AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: snoeman

form_srcid: snoeman

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.215.209

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: snoeman

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'snoeman%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/17 19:23:54, Link
Author: snoeman
I have tried to read through various threads at UD and must ask the regulars here: How do you do that and avoid brain rot?

Date: 2006/06/07 17:43:46, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (BWE @ June 06 2006,22:09)
Quote
rapier wit

um. yeah. you're right. I'll be back.

Ichthyic's advice is good in principle, but when you are back and in full ridicule mode, you should keep your metaphors un-mixed.

Instead of "pounding his head into soft mush" with your rapier wit, perhaps try "skewering repeatedly" - much more appropos of a weapon intended for stabbing.

However, if this isn't enough, you might consider upping the ridicule with the "bludgeon of satiric rhetoric."  This should be effective in all but the most extreme cases. (DaveScot, Salvador, etc.)

Of course, the best of both worlds will be found in the "Bludgeon of Satiric Rhetoric" with the "Nail of Biting Sarcasm" driven through one end.

Those who are wilfully ignorant, i.e., they choose to be so, deserve ridicule.

Date: 2006/07/09 19:05:30, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ July 09 2006,23:00)
Quote
#

Raevmo said:

“The universe can only be regarded as fine-tuned if we know that there even was wiggle room in “tuning” the constants. We don’t know that, so any talk about fine-tuning is pure speculation and wishful thinking, hardly well-established. ”

Well said. Is there “wiggle room” in the constants or not? If not, then the Universe must be as it is. It could not exist in any other way. My hunch, or suspicion, is that this is the case. How could any Universe exist at all if, say, the charge of the electron were at all different than it is? Did God have a choice in the way He designed the Universe?

I’ve sort of belabored this point before, but I believe that existence, the Universe, as a totality is irreducibly complex. The discovery of irreducibly complex features within the Universe (e.g. flagella) might be called the Weak Irreducible Complexity Principle and the belief that the Universe itself is irreducibly complex as the Strong Irreducible Complexity Principle.

Stu Harris
www.theidbookstore.com

Comment by StuartHarris — July 9, 2006 @ 10:31 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1303#comment-47327



Plenty of tard to go around, over there.

Plenty of tard to go around?

They're doling it out with one of those excavators used for mining coal.

Someone please tell me that Stu Harris dude isn't teaching in the Seattle school district.  Bad enough we have to put up with the DI setting up shop here.

Date: 2006/07/15 07:40:30, Link
Author: snoeman
Kreationism Kamp motto: It's never too early to maximize your children's ignorance!™

Date: 2006/07/31 17:27:45, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ July 31 2006,09:35)
Ho-Lee Sh1t. Dembski's research assistant, Joel Borofski, says the Kansas 'teach the controversy' standards are really ID in disguise.

   
Quote
July 29, 2006
Radio Commercials Air in Kansas Supporting Standupforscience.com’s Approach to Teaching Evolution

   
Quote
  As the debate over how to teach evolution continues, two new radio commercials promoting www.standupforscience.com and the online petition to “Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas” will air this weekend across Kansas.

   One ad features molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, explaining that “it is imperative to understand both the evidence for and against a scientific theory… as a scientist, I am standing up for science education policies that require students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges it.”

   The second commercial features Kansas public school science teacher Jill Gonzalez Bravo who was also recently interviewed for the ID The Future Podcast about her support for Kansas’ new science standards.

       Click here to hear commercial #1.
       Click here to hear commercial #2.

   The commercials will air periodically over the next six weeks. Remember to tell your friends to sign the petition.

Filed under: Education, Evolution, Science — William Dembski @ 7:09 pm



7 Comments »

  1.

     Decent commercial spots. My only quibble is that they ostensibly promote fairness and sound slightly biased. For example, the Bravo spot says, “What do Kansas Science teachers think about evolution?” They then get a sound bite from one teacher. Does she really represent all of them? If she does, wouldn’t it be more powerful to let the viewing public know that somehow?

     Having them sign the petition is great, but most TV viewers won’t go there, they need the info up front.

     Same thing with the “majority of Americans agree…” tag. If true, I’d personally like to see (or hear) the evidence of said claim. I know a lot of people will digest the message on face value, but I personally think evidence speaks louder than soundbites.

     Comment by VOICEofREASON — July 30, 2006 @ 9:43 am

(snip)

  4.

     Joel - Are you thinking that this is about ID? My impression is that this is about teaching the theory of evolution in a more balanced, less dogmatic way.

     Comment by DaveW — July 30, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

(snip)

  6.

     DaveW,

     It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.

     If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

     Comment by Joel Borofsky — July 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

Stevestory:

That's a real gem.

Have you saved this elsewhere? This seems like one of those situations where the entire thread could disappear faster than an embarrasing gaffe on Uncommon Descent.

Hmm.  Are recursive similes valid?

Date: 2006/08/12 11:17:36, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 12 2006,15:59)
BarryA still can't get over the fact that they lost in Dover

Anyone here think BarryA will ever get offered a seat in the federal judiciary?  Not friggin' likely, is my read.

Wow.  That's... just... bad.

Reading Comprehension, thy name is not BarryA.

I wonder if BarryA will get an invitation to join the rest of the Tardiati at the DI's CSC 10 year bash?

Date: 2006/08/12 19:09:51, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 12 2006,16:38)
And also, of course, by posting at UD, Barry can guarantee that no one who might disagree with him will be allowed to comment. Must be sweet.

Barry better be careful -- he's starting to veer into Larry Fafarman territory. :O

       
Quote

I wonder if BarryA will get an invitation to join the rest of the Tardiati at the DI's CSC 10 year bash?


That's that big party where they're scheduled to celebrate their huge no. of scientific publications and the triumph of Intelligent Design all over universities in the US, the UK, and Israel, right?

Yeah, that's the one.

I get a headache every time I remember that the DI is headquartered in my hometown.

I think it's safe to say the Federal Rules of Evidence are more complex than the diagrams IKEA uses for instructing consumers on how to assemble its furniture.  That said, given his, uh, analysis on that UD thread, I have to wonder if BarryA has ever shopped at IKEA, and further, what the furniture looks like when he's done assembling it...

Date: 2006/08/15 17:42:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 15 2006,13:08)
You're overlooking the important question: how many different species of slimemolds were on the Ark?

Noah to god: You want me to collect what?

Date: 2006/08/30 19:12:38, Link
Author: snoeman
OA wrote:

   
Quote

I responded

"I have done so.  Are you brave enough to allow my response to be posted?"

It's been over two hours now and my post hasn't seen the light of day.  Guess I can now claim

"It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means BarryA has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one."

Not too tough to 'win' when you censor out the opponents' responses, now is it?


It's this kind of thing that causes my irony meter to blow a fuse, even though it's stored well away from the computer while reading UD.

DaveTard: "PT censorship!!!" (No examples provided by DT)

BarryA: "Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?"

... frantic sounds of response posts being ignored or deleted ...

BarryA: "No? You materialist cowards!"

Date: 2006/09/01 18:54:13, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,14:53)
wow, I had no idea so many of us regulars here were actually from CA.

Ok, so raising my hand...

Palm Springs.

(no fish out of water jokes, please)

     
Quote
Now if we could only shut down the military-industrial complex's control over both.


funny thing, that.  In the 70's and 80's the defense industry in CA was second only to agriculture in revenue generation for the state.  With the end of the cold war, a lot of that money went away, and CA never has really recovered a replacement consistent revenue source.

technology (think Silicon Valley), worked as a suitable replacement for a good portion of the 90's, and we saw a rapid surplus start to build, which was then quickly wiped out with a combination of natural disasters, the power crisis, and the internet investment implosion.

CA is in very dire straights.  the most populous state in the US, and still has a consistently large growth rate.  Poor public transportation for most of the state, poor growth plans, horrible problems with water resources (this is becoming the largest issue of all), a critical shortage of power resources, and no consistent source of income aside from agriculture and tourism.  Even the agriculture is threatened in many areas because of the lack of water resources, and we are seeing salt intrusion in many areas because of overusage of groundwater.  The massive fires in So. Cal. are mostly due to a combination of drought and a massive invasion of a species of bark beetle that has been literally wiping out entire forests up and down the state.

The issues mentioned that arnold signed are really merely "hotbutton" issues.  The real issues for this state are far to onerous to deal with in a single bill.  Arnold, being an actor, got a quick education in the fact that he was grossly ignorant of the real problems, both political and resourcewise, that exist in this state.  Truly, it WILL have to be a massive team effort to even begin to tackle the problems this state faces, and Arnold wasted two years listening to the neocons that he really didn't have to waste.  

I wonder if he still drives his favorite Hummer everywhere?

the job of gov. in this state has always been a critical one, both from a political standpoint (as a launching platform for the presidency, for example), and as being the leader for the 13th largest GNP in the world (last i checked, if you made CA an "independent" country- might even be in the top ten now).  It was a daunting position BEFORE the recall.  Now... who in their right mind is going to WANT to be governor of a state with so many huge issues facing it?

