Lists Home |
Date Index |
This is the single most offensive post I've ever read (which is a shame
since it comes from someone I've always respected).
One can make (and many scientists have made) a solid, logical, and truly
scientific argument that evolutionary theory itself is more religion than
science. Your comments are extremely religious in nature; you've taken
unproven theory and portrayed it as the One Truth, condemning all other
positions as superstitions and its practitioners as mindless, evil,
"hideously perverse" morons instead of caring parents and intelligent human
beings. I guess what is most disappointing is that someone who seems to
advocate broad thinking could be so narrow minded and spiteful. So much for
scientific method and objectivity. This is the "I'm right and you're stupid
so shut up" method of argument.
I apologize to members of this list. This is not the place for non-XML
debates and religious fervor (which includes *BOTH* sides of the debate).
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:27 AM
To: 'Alan Gutierrez'
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
From: 'Alan Gutierrez' [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Use a false argument such as "teach the controversy" to get political
>> action for an issue in which there is only one side.
> Political arguments are not true or false, they just are.
Wrong. Political arguments are designed to get people to do or not do
something they would not do or do otherwise. In this case, create unity
among those who get up every morning scared to death of the God they are
told created them 1000 years ago by telling them He is really an intelligent
old fellow and told Noah to load two of the dinosaurs on the Ark with the
rest of his incest-ridden family.
>> It's boobery.
> It's working. They Creationists have framed the debate in such
> a way that the debate can be had. That's a coup.
It's boobery. That 45% of the American voters are scared and easily made
more scared is proof of the depth of the damage done by the boobs.
> I'm not arguing in favor of Intelligent Design, I'm saying that
> it's benign.
NO. It'w wrong. It puts superstition in the place of the scientific
method. It asks us to surrender inquiry to belief because the problem is
tooo hard. It scales for the same reason as presented for the web:
it is easy. But this isn't a technology; it is surrendering the education
of our children and the future of our nation to self-optimizing,
self-centered, undereducated, over-monied boobs who are sending our sons and
daughters to the ends of the earth to kill and maim others in the name of
their booby leaders. But worst of all, it uses God as the excuse. WWJD?
The rough short stocky Jewish carpenter would take a board and ram it up
their collective asses and then push them into the business end of a
fully-engaged 757 turbine engine so the blades could dispose of their
boobery and boobisms post haste.
Is that clear? This isn't benign. This is a fight for children who cannot
be made to bow down to these hideously perverse people and their agenda to
mask grabs for power with piety.
> My point was, that the 'democratization' of information is a
> process that is already alive and well, does not require Web 2.0.
There is no issue of democracy here. You don't get to vote on the design of
the 757 engine and you don't get to vote on the means and processes of
evolution. You can investigate, hypothesise, experiment, observe, record,
publish and repeat, but otherwise, take your faith to your church,
synagogue, mosque or temple and I am with you, but push it into a science
curriculum, and I am here with the carpenter, board in hand to ram it up
your collection plates.
> The argument that democracy is nothing more than mob-rule is
> old, tired. Enhancing the process of 'democratization' will only
> make that argument older, ever more tired.
That is an insidious message from pathetic liars whose faith is so weak that
they want to rob science and democracy of its real strength to beggar a
No compromise. No controversy. No bloody way.
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative
of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription