prev <-> next
[2005-01-17 08:38:18] - the author is upset about the stickers, saying "What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," -dave
[2005-01-17 08:37:36] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/14/evolution.stickers.ap/index.html More on evolution stickers. -dave
[2005-01-17 08:33:49] - As for home ownership, the article states that blacks seem to be making a salary more on-par with whites, but are still lagging behind in "wealth," meaning equity and investments. Who's fault is it if they don't put their money into investments? -dave
[2005-01-17 08:31:46] - it doesn't seem to me so surprising, it takes awhile for people to get a grasp on investing in stocks. The article itself points out that a lot of blacks were investing in the stock market but then ran when it turned bad, whereas not half-so many whites pulled out -dave
[2005-01-17 08:29:55] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/wealth.gap.ap/index.html "Wealth gap seen as top civil rights issue: Blacks lag in stock market investments, home ownership" -dave
[2005-01-17 08:26:01] - I can understand the controversy over deciding whether to take any action if a 'real nuclear threat' was found, but isn't this what everyone wanted the administration to do - make absolutely sure the intelligence was correct? -dave
[2005-01-17 08:24:41] - maybe it's just because I'm biased, but the article claims these missions are being done to make sure the intelligence is concrete in lieu of the incorrect intelligence on Iraq - isn't this a good thing? -dave
[2005-01-17 08:21:46] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html Hersh criticizes administration, accusing them of executing covert missions to gather intelligence on possible nuclear weapons in Iran and other countries -dave
[2005-01-17 07:51:15] - http://movies.msn.com/beacon/editorial1.aspx?ptid=cc3123f0-9f4e-4ffa-8ad8-7b9bec6c0054 Spacey to play Luthor and Bosworth to play Lane in Superman movie -dave
[2005-01-17 00:46:21] - dave: yeah i remember wnd mention that several times whenver the abortion debate ever comes up there. - mig
[2005-01-16 13:27:14] - EYYYY RONY
[2005-01-16 12:47:39] - did you know that the person who was 'Jane Roe' in the Roe v. Wade case is now a Pro-Life advocate? Ironic -dave
[2005-01-14 21:16:27] - heh- somebody recently tried to access my journal from a posting about Prof. Polanah being arrested. It was 4th on Google for "polanah arrested" and this board was listed 5th. - Dewey
[2005-01-14 16:03:47] - Travis: Well, it IS the winter, so we can't be too upset about the weather being cold.
-Paul[2005-01-14 16:01:55] - i thought it would be more likely given the nice weather the past couple of days, but as usual the weekend brings bad weather - travis
[2005-01-14 15:41:03] - Travis: I'll do my best. 7:00 it is. -Paul
[2005-01-14 15:40:05] - Travis: I wouldn't mind giving tennis a try, but I think you're right that tonight might be too cold. -Paul
[2005-01-14 15:38:48] - paul: since you're on aim, tell andrew he can wait until 7pm since you and miguel can't show up, that'll give me time to do my regular workout instead of tennis - travis
[2005-01-14 15:34:25] - like i said, i was offering it as an option for something besides the usual games - travis
[2005-01-14 15:33:53] - paul+mig: well, by 7-8pm it will probably be too cold tonight, so i doubt tennis is an option - travis
[2005-01-14 15:31:00] - well i have a racket, which i could bring. - mig
[2005-01-14 15:14:51] - Mig: And are you going to be bringing anything with you? -Paul
[2005-01-14 15:11:19] - meaning i'm probably coming but i won't be there by 6. - mig
[2005-01-14 15:08:10] - Mig: Meaning that you're not planning on coming or what? -Paul
[2005-01-14 15:02:57] - paul: mail is checked..... i dunno. regardless of what i do tonight, i can't imagine it being any earlier than 7 or 8. - mig
[2005-01-14 14:04:19] - Mig: Check your email. -Paul
[2005-01-14 14:03:09] - dave: i would think the latter. the official rule is that the ball is a goal if the entire ball passes through the entire goal line (sort of reverse of football). i can imagine in some instances where it may not be clear whether it's a goal or not. - mig
[2005-01-14 13:51:03] - aaron: ahh I see. that makes sense -dave
[2005-01-14 13:49:10] - dave: I'm assuming they're talking about when the goalie crosses the line a little bit, to get the ball. I know that happens a lot in hockey, but hockey has those automatic lights that go up nowadays - aaron
[2005-01-14 13:32:36] - mig: I guess I don't watch enough soccer to really know, but how could a referree not know it is a goal? can't they go over to the goal and see that the ball is in? or does it have to do with the ball breaking the plane and then coming back out? -dave
[2005-01-14 13:23:01] - dave: That would be another kind of advertising money cannot buy - aaron
[2005-01-14 13:22:55] - It's really the only sport where you can realisticly claim a referee can cost you the game. - mig
[2005-01-14 13:22:18] - for the most part however, soccer referees in most big games are very, very competent. It's just when they do make a mistake it turns out to be huge. - mig
[2005-01-14 13:20:40] - dave: well i think this chip thing is cool but it shouldn't be the sole arbiter of whether it's a goal or not. A mix of that and instant replay would definitely be something that could work very well. - mig
[2005-01-14 13:17:03] - aaron: hehe, the kid is forgoing college to pursue fishing ^_^ props to him -dave
[2005-01-14 13:14:14] - aaron: yeah, a lot of the times I figure out / change my opinion while I'm posting stuff here -dave