You may think me a pessimist, but I truly see a dismal future for CA, with the water issue being the the biggest problem of all.  Remember what I said about CA's biggest source of income being agriculture?  So. Cal. used to get a large portion of water for agricultural, industrial and residental use from the Colorado River.

Not anymore; for a while now, the amount of water allocated to CA from the Colorado river has steadily declined (drought, rising pops in other states, etc.).  about 2 years ago, the issue came to a head, and many places (where i live being one) are no longer allocated a tenth of the river water they used to be.  er, except this place, for example, has grown 180% since the first time I lived here in 1991.  Which means, of course, ever heavier draws on the underground aquifers (which are rapidly being used beyond replacement).  If anybody recalls what happened when Vegas overrused their own underground aquifer... you might get some idea of what is happening here too.  Of course, this isn't unique; it's happening all over the state.

for years now (decades, even), many agricultural areas in CA have had problems with salt invasion as they overuse their underground aquifers.

I do wonder what will happen as:

-less and less new water resources become available
-more and more salt intrusion ruins agricultural land
-more and more good ag land is rezoned for commercial and residential use
-the population of the state keeps growing at a phenomenal pace

If someone sees the silver lining in all this, do let me know.

I'd end with "cheers", but after a rant like that, I guess it would be hypocritical.

;)

Water policy in CA is atrocious, but it's not much worse than it is elsewhere in the western half of the US.  Water policy has pretty much sucked for, oh, 150+ years.

Actually, in CA, the overuse of groundwater isn't the actual cause of salinity problems.  The problem is the ground itself.  (The problem with the overuse of groundwater is... the overuse of groundwater.  Unlike oil, which can never be replaced, aquifers do replace themselves over time, but  that is hardly comforting when you remove several feet a year and nature replace just a few inches...)

Back to salinity: as a contrast, the Colorado River has high naturally occuring saline sources feeding into it.  On its way to the sea (if it actually still got there...), the same water gets used multiple times for irrigation, resulting in the Colorado getting increasingly saline.  (Farmers use it and what doesn't get used by the crops flushes back through the soil through salt deposits and into the Colorado again.)

How this relates to CA is that in places such as the southern San Joaquin, there's often a layer of impermeable clay sitting just a few feet down, so whatever salts are in the water used for irrigation get perched there and have nowhere to be flushed.  Eventually, the salts build up into the root zones of the crops, killing them and also making the land useless for agriculture.

(Although I wish I could claim to be original, what I just wrote paraphrases Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert.)

The history of water policy in the western US is actually a fascinating read (except for the mind-numbingly boring Battling the Inland Sea).

Not that it matters, but I'm in Seattle, where we are still ticked off about CA trying to divert the Columbia River...  :)

Date: 2006/09/10 18:23:07, Link
Author: snoeman
DaveTard wrote:

Quote

Fross

An ID research programs is not eligible for public funding and could not be discussed in a public school. So where is the funding supposed to come from when any taxpayer derived is verboten and how is interest in it going to be sparked in budding young scientists when it’s illegal to mention it in public schools?

ID as a legitimate area of scientific interest has been crippled by the political/legal chicanery of its opponents. Winning the legal right of equal access to money and minds must be accomplished.

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 7:55 am



Huh.

I'm guessing he's referring to the KvD decision? I had no idea the federal court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was so influential as to make public funding for an ID research program illegal, at any time anywhere.  And this merely by finding against ID in a lawsuit prompted by a singularly clueless policy enacted by an equally clueless school board.

I can only assume that this region of Pennsylvania was the epicenter of some truly groundbreaking ID, um, research.  This was undoubtedly research that was cruelly and wantonly snuffed in its infancy from lack of funding, due solely to an activist judge who turned out to be a latent toady for the elitist clique of scientists demanding testable hypotheses, predictions of phenomena resulting from those hypotheses and supportive or falsifying evidence garnered as the results of testing.

Date: 2006/09/13 18:48:26, Link
Author: snoeman
A request:

One of the features I like about PT is that the browser automatically scrolls down to the newer comments.

I'm assuming AtBC uses different software, so the same feature might not be easily added here, but it would be a "nice to have," should the idea strike Dr. Elsberry favorably when he has literally nothing else to do.

Thanks.

Date: 2006/09/19 15:14:49, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,18:36)
   
Quote
But the failed ID political movement, with its built in hero worship of rather unaccomplished non-scientists, has totally poisoned the well. I may be a minority of one, but I have to say that, as an IDer, I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders.




http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html

Salvador Cordova wrote:

 
Quote
Perhaps you could help out rather than shooting your wounded and embattled comrades in the back. Maybe a word of encouragement rather than rebuke would be the better course of action for someone of your stature in the community.


Is that Sal, in, dare I say it, a bit of a snit?.  I thought his M.O. was a wholly transparent and insincere politeness.  Or does that only apply when he's busy mischaracterizing evidence or outright lying to evolution supporters and those who are learning about it?

Date: 2006/09/20 09:43:38, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,23:47)
BTW folks, Heddle might presage a trend, here's what O'Brien says on Heddle's blog:

   
Quote
I am also disillusioned with the Discovery Institute.

By way of contrast, I am not disillusioned with Panda's Thumb because I had a pretty low opinion of them from the start.
Robert O'Brien | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:41 am | #



Wish I could remember where I read this: "If a ship really is sinking, then maybe the rats have a point."

Date: 2006/10/12 02:53:14, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 12 2006,02:13)
This request from WAD to update the look and feel of UD is very odd - quite apart from the "I want to look as good as Richard Dawkins" hubristic schtik.

After all, they just finished overhauling the whole site.  And by "they," I mean DaveScot.  Doesn't this seem to be a deliberate insult to their resident computer genius?  Perhaps the revelation here that DaveScot is the real star of UD begins to needle a little...

Ah, is that why UD has been so slow to open when I click on links from here?

Date: 2006/10/18 19:31:12, Link
Author: snoeman
Has anyone else had trouble getting to UD lately? I've been clicking on the links provided in many of the posts here, and the linked page never comes up.  A new browser window opens up with an indication that the UD server has responded, but the little Firefox progress meter stalls out about halfway.

Any ideas?

Date: 2006/11/06 18:21:22, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2006,22:18)
So many strawmen it's like a scarecrow convention...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1763#comments

I realize that this is so, like, one page ago, but my jaw dropped when I read this comment from JasonTheGreek on that thread:

   
Quote
A prime example of nonsense:

   TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

Notice how faith= lack of reason, as opposed to science which is all about reason, without a bit of faith involved. This is the absurd comment we see all day long….that “faith” means ignorance or blind adherence, when it means no such thing. Faith is based on evidence. Faith based on ignorance is pointless.

Notice also how Scripture is opposed to “reason” as well. No bias here, folks…none at all.


Faith is based on evidence? Is this a normal level of 'tard from this dude?

Date: 2006/12/18 23:52:28, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2006,13:32)
Ken Miller responds to Dembski

As to Professor Miller's e-mail: Definitely brought the funny.

Date: 2006/12/21 23:20:37, Link
Author: snoeman
Seattle.

Still get headaches every time I remember the DI is based here...

Date: 2006/12/28 10:50:40, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 27 2006,15:59)
 
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)
We can't let those Brits beat us to the brew!

By dint of careful counting (no toes were injured during this process), I've got the Seattle contingent numbering at least six:

Da Pinhead.
argystokes
creeky belly
snoeman
JohnW
clamboy

Surely that's enough to hoist a few (or foist a hew)?

The Barking Dog?  The Hilltop Alehouse?  Weeknight?  Weekend?  Broad daylight?

Heck, we could give the DI a call and see if they would like to send a rep (but only if they promise to imbibe the Beano first...).

Oh: 56; lawyer defending civil cases...

evenings are probably best for me, weekend or otherwise.

Oh, and grad student, 23 yo.

I'd be up for the Hilltop Alehouse.  Just about any evening works for me, except for - oddly enough - Fridays.

38 y.o., btw, doing R&D for a logistics company.  (really)

Date: 2007/01/03 23:21:44, Link
Author: snoeman
So, about two or three pages ago there was some noise made about Seattle-based AtBC lurkers/regulars actually making human contact, i.e., meeting to drink beer.

If there is actually any interest in doing this, may I propose the following:

74th Street Ale House
Saturday, January 20, 2007 @ 7:30pm

Or, make your own proposal for an alternative date, time and/or venue

Date: 2007/01/04 21:02:06, Link
Author: snoeman
This is who I have listed as coming so far:

snoeman
argystokes
JohnW
Steviepinhead

This is who lives in an inferior city 3 1/2 hours south of Seattle and can't attend (unfortunately):

BWE

This is the list of people who shall receive beer from us via 2nd day air FedEx*:

Richardthughes

Looking forward to it.

* Sorry, Priority Overnight is sooooo expensive.  

:)

Date: 2007/01/15 07:58:15, Link
Author: snoeman
In the "Where's everybody from?" topic, several of us agreed to meet for beer as follows:

74th Street Ale House
Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 7:30pm

Those expressing interest included:

snoeman
argystokes
JohnW
Steviepinhead

We're still on, I assume? I'll try and arrive a few minutes early.  See you then.

