@spendius,
do you speak from vast expwerience in the entertainment industry spendi? or is your experience merely half vast.
@farmerman,
There are more male assistant directors in the Hollywood movie and TV industry and that has a lot to do with the glass ceiling and the high number of gay men who enter the entertainment field. As far as casting , and you can see that every time credits role in movies and TV, a woman is almost always the department or agency top dog and their underlings are nearly always women or gay men. I do know from a close association with the industry.
His experience is at half mast -- another ignorant generalization that popped out of the Poop's (sic) head.
@farmerman,
Quote:do you speak from vast expwerience in the entertainment industry spendi? or is your experience merely half vast.
It's not entertainment effemm. You are an innocent aren't you? Entertainment!!! Goodness gracious me.
Do you not read American intellectuals then?
It's conditioning on the cheap. They couldn't afford to condition you silly fuckers with what it takes to condition me.
@Lightwizard,
That's very interesting LW. It looks like homosexual men are taking over a lot of traditionally female roles from what you say. The "casting ouch" one might call it if one wished to impress those who appreciate sardonic drolleries.
Once the novelty wears off it'll be back to business as usual I think.
Spendi is incomprehensible no matter what subject he is talking about. Therefore, I am never offended by anything spendi says.
@wandeljw,
Well, hes like a chimpanzee in which someone has fitted a voice synthesizer. 99.99% of his vocalization is composed of screeches and howls, but, unknowingly, he once in a while, says something that I find partciularly critical. Fortunately spendi has very little understanding of the colloquailism of the Americn language, so mwhen he says something , or is himself given a swipe, he understands it not (despite his protestations to the contrary).
For that I am often delighted and amused at his obtuseness.
@wandeljw,
You ought to have been offended by the thrust of LW's last post wande. He equated homosexual men(catchers I presume) with ladies as if they are interchangeable.
If I had daughters (perish the thought) I would be most offended.
@farmerman,
That's very generous of you effemm.
But I would like to know where I have employed a colloquailism of the Americn language without knowing what it meant. I don't think it gentlemanly to simply assert that I have.
And the same goes for your use of "unknowingly". Perhaps the 99.99% of my screeches and howls pass above your noggin. It would be arrogant and egotistical for you not to have considered that possibilty. And unscientific.
@farmerman,
Arcane obtuseness -- what permeates his naive beliefs is a knee-jerk reaction to every post, even attempting to put his twisted ideas into someone else's head. Nobody takes him seriously and he, perhaps sadly, is laughed at instead of laughed with. Even if he's posted something I agreed made some sense, which is infrequent, he believes that's a licence to kill. I've never encountered such an ingrained wanna-be James Bond persona. He probably orders his brew at the pub shaken, not stirred.
KEN MILLER LECTURE AT CAMBRIDGE
Quote:God, Darwin and Intelligent Design
(Cambridge University News, April 24, 2009)
American evolutionary science expert Professor Ken Miller will give a talk next Tuesday about the increasing support of the anti-evolutionary Intelligent Design movement at the Faraday Institute’s termly public lecture.
Intelligent Design, as opposed to religiously motivated creationism, seeks to discredit the scientific basis for evolution. Although the intelligent design movement lacks a scientific basis and legal standing it has substantial public support in the US and growing support in the UK and other parts of Europe.
"Professor Miller will argue that the popularity of this movement, which is pitted against Darwinian evolution, points to a profound failure on the part of the scientific community to articulate its own message effectively," said Katie Turnbull, Communications Officer at the Faraday Institute. "He believes that analysing the appeal of this concept is central to developing an understanding of why evolution is still resisted a century and a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species."
Professor Ken Miller is a cell biologist based at Brown University. He chairs the Education Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology and in 2008 won the AAAS Public Understanding of Science and Technology award in recognition of his work to communicate evolutionary science.
Professor Miller is very active in promoting the public understanding of evolution. He defended the scientific integrity of evolution as lead witness in the 2005 Dover Trial, Pennsylvania, where it was ruled that teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violated the Constitution of the United States. He also serves as an adviser on life sciences to News Hour, a daily PBS television programme that focuses on news and public affairs.
The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion is an academic research enterprise based at St Edmund's College. It covers topics from stem-cells and cloning to the Big Bang and the origins of the universe. The Institute provides accurate and up-to-date information to help inform and improve public understanding of the interaction between science and religion. It aims to make academic research accessible to the public through close links with a network of experts from diverse disciplines including astrophysics, geology, neuroscience, genetics, evolutionary biology, theology and history and philosophy of science.
The lecture is free and open to everyone. It takes place at on Tuesday 28 April, 5.30pm in the Queen's Lecture Theatre, Emmanuel College. The lecture will be followed by free refreshments and a chance to meet the speaker and browse the bookstall.
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
KEN MILLER LECTURE AT CAMBRIDGE
Quote:God, Darwin and Intelligent Design
(Cambridge University News, April 24, 2009)
"Professor Miller will argue that the popularity of this movement, which is pitted against Darwinian evolution, points to a profound failure on the part of the scientific community to articulate its own message effectively," said Katie Turnbull, Communications Officer at the Faraday Institute. "He believes that analysing the appeal of this concept is central to developing an understanding of why evolution is still resisted a century and a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species."
