97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2009 06:28 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Re: farmerman(Post 3583817)
Quote:
. My schedule for "retirement" is taking shape for the end of March, so my schedule will be freed up .

I would never use a word like "schedule" twice in the same sentence.


Of course you wouldnt dearie. Im not tied to the strict brainless convention of language as you were taught. Ive separated the two uses .If you would notice, the actual word meanings of the two "schedules" were entirely different and so pose totally divergent references. Apparently it went a bit over yer head. Im not here to teach you the creative side of the language, just to expand your experiences.

Read some of JAmes Wood's critiques of Flaubert and the rise of the modernist style and how to avoid "fine" writing, ala Lytton, or "mind ****" writing like Joyce or the balladeer Dylan.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2009 06:58 pm
@farmerman,
I forbear from pasting the whole spiel on Google about Mr Wood because it is too long. The final paragraph will suffice.

Quote:
I don't know how we're going to get back to the kind of criticism the New York critics wrote, or the kind of intellectual life that criticism made possible. Their emergence was the result of a historical juncture that will probably never recur. But I do know that we won't get back to it by taking Wood as our critical template. Ozick's thicket of Woods would be a dwarf forest. We are immensely fortunate to have him--his talent, his erudition, his judgment--but if American criticism were to follow his lead, it would end up only in a desert.


Anybody who can't appreciate Flaubert, Joyce and Dylan is lying gasping on the dunes as far as I'm concerned. If there's a rush to join in what am I supposed to do about it?
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 27 Feb, 2009 05:08 am
@spendius,
Youre being a douche bag again spendi, the point was that Wood should be read and therefore interpreted by what he says, not by what others say about him. Obviously you just learned who he even is because he is always composing paeans to Flaubert, as if nothing could have existed post Flaubert without his leading the way. (Wood merely takes exception with passive narrative and disjointed phrase. SOrt of like others we know)

When communications become so peppered with metaphor and silly symbols in an attempt at "fine writing", it loses its way. It becomes mere weasely words that are hiding a lack of any true understanding of the subject at hand. Dont you realize that most people can see through these linguistic affectations and misapplications of metaphor? Boy, hes got your mailbox spendi.
A2Ks own Edward Bulwer Lytton
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 27 Feb, 2009 07:16 am
@farmerman,
I had never heard of him until you mentioned his name. I didn't judge him.

But he did write for the Grauniad and there's a certain preciousness about that paper's art's pages which is not to my tastes. I can't think why anybody would take exception to anything in a writer's work enough to sit down and compose long-winded pieces about it justifying having taken exception to it.

I incline to enthusiasm in a critic. It signifies humility for a start and it is usually infectious. I have no interest in being told why I shouldn't like something.

Flaubert was the best critic of Flaubert. His enthusiasm for art and his prodigious efforts to communicate it render him immune from negative criticism in my estimation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 06:31 pm
News flash. Science in action.

Quote:
Quite extraordinarily, the Science Museum in London and the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry have both been made available (on 3 and 5 March respectively) for an event called "Israel Day of Science". The museums argue they are not sponsoring the event, but have merely hired out their premises. This subtle distinction is unlikely to be appreciated by the many thousands of all ages and faiths who have repeatedly taken to the streets round the country to protest against Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The event is promoted by the Zionist Federation and is designed to showcase the scientific achievements of seven Israeli universities. But all of these are complicit in the Israeli occupation and in the policies and weaponry so recently deployed to such disastrous effect in Gaza. To take just one example, Tel Aviv University, in its most recent annual review, states that "the Israel ministry of defence is currently funding 55 projects at TAU", which "is playing a major role in enhancing Israel's security capabilities and military edge". The head of TAU's security studies programme was a former director of the R&D directorate of the Israel ministry of defence. He holds the rank of major-general in the Israel Defence Forces and is a member of the Knesset.

Israel Day of Science is aimed particularly at sixth-form students, who can be expected to come in parties from schools across the country. What reaction can be expected from the many young people, already disaffected from science, who will associate the science museums with this Israeli public relations exercise? The event is being billed as a celebration of science. In fact it is an attempted celebration of Israel.