Date: 2007/01/15 19:46:37, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,11:20)
 
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 15 2007,07:22)
How will you recognise each other?
A cuddly panda on the table?  A photo of Dembski in a vice?

Ah, well, we could PM photos of ourselves to each other. Or I could just bring my copy of Origin.

I think one of my kids has a stuffed panda - not nearly as well-traveled as Prof. Steve Steve, but sufficient.  Either that, or I'll make a little table tent card with "AtBC" on it.

Either way, I'll be marked as a total tool, but whatever.

Date: 2007/01/21 10:48:02, Link
Author: snoeman
Last night, several of the Seattle-based regulars of AtBC met at the 74th Street Ale House to discuss the topics of the day and get to know one another.

In attendance: clamboy, argystokes, Steviepinhead, JohnW and snoeman

Not in attendance: Tards.

Some personal trivia:

-> The group was fairly diverse in ages, ranging from (I estimate) those in their 20s to those in their 50s
-> Several professions were represented, including: A grad student in the biological sciences, an R&D analyst, a biostatistician, a trial lawyer and a sign-language interpreter
-> We come from many different places: a native Seattleite, the UK, Georgia, Massachusetts and one other place that escapes me at the moment...
-> One of us is a "Motorhead" fan
-> One of us had a baseball cap, whose brim had been curled into a nearly perfect cylinder
-> At least two of us were atheists, at least one of us is agnostic and the remaining two are undetermined.  (The atheists tried to hide the horns coming out the tops of their heads, but it was no use.)*    :D

The topics ranged over history, some politics, religion, science and - oh yeah - antievolution.  Each of us got involved in the topic at different points in time: a couple of us during KvD and others stumbling over it a few years ago in the course of researching other things.  One of us has been a veteran reader of Talk.origins since at least 1996.

Some conclusions we reached:

-> All of us are thankful for the people that consistently read UD and post the best of the Tard; none of us could stomach it on our own
-> The AFDave thread was valuable to expose a lot of lurkers to a free education in scientific areas of which they may not have been aware, and in contrast, show an example of the utter dishonesty with which creationists such as AFDave conduct themselves
-> None of us would go up in a plane piloted by AFDave
-> We agreed that characterizing the DI as a society of "professional liars" was most apt
-> We almost felt sorry for Dembski and how far he's fallen.

One thing that I don't believe we resolved was on the nature of the intellectual dishonesty of creationists.  Is it possible for someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible to accept the fact that there is an unresolvable disconnect between that belief and the evidence we observe in the world? That they can accept that they may not find out why there is a disconnect until they meet their god? Or, are their beliefs so strong (or are they so fearful) that they must resort to dishonesty and fabrication to discredit that science-based knowledge which they believe threatens them?

If I've forgotten anything, please feel free to add on or make corrections.  In any case, I know I enjoyed meeting everyone, and would enjoy doing it again.


* Some fundie will take that seriously and go, "Horns?? I knew it!"

Date: 2007/01/22 19:55:35, Link
Author: snoeman
Russell inquired:
 
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2007,17:43)
What were the beverage preferences of the Seattle Five?

With one exception, all of us had local ales.  Steviepinhead stuck with Dry Blackthorn Cider.

snoeman:  Mac & Jack's Amber
argystokes: Hale's Cream Ale
JohnW: A local IPA (don't remember the brewer)
clamboy: A local dark winter ale (also don't remember the brewer)

Blipey asked:
Quote
Hey, I'll be in Seattle in 8(?) weeks, or something like that.  If the Seattle AtBC meetings continue, I would love to attend one.  I'll pay my dues (and buy beer).  As an added bonus, I will have met DaveScot by then and will be happy to share.


We've not scheduled the next meeting, but I'll bet that we could make ourselves available for an ad hoc session.  :)

Date: 2007/01/23 23:36:14, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,21:59)
 
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 23 2007,21:23)
 
Quote
-edit-  Come to think of it, that sounds like Seattle, too.   ;)


They make Britons in Seattle?

Well heck, there must be SOME.

They go there for the climate.

;)

I resent that.  Our three weeks of summer are the nicest you'll find anywhere. ;)

Date: 2007/02/01 23:17:25, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Feb. 01 2007,18:05)
Getting back to the bureaucratic procedural type stuff--

Do we want to schedule another meeting between now and blipey's visit?

Or do we want to kick back, enjoy the frost on our windshields, and wait for blipey to instigate another round of drinking and IDiot-plonking?

Any distaff Seattle AtBC'ers out there are, of course, more than welcome to shimmy on down.

My only requirement, needless to say, being that the said establishment serves the said cider!  But that's actually a fair few places now, including such spots as the Reading Gaol, the Hilltop, Bick's, ... not to mention the aforesaid 74th St.

Heck, even the Barking Dog has Asphall's, or something o' that ilk, though it's awful flippin' expensive...!

I am, in principle, always in favor of more beer.

What about the 17th? (Saturday)

The 74th St. Alehouse works well for me.

Date: 2007/02/02 00:04:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 01 2007,23:33)
boy, as a total contrast to typical Seattle, i live in Palm Springs (CA), where we get about .25 inches of rain a year, and today it was a balmy 72 degrees and sunny.

unfortunately, i doubt there are too many science fans around this neck of the woods.

golf, yes.

science, no.

However, should there be an interest in beer, sex, or general conversation in a guaranteed sunny environ...

Actually, our weather has been exactly the same as Palm Springs over the last several days... except for the "72 degrees" and "balmy" parts.

You'll be happy to know, by the way, that despite the depressing state of science education in the US, one of my colleague's nieces has really committed herself to become an ichthyologist, primarily because she thinks sharks are really cool.

Date: 2007/02/02 07:58:03, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 02 2007,00:47)
snoe:

she thinks sharks are cool, eh?

Loius has been asking me to post about my experiences researching sharks.

I guess I'll do that next week.

I promise references to some neat pics, too.

;)

Very much so, apparently.  My cubicle quad mate tells me that her niece saw a couple of documentaries a few years ago, and ever since then, nothing else will do except icthyology.

As far as I know, she's a teenager now, so there's still a few years before she gets there, but you're on notice now that another fish lover should be joining your ranks...  :)

I'd be curious to know from some of the scientists who post here if they had a similar experience as kids - if there was an "aha" moment that set them off on the science path they ultimately chose.  There are so many disciplines to choose from in the sciences, and one can't specialize in them all.  What motivated you to choose the particular path you took?

Date: 2007/02/05 23:07:41, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 05 2007,12:18)
 
Quote (clamboy @ Feb. 05 2007,11:45)
This time, let's get kicked out for loutishness.

In which case, should we switch the venue to Reading Gaol?  I like the idea of being thrown out of gaol.

ok then.  74th St. Ale House on Saturday, Feb. 17 at 7:30pm.

1st order of business: get beer.

2nd order of business: identify a gaol from which to have JohnW thrown out of.

Date: 2007/02/07 00:04:19, Link
Author: snoeman
phonon wrote:
 
Quote
1. Nuke the Gobi desert
2. Pass out free DCA
3. ?
4. Profit


Paraphrase of the South Park underwear gnomes, right?

Date: 2007/02/10 15:32:47, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2007,10:17)
Somebody watch this Casey Luskin video Ed's talking about, and let us know how it is. I can't watch it. Last year I saw 10 minutes of Casey on C-SPAN and further Casey exposure would cause my eyes to roll so hard I'd risk spraining them.

dont wach it.  saw 3 minutws, eyes roled to far, got stuc.  cant se keybord well enougk to type now.

*snap*

Ouch.

It's bad enough that at some point even the camera had to be thinking, "jebus, this is retarded."

Date: 2007/02/14 20:10:20, Link
Author: snoeman
-edit- Seattle AtBCers:

Still on for Saturday?

February 17, 7:30pm
74th St. Ale House

Date: 2007/02/17 17:36:54, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 17 2007,15:41)
 
Quote
Josh Bozeman is just a legendary rightwing fundie and hapless dingbat from his mother's basement in Evansville, Indiana.

Here's HIS headache-inducing website, if you're feeling masochistic today.

Oh. My. God. Josh Bozeman looks like... me.

Hate to say it, but there is a resemblance.  Doppelganger, perhaps? Beyond the "look alike" aspect, some definitions also include the characteristics of "evil twin" or "opposite personalities."

Consider:

argy and Bozeman look alike? Check.
argy: atheist.  Bozeman: fundie
argy: biological sciences grad student.  Bozeman: IDiot
argy: funny.  Bozeman: not so much

Seems like a perfect match.   :)

Date: 2007/02/19 23:14:28, Link
Author: snoeman
Proceedings Volume II

As noted by steviepinhead already, attendees included himself, Jedidiah Palosaari from PT and me.

The topics ranged over the environment, the dishonesty of the DI, where we have lived, the nuttery of AFDave and jury duty.

By far, the best part of the evening was getting to know Jedidiah.  As it turns out, he's been following the Evolution v. Creationism thing longer than any of us in the AtBC Seattle group.  In fact, he's been a regular reader of talkorigins since the BBS days of the early '90s; except at that time, he was a creationist.

