> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > > I read the book in it's entirety. > > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > > Those who present only one view point do not allow > > this.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > something in your chest call in. You can talk about > science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > _against_ both 'theories'".
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > him off and going to a commercial.
The ID perps would have likely urged his removal too. IDiots this stupid just make it harder to run the switch scam. It has been about a year since any school board or legislator claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design and made the news. This tells me that enough people know what a scam intelligent design is that they can step on the IDiot before he makes enough waves to cause the Discovery Institute ID perps to run the bait and switch on the stupid rube.
Just recently at the Panda's Thumb someone noticed that the Discovery Institute had changed its claims about intelligent design and was no longer claiming to have a scientific theory of intelligent design. The ID perps are likely getting negative feedback on the bait and switch scam that they have been running on any rube stupid enough to fall for intelligent design. Their only hope to get anywhere with the switch scam, that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, is to get the rubes to fall for the switch scam before they fall for the ID scam. Once they come out and claim that they want to teach ID the game is over. Just taking the switch would make it pretty hard for anyone to believe that they had science education as their primary goal. The worst thing that could happen would be for some rubes that fell for the ID scam to get into court and have to testify as to why they took the switch scam from the same guys that lied to them about intelligent design.
Because it is the ID perps that have to keep running the bait and switch on their own ignorant and or stupid supporters it is in the best interest of the science side to keep intelligent design in public discussions. The more the rubes hear about intelligent design the more the ID perps will have to suppress their own junk. It isn't the science side that runs the bait and switch on the creationist rubes. It is the ID perps that sold them the ID scam.
Even Kalkidas can't deny that. He will just go into denial and try to make believe that it all doesn't really exist. Sad, but true. The only ones supporting the creationist ID scam at this time are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest like Kalk. If anyone doesn't believe that, just get your local schoolboard or legislator to try to teach the science of intelligent design and see what you get from the liars that sold you the bogus ID scam.
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > I had posted earlier on this NG.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean" <R.D...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >> I read the book in it's entirety. >> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >> Those who present only one view point do not allow >> this.
>Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed >in public schools, but not on talk radio either. >A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this >past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's >something in your chest call in. You can talk about >science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After >deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane >topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School >board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both >evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and >_against_ both 'theories'".
>The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, >but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting >him off and going to a commercial.
>It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something >I had posted earlier on this NG.
>During this commercial, I called in and after telling the >screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing >in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this >was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any >other subject was ok, but not this)
>After the commercial break ended, the host announced that >evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific >fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing >"anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't >appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
If the caller was not actually an "anti-science bozo", he was at least demonstrably ignorant of science: there is no evidence against evolution, and there is no evidence supporting ID.
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >>> I read the book in it's entirety. >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow >>> this.
>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed >> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. >> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this >> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's >> something in your chest call in. You can talk about >> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After >> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane >> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School >> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both >> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and >> _against_ both 'theories'".
>> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, >> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting >> him off and going to a commercial.
>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something >> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the >> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing >> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this >> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any >> other subject was ok, but not this)
>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that >> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific >> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing >> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't >> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > very sympathetic to your plight.
As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is not reasonable. Do you have patience?
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > >>> I read the book in it's entirety. > >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow > >>> this.
> >> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > >> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > >> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > >> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > >> something in your chest call in. You can talk about > >> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > >> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > >> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > >> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > >> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > >> _against_ both 'theories'".
> >> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > >> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > >> him off and going to a commercial.
> >> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > >> I had posted earlier on this NG.
> >> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > >> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > >> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > >> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > >> other subject was ok, but not this)
> >> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > >> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > >> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > >> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> >> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > >> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> > Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > > very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?
Some do, some don't. But the forum's been here for quite some time, so if you present a worthwhile case I can guarantee you it'll get noticed.
Personally, I'd ask you to defend a more narrow contention - that it's reasonable to present criticisms of evolution in public schools. Granted this is an inference I've taken from what you said above, so if it's not representative of your position I withdraw the request.
> On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Himself wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >>>> I read the book in it's entirety. >>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow >>>> this.
>>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed >>> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. >>> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this >>> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's >>> something in your chest call in. You can talk about >>> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After >>> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane >>> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School >>> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both >>> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and >>> _against_ both 'theories'".
>>> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, >>> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting >>> him off and going to a commercial.