[2005-01-14 13:13:23] - aaron: hehe, for awhile there I thought that they had their chip inside that soccer ball and something went wrong with it so the referree didn't call it a goal ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-14 12:59:41] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/14/students.stripping.ap/index.html on the topic of factual statements that aren't welcome in the classroom - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:58:22] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/01/14/spark.football/index.html tiny chip to prevent referee blunders - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:55:33] - dave: You're definitely right that it is a complex issue. I hope you're not misinterpreting the amount of confidence that I have in my opinion on this issue, because honestly I'm still figuring it out as I try to talk about it with you - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:54:29] - dave: In the same way that the public doesn't get to decide which countries their armies invade, yes. They shouldn't be able to decide - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:53:34] - aaron: I agree that it seems best to teach what the experts say, but it gets sticky when you consider the fact that the public is supposed to have the ultimate clout in this country -dave
[2005-01-14 12:52:12] - aaron: so the public shouldn't be able to say what their kids get taught in school? -dave
[2005-01-14 12:47:12] - A majority of the population doesn't know a lot about the fossil record or whether the Cretaceous or Cambrian age came first, so I think it's best to let the expert decide what should be taught in schools, not america's special interest groups or the american mainstream - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:45:40] - dave: Well, as far as science goes, I think you should teach what most scientists believe. If the world's scientists studied the origin of species and a majority of them determined creationism was a more logical theory than evolution, then they should teach that, but it shouldn't really have to do with just what the public thinks - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:36:42] - aaron: I think one thing that paul was trying to get at was that at what point does it become "the public wants" versus "X special interest group wants" and if it makes any difference to you -dave
[2005-01-14 12:15:14] - paul: It just sets a dangerous precedent. I hate to imagine every special interest group putting stickers in every book "this sexual education book represents one theory of sexuality" "this fictional literature describes a polytheistic universe" "this biology book implies second-hand-smoke is more harmful than studies have shown," etc. - aaron
[2005-01-14 12:07:35] - Aaron: I meant ONLY science. -Paul
[2005-01-14 12:07:21] - Aaron: Because if you believed that science (and observable things and whatnot) should be taught no matter what, then really there isn't much room for me to convince you that the sticker is reasonable.
-Paul[2005-01-14 12:01:52] - Aaron: I wasn't really trying to argue anything, just trying to figure out what you think. Basically whether some things should be tought to people regardless of what they want/believe. -Paul
[2005-01-14 12:01:24] - dave: Since he phrased it in such a way that avoided mentioning creationism or evolution, I assumed he meant in a broader sense (religious history, religious law, etc.) - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:57:52] - aaron: religious beliefs like creationism right? -dave
[2005-01-14 11:54:22] - dave: I'm pretty sure paul was arguing towards teaching religious beliefs in schools now, if a majority of the population was religious (or that's my understanding) - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:51:55] - aaron: ahh, I guess I didn't understand what paul was exactly asking then -dave
[2005-01-14 11:51:15] - aaron: none of the evidence changes, just the explanation/hypothesis/theory explaining them -dave
[2005-01-14 11:50:42] - dave: That's not what paul was arguing about though - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:48:53] - aaron: if creationism were taught, you could still talk about fossils, natural selection, etc. You'd just talk about it and explain how it fit into creationism -dave
[2005-01-14 11:44:08] - You're right that teaching evolution is a little bit iffy because it's a theory, but I think teaching religion in schools is less defensible - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:41:56] - dave: The difference being that there's fossil evidence of evolution, and observable evidence of the process of natural selection. Those are things everybody can learn about (fossil evidence, finch beaks, whatever) regardless of religion, because it is fact about the world around us - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:38:01] - aaron: just cuz they believe in something else doesn't mean it isn't of use to them. If it really wasn't, then US schools would be teaching a ton of people useless stuff (evolution) -dave
[2005-01-14 11:34:53] - paul: But then you're teaching 20% of the people something that's of absolutely no use to them. - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:18:55] - Aaron: Ok, so a hypothetical situation, there is a society where the vast majority (say, 80-90%) of the population is very religious and doesn't believe in science. Do you still think public schools in that society should teach science over religious stuff? -Paul
[2005-01-14 11:17:39] - paul: (and if we taught public schools based on what the majority thought was fact, we would be teaching creationism in schools) - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:11:56] - paul: But i guess what i'm getting at is, demonstrable practical sciences for the most part (obviously you can't exactly demonstrate atomic science either, so there's some exceptions) - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:11:27] - paul: That's a really big question. I think in general public schools do a good job of sticking to things (science-wise) which are provable and demonstrable through experimentation. Evolution and geology are two of those sciences that take too long to take place so they can't really be demonstrated. - aaron