Huh? Well, a funny thing happened: Jedidiah paid attention to the evidence.  He was persuaded that the data supporting evolution couldn't be reconciled with a literalist interpretation of the bible, and now is strongly irritated by the blatant dishonesty of the DI.  He has apparently admonished them on their own blog on this point.  Whatever expectations  one might have to the contrary, he's an example that reason can reach anyone with an open mind.

Besides that, Jedidiah is witty.  I'll get in trouble with steviepinhead for not remembering the exact exchange that I was supposed to include in these proceedings, but  suffice it to say that J is not lacking in the clever repartee department.

Hopefully, we'll be able to get together again when Blipey's in town.

Date: 2007/03/05 08:00:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2007,21:27)
Har-Har

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Theory_of_Evolution

From the "Seriously Flawed, Pt. 2" section:

 
Quote
This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.


The conservative view of scientific issues? Even though this entry correctly summarizes the, uh, quality of the evolution article, it's nonetheless a bit saddening.  The fact that there is an expectation that our best method of understanding our world is subject to view through the lens of political ideology is unsurprising, but still saddening.

Date: 2007/03/07 21:11:40, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 07 2007,19:32)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 07 2007,16:17)
 
Quote
I would like to go someplace warm, and I don't mean the Christian HE11... but do you really think right-wing knuckleheads are going to fund my vacations a couple times a year?


ah, but that's the problem.
I'm sure they would want their money to have a more *permanent* effect.

hence: translocation, rather than vacation.

...want to donate to translocate willing atheists?

just fill out the form and register with paypal.

then willing atheists could apply for translocation fees much like a grant application.

$5.o million?

Throw another Koala on the barbie mate, I'm on my way!

And if I remember the quote, but not who said it,
"Now  we have established exactly what I am... now we are just haggling over price"!

#### good thing I am a godless athiest, so I don't get insulted!

J-Dog:

Quote
And if I remember the quote, but not who said it,
"Now  we have established exactly what I am... now we are just haggling over price"!


Commonly attributed to Winston Churchill.

Date: 2007/04/01 18:13:57, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (clamboy @ April 01 2007,12:38)
What are your predictiations as to how the DI, Michael Egnor ("That's DOCTOR to you, Darwinianist!"), and all the other ID whiners will react to one of the greatest April Fool's Day pranks ever? Will they:

- ignore it?
- acknowledge it with a "oh, ha ha, but Darwinism still can't explain blah blah blah"
- threaten legal action against PT for use of copyrighted images/appearance/whatever?
- whine?

This is how I know I'm on the right side: we have the best jokes!

My guess is that they will most likely ignore it.  If they can't stand not responding, my next choice would be "whine."

Should they opt to go the whining route, I can only hope that it takes the form of Luskin having a group whinge with Egnor via podcast.  There's something about the idea of having that fawning dolt interview that bloviating ignoramus in response that could provide as much humor value as the original prank on PT.   :D

Date: 2007/04/06 08:00:34, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2007,05:40)
Arden,

   
Quote
I've always been convinced that since everyone talks and has a language, that means that certain kinds of untrained armchair scholars are much more comfortable assuming that they're as qualifed as anyone else in the world to make Grand Statements About How Language Works. I mean, isn't any English speaker equally qualified to talk about how English is 'the hardest language in the world' or how 'English comes from Latin'?


But, but, but English IS the hardest language in the world, it's the reason foreigners are so stupid. The Daily Mail told me that. And English DOES come from Latin. My teacher told me that.

Anyway, all languages originated at the Tower of Babel.

Louis

What's so hard about English? Anyone can understand it.

It's well known, of course, that if you just speak LOUDLY and V-E-R-Y  S-L-O-W-L-Y, "them furners" will understand you just fine.  If not, just continue to speak ever more loudly and slowly - eventually, they'll understand you.   :p

Date: 2007/04/12 23:52:07, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 12 2007,22:35)
       
Quote
At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations.


Mmmhmm.

And they prefer to present this at a 'debate' than in, you know, 'scientific literature'.

Why are IDers 'afraid' to publish in peer-reviewed journals? ?

Then I suppose at the end of the debate they'll ask people who are pro-ID to applaud, then they'll ask people who are anti-ID to applaud, and whoever gets the loudest applause will win the prize of Scientific Truth.


Exactly right.

If the ID movement were truly serious about ID as actual science, they would take up the ever-standing challenge to participate in the only public debate that matters in science: peer-review.

Whatever the protestations of the DI and FtK, that's not what they're about now, nor is it what they have ever been about.

A 'debate' forum such as the one DI wants, lends itself only to the provision of an appearance of scientific legitimacy to the DI and their hangers-on, groups that can most charitably be described as bands of professional liars.

Date: 2007/04/14 10:06:55, Link
Author: snoeman
Zach:
Quote
I've read all of Pi. The middle tends to meander a bit, but it has a great ending.


How did you like it compared to e?

Date: 2007/04/16 20:58:03, Link
Author: snoeman
I'm just a "concerned parent."

I wasn't really aware of the whole ID thing until I heard about and started following the Dover trial.  Then I started reading the NCSE website, PT, etc. and landed here for the entertainment.

When they start going to school, I want my kids to learn science and about science: as much as they can get.  It's just so valuable in so many ways.

Having said that, I don't want it tainted with the vacuous, intellectually dishonest pseudoscience crap promoted by the likes of the DI, the rest of the liars for Jebus and others of that ilk.

Not that I'm bitter, you understand.   ;)

Hence, I keep an eye on where things are going.

Date: 2007/04/17 23:27:57, Link
Author: snoeman
Arden:
Quote
It's totally relative based on what your first language is. For an English speaker, Finnish is a motherfucker. For an Estonian, it's a walk in the park. For an English speaker, Dutch is a challenge but not THAT hard. Dutch would be vastly harder for a speaker of, say, Chinese.


How about Romance languages vs. Germanic languages for English speakers? I took French in highschool and German in college.  Personally, I found German much easier for me to learn than French, but I've wondered if my experience was not typical based on some anecdotal comments I've heard over the years.

Out of curiosity, if it's not too silly a question, do languages exhibit any kind of patterns or preferences in how new words or concepts are added over time? (e.g., tending to adopt from other languages, creating them based upon older words (or whatever the proper way of expressing that would be))

I ask because I've always liked the German version of "vacuum cleaner," i.e., "Staubsauger" or "Dust Sucker."  Equally descriptive, and more pithy, in my opinion.

Date: 2007/04/19 07:55:07, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 18 2007,23:46)
 
Quote
we won't bite.


speak for yourself.

i reserve the right to sink my teeth into any juicy morsel.

Do you develop extra rows of teeth once you become an icthyologist?  :)

Date: 2007/04/24 23:07:10, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,16:30)
James Inhofe is a humongous tar-tar. His comments on science are often so stupid that if a 4th grader made them I'd be tempted to hit the kid.

Nevertheless, I do think he has an iota of a point with this:

 
Quote
Inhofe dares Hollywood to take warming pledge

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 24, 2007

A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their "carbon footprint" to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008.


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070423-104948-7992r.htm
Quote
   "I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," Miss Crow wrote on her blog. "Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating."


Sheryl: More singee, less talkee.

Actually, considerably less singee from Sheryl would be equally welcome.   :)

Date: 2007/04/24 23:52:58, Link
Author: snoeman
Sapphire is the only gin that should be used in martinis and should only be stirred.

It's likely apocryphal, but Churchill's reported to have stated that his recipe for martinis was to "pour the juniper distillate liberally whilst glancing at the vermouth bottle briefly."

Even if he didn't actually say it, he should have. :)

Date: 2007/04/26 19:45:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,14:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...

It's weird what people will drink on occasion.  I was in Dublin several years ago on a business trip, and my colleague that was hosting us took us to a spot for dinner called the "Badass Cafe" - a kinda sorta "American" style place.

They had a broader selection of beers beyond the standard pub fare of Guinness (Murphy's if you're in Cork) and Harp. Naturally, I figured our Irish hosts would go for the Heineken, or something Belgian or German.  Nope: they went straight to the BUD LIGHT.

As I found out, this was merely a temporary aberration, and we proceeded to a more normal Irish mode of drinking later, or at least that's what they told me.

By the way, I seem to be missing about eight hours from the evening of February 17, 2001.  If anyone has seen them, please let me know.  I'd like to have them back, no questions asked.

Date: 2007/05/05 16:01:45, Link
Author: snoeman
How about Saturday, June 9 for a session?

I suggest either meet at 7:30pm as usual, or if you want to meet mid to late afternoon, we could do that.

Perhaps JohnW or argystokes would care to suggest a place this time?

I was thinking that Hale's or the Hilltop would be good.  It's one notch up on the expense scale, but the Hi-Life in Ballard would also be good.  However, all three of those choices represent selfishness on my part, as they are all pretty close to where I live, but I'm open to other possibilities.

