Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
bornagain77, Do you by any chance have any videos of talking donkeys (besides Shrek)?MeganC
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Excuse me, I meant: I believe ScottAndrews has nailed it,bornagain77
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Megan, I believe Stephen has nailed it, in that you believe miracles do not ever happen ever. Yet to believe this you would have to believe that "reality" itself was not a miracle: "To me, every hour of the day and night is an unspeakably perfect miracle." —Walt Whitman Like Whitman I consider my existence a miracle. But to go further you would have to explain the foundation of reality itself in "non-miracle" terms, but this is not possible for you since reality is based on principles that blatantly defy our concepts of time and space; The Electron - The Supernatural Basis of Reality - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_YQl6XSMM The Miraculous Foundation of Reality - Dr. Quantum - Double Slit & Entanglement - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzQuU6FpYAk "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine It seems to me Megan you are approaching the whole issue from the wrong direction, It seems you should be asking if miracles are possible from what we know of the basis of reality, instead of excluding miracles from what you have presumed to be a non-miracle basis of reality.bornagain77
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
MeganC, I could give you several paragraphs on the talking donkey. Someone else might give you several paragraphs and say something else. Still someone else might disagree with both of us and agree with you that no donkey has ever talked. The point? It has nothing to do with ID. Besides, if you claim that the first cell or even some simpler form of life was a random chemical accident, you have forfeited the privilege of calling anything impossible, unlikely, or irrational, ever. The bar of acceptance cannot be set any lower.ScottAndrews
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Since I'm not getting my own tyhread, here goes... riddick, "Please tell us how “talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe.”" Donkeys can't talk, don't talk and never have talked. "I agree that a talking donkey is an unusual event. Though we probably agree that such a phenomenon may violate certain physical laws, I fail to see how it violates logical laws." It is logical that donkeys can't talk and that they never have talked. Clive Hayden, "And it’s somehow normal that you should talk?" Why shouldn't I talk? "I don’t think you understand the gravity of the peculiarity of existence itself. It’s no stranger that a donkey should talk than a parrot, or us for that matter." So what would a parrot and a donkey have a conversation about? "You could only take it for granted that you talk, but thinking that it is some necessity of nature that you should talk, is only to not really understand what you mean." Could you please rephrase this as a question? "The fact that there is a donkey at all is no less strange than that it should talk. They are both baffling phenomena, the one no less than the other." So if I told you that I saw a donkey surfing while texting on a mobile 'phone, you would believe me? "You have no reason to assume one (donkey’s existing at all) as normal, and the other (donkey’s talking) as strange; you’ve only gotten used to the one and convinced yourself that you can then make a comparison as to what constitutes normality and strangeness." If only you could turn this into a film script; imagine: Planet of the Donkeys: They can Talk! "But there is no logical (that is, rational) reason, outside of repetition of experience, to make this claim. So you’ve confused yourself that you understand more than you do, and think that you can make a comparison between two black riddles as if they together make up a white answer." No inference to a-telic non-talking donkeys? Are we not doing science here? "They don’t. Not when you really come to understand the situation of existence for what it is, and on that we must remain agnostic, for we have no insight into nature of the sort required. We can only measure effects and record repetitions, but these are descriptions, not explanations of Nature. And you’re confused if you mistake them for explanations, and then think you can use descriptions against other questions of explanation in Nature by comparison. You cannot." ...but I just did? StephenB, "OK, I got it. Well, I consider a talking donkey in that context to be a miraculous event, inasmuch as God is reported to “open the donkey’s mouth,” which is symbolic, of course, for providing it with the extraordinary gift of speech." So it's a synbolic miracle by God that made the donkey look like it was talking? "So, the relevant question would be this: Do miracles violate the rational nature of the world. The obvious answer is no, since it is only by means of the world’s rational nature that we can recognize a miracle." How do you rationally recognize a miracle? And can you give a working example? "By the way, if the universe wasn’t rational, and, if you didn’t sense that it was, in spite of your protests, you would not be scandalized by a talking donkey, since there would be no reason for being scandalized. On the contrary, it is becaused you think that talking donkeys violate the rational order of the world that you raised the issue." More ideas for Clive's script, great! "At the same time, it is clear that you reject in principle the possibility that miracles could occur in