90 miles to the gallon. They used the clout of the major car manufacturers to keep the engine from being tested as required by EPA regulation so that it could be certified and marketed.

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

Alanf:

Your answer shows you to be no better than the fundamentalists you claim to abhor. And your threat to smear me as a troll proves it. That, more than anything else proves Hooberus' contention about you folks.

If you bothered to look at my posting outside the topic of evolution, you'd see that your contention that I am a troll is without foundation. As I said, you were had and you can't stand it.

Sadly Yours

Forscher

20

Exit from the JWs

by KAYTEE in

my exit from the jws, was roughly as follows-

our final letter to the congregation was in the form of a resignation.

we made at least 15 to 20 copies and sent the majority of them to so-called friends, 2 days later we sent the original to the body of elders.

Forscher

Garybuss said :"If all your friends are Jehovah's Witnesses . . . you don't have any friends. "

Sad,... but true.

I recently went to a function at my local college. A bunch of the folks from my last congregation were there. They didn't look at me disapprovingly, but they did go out of their way to avoid me (that was alright with me). It sure didn't make a case for going back!

Forscher

11

Disfellowship article, ideas please

by jwfacts in

i have written an article for my parents.

they are somewhat influential in the org and i am trying to convince them to push for changes to current disfellowshipping policy, not that i hold out too much hope.

anyway, i would like what i have written checked for accuracy.

Forscher

I think its pretty good as well. Ingenuous did a good job in his critique. I think his suggestion on the Noahtion prohibition against eating blood is something you might want to look at. Even at that, the prohibitions in Genesis and Acts only apply to eating blood. Extending them to blood transfusions is going beyond the scriptures, that is the important point.

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

Yes. Next time you turn on your TV, expect me to come through the screen and get you.

AlanF

ROFLMAOL!!!!

I think you finally figured it out Alan!!!

While I still hold to my contention that the folks at the Smithsonian went over the line, let me tell you a few things about myself that not even many folks who know me know. Since you said that my posts were the only way you have to know me. i think that is only fair ;-)

To start off with, I've mentioned elswhere that I recently finished my Bachelor's degree (better late than never). It's a Batchelor's of Science, though it's in a social science (I did make sure that I had a bit more course work in the natural sciences [Chemistry and Biology] and math than the average bear in those fields gets). I graduated cum laude, so didn't do sloppy work (and I did about 120 of the 150 hrs I have while I was in the borg). Politically, I am actually middle of the road. There is a little test making the rounds of some universities that evaluates one's political leanings. The test scores from 1-100 with 1 being thumping right-wing fundamentalist Christian and 100 being extreme left-wing communist. Both times I've taken the test I scored 66 and 60 respectively which is basically slightly left of middle.

In highschool (oh so many years ago) I was on a debate team that took a state championship, and if you go back and look at our little debate objectively, you'll find that you got had. In fact, you fell pretty neatly into the trap I set for you. About the only thing you didn't do, that it looked like you were going, to do was to kick me off the forum. But I think you finally figured out what was going on.

The problem with folks at both ends of the spectrum (and you are out there on one of those ends Alan, I don't mean that insultingly) is that they are too emotionally wrapped up in the rightness of their beliefs. They tend to look down on those who don't share their beliefs (be honest with youself Alan and look at the tone of your posts on this forum, I think you are intelligent enough to see my point if you look at it objectively) and they take a condescending tone that takes away from the authority of their arguments. Civil, rational debate carrys more authority than the put-down. You need to step back from the emotion and look at your arguments dispassionately.

That is also the flaw in what the folks at the Smithsonian did. Remember that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian. He was employed by the NIH. He merely had access to the collections of the Smithsonian for the research he was doing for the NIH. His editorship of the magazine was an extra-curricular deal (although whether he got any compensation for it or not, I'll admit I don't know) and the magazine's board could remove him at anytime for any reason it wanted. The letter from the investigator pointed that out as being one of the reasons he couldn't pursue the investigation any further. Sternberg's postion on the magazine did not make him an employee of the Smithsonian, so he didn't enjoy the legal protection that you said I naively ignored. So what the Smithsonian folks did was completely unnecessary. It was done simply out of emotion and spite.

Alan, our freedoms of speech were enshrined by our founding fathers because they trusted that those who count could rationally evaluate the ideas that enter the market place of ideas and come to the right decisions. That is why we don't have censorship! Censorship goes hand-in-hand with intolerance and dictatorship. If ID really is as foolish as you materialists say it is, then you have no need to suppress it. Let it be heard, and let it be properly evaluated. Then if it proves lacking, it will go onto the ash-heap of history right along with seven day creationism. That, my friend, is always the best way to deal with it. Doing otherwise makes one look dogmatic and fanatical. That is why liberals have been losing their shirts in recent elections, they come across as left-wing taliban (again, I am not trying to insult anybody here, I am just pointing out the facts).