Date: 2007/05/09 00:12:23, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (clamboy @ May 08 2007,23:57)
But, but, the cider!

Well, the more in attendance the better, I would say, so let's have it at the venue most amenable to all. I have never been to the Hi-Life, so am interested in that spot.

For now, how about we settle on the Hi-Life?

One caveat: It's less pub-like than either Hale's or the Hilltop.  (It's owned by the same folks who brought us The 5 Spot, Atlas Foods and the Coastal Kitchen.)  So, as much as I like the place, if people prefer something just a little more casual, then I'm open for either Hale's or the Reading Gaol instead.

Hi-Life Information

Date: 2007/05/09 19:41:47, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (JohnW @ May 09 2007,11:57)
The Hi-Life would be fine, but we might need a plan B - it's often packed to the gills on Saturdays.

It has gills? Icthyic would approve. :)

Date: 2007/05/16 01:08:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 15 2007,13:49)
I think that scientific culture is long overdue for revision to encourage social engagement. Scientists should be rewarded for community involvment in explaining the role of science and what science does. Currently, though, pretty much the opposite applies. Scientists who do spend time in community outreach are penalized for those activities. The penalty is often the automatic one that there is only a finite amount of time, and those who do community outreach are likely to be at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who do not.

Wes,

I read your post and Matt Penfold's follow-up and had a few thoughts on the matter.  I'm not a scientist, and I'm not really familiar with the competitive landscape in which you operate.  So, the notion that there would be a penalty of the kind you describe for trying to do good in the form of outreach and involvement hadn't occurred to me.  It does make a hard kind of sense why that would be the case, though.

If I understood what you wrote correctly, your reference to the change in "scientific culture" meant a change in the culture of the members of the scientific community itself.  I think that notion is laudable, but I see an obvious problem in finding a mechanism that negates the penalty that you wrote about.  

I suppose the issue is: Can real value be found in the kind of involvement you wrote about? Value that could offset the opportunity missed to do research or experiments?  I think it possible that there may be value to be found, of the "soft" kind, but to see it may require a longer view than acceptable in our society that's always looking to this quarter's financial results.  

Although it seems naive as I write it, perhaps one place to find that value is to encourage and reward much more heavy involvement by working scientists in primary and secondary science education, in addition to their regualr work.  (This isn't meant to suggest that a lot of fine science teachers don't inspire their students, but how much more could be offered in addition by working scientists?) The value to be gained is in the long view:

- More kids exposed to more people pursuing their interests or passions in science
- A real opportunity to demonstrate that science at its core is a method and way of knowing and learning, and isn't required to be a threat to their religious convictions
- More kids retaining an interest in pursuing science

The value in the long view to the scientific community is more overall interest in supporting or participating in science.  For example, Wesley Elsberry, PZ Myers, Icthyic and Ken Miller may not have produced as many new results while they was working with eighth-graders in the kids' biology classes last semester, but the long term impact they (and others) have on those students could mean that there may be more new Wesleys, PZs or Icthyics than otherwise.

At the very least, perhaps there's a more science-supportive next generation.

Probably unworkable and naive, but perhaps there's another way to find and quantify the value community involvement brings.

Edit: Fixed an annoying spelling error that I know I'm going to make every time if I'm not careful, and yet still managed to do it anyway.  :(

Date: 2007/05/17 00:02:38, Link
Author: snoeman
BWE:
 
Quote
Wes, respectfully, this is not an economic issue. It is a cultural issue. Yes better educated people contribute to9 an economy that relies on education but if we grew manioc and lived without airplanes and automobiles the point would still remain that a basic understanding of science, a generalists appraoch, is a requirement for our culture. You are immersed in science so your lens is colored by the career aspect. Kids truly don't have any references. They don't have a clue what Archimedes discovered in the bathtub. They giggle like beavis and butthead over the idea. They can't conceive how to measure something at all.


BWE,

From what Wes has written, I think there are both economic and cultural aspects.  No doubt it is a cultural issue, in the sense of trying to change the culture of the scientific community for the purpose of trying to impact the broader culture, i.e., win hearts and minds.  However, I agree with Wes that approaching this from an investment (economic) perspective is worth considering.

People do tend to act in the ways that are the results of how they are measured.  Based upon Wes' opening post, my understanding is that scientists are measured in part by their productivity in certain ways.  (Success in soliciting grants, performing research and publishing I would assume?)

Assuming that's the case, it's no wonder scientists may be reluctant to engage in less-valued activities, such as outreach, if it means they are able to do less of those things that they are measured by.

So, I'm suggesting that community involvement somehow be added to the measurements that figure into the scientists' calculations.  It has to be valued both by the scientist doing it, and by the scientific community at large, and one way to try is from the economic perspective.

Date: 2007/05/23 07:54:50, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2007,20:54)
The Economist is still my favorite magazine, despite this nonsense.

It's my favorite magazine, too.  However it's not the first time that they've missed the mark in this area.  In their April 19 issue, they had an article about "Evolution and Religion" with this passage:

 
Quote
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection.


Link to Article

(That link may require premium access to the Economist.)

I'm sure I'll get corrected by someone if I get this wrong, however: It's mutations that are random.  Selection is not random.

Date: 2007/05/23 23:26:35, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 23 2007,18:05)
 
Quote (guthrie @ May 23 2007,08:13)
The economist has never been my favourite magazine, due to the way it mixes opinion with facts to promote specific views.

Well, that's all economics in general is, anyway.  

I once pissed off an entire room full of economists and students by pointing out that (1) economics isn't a science, and (2) economists are simply apologists for the existing social order.

;)

Once, I read: "Fact: If you took all of the economists in the world today, and laid them end to end, that wouldn't be a bad thing."  :)

Date: 2007/05/31 07:53:52, Link
Author: snoeman
Steviepinhead:
Quote
Sunday night at the Fog City Diner on the Embarcadero, various relatives, college roommates, classmates, and other persons with a vague connection to myself were quietly (well, we were quiet for the first drink or so) and eating, when in walks eric, of all people...!


My wife and I went to the Fog City Diner about eight or nine years ago with some friends with whom we were on a trip to SFO and the Sonoma Valley.  We went there on the idea that the diner would be as good as the cookbook that they had published.  Sadly, we were disappointed...

Date: 2007/06/02 01:32:41, Link
Author: snoeman
It looks like it may be me, Jedadiah, JohnW and perhaps clamboy and/or argystokes.  Plus, perhaps some recordings of Richardthughes' voice in all caps.

So yea or nay on the 9th? (I'm still in, but suggest we change to Hale's.)

Date: 2007/06/03 20:44:22, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2007,18:20)
DaveTard!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-123650

     
Quote
What on earth makes you think anyone will bother dissecting Carrol’s “review”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Behe’s book. If Behe had written a book about network architecture or parallel processing then Carrol would be in a position to review it. Or even if his review were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.


What on earth makes you think I will bother dissecting DaveTards “post”? He’s not an expert in any field related to Chu-Carol's review. If Chu-Carol had written a review about eating crayons or being the biggest tard evaaaah then DaveTard would be in a position to review it. Or even if his post were published somewhere other than a personal blog someone qualified to fisk it probably would. Otherwise it’s just unqualified personal opinion that’s not at all noteworthy.

I'm sure it's been remarked on already, but it's amusing that they're complaining about Mark CC's supposed lack of credentials in math, thereby somehow invalidating his criticism of Behe's book.

To them it seems, the credentials thing is of paramount importance, except when it's an ID-supporting biochemist making the mathematical argument to begin with. :O

I'm off to the hospital now.  My irony meter exploded, and I need to have the shrapnel removed.

Date: 2007/06/04 01:17:56, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ftk @ June 03 2007,23:18)
"GCT, did you at least read the research before saying it sucks?"

And, I said I also said I was kidding when I said "it sucks".

Just guessing here, but, you've still not read Wes' paper, right?

Date: 2007/06/06 00:40:38, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2007,22:34)
 
Quote
If he is under your control and you force him to learn some routine for a box of candy, he must comply - whether you are operating a circus act or a lab. But beyond a certain point, it all sounds like cruelty to me.


Apparently, the woman has never dealt with primates before, they are never completely under our control and if the don't want to comply, they don't.

Thanks.  This fully explains my daily exasperation with my kids (4 1/2 yro and 2 1/2 yro).   :p

Date: 2007/06/06 01:25:44, Link
Author: snoeman
Try perusing the DI's response to Irons' rebuttal.  To me it reads as if they really don't expect those who are on their side* to actually read Irons' paper.  Instead, it seems like they're expecting them** to only read their response and sniff indignantly about Irons' predictable hatchet job. ;)

I especially enjoyed the first two sections:
   
Quote
Irons tries to refute intelligent design (ID) by smear and innuendo rather than substantive argument.

-- Irony meter begins to sizzle and smoke --

   
Quote
Irons misrepresents our critique of Judge Jones. Given his article, it is surprising that Irons accuses us of making ad hominem attacks against Judge Jones. Ad hominem arguments attack a person rather than that person’s position.  Our article assesses Judge Jones’s analysis in light of his judicial responsibilities, but Irons’s rebuttal starts with the alleged motives and personal
failings of the authors. Irons’s claim that we resort to ad
hominem attacks is the height of irony.


