Teresa H. Kerry tells reporter to "shove it."

Beth
Beth, my "shove it" comment was with regard to McGintrix lecturing C.I. about how he should post. I'm sure C.I. knows how to post on A2K, having been a member far longer than McGintrix, and doesn't need his advice. It was especially uncalled for as I seem to recall double posts by the lecturer on occasion.

BBB

Thanks BBB, I'm really no expert on Peron, far from it, only cursory knowledge.

I knew he was an authoritarian ruler, and not exactly a nice guy. But I still think, even just going on what you posted just now, that "fascist regime" is out of place, unless you want to collapse all kinds of categories. Elected president by a huge majority, backing the labor unions and decreeing extensive welfare legislation are not exactly staple fascist traits.

Re: Beth


He posted the same article in 3 seperate threads. It isn't neccessary by any means. If an article is important enough to be posted in 3 seperate threads, then a new thread would be appropriate. I am also pretty darn sure that C.I. is capable of making his own comments without your bit of rudeness.

You're not a moderator and if you believe it is against the TOS, use the report button.

Dr Krugman: Bless you for your sanity and the well-deserved lecture. Wading through all the prior dreckage one may think that our members are all mental midgets. Your example and your wonderful patience and courtesy is a model of restraint, wisdom and gentlemanly kindness.

Oh come on. If you're bothered by a post you sure dont hesitate to say so.

Science is based on a healthy scepticism. It wasn't only Hawkings who theorized that matter dissappeared into black holes never to be retrieved and not leaving any trace of its former existance. The plodding dissertations of ignorants on these forums only reveals that there have always been some children left behind.

Much of the trouble in this world is caused by people who refuse to be sceptical about what they are told. Many accept the word of people who try to make others believe that thier word is the law, or the only truth, or the word of God. At this time conseratives are equating scepticism with being unamerican. I see it the other way.

Funny LW... Hawkins now theorizes that some matter can re-emerge...except on this forum

Hawkings has now reversed his theory on black holes and asserts he believes that light and matter are escaping them. And this opens whole new ways of thinking of the universe.

While skepticism is healthy and important when searching for the truth, I hold out eternal hope that the truth will eventually win out over the highly partisan, the disappointed revenge seekers, the demonizers, and the "my mind is made up and don't confuse me with facts" people who seem to largely dominate the political spectrum these days.

I'm still waiting for your answer on which of the three or four people in question you want to talk about, i.e. Einstein, Charles Darwin, Hawking, and there might have been one other.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin + Eienstein + Hawkings + Teresa H. Kerry = Another Crackpot Creationist Conspiracy Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. Ersatz semi-techno philosophy posing as erudite political discussion. Guess we owe the good professor an apology...another gate crasher at the faculty tea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin + Eienstein + Hawkings + Teresa H. Kerry = Another Crackpot Creationist Conspiracy Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. Ersatz semi-techno philosophy posing as erudite political discussion. Guess we owe the good professor an apology...another gate crasher at the faculty tea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin + Eienstein + Hawkings + Teresa H. Kerry = Another Crackpot Creationist Conspiracy Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. Ersatz semi-techno philosophy posing as erudite political discussion. Guess we owe the good professor an apology...another gate crasher at the faculty tea.

The three choices seem to be Hawking, Darwin, and Einstein.

Einstein was basically a brilliant scholar who, even when wrong, had the decency to be wrong in elegant ways. Relativity and the idea of relativistic time were basically wrong, no matter how elegant they might appear at first glance and Einstein's description of gravity is not withstanding any sort of a test of time either. The Podkletnov experiments and the USAF/Boeing GRASP program would not exist if anybody still took Einstein seriously on gravity.

Relativistic time was Einstein's explanation for the fact of light not appearing to obey the normal additive laws for velocities. The concept was based on thought experiments such as the mirror-clock experiment and not upon any real evidence, and later experiments which some claimed to have validated relativity were problematical. It turns out there is at least one better explanation for light not obeying additive laws, which does not require relativistic time:

http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book03.pdf

Hawking is a certified kook who believes in time travel and is looking for ways to disguise government research grant requests on the subject.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps2.html

Charles Darwin is a legitimate candidate for stupidest white man of all time, all ages. Junk science, like evolutionism, is not a victimless crime. Evolution, the idea that your fellow man is a meat byproduct of random events rather than a fellow child of God, was the most major philosophical cornerstone of naziism and communism, and a major cause of the two world wars. A true idea of how stupid this doctrine is arises from looking at Europe in 1913, and today. I mean, in 1913, Europe pretty much had the whole world by the balls, and now they're in real danger of being swamped by an immigrant tide and placed under sharia law. That's going downhill in anybody's book.

In 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war and for several decades without any sort of a war at all on European soil and was, consequently, on top of the heap. All they had to do to stay on top of the heap was act cool or, at least if they felt some overwhelming compulsion to fight wars, fight them against distant adversaries and not against eachother. They could easily have gotten together and pushed the turks back into central asia whence they came and eliminated all islamic influence not only in Europe but in the entire Medeterranean basin for that matter.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who believe in an all powerful God think He could only create the universe in 7 24 hr days because a book writen by men says this is so. Why cant Gods day be 1 billion years long. If He is all powerful He could have created the universe through evolution. If He could only create the universe by saying let there be light ect. then He cant be all powerful because man has put a limit on his power.

Both of your replies, while carefully thought out are content- free. Thus, If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels but have not love,I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1 Corinthians

I don't remember claiming that God created the universe in seven days, number one.

Number two, there are two things which people refer to by the term "evolution", il.e. microevolution which is not in dispute, and macroevolution which has been overwhelmingly disproven. Microevolution means the kinds of changes you see amongst finches on the Galapagos or amongst moths of a given species of family; it's easy enough to see how the one kind of finch could evolve into the other, but they're all just finches, and the moths are all still just moths.

Macroevolution means the generation via mutation and natural selection of new kinds of animals, with new kinds of organs and new basic plans for survival, and that's basically impossible.

Even in simple cases such as the supposed evolution of toothed whales into the giant baleen whales, there's provably no rational way to get there. I mean, you take a creature with sharp teeth and all the instincts to hunt, kill, and eat large marine creatures, i.e. large fish and aquatic mammals like seals, and how in hell is he supposed to learn to strain plankton through his teeth while his teeth are, say, 1/3 of the way in the process of "evolving" into whalebone? Or, conversely, suppose that some gross mutation changes one such animal's teeth into whalebone in a single generation; where are the instincts to strain for plankton supposed to come from?

That kind of stuff just doesn't work.

It's not easy, but one might imagine how conversation may have bogged down on the tower of Babel as one worker discussed in microfine detail in Swahili about the presence of fly specks in ground pepper while another made classical allusions to the meaning of Spiritual Enlightenment in perfect Moldavian.

LOL Chuckster. I love the image.

It's becoming interesting to me how not all that much is going on in the Religion and Spirituality Forum, yet so many of the Philosophy & Politics threads eventually focus in on religion. I'm not a sociologist, but is there something afoot here?