[2005-01-14 11:05:55] - Aaron: I've a question for you. What do you think public schools should teach (in general)? Do you think they should teach what the majority thinks should be taught or some other system of determining what should be taught? -Paul
[2005-01-14 11:05:05] - mig: even if you go with big bang theory etc, I don't believe the theory explains how matter came to exist. Like the ball that went boom in the theory was already there and could have had 10 billion year old matter in it already -dave
[2005-01-14 11:03:32] - Aaron: Yeah, those are the kind of evolutionists that I really dislike. -Paul
[2005-01-14 11:02:55] - mig: even with that brand of creationism, no one ever said that when things were "poofed into existence" they couldn't have been poofed there with the appearance of age. For example, say a tree was being poofed into existence. It could be poofed there as a 200 year old tree with 200 rings and all -dave
[2005-01-14 10:54:56] - paul: What a pretentious collection of shirts! - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:54:08] - dave: But it does at least fly in the face of the theory that the universe was created from scratch 4.9 billion years ago - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:53:29] - dave: i guess it depends on what brand of creationism you believe. If you belive in the 7/24 hr day, 6,000 year old earth brand of creationism, then the 5 billion year old rock kind of flies in the face of that. - mig
[2005-01-14 10:53:15] - dave: I was just remembering my Geology teacher's first-day-of-class speech about "i have no problem if your beliefs don't match up with what i'm teaching, but don't put your religion's answers on a test paper" or something like that. I guess you're right that creationism on its own isn't invalidated by a 5-billion-year old rock - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:48:13] - mig: haha, if he is, then I must be 5 ^_^ Life is awfully boring if you don't do things like that -dave
[2005-01-14 10:46:11] - I'm really beginning to wonder if bush really is a 6-year old child stuck in a man's body ... - mig
[2005-01-14 10:42:57] - aaron: how is a rock being 5 billion years old have to do with not fitting with creationism? -dave
[2005-01-14 10:41:22] - http://www.cafepress.com/affable_atheist/362373 I think any movement with a cafepress site has an agenda.
-Paul[2005-01-14 10:40:59] - (oh, god didn't manufacture the human eye, it evolved from simpler eyes somehow) - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:39:26] - dave: I guess it could be argued that creationists are trying to bend the geologic record to fit in to their world view (that rock only LOOKS 5 billion years old) and evolutionists are doing the same in some ways - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:34:07] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/14/yahoo.baby.reut/index.html boy gets named Lucian Yahoo, because couple met online -dave
[2005-01-14 10:32:26] - aaron: so I think painting one side as being opinionated and having an agenda and the other not isn't entirely correct -dave
[2005-01-14 10:30:03] - aaron: when it comes right down to it, both creationists and evolutionists are predisposed to explaining whatever evidence they find in a certain way. Evolutionists try to explain it with a unintelligent design hypothesis and creationists try to explain it with an intelligent design hypothesis. -dave
[2005-01-14 10:28:54] - "Pootie poot!" That's adorable. I wonder if Vladimir finds it demeaning though? - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:28:32] - Aaron: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. -Paul
[2005-01-14 10:24:46] - "The president likes to give people nicknames. He has called Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, "Pootie-Poot," while aide Karen Hughes gets "High Prophet."" -dave
[2005-01-14 10:23:35] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/senator.name.ap/index.html President uses new nickname for senator -dave
[2005-01-14 10:23:04] - Because yes if people's opinions on video games were taught in schools without dissenting viewpoints, the world would be a very different place indeed - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:22:22] - Evolution isn't an opinion derived by people with an agenda, it's a scientific theory based on the geologic record - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:20:56] - paul: Well that kind of a textbook is very clearly biased from the get-go. If you're going to take that route, then what if religion was taught in schools, or what if "the matrix is the best movie ever" were taught in schools - aaron
[2005-01-14 10:06:44] - Aaron: Don't you think it might be a tad bit reasonable to put a sticker on the video game textbook saying that not everybody believes that playing violent video games makes people violent and it's something people should consider with an open mind? -Paul
[2005-01-14 10:05:51] - Aaron: Think of it this way, what if schools taught that playing violent video games made people more violent and refused to mention any other viewpoints and wouldn't tolerate any mention of the other viewpoints (mainly, that playing violent video games doesn't make people more violent). -Paul
[2005-01-14 10:04:14] - Honestly, I think it's the least the schools can do considering that they are outright dismissing a large segment of the population's beliefs and refusing to even make mention of it in schools. -Paul
[2005-01-14 10:01:05] - Aaron: It's true that the sticker draws attention to a certain book (or in this case, theory) but that's only really because there is such a debate over the issue in question. The reason we don't put stickers on physics textbooks about casuality is because there isn't some huge segment of people who believe it's false. -Paul
[2005-01-14 09:59:11] - Travis: Yeah, there are a couple of good quotes in there.