>>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something >>> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the >>> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing >>> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this >>> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any >>> other subject was ok, but not this)
>>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that >>> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific >>> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing >>> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't >>> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>> Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right >> here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be >> very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?
Wait, you had the evidence when you phoned the call in show, but now you DON'T have it? Or did you forget it already? Or...?
Take as much time as you need. I'm more that willing to see some evidence against evolution.
> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on > the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. > In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any > discussion. > I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your > rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
Oddly enough, though, you were completely unwilling to post your real name and institution so that I could make a formal complaint about your unethical behaviour. Then there was a lot of bluff and bluster about contacting the RCMP, which, incidentally, have yet to contact me about anything.
Oh, and I checked with a lawyer whom I know, and showed him my (in your words) "stalking" of you. His response was laughter.
Now here *you* are making menaces in the newsgroup. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Inadequacy problems? I think the term "Internet tough guy" fits you to a tee.
> R.Dean wrote: >> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> Oh, did you ;-)
>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. I read the book in >>> it's entirety.
> You deserve credit for that, I would never be able to.
>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical quotes and >>> references from Genesis onward. But to my amazement, there were no >>> Biblical references anywhere that I could find. But there were what >>> seemed to me to be reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? If not, why not?
> There are NO reasonable critiques of evolution that haven't been refuted, > as they say, a thousand times already. It is all faith based sophistry > with no bearing on reality. Accept the simple fact that evolution happens > and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for this fact so far.
I can accept your opinion that it's the best so far. However, It may still be flawed. I believe it is, but there is no logical reason to demand a another explanation for the facts: facts which depend upon theory to have meaning.
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > >>> I read the book in it's entirety. > >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow > >>> this.
> >> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > >> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > >> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > >> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > >> something in your chest call in. You can talk about > >> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > >> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > >> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > >> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > >> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > >> _against_ both 'theories'".
> >> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > >> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > >> him off and going to a commercial.
> >> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > >> I had posted earlier on this NG.
> >> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > >> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > >> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > >> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > >> other subject was ok, but not this)
> >> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > >> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > >> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > >> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> >> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > >> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> > Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > > very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?
It sounds as though the original radio caller was able to summarize his reservations within a minute or so of airtime, stupefying the host. I think it'd be fairly easy to squeeze what you can remember of it into an email, especially since some of it may have been plagiarized from your own words (or as you quite charitably put it, borrowed.)
And hey, don't forget that you were ready to jump on air and continue that caller's thought for him after he was rudely cut off! That sounds like a "right here, right now" kind of situation to me!
> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on > the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. > In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any > discussion. > I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your > rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
You could find me very easily. I would say worse to you, you piece of shit.
-- Will _in New Haven_ actually, Branford, two towns east of New Haven on the shore.
> On Jul 29, 3:39 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote: >> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>> -- >>> Will in New Haven
>> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on >> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. >> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any >> discussion. >> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your >> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
> You could find me very easily. I would say worse to you, you piece of > shit.
> -- > Will _in New Haven_ actually, Branford, two towns east of New Haven on > the shore.
Usenet cowards like you are a dime a dozen. All you're able to accomplish is to run off from at the mouth and post your threats from a distance in order to satisfy your need to feel that you're in control, safe from retribution, not to mention that you're one of the dumbest humans to walk the face of the Earth, little man.
> > On Jul 29, 3:39 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote: > >> Will in New Haven wrote:
> >>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
> >>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
> >>> -- > >>> Will in New Haven
> >> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on > >> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. > >> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any > >> discussion. > >> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your > >> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
> > You could find me very easily. I would say worse to you, you piece of > > shit.
> > -- > > Will _in New Haven_ actually, Branford, two towns east of New Haven on > > the shore.
> Usenet cowards like you are a dime a dozen. All you're able to > accomplish is to run off from at the mouth and post your threats from a > distance in order to satisfy your need to feel that you're in control, > safe from retribution, not to mention that you're one of the dumbest > humans to walk the face of the Earth, little man.
I don't know how much distance we are talking about, since you are completely anonymous (as far as I know, I haven't investigated) and don't say where you live. My name is Bill Reich. I have given you where I live. You could find me, you nauseating asshole. But you don't want to.
Now which of is the coward? When can I expect you?