Irons wasn't talking about their article when he was referring to their attacks on Judge Jones.  He was talking about their Swift-Boating of Jones back in 2005-6, which clearly was ad hominem.  In contrast, Irons' discussion of the CSC's origin, and their religious motivations in making their claims about ID isn't the same thing as arguing that those claims are false because of their religious and theocratic leanings.

I'm sure that the response will have some staying power.  In a couple of years, go to Google, enter the keywords "indignant hissy fit" and click I Feel Lucky.  Bet it takes you right to their response.




* Tards

** The Tards

-- Edit: corrected typo --

Date: 2007/06/07 22:21:53, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,18:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Didn't realize that Red Hook had made it out there to the East Coast.  The Red Hook brewery that argystokes mentioned is about 10 miles outside of Seattle.  It's sited near a slough that has a bike trail that's very popular on the weekends.  The bicyclists riding north toward the brewery ride in much straighter lines than those riding south away from it...

:)

Date: 2007/06/07 23:40:50, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 07 2007,22:04)
Quote (Guest @ June 07 2007,21:50)
It appears this unholy and blasphemous site has suffered the justice of God for its wicked ways. It doesn't matter where you put your server, Jesus still knows where it is, and if he wants to, he can find it!

That has to be parody.

No, it has to be Ghost of Paley.  Dude's a pathological troll.

Date: 2007/06/08 07:59:08, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (argystokes @ June 08 2007,00:46)
Quote (snoeman @ June 07 2007,20:21)
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,18:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Didn't realize that Red Hook had made it out there to the East Coast.  The Red Hook brewery that argystokes mentioned is about 10 miles outside of Seattle.  It's sited near a slough that has a bike trail that's very popular on the weekends.  The bicyclists riding north toward the brewery ride in much straighter lines than those riding south away from it...

:)

Red Hook was partially bought by Anheuser-Busch. That happened roundabouts the time I started drinking beer, so I'm not sure if the quality suffered (though I'm told it didn't).

Having had Red Hook both pre- and post-acquisition by Anheuser Busch, I can report that quality did not suffer.  I just hadn't recalled seeing it in any stores off of the West Coast...

Date: 2007/06/08 19:50:57, Link
Author: snoeman
We are on for tomorrow:

Hales at 7:30pm, with at least:

snoeman
Jedadiah
JohnW

and perhaps clamboy

Date: 2007/06/09 11:43:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 08 2007,23:14)
For a red wine, Diane and I were really taken with the Saintsbury Pinot Noir. Of course, context may have had something to do with that: the bottle had been provided by Ira Lee, the vintner who grew the grapes. We were visiting for the opportunity to take the hawks out in his vineyard. They flew around, chased a couple of jackrabbits, and that was about it for the hawks. I had to drive, so I only had a partial glass. Ira kept pressing Diane to have some more, so by the time we got on the road, she was quite tipsy. That was interesting, because she usually has little interest in alcoholic beverages, so I don't see her in that state much, or almost never.

Another winery that we took the hawks to was Blackwood Canyon in Benton City, Washington, back in 1993. After Rusty chased around their pheasants a bit, the vintner there gave us an extended private wine-tasting session that included most of what they made at the time, whites and reds, and even a vinegar and something they called "double nickel", a liqueur-like thing that besides having high alcohol content was a 55 on some sugar scale, topping the concentration you find in honey. (Whee, a mere $150 per 375 ml bottle now... at that price, we probably accounted for $5 each worth of just that at our tasting session.) We ended up buying several bottles of a late harvest Riesling there, which made an excellent dessert wine.

My wife and I visited Blackwood Canyon back in 1994, and I have to say that it was the winery we liked least of the ones we visited that weekend.  Each of the wines we tasted seemed heavily oxidized or off in some way.

On the other hand, one of the wineries in Central/Eastern Washington that we really liked to visit: Chinook Wines


Two of our favorite Washington wineries overall:

McCrea Cellars - Specializes in Rhone varietals.

Andrew Will Winery - Good Merlot and Bordeaux blends

Date: 2007/06/09 12:36:07, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2007,20:10)
In lieu of buttery nipples, get a lot of vodka. Or gin. Or F'd Up Malt Liquor. Whatever. Enjoy the booze!

I'm afraid we'll have to content ourselves with beer, wine and cider.  For reasons passing understanding, Washington's liquor laws prohibit sale of hard alcohol in a "pub" like Hale's...

Fortunately, there's a lot of beer available at Hale's, and should it prove necessary, we can always drink straight from the tap.   :D

Date: 2007/06/10 02:24:48, Link
Author: snoeman
Minutes of the AtBC Society of Seattle, 9 June 2007:

Attendees: JohnW, Megaptera, clamboy and snoeman

Guest appearances by: Clamboy's wife, and a family friend of theirs.  A friend of Megaptera's was also there: Adrian, who recently debated John West of the DI on a podcast at the very same pub where we gathered.  (Adrian was on the side of rationality, John West was more on teh tard.)

(Booze note for stevestory: I was wrong in my assertion that Hale's can't serve hard liquor.  Turns out that they can and do.)

It was a good evening:

* After reading the posts from Richardthughes addressed to him, Megaptera (Jedadiah) wondered about Rich, concerned that perhaps his meds were not as effective as they should be.  I assured him that Rich is an "equal opportunity" skewerer (probably not really a word) of posters on the AtBC forum.  (Just ask Arden.)

* Jedadiah is apparently fairly serious in his suggestion to picket the DI here in Seattle.  He very much resents the bad name that the DI brings to both science and theology.  (The rest of us weren't brought up by hippie parents, so the notion of this kind of action wasn't as appealing to me or JohnW.)

* All of us were concerned about the potential damage that could be done by the DI's "Evolution Explored" textbook, that it might actually be able to pass constitutional muster.

* Clamboy had posted here before that he has had to translate creationist arguments for the deaf.  I took the opportunity to point out to him that his professional ethics worked against him in this case: he missed his chance to sign to his audience (without the speaker knowing) that everything that he was about to translate for them was complete bullshit.

Lots of topics were discussed: politics, atheism, kansans (reasonable and unreasonable) and Dembski's sad future.

Looking forward to doing it again.

Date: 2007/06/14 00:19:40, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2007,13:53)
Quote

...oh, and sharks.  Ichthyic assures me that they mostly have no interest in eating me, but I'm in denial on that one.


oh, did I forget to mention the giant, planet-eating space sharks?

I did, didn't I.

oops.

Are space sharks descended from these?

Date: 2007/06/14 19:46:02, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2007,19:23)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 14 2007,20:07)
(And one habanero and one scotch bonnet and it wasn't hot enough??? How'd that happen?)

You know this stuff?



I can drink that straight up. The two peppers distributed over a total of about 3 cups of sauce wasn't hot enough. It's hot enough when my scalp starts sweating.
 
Quote

(Tho I'd probably triple the garlic, use a yellow onion instead, and I dunno about liquifying the chicken like you did.)

You actually ascertained that there's a difference between scotch bonnets and habaneros?


Yeah, more garlic is always good. And don't liquify the chicken. The smoothness was nice, but you want some texture. don't liquify the onion either, same reason.

There's a little bit of a difference between the habanero and the scotch bonnet. Not much. Really the only two essential ingredients to jerk is allspice and any retarded-hot pepper.

The liquefaction of your onions is why you might reconsider investing in a food processor.  They tend to be better for keeping stuff chunky.  Blenders are much better for creating smoother sauces, soups, etc.

Date: 2007/06/17 18:16:10, Link
Author: snoeman
Menu tonight:

Grilled Copper River King salmon
Braised kale with bacon and balsamic
Yukon Gold mashed potatoes

Date: 2007/06/22 23:45:35, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Steviepinhead @ June 22 2007,13:52)
Hey, magaptera, I LIKE the idea of protesting outside the DI's sanctum.

Did any of you guys talk about that back on June 9th?

We did, actually.

I'd have made a terrible 60's activist; I can't get enthusiastic about the idea at all.  4 to 6 people picketing a laughable think[sic]-tank isn't that appealing.

Date: 2007/06/26 07:52:42, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 26 2007,06:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?

No ad hominem arguments in Behe's rebuttal, no sir... No projection, either.

Indeed.  It was the part you highlighted in bold that caused the circuit breaker on my irony meter to trip.

Date: 2007/06/26 23:48:58, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:51)
pool sized drinks, you say?

don't mind if I do!

Show up, and we'll take you here for the big drinks.

Two hands, people, if you please...  :D

Date: 2007/06/27 00:05:21, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,19:59)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:46)
 
Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,18:53)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.

That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?

Hmm, who is this Joe G of whom you speak?


Legendary anti-evolution bonehead Joe Gallien.

Isn't Blipey the main one here who heckles engages him? Or is Zachriel more of an expert?

I think it's Zachriel.  IIRC, he tried for weeks to get Joe G to even acknowledge the existence of such a concept as a nested hierarchy.  So impervious is Joe G's brain to reason, I'm not sure Zachriel even got him to type it, let alone understand the concept.