You may not care that you look fanatical, but you'd be well advised to start caring about that if nothing else. You are entitled to your opinions, please extend others the same curtisies. And treat them just as respectfully as you expect to be treated.

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

I said: We dealt with your points.

Alanf said :"No you didn't. You simply ignored them and repeated the claims I had disproved."

Not true Alan, That pretty much describes what you have been doing.

Alanf "You are the liar. You have every opportunity to prove yourself right by doing as I said above, and listing the points I made and your rebuttals. But based on your performance so far, I'm certain that you won't even attempt it.'

I quoted you as follows; :

Alanf said : "I didn't say you were stupid"

Alanf said ; "Your remarks are extremely stupid"

As you said Alan ; "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . ."

You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical.

No, I demonstrated it.

Not true Alan.

: We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical.

So what? The lawyer who investigated this is a Bush-administration appointed lawyer who obviously has the same political agenda as have so many others of Bush's political appointees -- to push a right-wing, creationist agenda.

So anybody who disagrees with your postion is oviously a right-wing fanatic? Come on now Alan, I thought you could do better than that. Or am I mistaken.

On the other hand, I pointed out that Sternberg's employers -- the Smithsonian staff and the governing council of the Proceedings journal -- directly stated that his actions were unethical. This is the only judgment that counts.

Exuse me? Those who conduct a smear campain based on lies are hardly in a position to say what is or is not ehtical. As far as I'm concerned, their judgement has no authority at all.

: I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally.

You're becoming as pathological a liar as that pretend-scholar JW apologist who calls himself "scholar" is. Let's examine the exchange:

::: Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.

:: Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.

Again, Alan, You didn't address the ethical issues invovled, you simply called my remarks stupid and inplied that I'm naive. That hardly qualifys as a valid rebuttal.

: I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.

Fine. You think a lot of other stupid things, too.

You're really on a roll here, Alan. First I say stupid things, next I am becoming a pathological liar, Then i am a right-wing fundamentalist. and now I think stupid things as well? Can't you do anything other than insult the folks you debate with? Apparently not!

Oops! There is one other thing you can do:

Alanf said: "You're pushing my patience.'

Sounds like an inplied threat to me. Care to elaborate?

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

Alanf said : "I didn't say you were stupid"

Alanf said ; "Your remarks are extremely stupid"

????

When you said that my remarks were stupid, by extension, you were saying that I was stupid. And that was not the only insult you flung at me and Hooberous personally. We dealt with your points. And all you could do in the end was insult us for our trouble. And then you lied when I called you on it as the foregoing quotes showed.

You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical. We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical. Hooberous provided Links to that proof. You brushed that off and repeated the lies that were circulated by Dr. Sternbergs critics. I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally. I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.

As you said, people can indeed draw their conlusions. And if you think that insulting me and Hooberous somehow makes your case strong, go for it pal. I think that you might find folks drawing conclusions about you that you won't like.

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

Alanf said "Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality..."

As usual, you couldn't resist throwing in a personal insult as a rebuttal. While that may make you feel superior, it weakens your argument far more effectively than anything I or anyone else could possibly do. I am aware of the politics of the government workplace, but that is a poor justification for the unethical actions of Sternberg's colleagues. Your argument still essentially relies on "the ends justifies the means" as its ethical basis. If you ever took a course in ethics, then you know that is a very poor justification for any action.

You called Sternbergs actions pharasaical and Watchtowerish. I submit to you that the actions of Sternberg's colleagues fit that description far better.

I think you and your fellows would do alot better if you would refrain from the temptation to personally insult those who disagree with you. It makes it appear that you really don't have a case for your position.

Forscher

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Forscher

Since hooberus did a good job of rebutting many of the points raised, there isn't much I can add beyond this.

You contend that it was somehow unethical for Sternberg to have the article in question peer-reviewed and then published. As hooberus showed with the appropriate links, Sternberg followed the procedure that was set up. That is hardly unethical.

In your first post you contended that one of the reasons the publication was unethical was that people you consider ignorant might read it and think that somehow had some legitimacy. Since the magazine in question is an obscure scientific publication aimed at fellow scientists that the public in general doesn't have ready access to, I can only assume that you think trained scientists are incapable of examining the material critically and coming to the proper conclusions. Apparently the scientists at the Smithsonian and the think-tank invovled agree with you!

Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.