-Paul[2005-01-14 09:50:32] - aaron: honestly, I'm really with Paul and Mig in that it doesn't make much of a diff. to me one way or the other if the stickers are there or not, I just think the case can be made for the stickers, hence my posts -dave
[2005-01-14 09:49:00] - aaron: I believe the statements to adrian are right before my statements to you this morning -dave
[2005-01-14 09:48:18] - travis: hehe, yeah, I was debating whether to post that one too ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-14 09:47:54] - aaron: like I said in my previous statements to adrian, the reasons for having a sticker for this book and not the others are because the issue in question is regarded by most to be more important -dave
[2005-01-14 09:47:49] - paul: regarding quote archives, a couple quotes down from paul pierce: ""When you're in the public eye, it's wrong to cheat on someone, unless you're very careful. If you're normal and no one's going to know, then do it." leave it to paris hilton to justify it
- travis[2005-01-14 09:45:06] - I can't help but wonder what kind of look they will be going for Tron 2.0. Something really kitchy and retro, or something really groundbreaking and futuristic again.... It seems like it would be really hard to pull off the latter - aaron
[2005-01-14 09:35:45] - dave: Well there, I agree with that. If all books had a "this might be false" sticker, then that would be fine, but if it's just the evolution textbook than it seems biased to me. Like if you have three textbooks, but only one of them has a sticker, it unfairly discredits that book - aaron
[2005-01-14 09:33:48] - Or physics textbooks which are clearly biased towards the belief of causality. Obviously all theory, so why choose evolution as the one subject to target with a "this may be tripe" sticker? Because it goes against some specific groups of people uncomfortable? - aaron
[2005-01-14 09:33:07] - aaron: yeah, a lot of things could do with disclaimer stickers, and I wouldn't mind if they all had them. In this case it's just that the only issue that people cared enough about to get a disclaimer was evolution -dave
[2005-01-14 09:28:34] - dave: In the same way a history book is biased, yes. What about geology textbooks? I think that's a great ticket for a disclaimer - aaron
[2005-01-14 08:42:37] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050113-4521.html Tron being remade -dave
[2005-01-14 08:32:47] - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/nba/01/13/bc.bkn.lakersbryantinju.ap/index.html?cnn=yes Kobe injures ankle -dave
[2005-01-14 08:30:35] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/rapist.dna.ap/index.html Serial rapist pleads guilty, asks for longer sentence -dave
[2005-01-14 08:27:42] - "I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something." -dave
[2005-01-14 08:27:19] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.regrets.ap/index.html Bush explaining reasons (or non-reasons) for his quotes "dead or alive" and "bring em on." -dave
[2005-01-14 08:04:46] - look at it from my viewpoint. Say the textbook detailed creationism and not evolution. And say evolutionists wanted to put a sticker in there saying that creationism was a belief and not fact and that it should be examined carefully. Then stop to think what kinda bias there would be? -dave
[2005-01-14 08:03:16] - one could make the argument that to be truly unbiased, all mention of evolution should be deleted from textbooks -dave
[2005-01-14 07:55:26] - aaron: in other words, isn't it already biased? -dave
[2005-01-14 07:54:53] - aaron: well, unfortunately all the other viewpoints in the matter are not included in the textbook for there to be matching stickers that say to question those too -dave
[2005-01-14 07:53:52] - dave: In other words it's not what the sticker says, it's the existence of a sticker in the first place. Like Paul said, I don't think anyone is challenging the content of the sticker. - aaron
[2005-01-14 07:53:45] - paul: haha, those sports quotes of the day are great. -dave
[2005-01-14 07:52:58] - dave: Again, it's not the issue of whether it's smart to question beliefs. It's that directly telling students to question beliefs towards a specific school subject shows bias. - aaron
[2005-01-14 07:45:34] - so to sum up, as a supporter of creationism, I would urge people in their examination of creationism to question everything it says and really discover the basic reasons behind its belief, and to decide whether to accept those basic reasons. Are evolutionists different? -dave