any context. Yet, plenty of people in the New Testament observed miracles, and eyewitness testimony constitutes good evidence. So, if you think miracles are “absurd,” that is only because your ideology prompts you to reject them apriori." There's a documentary film series I think you would enjoy, it's called: Harry Potter. vjtorley "For what it’s worth, I’ll second your request. I think your question, “Are talking donkeys part of a rational universe?” is a philosophically interesting one." It's the though that counts...but it's not looking good. "To suppose that a donkey once talked would therefore imply supposing that some intelligent being, who was not a donkey, commandeered the donkey’s vocal cords for a short interval and made it issue forth with a stream of sound, which a human person standing nearby was able to recognize as a sentence in his/her language." So the donkey was just acting a kind of microphone for an "intelligent being"? By what mechanism was the commed issued and executed? "That is an extremely odd thing to do, as I think you will agree. However, it would not (as far as I can tell) require the violation of any law of nature. Hence a talking donkey is not only logically possible, but nomologically possible. All it requires is the presence of an intelligent being who is capable of making the donkey produce a stream of meaningful discourse – and who would want to do such a thing." How would this work in the case of a talking bush? "I should add that this is a scenario that not even an atheist could rule out. After all, it is quite possible that intelligent beings other than humans exist in the cosmos. If other intelligent life forms exist, they are likely to be technologically far ahead of us. Hence by Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd law, which states that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” it is quite possible that some aliens have the technological wherewithal to make donkeys talk. As we know nothing about said aliens, we have no idea whether some of them occasionally engage in such feats, just for the fun of it." Planet of the Donkeys 2: The Aliens Return! "As regards the talking donkey, the only substantive point on which Christians differ from atheists is that Christians additionally believe that a disembodied being (God, or some angel) could perform such a feat. Traditionally, Christians have held that an angel was responsible. The larger question here is: is disembodied agency part of a rational universe? Now that’s certainly worth a post of its own." Planet of the Donkeys 3: Aliens versus Disembodied Agents lamarck, "My posts by no means “swamp” yours and I take umbrage to what you imply." I didn't mantion your posts specifically, I said: "...[The 'donkey'question' is] being swamped by whatever else is going on this thread." "I suggest you drink a red bull, go do some parachute wind sprints, and type up an article and submit it. Initiative. You could call it “Megan’s donkey”, like shrodinger’s cat." Submit the article here? KF, "Similarly, MeganC, you need to keep things in proportion to the serious issues on the table." Why do you seriously disregard the issue of talking donkeys, on the issues? "You may think miracles are inherently irrational or chaotic, a la Lewontin et al. On this one, you are up against the likes of Newton, Pascal and many other founders of modern science of like weight, and a considerable body of serious evidence and argument." Have you encountered a rational miracle? If so, is it repeatable and/or testable, if only in principle, on the merits, after teatime? "But, in a context of evidently willful poisoning of the atmosphere for civil discussion, such is at best a distractive side issue: SLANDER is what is on the table, and people of good will must now come to the defense of civil society. THAT is what is at stake." No, yes, maybe and only a good oil-soaked movie script is at stake at the moment.MeganC
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Well, my post jumped the gun before I was able to correct the grammatical errors, but I think you get the drift. (They [Darwinists are happy when their adversaries [ARE] forbiddn to or prevented from expressing themselves, which is not unrelated to the fact that their failed paradigm survives only through a tyrannical educational system.)StephenB
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
One of the hallmarks of naive citizens is that they take freedom for granted even as they sleep while their civil liberties are being taken away. The Department of U.S. Homeland Security issued a nine page document entitled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." This report is obviously politically motivated and seeks to target individuals who have strong social and political views on such subjects as abortion, homosexual marriage, and other topics supported by the current administration. The document targets conservative minded individuals in the U.S. that “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration, as well as groups that “reject federal authority in favor of state of local authority, implying that such are “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues.” the loss of civil liberties. Darwinists tend not to understand liberty, which is why they often abuse it to the extent that they have it, as did T M English when he "outed" his adversary. Not one Darwinist here, for example, has ever lamented the loss of freedoms exposed in the movie "Expelled." They are happy when their adversaries is forbidden to or prevented from expressing themselves, which is not unrelated to the fact that their failed paradigm survives only throught a tyrannical educational system.StephenB