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > > I read the book in it's entirety. > > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > > Those who present only one view point do not allow > > this.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > something in your chest call in. You can talk about > science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > _against_ both 'theories'".
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > him off and going to a commercial.
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > I had posted earlier on this NG.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
Odd. Usually, in today's talk radio market, radio talk hosts are reich wing fundy suck-ups, and love to have anti-evolution callers (since evilution is an anti-god, liberal pseudo-science that leads to all sorts of liberal political views). How refreshing to hear that a radio host actually stands for rational science.
But, I agree, in a way. The host should still have allowed anti- science Bozo's the opportunity to air their stupidity, since it was announced it was "Callers Day".
> On Jul 29, 6:46 pm, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Himself wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >>>>> I read the book in it's entirety. >>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >>>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >>>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >>>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >>>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >>>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >>>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >>>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >>>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >>>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow >>>>> this.
>>>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed >>>> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. >>>> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this >>>> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's >>>> something in your chest call in. You can talk about >>>> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After >>>> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane >>>> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School >>>> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both >>>> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and >>>> _against_ both 'theories'".
>>>> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, >>>> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting >>>> him off and going to a commercial.
>>>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something >>>> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>>>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the >>>> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing >>>> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this >>>> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any >>>> other subject was ok, but not this)
>>>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that >>>> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific >>>> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing >>>> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>>>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't >>>> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>>> Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right >>> here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be >>> very sympathetic to your plight.
>> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence >> or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is >> not reasonable. Do you have patience?
> It sounds as though the original radio caller was able to summarize > his reservations within a minute or so of airtime, stupefying the > host. I think it'd be fairly easy to squeeze what you can remember of > it into an email, especially since some of it may have been > plagiarized from your own words (or as you quite charitably put it, > borrowed.)
> And hey, don't forget that you were ready to jump on air and continue > that caller's thought for him after he was rudely cut off!
> To put it succinctly, the caller began by a brief statement starting with his justification for bring up the topic at a board meeting. But the host implored him to get to the point. What is this evidence you want students to know about? The caller, "to know that there is evidence which cast doubts on Darwin's theory and the evidence as presented by those scientist and popularizers who took up his quest". The host, "get to your point". The caller, "if evolution is about anything it's about change, change over time, but the paleontologist, who were contemporaries of Darwin, critiqued his Origin of Species by pointed out that the fossil record does not support change. Species appear suddenly in the fossil record and disappear from the record with little or no change, this was not what Darwin predicted......". - Host "thank you." (commercial break).
This is the conversation almost verbatim. But my problem with the caller was he started at the end if an argument which could easily be challenged, IOW that was then this is now.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded.
Either that or actually knew some science.
> I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
Insult or accurate description?
From what I've read from you so far, I'd go with door number 2.
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > > I read the book in it's entirety. > > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > > Those who present only one view point do not allow > > this.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > something in your chest call in. You can talk about > science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > _against_ both 'theories'".
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > him off and going to a commercial.
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > I had posted earlier on this NG.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
A teacher should of course attempt to answer a students question , but should also avoid letting the discussion wander too far. A simple "thats not what the current leading theory says" should be adequate , and maybe take the student aside after class if they still have concerns.
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > >>> I read the book in it's entirety. > >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow > >>> this.
> >> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > >> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > >> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > >> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > >> something in your chest call in. You can talk about > >> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > >> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > >> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > >> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > >> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > >> _against_ both 'theories'".
> >> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > >> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > >> him off and going to a commercial.
> >> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > >> I had posted earlier on this NG.
> >> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > >> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > >> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > >> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > >> other subject was ok, but not this)
> >> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > >> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > >> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > >> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> >> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > >> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> > Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > > very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?
We've been waiting for years to hear the evidence against evolution. A few more days won't matter. Take your time and do it right.
> >>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > >>>>> I read the book in it's entirety. > >>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > >>>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > >>>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > >>>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > >>>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > >>>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > >>>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > >>>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > >>>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > >>>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow > >>>>> this.
> >>>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > >>>> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > >>>> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > >>>> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > >>>> something in your chest call in. You can talk about > >>>> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > >>>> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > >>>> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > >>>> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > >>>> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > >>>> _against_ both 'theories'".
> >>>> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > >>>> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > >>>> him off and going to a commercial.
> >>>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > >>>> I had posted earlier on this NG.