[2005-01-14 07:42:20] - they are the ones who many times give Christians a bad name by buying into theories that some nutcase told them. -dave
[2005-01-14 07:40:53] - I for one find it frustrating when I come into contact with Christians who don't question anything and just take everything they are told about their religion as truth -dave
[2005-01-14 07:39:46] - I don't tend for this to be inflammatory, but is evolution such a tenuous theory that its supporters decry any questioning of its tenets or conclusions? -dave
[2005-01-14 07:35:06] - aaron: I mean really, one of the major differences between good and bad students is the student's ability to question the information presented to him so that by examining it themselves they get a more solid grasp of the information -dave
[2005-01-14 07:31:28] - aaron: I for one know that when a professor emphasizes at some point that what he teaches is his point of view and that students should examine his teaching from their own point of view, my respect for them increases greatly -dave
[2005-01-14 07:29:58] - aaron: I will agree that allowing / including the sticker can be construed as negative connotation on evolution and/or a positive connotation for creationism, however, I also think that it is quite sad when an attempt to purely cause students to examine some subject carefully before accepting it as truth is labeled as unconstitutional -dave
[2005-01-14 07:24:35] - a: in fact, most people would argue that they have a right to be notified that that question is worth so much while the others aren't -dave
[2005-01-14 07:23:55] - a: an example might be having a test with a bunch of multiple choice questions where all but one question is worth 2 pts, but one of the questions is worth 50. You'd want that question designated/highlited/separated in some way yes? -dave
[2005-01-14 07:22:40] - a: in essence, it's the difference between a large and impactful choice as opposed to smaller perhaps insignificant ones. -dave
[2005-01-14 07:21:10] - a: so, the reason why you wouldn't put a sticker like that on a history textbook or some other textbook is because the content of those textbooks don't lead toward a decision that all parties believe is important -dave
[2005-01-14 07:19:56] - a: both creationists and evolutionists both would agree that deciding between the two viewpoints can have a very large impact on your life, so all the creationists want is for students to consider the matter carefully before making a choice -dave
[2005-01-14 07:19:08] - a: to address the issue of possible reasons to have the sticker as opposed to on history books etc - it is precisely because so many people believe in creationism -dave
[2005-01-13 17:03:55] - Aaron: I don't know the specifics, but I imagine there probably isn't a science textbook (don't know if evolution textbooks exist) out there with such a cautionary text already printed in it. At least not in a noticeable way. -Paul
[2005-01-13 17:02:59] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/quotes/archive I like the third quote (Paul Pierce), for obvious reasons. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:59:09] - Are there already tons of laws dictating which books they're not allowed to pick or something? Why doesn't the district just pick an evolution textbook with the cautionary text already printed? - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:56:00] - Aaron: I'm not sure, but I imagine the school districts do, which would mean I guess the school board? -paul
[2005-01-13 16:55:15] - Vinnie: Heh, that's ok, I know agreeing with me is like saying that Hitler had some good ideas. I proudly accept my role as resident crazy man.
-Paul[2005-01-13 16:54:04] - paul: You're right that schools themselves are politically biased from the start just based on what textbooks they choose, and what country they're in. Who picks the textbooks public schools use anyways? - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:50:57] - paul: hahaha, you know I'm always kidding about those things. um, right? - vinnie
[2005-01-13 16:50:04] - especially making it unconstitutional. that could set a dangerous precedent - vinnie
[2005-01-13 16:49:36] - Vinnie: Ouch.
-Paul[2005-01-13 16:49:11] - I actually may *shudder* agree with Paul on this. if they want the sticker to be there, maybe it should be. as far as stickers go, it's pretty fair, anyway - vinnie
[2005-01-13 16:46:27] - Whether or not schools should be teaching alternatives at all is another topic entirely, I guess my point is that we shouldn't feel sorry for poor evolution if a sticker causes a little bit of bias against it.