In the immediate aftermath of the indiscriminate slaughter and attempted annihilation of all the infrastructure of organised society in Gaza, how can this "celebration" be allowed to borrow some respectability from the use of these distinguished institutions? The museums should cancel these unseemly events.

Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 06:04 am
@spendius,
Are you going to stand outside with a placard?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 10:01 am
@Steve 41oo,
Yes -- "Death to Scientists."
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 11:17 am
@Lightwizard,
No--nothing like that. Getting them back in their labs instead of them parading up and down the country telling us how our kids should be brought up is all we ask. After all, it was what we payed them to get qualified to do.

The article, which made Sky News last night, purports to demonstrate that scientific institutions can be bought to lend the hallowed name of science for political purposes.

Whether others think that is fair comment is a matter for them.

There's no need for me to carry a placard either way. Suggesting, sarcastically, that I might is merely a method of not addressing the thing and is a rather traditional rhetorical device dating back a few thousand years.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 11:26 am
@spendius,
Oh, and I suppose the Creationist and IDers haven't formed a parade. It's a parade of fools but they'll get some dumb politician legislators to listed to them and a Governor of Louisiana who's political standing is now sliding down a ramp. They know that more learned judges will see through them like Saran Wrap, so they are desperately trying anything with the politicians. What percentage of scientists are going before legislation bodies to report their viewpoint? I think the few that do have enough spare time to leave their labs and support science when it's being threatened by political hob goblins. How do you know they get paid anything? Proof, please.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 12:19 pm
@Lightwizard,
They get their name in the paper, maybe with a nice pic. in their Sunday best along with their important 2 line long titles (a godsend to hard pressed young ladies whose job it is to fill the space between the ads), invitations to speak on certain well trodden circuits and the admiration of intense upward thrusting feminists who probably vie with each other to invite them back to their rooms for further discussions.

Is that not so? I can't imagine any other motives.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 12:29 pm
@spendius,
Well, you just have a stilted imagination and that's not any wonder. Behe and Co. get their names in the paper in their Sunday best, invitations to speak on certain well over-trodden circuits, and get the admiration of dildo equipped Lesbians who want to fill them up with thrilling inspiration.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 02:15 pm
@Lightwizard,
I never mentioned dildo equipped Lesbians. That's a product of your feverish imagination.
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 03:02 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

No--nothing like that. Getting them back in their labs instead of them parading up and down the country telling us how our kids should be brought up is all we ask. After all, it was what we payed them to get qualified to do.

The article, which made Sky News last night, purports to demonstrate that scientific institutions can be bought to lend the hallowed name of science for political purposes.

Whether others think that is fair comment is a matter for them.

There's no need for me to carry a placard either way. Suggesting, sarcastically, that I might is merely a method of not addressing the thing and is a rather traditional rhetorical device dating back a few thousand years.
Its on the front page of the Indy too. Ok I'll address the thing. "Stop killing children" Please
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 03:03 pm
@spendius,
Sorry but "thrusting feminists" just naturally brought up that picture immediately.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:11 pm
@Steve 41oo,
Quote:
Its on the front page of the Indy too. Ok I'll address the thing. "Stop killing children" Please


We all agree with that Steve. It isn't some special virtue of a few.

It's how to do it. The question the piece asked is not that one. Do you agree with the proposition or not? I do.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:13 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
Sorry but "thrusting feminists" just naturally brought up that picture immediately.


Well it didn't ought to have done. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:18 pm
@spendius,
Oh, I'm just so embarrassed Embarrassed Drunk
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:24 pm
@Lightwizard,
Sure, you are! LOL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 4 Mar, 2009 07:05 am
@Lightwizard,
"THrusting Feminists" sounds like a little girl on girl action. WHo made that gem up? was that you wiz?Ithink the spendster is taking over yer mind.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 4 Mar, 2009 07:48 am
I was meaning ambitious females thrusting through "glass ceilings" and up the hierarchical chain of command and ultimately, as is their stated objective, leading to the feminisation of society.

It was neither intended, nor did it imply, dildo swishing lesbians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 03:57:46