Date: 2007/06/27 00:14:00, Link
Author: snoeman
Made this the other night.

Man, that was good.  Cooked it on one of these.  One of the best gifts my wife ever gave me.

Date: 2007/06/29 00:59:28, Link
Author: snoeman
Wes wrote:
 
Quote
degaussed moral compasses


That's good.  I've not seen that one before.  May I please borrow it? :)

Date: 2007/07/04 00:47:08, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2007,16:45)
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2007,16:35)
Say you want to marinate some meat. What conditions are best? Refrigerated? Out on the counter? For how long?

I dunno 'bout where, but the longer the better.

Quote
want to try some nasal snuff, but I haven't seen any around here (Chapel Hill, NC). I haven't really looked much, though.


Good lord, you want to start dipping snuff? :O

How long you marinate the meat depends on a number of factors, including what type it is and how it's been butchered.

If you're marinating some chicken that has already been cut up into smaller pieces for making kebabs, 30 minutes is plenty.

If you're marinating a larger cut of beef, lamb or pork, then give it at least an hour at room temperature, or several hours refrigerated.

Date: 2007/07/05 08:11:13, Link
Author: snoeman
Louis:
 
Quote
Ladies and Gentlefolk,

I think that based on the two strands in this thread we can come to one conclusion:

Governments=bastards.

Therefore with that in mind I am starting the "Disaffected Individual Society Acting Solely To Effect Revolution". Our acronym might leave something to be desired but we shall tear down the governments and systems of this world and replace them with a cult of personality worshipping me a just and fair system of effecting law, order and the systems we must use to help the people acheive greatness.

It will all be different when we're in power. Oh yes, oh yes it will.

Louis


Heh.  As I read that, my thoughts drifted back to 1971 (even though I was only 3 at the time):  "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss..."  ;)

Date: 2007/07/06 19:50:32, Link
Author: snoeman
I won't be able to make it either.  I'm on kid-watching duty tonight, and since neither one of them are tall enough to see over the bar, bringing them with me would seem a bit pointless.  (Plus, Mrs. snoeman would have me killed.)

Date: 2007/07/10 23:22:45, Link
Author: snoeman
Zach's my favorite.  His posts are the equivalent of the 'death touch' in kung fu movies.  He strikes lightly, yet leaves a trail of bodies strewn about the UD floor.

Date: 2007/07/25 01:43:16, Link
Author: snoeman
I wonder if this might help Joe.  It requires MS Access 2000 or later, but it's a good introduction to nested hierarchies (or "nested sets" as it's described in the links below).

This stems from the problem of trying to represent hierarchies in relational databases, and specifically to explode a bill of materials using something faster and more elegant than recursive SQL.

The article here introduces the notion of using nested sets to represent hierarchies such as a bill of materials (or an organization chart, or, I don't know, a tree of life...).

This link goes to an Access database containing a bill of materials for an "A".  You can use the query provided to find out exactly what's required to produce an "A".  (You can also find out what it takes to make any of "A's" components as well.) The nested hierarchy here is that you have an "A" and everything that makes up "A" is a part of it.

If you replace the letters in the table with some of the names in Zach's graph, you can very clearly see the nested hierarchy he refers to.

Date: 2007/08/21 00:25:36, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 20 2007,21:59)
FtK has no idea what "unkind" would look like from me.

Is it anything like the Talosians at the end of this clip?    :)

Date: 2007/09/07 00:36:02, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2007,22:15)
 
Quote
The square root of negative one always gets them. Larry IAAIL Fartooman just could not get past the literal meaning of imaginary, try as he might those imaginary numbers just didn't exist.


A major irony there is that "real" numbers don't exist either - they're mental constructs just as much as imaginary numbers are, and both can be modeled using concepts from axiomatic set theory.

Henry

John Derbyshire, in his book about the Riemann Hypothesis (Prime Obsession), had a great line about this very thing.  

Normally, I find Derbyshire to be an unbearable wingnut prick, but this was actually a very accessible book on Riemann for someone like me, who struggled through college calculus.

Anyway, he pointed out that "real" numbers are just as abstract as "imaginary" numbers.  As near as I can remember, he wrote: "No one has ever stubbed their toe on a 7."

Date: 2007/09/13 23:25:32, Link
Author: snoeman
Glen,

Gotta compliment you on this series of posts.  Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)

Date: 2007/09/13 23:34:29, Link
Author: snoeman
Apparently, Neal's "caps lock" button goes to 11.

Date: 2007/09/20 23:19:55, Link
Author: snoeman
Hey,

I'm in as well.  The next couple of weeks are a bit tough, but sometime in October should work out all right for me.  Mondays, Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays work best for me.    Thursdays and Fridays are also possible, with prior consent of Mrs. Snoeman.

Date: 2007/09/26 23:30:53, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 26 2007,22:22)
Hey Dave,

what exactly is high-tech in the molecular motor?  Is it made of tungsten alloy or something?  Or is it labeled "made in China"?

If it is labeled "Made in China", no doubt Mattel will be issuing a recall notice soon...  :)

Date: 2007/10/09 23:18:49, Link
Author: snoeman
Glen wrote:
Quote
Of course I find it unconvincing.  He's in an analytical tradition that I have never thought much of, nor do I find Popper to be very impressive.


Glen - If I may ask, what is it that you don't find impressive about Popper? (I'm asking out of curiosity, not because I think he's impressive.)

Date: 2007/10/12 00:45:40, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 11 2007,21:26)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 12 2007,03:16)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 11 2007,21:12)
I may be being a little slow here (in months) but hey, sue me. Isn't Judge Jones a hugely right wing, lets stand up for FAMILY!!! ™ type?

For some biographical information on Judge Jones, see here.

Cheers.

I believe the phrase that comes to mind is "Hoisted by his own petard."

It amazes me that particular comment by DaveTard still hasn't made its way down the Uncommon Descent Memory Hole ™*




* Was PZ the originator of this particular phrase?

Date: 2007/10/30 22:23:58, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Mister DNA @ Oct. 30 2007,17:16)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 30 2007,13:56)
Thanks to one Dave S for reminding us of this gem from the "the Darwinists are herding us all into concentration camps!" school of ID:

       
Quote

20 April 2006

The New Downtrodden
DaveScot


When they came for the creation scientists,
I remained silent;
I was not a creation scientist.

When they locked up the abortion protesters,
I remained silent;
I was not an abortion protester.

When they came for the intelligent design theorists,
I did not speak out;
I was not an intelligent design theorist.

When they came for the strongly religious,
I did not speak out;
I was not strongly religious.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


Fittingly, the VERY FIRST comment sports a boldfaced DaveTard banning.

When they came for the dumbshits,
I went along quietly;
I was a dumbshit.

DT really needs to follow that one up with his own version of Footprints.

He asked, "Why Lord, in my most troubling times, were there only one set of footprints?"

So I banned him.

Too bad 'Post of the Week' is already taken.

Date: 2007/10/31 23:51:57, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 31 2007,20:35)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 30 2007,15:16)
Louis, are you turning into k.e.?

Bob

For that matter, what ever happened to k.e?  Did Lenny leave with k.e under his arm?

No, I seem to recall k.e. just up and disappeared temporarily to one o' them islands in the neighborhood of Oz for a while.

Date: 2007/11/10 14:58:20, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 10 2007,11:54)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 10 2007,06:53)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2007,06:44)
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
           
Quote
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion?

FTK, care to give us a *single example* of ID science with observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusions?
Note the inclusion of "experiments".
Also any examples at all of            
Quote
Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information

Do they? Do they really? Any example?

Luv, I can give you millions of examples but what would be the f**king use? To me you just attack people before they can even open their mouths and show another way of thinking. THAT's what science is all about, showing another way of thinking and objectively examining them in light of their conclusions, without the preconceptions of materialism that limit the evidence and blind the experimentarians. The "scientists" so admired at AtBC twist exploit facts and experiments to pursue their foreclosed agendas pure and simple, but the emperor has no new clothes. They look at a couple of teeth that probably fell out of the dentist's dusty trash bin and conclude blob to man when it was a missing filling. And bones behind the Chicken Emporium mean dinosaurs sprouted beaks and wings. Give me a beak, who believes that? I'm sure Dembski has performed LOTS of experiments, hon, why don't you just call him up? He has answers for every objection no matter how apparently correct.  

So go get your own observations, hypothesis, and experiments. I love you but ours is already done and we are already at the conclusions, Hon. Anyone can see that they're true.

Too good. You should be worried.

'Give me a beak', 'foreclosed agendas': niiiiiice.

Has anyone actually seen Reciprocating Bill and FtK in the same room together?

Just wonderin'

Date: 2007/11/14 01:02:47, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 14 2007,00:21)
"Behe refused *several* requests to be interviewed for this show". Gee, why?

Buckingham's redneck rant about Jones was cute, too.