> >>>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > >>>> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > >>>> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > >>>> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > >>>> other subject was ok, but not this)
> >>>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > >>>> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > >>>> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > >>>> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> >>>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > >>>> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> >>> Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > >>> here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > >>> very sympathetic to your plight.
> >> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > >> or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > >> not reasonable. Do you have patience?
> > It sounds as though the original radio caller was able to summarize > > his reservations within a minute or so of airtime, stupefying the > > host. I think it'd be fairly easy to squeeze what you can remember of > > it into an email, especially since some of it may have been > > plagiarized from your own words (or as you quite charitably put it, > > borrowed.)
> > And hey, don't forget that you were ready to jump on air and continue > > that caller's thought for him after he was rudely cut off!
> > > To put it succinctly, the caller began by a brief statement starting > with his justification for bring up the topic at a board meeting. But > the host implored him to get to the point. What is this evidence > you want students to know about? The caller, "to know that there is > evidence which cast doubts on Darwin's theory and the evidence as > presented by those scientist and popularizers who took up his quest". > The host, "get to your point". The caller, "if evolution is about > anything it's about change, change over time, but the paleontologist, > who were contemporaries of Darwin, critiqued his Origin of Species by > pointed out that the fossil record does not support change. Species > appear suddenly in the fossil record and disappear from the record with > little or no change, this was not what Darwin predicted......". - Host > "thank you." (commercial break).
> This is the conversation almost verbatim. But my problem with the > caller was he started at the end if an argument which could easily > be challenged, IOW that was then this is now.
Yeah; the caller's objection sounds a lot like this creationist claim:
Paleontologists generally understand that what we call "species" appear discrete from one another to varying degrees as a result of the spread of changes in populations over millions of years. The fossil record offers scanty snapshots of these changes compared with the billions of years in which life has been evolving on earth, but it's enough information for us to recognize patterns in the fossils. Paleontologists had realized there were patterns before Origin was published, but Darwin and Wallace were the first to propose fully satisfying explanations.
I'm going to admit I haven't read Darwin, I tend to read only current material about evolution, but I don't think he predicted that we would be able to recover fossils representing every variation of life on earth, such that the fossil record might be followed like a smooth river. The caller was wrong about that. Fossilization only occurs under certain conditions, which must be preserved for millions of years, and made available for discovery. Even then, that would be an overwhelming record. I mean that literally; not awe-inspiringly overwhelming, but actually beyond our ability to sort and categorize. Darwin was certainly aware of the immense number of variations that have lived on earth. Here's an excerpt from Origin:
"In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alteration, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds..."
The fact that we have so few fossils from these millions of variations over millions of years, makes it much easier for us to categorize them into things we call "species". But remember that what we call a "species" is just a snapshot in time of the much more fluid process that gave us the wonderful diversity of life on earth.
>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >> I read the book in it's entirety. >> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >> Those who present only one view point do not allow >> this.
A book, written supporting I.D., NOT valid if it only presents lies and warped accusations about Evolution. I.D. IS religion, whenther they openly quote the bible or not.
If the bearded lady at the carnival, comes up with some fantastically insane belief that green cheese eating moon creatures started life on Earth - sould we also give THAT "opposing" viewpoint equal time?
In a science class, science gets equal time ...... not delusions, fanatasies, invented NON-EXISTAND gods, NON-EXISTANT causes etc..
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > something in your chest call in. You can talk about > science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > _against_ both 'theories'".
There is no more evidence for I.D. that there is for "Never-Never-lanad", asshole. Trying to present it as an alternative to valid scienvce is nothing mnore than religious ignorance and fanaticism at work.
Whatever a radio show talks about, has nothing to do with science. I'm quite sure most radio talk shows have limits on the number, and topics, of outrageous kooks they will air.
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > him off and going to a commercial.
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > I had posted earlier on this NG.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
The "alternative" to this - which has an equal right to be aired - is that you ARE an anti-science BOZO! In this nation, insane kooks have every right to speak ...... they do NOT have a right to "be heard".
> On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Himself wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:56:41 -0400, "R.Dean"<R.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. >>>> I read the book in it's entirety. >>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical >>>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to >>>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere >>>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be >>>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such >>>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? >>>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides >>>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own >>>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. >>>> Those who present only one view point do not allow >>>> this.
>>> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed >>> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. >>> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this >>> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's >>> something in your chest call in. You can talk about >>> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After >>> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane >>> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School >>> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both >>> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and >>> _against_ both 'theories'".