I think Ken Miller is mistaken if he blames the lack of scientific clarity for this problem. And I think FarmerMan's Signature line explains the real problem: Signature
"YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ANYONE WHOSE BELIEFS ARE NOT INITIALLY ARRIVED AT BY REASON"
Intelligent design brigade suffers another defeat
Tiger Weekly
Opinion
By Sean Illing
The Texas State Board of Education signed off last week on a new science curriculum for public schools which ensures that only the theory of evolution will be taught in biology class. This decision is important not just for Texas but for the country in general, as it is yet another defeat for the flat-worlders who insist on imposing ignorance on American schoolchildren.
The controversial decision was reached after several weeks of heated debate in which both sides exhausted all resources and attracted national media attention. It was, however, a somewhat muddled verdict, with 7 of the 15 board members lobbying for what they called the "strengths and weaknesses" standard, according to which teachers are to encourage students to question the soundness of specific aspects of evolutionary theory - explaining the complexity that exists at the molecular level, for example.
This approach is, of course, the latest gimmick of the intelligent design movement, which has shown itself adept at inventing new ways of peddling pseudoscientific drivel. The three-pronged strategy is by now familiar: 1) find the existing gaps in evolutionary theory; 2) grossly exaggerate them in order to throw doubt upon the whole enterprise; and 3) insert into said gaps the latest permutation of the creationist argument.
Oddly enough, it is only concerning questions of the origins of life that conservative politicians fancy themselves as freelance scientists. They do not, for instance, argue that alchemy is superior to chemistry or that astrology offers a better explanation of the movements of celestial bodies than astronomy. The reason for this is clear: advocates of intelligent design and creationism are simply religious enthusiasts masquerading as disinterested scientists.
Already one Texas Republican, Rep. Wayne Christian, is introducing a bill to overrule the decision. In an unintentionally amusing statement, the state representative said that "we should discuss all theories and have it open with no threat to teachers or threat to students."
Well then, Mr. Christian, perhaps we should, in the interest of fairness, give equal time to teaching the stork theory of reproduction or, better yet, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of which offer potential explanations as to the origins of life and the cosmos.
As yet, evolution through natural selection is the best account we have of the diversity of life on earth; in fact, the entire science of biology is organized around this theory. The notion that Adam and Eve are our only precursors in the natural world is perfectly inconsistent with a mountain of evidence accumulated over the last century or so of scientific inquiry.
Among developed nations, it is only in America that such widespread ignorance still flourishes; this is a national embarrassment, and it goes a long way in explaining why the United States ranks 29th among industrial nations in science literacy, lagging behind such bastions of freethinking as Croatia and Liechtenstein - no offense to any potential Croatian or Liechtensteinian readers. Unless this trend is reversed, America's tenure as the world's leader in science and technology will be short-lived.
Originally Published: Issue 761 - April 15, 2009
@rosborne979,
That's just too funny to even contemplate as serious discourse. Ken Miller must be a creationist.
@cicerone imposter,
The only answer Mr. Miller has to seek is why there are people still so ignorant and superstitious that they still are resistant to evolution. It sounds like they've all been sprayed with something like mosquito repellent except the chemical coating quells any of the considerable and conclusive facts supporting evolution.
@Lightwizard,
Most people do not abuse evolution and engage in sophistries in order to justify sexual promiscuity and abortion. The people who resist evolution take it very seriously indeed. That's why they resist.
It is you who doesn't take it seriously. You think it's just a plaything to satisfy your wandering desires. Your insults are not only easy to apply to anything and anybody but are only taken seriously by people who think they mean anything and wish to support your position on sexual promiscuity, abortion and Prop8.
They are water off a duck's back to me. They are an admission that you can't counter the arguments. They are idiotic as well.
Just what is my position of abortion and sexual promiscuity?
My understanding is that the creationists have NEVER come up with a refereed scientific paper supporting their view. And no court has allowed them to include the concept in schools as something more than religious proselytizing.
@Advocate,
pretty much. Although they do publish a journal or two that makes a mockery of peer review ed boards. Creation ex nihilo, the Journal of Creation Research are but a few. If you read the articles (its good for mental exercise for students who need to develop research skills). The Creationist Journals usually start with silly premises and then prove them. Like an article about how "polystrate fossils provide problems for standard stratigraphy" They usually start the article with a premise that says something like
..." Since The Flood occured in a single calendar year , fossil trees had the opprotunity to be covered over by several depositional sequences"...
@Lightwizard,
Quote:Just what is my position of abortion and sexual promiscuity?
I take it "of" meant "on".
I don't know. I never said anything about your position. As a supporter of evolution theory being taught in schools, I presume properly, you ought to be against the former and for the latter assuming hetero.
@farmerman,
Doesn't tectonic movement imply that everything has been underwater at some point and gathering it all up into a single year is a simple teaching aid for simple people. With earthquakes and tsunamis it can be a short period.
ci. has just said in another place that Congress is full of assholes who are up to no good. And you voted them in. Which means you're simple people if ci.'s premiss is correct. Intelligent people would never vote in assholes to rule over them.