-Paul[2005-01-13 16:44:58] - Aaron: True, any sticker is going to show bias, but there already is a huge bias in schools right now in favor of evolution since, well, public schools are kinda banned from teaching any alternatives. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:43:51] - For instance, I see absolutely no reason why we need to have a SuperBabies 2 movie, but that doesn't mean that I think people should be banned from making it. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:42:54] - paul: That's less charged, although the existence of any sticker at all is going to show bias - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:42:48] - a: And I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying and there is a technical difference, but what the judge in effect did is ban teachers (or schools?) from using that sticker. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:42:04] - Aaron: I guess I somewhat agree that there is no real good reason why the book needs a sticker (teachers should already be teaching that evolution is a theory and so forth) but just because I don't see why something is necessary doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to ban people from doing it. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:40:51] - Because I'm somewhat approaching this from "If there isn't anything wrong with putting the sticker there, why should be force places that want to put the sticker there to stop doing it?" -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:40:09] - paul: I don't think I could come up with a more impartial way of saying "this book might be wrong", so in that respect I still agree the sticker did its job. But I still think the book shouldn't need a sticker - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:39:59] - a_aaron: Maybe the difference is that you two see no reason why the sticker SHOULD be there and I see no reason why it SHOULDN'T be there? -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:38:37] - Aaron: But see, I don't think it's really slanted. I think something more comparable would be if a sexual education textbook had a sticker saying that "abortion was the termination of a fetus". -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:37:08] - Aaron: Right, that's what I meant. That statement by me was poorly worded. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:37:02] - paul: But like you said, it's slanted, so it doesn't belong in schools. I wouldn't want the gov't printing "Abortion stops a beating heart" in the front of every sexual education textbook either - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:36:34] - Aaron: Anyway, I think the core of what I'm trying to say is that I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with what that sticker says. I don't think it says anything most people would find it be false and I don't think it's really biased in either direction inherently. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:36:22] - paul: Well, by "wrong" you mean scientifically inaccurate. In that context, the sticker is very fair - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:35:38] - mig: "Whether or not the sticker is true is irrelevant" ~a
[2005-01-13 16:35:31] - mig: Yes it is. I was saying, true statements can still be "harmful", by which I mean politically motivated or biased towards influencing students towards/against religion - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:34:47] - Well, that was a poorly written sentence overall... -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:34:25] - Aaron: Well, that wasn't my entire stance, but I did find it interesting that there is nothing wrong with the sticker. I do disagree that calling it a theory is a negative connotation. -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:31:10] - isn't "evolution is a theory" a true statement, though? - mig
[2005-01-13 16:29:00] - paul: I just wanted to say that because it seems like your stance is "If both sides agree that it's true, then it's harmless" which isn't true - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:27:47] - aaron: thanks, you do a much better job making the point than i do. ~a
[2005-01-13 16:26:37] - but they can put them on their backpacks and lunchboxes. ~a
[2005-01-13 16:26:32] - paul: Whether or not the sticker is true is irrelevant, the point is that the sticker says that evolution is a theory, which holds negative connotations, and it's wrong to put something in an arbitrary textbook that's going to predispose students against what it's teaching - aaron
[2005-01-13 16:26:23] - paul: it's not their property. that's a different law. ~a
[2005-01-13 16:07:38] - a: So kids are allowed to put the stickers on their textbooks if they want to? -Paul
[2005-01-13 16:04:35] - they aren't banning the stickers. they're just governing the government. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:52:44] - a: I think it's MORE unnecessary to ban it. After all, the stickers probably have gotten a lot more publicity now than they would've otherwise. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:52:00] - a: So were your lollipops. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:50:11] - paul: it's just unnessesary. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:48:38] - Mig: No doubt we would get just as worked up about some government pork project even if, in the grand scheme of things, it amounted to some tiny fraction of a percentage of the government's budget. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:46:33] - Mig: I don't know. I completely agree that it seems like such a silly thing to get worked up about. But I can't condemn them at all because there are so many good reasons why I think you should never concede minor issues like this. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:42:33] - paul: at the same time i don't know why the religious folks are getting so worked up over getting a sticker on textbooks. I mean it's just like warning packs on cigarettes. what's the point? - mig
[2005-01-13 15:42:24] - Hell, the first half is even one of the pro-evolution crowds favorite mantras, how evolution is a theory and it could be wrong and can change over time (unlike that evil, unchanging religious thinking). -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:41:04] - Mig: That's the funniest thing to me. It seems pretty silly that the anti-sticker crowd is getting so worked up over a sticker which (most of them, I imagine) think is perfectly true. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:37:19] - yeah, saying the sticker is promoting religion per se is a bit of a strecth the way it's worded. it's not even saying evolution is false either. - mig