>>> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, >>> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting >>> him off and going to a commercial.
>>> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something >>> I had posted earlier on this NG.
>>> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the >>> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing >>> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this >>> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any >>> other subject was ok, but not this)
>>> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that >>> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific >>> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing >>> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
>>> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't >>> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
>> Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right >> here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be >> very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?
Do you realize the number of outrageously insane creationists/IDers and religiously fanatic creationist web sites we have endured already? No one will be the LEAST bit surprised if every piece of crap you post, has NOT been cut and pasted (and rebutted) over and over again.
Do YOU have the honesty, intelligence and maturity to acknowledge it when your crap gets thoroughly trounced by science and reality? If you don't - that would put you in the same league as every other moronic, fanatical, idiot, troll who comes in here claiming to HAVE such evidence - only to run away and lie when shown the REAL facts.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
Assuming the story is even remotely true (more than questionable considering it comes from a morontheist), whee too bad for you. Guess what? Actions have consequences.
You want to babble science-denying crap debunked a gazillion times, that's your right to do. It is other people's right, however, to slam you for it. Unless of course you can offer evidence for your point of view, and it would have to be damn good evidence to shake the foundations of one of the most well-established scientific theories of all times.
The game of life is not called "make a wish", but "shuffle and deal with it". You may start crying like a baby now. Keep in mind, though, that I don't care a flying fuck.
-- Romans 2:24 revised: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you cretinists, as it is written on aig."
R.Dean wrote: > On 7/29/2010 3:15 PM, nmp wrote: >> R.Dean wrote: >>> On 4/23/2010 7:22 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>> Oh, did you ;-)
>>>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. I read the book >>>> in it's entirety.
>> You deserve credit for that, I would never be able to.
>>>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical quotes and >>>> references from Genesis onward. But to my amazement, there were no >>>> Biblical references anywhere that I could find. But there were what >>>> seemed to me to be reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any >>>> such criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? If >>>> not, why not?
>> There are NO reasonable critiques of evolution that haven't been >> refuted, as they say, a thousand times already. It is all faith >> based sophistry with no bearing on reality. Accept the simple fact >> that evolution happens and the theory of evolution is the best >> explanation for this fact so far. > I can accept your opinion that it's the best so far. However, It may > still be flawed. I believe it is, but there is no logical reason to > demand a another explanation for the facts: facts which depend upon > theory to have meaning.
That's where you are 100% wrong. In science, standing on the hilltop and shouting, "Evolution is wrong!!" is not an acceptable or worthwhile activity, not after more than a century of gathering increasingly detailed evidence of a convergent nature that supports both the fact of evolution and the theory of how it happens. There is every reason to demand a fully worked-out theory from opponents of the Darwinian evolutionary model before getting off one train and boarding another. I'd even settle for a decent half-baked alternative theory, if only for discussion's sake, but that has never been offered. (Behe came closest, but fell far short of the standard required to be even "half-baked".)
So far, every claim that scientific mainstream evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed has come from one religious crank or another, however sincerely held their beliefs may be. The predominant alternative model always seems to boil down to "Suddenly a miracle occurred!" or "God did it, the Bible says it, and that's good enough for me!" You also get arguments along the lines, "We don't completely understand the details of phenomenon X, therefore evolution, of which X is a part, must be wrong." The correct response is to say, "Let's do some more research on X."
If you have something other than that, some actual science and an alternative model that doesn't invoke miracles, let us know.
> > A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > > I read the book in it's entirety. > > I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > > quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > > my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > > that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > > reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > > criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > > If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > > of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > > minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > > Those who present only one view point do not allow > > this.
> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > something in your chest call in. You can talk about > science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > _against_ both 'theories'".
> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > him off and going to a commercial.
> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > I had posted earlier on this NG.
> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > other subject was ok, but not this)
> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, perhaps if you got an education it wouldn't apply to you.
> >>> A recently picked up a book on intelligent design. > >>> I read the book in it's entirety. > >>> I fully expect the book to be riddled with Biblical > >>> quotes and references from Genesis onward. But to > >>> my amazement, there were no Biblical references anywhere > >>> that I could find. But there were what seemed to me to be > >>> reasonable critiques of evolution. Should any such > >>> criticism of evolution be allowed in public education? > >>> If not, why not? Should students be presented with both sides > >>> of the controversy, and allowed to make up their own > >>> minds. Apparently, they do not have that prerogative. > >>> Those who present only one view point do not allow > >>> this.
