Posted on 02/28/2006 7:05:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Thanks for your posting, I'm glad I'm not alone with this line of thought!
You can keep pinging, though. I wouldn't dream of childishly hassling a mod.
Me: Please give some specific (eg links to posts) examples of this.
Mamzelle: Nope. I'm through with responding to bossy and rude demands from FRevofreaks
Res ipsae loquuntur
Our resident postmodernist. When you have nothing of substance to say, attack the assumed motives of your opponent.
No matter how concrete or clear the issue is.
That's "ipsa." Singular, to agree with "res." (Someone has to uphold standards around here.)
Your're right, I was thinking of "Res ipsa loquitur".
(with a long a in ipsa, IIRC. The thing, for itself, speaks as opposed to the thing itself speaks)
From the Wikipedia article:
"Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicet?"
("The thing speaks for itself, but what the hell is it saying?")
[I ran the phrase I posted through a Latin translator, and it doesn't even appear to be well-formed!]
A growing number in the GOP appear to think ID is a loser:
Dover CARES swept the race for school board Tuesday defeating board members who supported the curriculum change being challenged in federal court.
Pro-ID school board members in Dover, PA swept from office
______________________________
Presidential politics: Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush]
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/politicalInfo.php?locIndex=275620
________________________________
Here are three GOP office holders who are distancing themselves from ID:
Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Jeb Bush on science standards and teaching ID:
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547174/posts
And here is Governor Taft backing away from ID:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572692/posts
__________________________________
Utah House kills evolution bill [snip] "But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday."
Gravity is a theory? Didn't know that. Btw, what causes gravity? Oh, Massive objects. What causes massive objects to become ....er ... massive?
Oh .... Gravity.
How does gravity operate across great distances?
Hmmmm...
How does Gravity tie w/ the other 3 fundamental forces?
Oh. String .... aHA! .... Theory. And it only uses 11, just 11, untestable, dimensions. But ... string "theory" has yet to be challenged in court. It is NOT, no way Jose, NOT intelligently designed.
That all said, I believe in Gravity too...heh heh...
FR evo-kooks are many, I agree with you. However, the motives of such folk....
Frankly, it is a big mystery, or is it really?
All your comments about definitions ring very, very true. But though the evo-kooks would love to argue this point, the fact is w/ Dover, they have revealed their true saviors: lawyers and judges. Scienctists have decided that Lawyers and Judges, not scientists, are more trustworthy, w/ regards to who are the stewards of what words mean.
So, the debate is not about 'science' but about 'law'. And thus the debaters are not really science defenders, but law lovers.
To be a law lover is the default human position in my view. When I was growing up in my public high school ... why it was clear: the cool table had the cool kids ... and no one else. Once you got to be a cool kid, why by GOD, you had better know, and enforce, ALL the cool rules. Becoming a cool kid was a one way street .... no second chances.
Once ejected from the cool table, a formerly cool kid was never allowed back in.
It appears this as much a part of human behavior as the fact all humans are hairy.
But what about the deceptions? I mean, for example, here 'scientists' never really come out and say that lawyers truely are their best buddies, their designated enforcers of what definitions mean.
Even though it is a very, very, rare lawyer who has a traditional science degree. They act deceptively in this regard in my view, both the scientists and the lawyers. But I'm still wondering about the motive about that.
It is kind of mystery. But maybe not. Maybe the act of enforcing and promoting the cool rules has something about it that is its own reward ... sort of like a hit of mental meth.
And when it comes to rules, the lawyers and scientists are birds of a feather - they just sit at same cool table in different schools. But funny strange, no arguement seems to exist about who is the higher authority: the lawyers. The ones who, are illnumerate as a class of men and women. But, maybe they are even more numerate than the scientists...
But I'm not sure about any of this. That is why freepville is so much fun. I see folks like yourself who seem to share some of what I think, engaging, not illiterately, but literatly, w/ evo-kooks ... I really really like that term ... and I watch them ignore your fundamental argument and proceed to beat the drum.
Well, time to define some geophysical acts on the golf course. Golf is a deeply rational activity you know. Rational ... hmmmm. from the root, Latin .... ratio .... which in essence means ... to number. My numeracy proceeds apace, but not to the speed of my liking.
Are you a golfer Mamzelle?
And always remember that there's a nice big FRee world outside the evo-holes.
Go explore, and it wont be long before you find many niches. Some are of the photoshop fun and games (like the Viking Kitty goes a Zottin'), there are artists and musicians to talk to. I've been here awhile and speak to many scientists wouldn't set a keyboard toe inside an dank little evo-hole. Thery're too busy actually doing science to want to spend time with obsessives who lust to dominate a few fellow freepers.
But the point about lawyers is interesting--they do have that will to dominate. But what they also revealed with the outcome of Dover is a (hysterically) gleeful "so there" to the religious, and an insidious "the GOP needs to unload the religious, or it'll be thought of as the anti-science party.." "Maybe we should go after Santorum in the primaries, wound him for the general election."
ding--an agenda here,not a debate. It was at this point that I started keeping better track of what goes on in the evo-holes.
"ding--an agenda here,not a debate."
ding indeed. Gradually, my expectation in the coming years is that this is going to become more and more obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.