[2005-01-13 15:36:45] - a: "students are smart enough to see motivation" Yes, the motivation being that they shouldn't just automatically accept everything taught to them in science class, which I think is a good thing. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:35:37] - a: The sticker is promoting religion? I must have missed the sentence where it did that... -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:34:54] - a: So you're supporting that we teach students that science is fact and is always true? -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:34:05] - paul: well we don't put "this book might be wrong" on textbooks because students are smart enough to see motivation. if they see "this book might be wrong" their first question will be "why the fuck is this sticker here? hmmm. maybe it was put here for a reason." ~a
[2005-01-13 15:32:12] - paul: it's not the sticker that's being banned. the non-government employees are still allowed to do whatever they want. it's the government telling the government what religions it can promote. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:32:07] - a: Because there isn't a big enough movement for placing those stickers on history and math textbooks. Also, those other stickers would be more controversial most likely whereas I think this sticker is something both sides would probably agree is true. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:30:33] - a: Science books and lollipops are different things but I hope you can see where I am going with it. You would be seriously pissed if the school wouldn't let you hand out your lollipops which actively promote a side so can't you see how the other side is probably more justified in being angry that their non-side taking sticker is being banned? -Pau
[2005-01-13 15:30:04] - that being said, this whole situation is just about absolute silliness. What exactly do creationist really intend to gain from this. Yay! We got a sticker put on science books! Whoopie'd damn doo doo. - mig
[2005-01-13 15:29:39] - "It's basically just saying science isn't always 100% true" why don't we have a "history isn't always 100% true" on our history textbooks, or "math isn't always 100% true" on our math textbooks, or "this book might be wrong" on all nonfiction? ~a
[2005-01-13 15:27:14] - a: Because I don't know exactly what you're responding to... -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:26:57] - a: but these stickers aren't promoting creationsim directly. it's not even stating that evolution is wrong. just that it is a thoery, nothing more, nothing less. - mig
[2005-01-13 15:26:56] - paul, yes. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:26:37] - a: Are you talking to me? -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:25:25] - you've agreed yourself that non-scientific theories should not be taught in a science class; why is it so much different that scientific theories should be taught in a science class. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:24:06] - paul, science books and lollipops are two completely different things. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:23:55] - a: And I would add that the sticker is even more harmless then that because it's not really trying to promote any specific viewpoint and it's something that BOTH sides would probably say is true. It's basically just saying science isn't always 100% true, think for yourself sometimes. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:23:04] - it's the only major scientific theory that explains a transition of species taught in a scientific class. what's so weird about that? ~a
[2005-01-13 15:22:16] - a: I see the sticker as something promoting diversity of thought. How would you like it if VT had banned your "There is no God" lollipops because it promoted freethinker "dogma"? -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:20:24] - "They are promoting religious dogma to all students"? Come on. If anything, the schools are promoting scientific "dogma" to all students and the sticker is a way to remind students that there are opposing viewpoints out there. -paul
[2005-01-13 15:19:17] - i just don't see why it's such a big deal one way or another. - mig
[2005-01-13 15:19:13] - a: In essence, this boils down to the anti-sticker crowd wanting to prevent a sticker which I think most of them would say is true (even though I know you think there is a problem with it) because it's being proposed by people that they don't like. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:17:58] - a: Because the anti-sticker crowd is using a lot of rhetoric and coming up with fairly far-fetched (IMHO) excuses to prevent something that seems so very harmless. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:12:35] - paul: why? ~a
[2005-01-13 15:12:10] - a: Not familiar enough with the entire situation to say, but from what I read in the article I definitely sympathize with the pro-sticker crowd more than the anti-sticker crowd. -Paul
[2005-01-13 15:05:22] - dave: motivation is often an important factor when making a ruling: i.e. manslaughter vs. murder. ~a
[2005-01-13 15:04:12] - paul_dave: do you think that the school board should have put the stickers on the textbooks? ~a
[2005-01-13 14:58:35] - Dave: Can't have people thinking that the fact of evolution might not be true. -Paul
[2005-01-13 14:52:37] - I would think that the decision should be made solely on the truth or untruth of the advise / statement -dave
[2005-01-13 14:51:02] - I'm not sure I agree with the argument that just because a religiously biased person suggest something, that it can't be acted on as advise because it would appear to side with said person -dave
[2005-01-13 14:49:14] - the judge explains in his ruling "By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals" -dave
[2005-01-13 14:47:17] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html stickers in textbooks saying that Evolution is a theory and not a fact are ruled unconstitutional -dave
[2005-01-13 14:44:15] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/13/objecting.soldier.ap/index.html sergeant refuses 2nd Iraq deployment. -dave
[2005-01-13 12:34:09] - heh heh, this label is funny "tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives" -dave
[2005-01-13 12:25:29] - http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0111-31.htm is al queda really just a boogieman? - mig
[2005-01-13 11:07:21] - Dave: I didn't say video games couldn't take the place of real life in certain areas.