> >> Apparently, not only is criticism of evolution not allowed > >> in public schools, but not on talk radio either. > >> A local "news and talk" station had a "callers day" this > >> past Friday: "any subject any topic is OK, if there's > >> something in your chest call in. You can talk about > >> science, religion, politics, local concerns...etc". After > >> deriding Bush, the war on terrorism, Obama and other mundane > >> topics, a caller, who said he had been on a High School > >> board, and was asked to resign because he "wanted both > >> evolution and I.D. taught along with evidence _for_ and > >> _against_ both 'theories'".
> >> The host asked what was some of his evidence against evolution, > >> but he allowed the caller about a minute before cutting > >> him off and going to a commercial.
> >> It seemed to me, the caller borrowed a line from something > >> I had posted earlier on this NG.
> >> During this commercial, I called in and after telling the > >> screener my topic. I could hear some raucous conversing > >> in the background, then, I was told by the screener, this > >> was not an appropriate subject for discussion. (note: any > >> other subject was ok, but not this)
> >> After the commercial break ended, the host announced that > >> evolution had been established by scientist as a scientific > >> fact and so, there was nothing to be gained by allowing > >> "anti-science 'bozos'" on his show.
> >> Clearly, the host highly biased and closed minded. I didn't > >> appreciate the "anti-science" or the "bozo" insult.
> > Now's your chance to post that evidence against evolution. Do it right > > here, right now. If you can post a valid critique, everyone will be > > very sympathetic to your plight.
> As you might know, it's impossible in a few words or a sentence > or two to build a case. So, "do it right here and right now" is > not reasonable. Do you have patience?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
But you think a few seconds on minutes on a talk show would do it? Strange.
> On Jul 29, 3:39 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote: >> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>> -- >>> Will in New Haven
>> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on >> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. >> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any >> discussion. >> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your >> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
> Get real. You of all people should complain about insults on Usenet.
I've been trying to keep it civil for quite a while now but it's getting more and more difficult I must admit.
I do not call people "piece of shit", I don't tell others to go f' themselves. I can be abrasive just like the next guy, but I try not to be another Ron O, Desertphile or Will.
Instead of doing the right thing and at least trying to be fair, instead of lambasting the posters that use foul language, you're attacking me.
> On Jul 29, 9:49 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote: >> On 7/29/10 10:21 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 3:39 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote: >>>> Will in New Haven wrote:
>>>>> Don't sweat it. We are all Bozos on this bus.
>>>>> Now, YOU are also a moron.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Will in New Haven
>>>> I would love for you to say that to my face, coward. Being a big man on >>>> the Usenet is very easy. A few words, click on the send button and voila. >>>> In fact, I would just love to meet you somewhere to further this or any >>>> discussion. >>>> I don't travel lots, but it wouldn't be difficult to find you under your >>>> rock, from which you crawl out to spew your vitriol.
>>> You could find me very easily. I would say worse to you, you piece of >>> shit.
>>> -- >>> Will _in New Haven_ actually, Branford, two towns east of New Haven on >>> the shore.
>> Usenet cowards like you are a dime a dozen. All you're able to >> accomplish is to run off from at the mouth and post your threats from a >> distance in order to satisfy your need to feel that you're in control, >> safe from retribution, not to mention that you're one of the dumbest >> humans to walk the face of the Earth, little man.
> I don't know how much distance we are talking about, since you are > completely anonymous (as far as I know, I haven't investigated) and > don't say where you live. My name is Bill Reich. I have given you > where I live. You could find me, you nauseating asshole. But you don't > want to.
> Now which of is the coward? When can I expect you?
> -- > Will in New Haven
Mr. tough guy from a distance strikes again. Displaying your name and whereabouts on the Internet is very foolish and says a lot about you.
As for the nauseating asshole part, you can't post anything without demonstrating your bad habits that you picked up during your upbringing. Did your mother yell at you and swear like a sailor or was it your dad that abused you and used the foul language you're infamous for?
In any case, "debates" such as these never happen in a manner that is planned. Life can be full of surprises. And I'm sorry for the fact that you were brought up by people who should never have had children in the first place.
|