It wasn't "cute"; it was teh awesome.  I was hyperventilating at the spectacle of a holier-than-thou Christian calling Judge Jones a jackass after having:

1. Knowingly pursuing a course of action that was very likely to be illegal (the original push for creationism in Dover)
2. Participating in, or at least condoning, burning of a piece of art that was offensive to you
3. Circumventing the decision of the more reason-based members by appealing for help to the particular place that would be most likely to sympathize
3. Concealing the source of the largess
4. Money shot: Get caught committing perjury on the matter in a federal court

When it comes to raw, naked stupidity, Buckingham and Bonsell are The Show.

[Edited for marginally better sentence construction.  Even that's debatable.]

Date: 2007/11/21 23:36:19, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 20 2007,00:12)
That Robocop business up above got me thinking about movies that people have seen dozens of times. They're very rare. I've only seen two movies like that, myself. The director's cut of Blade Runner maybe a dozen times, and L.A. Story about twenty times. It's a Power Law distribution. You've got those, then you've got The Matrix at about 8 times, and Eddie Izzard: Dressed to Kill and The Definite Article and Star Wars and all the Bond movies and Office Space and Idiocracy maybe 4 times, and then a few dozen movies twice and several hundred once.

So Since that mention of Robocop I've been asking friends what movies they've seen a dozen or more times. So far I've heard

*Titanic
*I Heart Huckabees
*Total Recall

So I immediately put those in the queue. I'm going to watch them in the next week and see if I can understand what is so captivating to some people.

In the meantime, I can only interpret the fact that I've seen L.A. Story 20+ times as proof that it is The Greatest Movie Ever Made.


The first time I saw LA Story was when I was living in Freiburg, Germany for a semester of college.  Although a fair bit of the humor translated pretty well, the scene in the "Fourth Reich Bank of Hamburg" wasn't considered particularly funny by my German friends...

Date: 2007/11/24 11:43:04, Link
Author: snoeman
The Seattle Times had a reprint of an article from the Wall Street Journal about the backlash in some religious communities against the practice of tithing.

Link  to original WSJ article.

I was taken aback at one passage:
   
Quote
Steve Sorensen, director of pastoral ministries at Cornerstone, says the church requires its paid and volunteer leaders to tithe, and teaches new members to do so, although it doesn't make them show proof of income. "When you tithe, God makes promises to us, that he ... is not going to let anything bad or destructive come about," says Mr. Sorensen. For those who don't tithe, he says the Lord "is not obligated to do those things for you."
(Bold emphasis mine.)

Effectively, Steve Sorensen seems to suggest that God runs a protection racket.  :O

Date: 2007/11/28 23:21:51, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 16 2007,16:26)
Now that biking season is over and I have about an hour a day of reading time on the bus, I've started a little project.

I'm about 1.5 chapters into Volume 1 of Janet Browne's Darwin biography, which will be followed by Volume 2, and then From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books, which was a birthday present last year.  (I've read Origin, years ago, but not the other three).

I'll probably be interspersing these with lighter stuff, so this may take a few months.

As long-time bike commuter (since July of, uh, this year) :), living in the same city as you, I have to ask: what do you mean, "biking season is over"?

Aren't there things you can buy to deal with the cold and dark?

:)

Date: 2007/12/19 00:36:32, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 18 2007,19:43)
 
Quote
I believe in adaption. On Noah’s ark, there was probably only one or two basic kinds of flies.

They lived off of animal excretion and other such waste. They, no doubt, reproduced during their time on the ark. (there by feeding the spiders)

So when the ark finally docked on dry land, these flies spread out with the people and animals.

Some of them ended up in the dessert. some ended up in a jungle or a rain-forest.

Over a few generations, the flies adapted to their surroundings.

If i was left on a deserted island with a bunch of natives. I would have to adapt.

I would learn their ways. Even changing my diet and my forms of communication and transportation.

I believe that when the animals ventured forth from the ark, they adapted

And the ones that didn’t, died.


Not to beat a dead horse, but that is just beautiful.


Linky

**Ed did it tuad:  I've never flunked Poe's test on that blog before.  Are any of you guys trolling fundie blogs?

[spelling pettiness]
The relevant part regarding the flies:
 
Quote
So when the ark finally docked on dry land, these flies spread out with the people and animals.

Some of them ended up in the dessert. some ended up in a jungle or a rain-forest.


Is there anyone out there that would like to imagine the taste of a dessert based on flies?
[/spelling pettiness]

Date: 2007/12/25 14:07:49, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 24 2007,16:53)
MERRY CHRISTMAS AtBC!!!!!!!

New Year's Resolution for 2008:  Do not, under any circumstances, make ERV mad.

That's some seriously good work.  Methinks Dr. Dr.'s day will not be so merry.

Merry Christmas.

Date: 2007/12/25 14:23:06, Link
Author: snoeman
It's a lot of fun, always humorous, and often educational, to read the the contributions of the AtBC denizens.  Thanks very much for an entertaining 2007.

Sadly, I didn't what I wanted for Christmas: The Discovery[sic] Institute* did not relocate from Seattle to a small, windswept rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Merry Christmas to all of you. :)



* One of the PT contributors refers to the DI in this way; I wish I could remember which one...

Date: 2008/01/25 01:09:56, Link
Author: snoeman
Recently, in the core neighborhoods of Seattle, there has been an uptick in the population (or at least sightings) of coyotes.  There's a site dedicated to tracking them.  If you look at the larger map that links from the site, you can see the high concentrations of sightings east of I-5, north of I-90 and south of SR520.  That area (Madrona, Madison Valley, North Captiol Hill, Interlaken Park) is apparently a nice haven for coyotes, and it's barely 2-3 miles outside the downtown core.

Recently there's been a coyote spotted in my neighborhood.  This one apparently likes the taste of Magnolia Domesticated House Cat.  Fortunately, the city asked the Fish & Wildlife Service to leave the little guy (gal?) alone.

Date: 2008/02/11 23:21:51, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 07 2008,11:45)
Can I ask the community here to take a few minutes and go sign the Florida Citizens for Science petition in support of the proposed new science standards? This is important. The Department of Education will make its decision on February 19th, and you need to give the FCS time to present it. Don't put it off. Do it now.

And also, if you make a comment, please do add it to the thread at the Panda's Thumb.

I signed the petition.  I generally don't post comments at PT, but here's what I said on the petition:

 
Quote
Adopt the standards.  The BOE should disregard the ignorant calls for ID creationism, classic creationism, "balanced treatment", "teaching the controversy", "strengths and weaknesses" or any other euphemism.  Evolutionary theory is some of the most well-supported science we have, and it would be a shame to enable dilution of teaching it because of its perceived threat to the faith of certain people.  We need good science standards and quality science education in all 50 states.

Date: 2008/02/21 23:50:04, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Feb. 21 2008,10:17)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2008,09:03)
Snake god spit out moon after I sacrifice virgin.  Snake god will eat me if wife find out.

I'm confused, I thought you said you'd sacrificed her?

<ducks and runs>

hugs,
Shirley Knott

That's post of the week right there.

Date: 2008/02/24 23:38:16, Link
Author: snoeman
Arden Chatfield wrote:
 
Quote
It's still better than the fucking Disney Channel, tho.


Say nothing against the Disney Channel.  It is what allows my wife and me to come even close to getting to work on time every day.  (Daughters, 3 and 5.)

Date: 2008/02/29 00:19:32, Link
Author: snoeman
Louis wrote:

Quote
Both of you are underestimating how much of a self important narcissist FTK is. Both of you are underestimating how much of a persecution complex ridden control freak she is.


Can such underestimation actually be achieved? Or is it recursive without any limitation on depth?

Date: 2008/04/10 00:30:37, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (ERV @ April 09 2008,21:44)
I RESURRECTED FTK!!! WHOOOOOOO!

<--ERV, biggest bitch in the biosphere, 1st runner up biggest bitch in the solar system

That's post of the week.

Sadly, FtK will be wondering, "Huh, I wonder who the biggest bitch in the solar system is?"

Date: 2008/04/13 11:53:56, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 13 2008,10:33)
Who's our non-profit expert?

That would be the makers of "Expelled", which should become apparent roughly 24 hours after its release.

Edit: style change, such as it was.

Date: 2008/04/20 11:27:41, Link
Author: snoeman
Quote (Assassinator @ April 20 2008,09:06)
 
Quote (Annyday @ Posted: April 20 2008,08:58)
Obvious troll is obvious. The first guy can't be real ... can he?

He sure as hell is, I live next to people who are actually worse. Yes, indeed, worse then that guy. *shivers*

On Friday, my wife forwarded an e-mail to me that she had received from a former co-worker, inviting a group of friends to attend a showing of Expelled on Sunday.  It turns out her husband works for the company that marketed the movie, and was in some way involved in that effort.  Apparently, she loved it, so much that it moved her to tears.

I had thought they were more or less rational people, but, you just never know.  "Less rational" seems more likely at this point.

Date: 2008/12/06 13:27:30, Link
Author: snoeman
Thank you all very much.  It was a good birthday, except for the actual number, i.e., 40.

Oh, and Arden? Bring back my cake!  :angry:

 

 

 

=====