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Tom, it's all fun and games until someone gets yanked out of bed in the middle of the night and grilled by an agent named Callahan who has dog breath and won't let them lawyer up because all of their so-called rights went out the window the moment they became a suspected terrorist and they're just lucky he doesn't have his Cheney-approved waterboard handy. I hope you're happy.R0b
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Winston, Perhaps; I am curious to see the limits of the argument. To continue, while one may find a rock and be unable to exactly explain all of its nicks and scratches etc., explaining the rock itself in principle is very straightforward (even the nicks and scratches are explicable in terms of known physical forces, e.g. abrasion). Again, one need only appeal to the physical and chemical properties of the lava or magma which preceded it. Physical knowledge of the elements and compounds are sufficient to explain how the rock formed. Even if earth were no longer volcanically active, it would be a straightforward activity to recreate igneous rocks by gathering the appropriate materials and subjecting them to a particular physical scenario (e.g. heat and then cooling). The physical and chemical properties take care of the rest. It is not the same with DNA. We are yet unable to recreate the origin of genetic information, though probably thousands of different physical scenarios have been tried. Unlike our igneous rock, there are no straightforward physical or chemical properties of the elements themselves that explain the DNA, just as there is nothing in the properties of the elements of my laptop to explain the origin of my laptop. Are there any other analogues in nature to the problem of the origin of life? Any other natural phenomena that are not straightforwardly explained by the physical and chemical properties and laws, once we understand the properties and laws?jlid
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
T M English,
Do you remember Dave Springer telling you to shut up your whining about this? His rationale was perfectly sound.
I won't tolerate this.Clive Hayden
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
pardon: Mr Englishkairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
mr Enfflish: thi si what you said:
[having just quoted the undersigned] Anyone who would suggest that allowing people to mock ID and its proponents might lead to bloody conflict is himself a menace. I’m contacting the Department of Homeland Security as soon as I complete this note, to request that Preacher [violates privacy of undersigned] never be granted a U.S. visa.
There are more than enough violations of duties of care in it to interest those who on your direct statements and implications in 143 - 44 above, seem to have received your malicious false complaint against me. (Tort is more than libel, and libel more than direct statements.) As to your insistence on a "right" to violate my privacy, we see in the just cited an apt case of just how you have sought to use the earlier violations of my privacy to make a false and malicious report by name, and thereby impose on me serious administrative penalties that would prejudice my prospects for dealing with officialdom in the US [and since we live in an integrated world where watch lists are obviously shared, internationally]. And, you have shown not he slightest compunction for what you have done. indeed, your dismissive remarks about "whining" show that you seemingly do not understand the full magnitude of what you have said that you have done. Case proved. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Re: Talking donkeys I once saw (and heard) a talking dummy. Honest, with my own eyes and ears. It was made of wood, but it sounded like a man, and could even converse normally. I thought it was just the man sitting behind it who made it appear to talk, but now I realize that explanation is far too simple. I was actually living in an irrational universe.ScottAndrews
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Talking donkeys aren't part of the rational universe? Someone please alert Richard Dawkins.allanius
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
The first line of the article states: "Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology." It is simply amazing that they compare the "simple" cell to the most advanced systems we have in operating systems... But the evolutionists confronted with this thinks nothing of mumbling over and over "Evolution did it,,,evolution did it... Mindless darwinbots with not an ounce of independent thinking.. Seems eerily similar to the mindless humans in the movie "Matrix", who were in reality asleep,,,with "the Matrix" slowly sucking the life out of them. Making The Matrix Pod Scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTW1wOYsNZcbornagain77
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
a slander-based threat report made against me
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff in defamation cases. Quote the factually false statement I made about you, and identify the pecuniary damage you have suffered as a consequence. I'll be waiting with bated breath.
privacy violation
Do you remember Dave Springer telling you to shut up your whining about this? His rationale was perfectly sound.
And, let us not forget, the whole point of this thread is that Mr Barrett Brown made a slanderous false allegation against Mr Dembski; in a context of the known theocracy slur.