-Paul[2005-01-13 11:06:01] - Paul: awww, guess I'll return that playboy mansion game -dave
[2005-01-13 11:01:46] - Dave: Too bad video games != real life. For many reasons. -Paul
[2005-01-13 10:52:20] - Paul: translate both and you'll be uber ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-13 10:38:21] - Dave: Actually, it would probably be more appropriate to say that I should translate my Far Cry skills to real life since HL2 has more to do with fighting aliens in an Eastern European city. Far Cry deals more with fighting mercenaries in a jungle environment. -Paul
[2005-01-13 10:16:51] - Paul: just translate your HL2 skills to RL ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-13 10:13:17] - Paul: yeah, I wouldn't say it contradicts whatever you had said outright. I think the article was just saying both offense and defense are roughly just as important -dave
[2005-01-13 10:06:47] - Dave: Now only if I had any skills as a Bounty Hunter... -Paul
[2005-01-13 09:48:40] - Dave: Heh, must resist temptation to make snide comment which will get everybody to hate me... Regardless, I think I had posted that article before you so it's not something that I think clearly contradicts with something I believe. -Paul
[2005-01-13 09:45:04] - Paul: here's your solution, go to Colombia and catch some bandits ^_^ http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/01/12/colombia.rewards.reut/index.html -dave
[2005-01-13 09:39:30] - Paul: in any case, I didn't mean to try to bring the discussion back, I just thought it was interesting info given the past discussions -dave
[2005-01-13 09:38:54] - Paul: yeah, I know we had talked about it in the NBA (where I think defense may be better to have than offense, but probably to a lesser extent than you), but I thought we had also talked about it for the NFL. -dave
[2005-01-13 09:36:45] - Dave: Well, I don't know exactly what you're talking about. I believe the discussion we had was over defense in the NBA and if it was better than offense (or even possible to play effective defense). -Paul
[2005-01-13 08:03:10] - alternative is a withering nitch?? -dave
[2005-01-13 08:03:02] - "Spanish-language radio is the fastest-growing format in the country, while alternative rock radio is a withering niche. " from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4390-2005Jan12.html -dave
[2005-01-13 07:52:38] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/12/lawyer.jokes.arrest.ap/index.html pair arrested for telling lawyer jokes -dave
[2005-01-13 07:44:03] - prime Shaq quote "... I'm through with trying to outdo other people. In my 13 years, I've killed everyone. There might be some new ninjas coming up, but I am Shogun, loved by no one." 0_o -dave
[2005-01-13 07:19:21] - http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/hotgossipb5 O'Reilly accepts Clooney's offer to participate in celebrity telethon for tsunamis aid -dave
[2005-01-13 07:18:52] - Paul: wasn't there someone else who agreed with you too? Can't remember -dave
[2005-01-12 17:18:26] - mig: nope. ~a
[2005-01-12 17:02:19] - a: did you know this thing with hfs was coming? - mig
[2005-01-12 16:46:47] - a: Thanks -Paul
[2005-01-12 16:44:36] - paul: 2003. ~a
[2005-01-12 16:34:27] - Vinnie: Did Amy graduate in 2004? -Paul
[2005-01-12 16:25:29] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&e=1&u=/nm/health_condoms_dc Condom Testing Reveals Best Brands -Paul
[2005-01-12 16:24:56] - am i the only one who listens to hfs? ~a
[2005-01-12 16:21:39] - Dave: Are you referring to me? -Paul
[2005-01-12 16:20:27] - so it hfs died noon today? - mig
[2005-01-12 16:17:43] - wow. if i still listened to the radio i'd be pissed. - mig
[2005-01-12 16:14:47] - vinnie: they have already switched over. at http://www.hfstival.com/ you can listen to the last on air minute of WHFS. ~a
[2005-01-12 16:13:36] - mig: yeah, i seemed to remember some people saying defense was the "be all end all," so I thought the article was appropriate -dave
[2005-01-12 16:08:15] - dave: i sense a bit of deja-vu in that link. - mig
[2005-01-12 16:03:55] - anybody have a radio? I'm curious what they are saying on the station itself - vinnie
[2005-01-12 16:02:57] - mig: hmm, no idea. I would guess yes, but that's just a guess -dave
[2005-01-12 16:02:39] - dave/mig: gone AFAIK. the website has already been changed so I don't think there are plans to move it - vinnie
[2005-01-12 16:02:08] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/one/050111 defense wins championships? (NFL) apparently it's split between good offense and defense. -dave
[2005-01-12 15:54:37] - dave: i wonder if that figure include spending in the adult entertainment industry as well? - mig
[2005-01-12 15:51:16] - vinnie: wait, so hfs is going to be gone? or moving? - mig
[2005-01-12 15:50:53] - vinnie: woah, so HFS is just going to cease to exist except as this spanish thing? -dave
[2005-01-12 15:49:22] - http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BA030A596%2D9508%2D4B93%2D9AB2%2D2FDB9B4AB6BB%7D&siteid=mktw&dist= America's spending on entertainment (705.9 billion) matches GNP of Canada (or Australia) -dave
[2005-01-12 15:45:09] - actually, I'm sure those of you that listen to HFS already knew that. hmmm - vinnie
[2005-01-12 15:44:14] - not that I listen to the readio anymore but wow http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/rock/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000751157 - vinnie
prev <-> next