No, it's your point, and in your self-importance, you've entirely forgotten what Clive actually wrote. There are five instances of satire in the opening article, and none of slander. There is not even the suggestion of slander. No one but you mentioned slander until comment 124.T M English
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
jlid, I think you may be overselling your point. If I consider any rock in general, say one I find on a beach, I can't, nor can anyone, tell you using only the rock - why it is the shape that it is, why it has a chip here or a scratch there, they it's rounded on one edge, etc. That rock has a history that we don't know and may never know. That does necessarily mean it's history is confined to the material, but we have no reason to doubt that as of now, and I believe that would require some positive evidence.Winston Macchi
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
PS: Mr Macchi, FYI, strings of alphabetic letters are a classic example of a digital code system. Your quarrel is not with the ID movement, it is with Sir Francis Crick and the later scientists who identified and characterised the genetic CODE.kairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
BA: Thanks. your note is about redundancy in gens that exercise regulatory control on genes -- a feature of what would be an operating system in the PC's on our desktops. What I have primarily emphasised is the basic well-known fact that DNA is a digital storage medium for genetic information, based on a four-state discrete -- digtal -- code. And, that it is used in step by step -- algorithmic -- implementation of protein synthesis from START to elongation step by step to STOP and then onward header-based dispatch to use sites in the cell [headers being snipped off as appropriate], etc. Viruses and regulatory genes of course show how the programs are flexible and in the case of the latter, redundant. Mr Macchi and others who take his rhetorical stance, simply further reveal the blatant selective hyperskepticism of their views, and the absurdities it lands them in. Here is Crick, as long ago as 1953, on the code based discrete nature of DNA:
Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)" [From a letter to his son March 19, 1953. cited Thaxton.]
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
You are right Kairofocus,,, but they are uncaring and hard hearted to the shocking truth of the matter.bornagain77
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Mr English: I repeat; I was not born yesterday. Your onward attempt to turn a serious matter of privacy violation and false threat report to US Homeland Security into "satire" simply underscores the force of the point I have made on the breakdown of civility on ID and many other matters. And, let us not forget, the whole point of this thread is that Mr Barrett Brown made a slanderous false allegation against Mr Dembski; in a context of the known theocracy slur. I think onlookers can see for themselves why such a malicious false report threat will have to be taken seriously; and why it merits a serious response. Which I have taken. I guess it is an irony that the current matter so sharply underscores my overall point on where the sort of breakdown of civility that the theocracy slander represents, historically leads. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
A note on cell computation: Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, Excerpt: "We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htmbornagain77
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
TM English, Obviously you failed to adequately identify your comment as humor. Fart noises are an authorized identifier here.Dave Wisker
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
I have just now filed a false threat report complaint with the US Homeland Security Department, cc blog owner.
This just gets better and better. Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the word "false." It's quite extraordinary to find myself thinking simultaneously of Bill Clinton and Gomer Pyle.
And I note that such a block is a measurable point of damage so it makes the matter a tort.
ROTFLOL. Would you like to explain how someone who simply forwarded your comment to Homeland Security (not that anyone with a sense of humor would think I actually did) would expose himself to liability?T M English
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Mr English: On the contrary to your just above attempt to deflect my taking seriously your public announcement of a slander-based threat report made against me, you have precisely demonstrated the trend of rising incivility and ideologically driven demonisation that I have wared against. [This trend is relevant to the ID controversy, but it ranges far and wide across the culture of our civlisation; for which I am deeply concerned and pessimistic, as a principled small-d democrat. (I need not elaborate my estimate of the general level of "folly-tricks" in our civlisation; beyond using that Caribbean street- pun- in- a- word.) In short, I EXPECT to lose the ideological battle, but as I learned ever so long ago now in Sunday School, "where duty calls for danger, be never wanting there." In short, the virtue and duty of courage does not ask whether one will likely lose or get hurt, but instead: what is the right thing to do.] Now, sir, when you put my name out in public in the context of making a false threat report to the Dept of Homelaned Security, you can rest assured that I will take it quite seriously as a move beyond anything that can legitimately be called "satire." As already noted, I have reported you to the Dept for -- by your public declaration -- filing a malicious false threat, and violating my privacy in the process. Since you explicitly identified a hoped-for point of damage in so reporting me, that makes your malicious report an easily measurable tort. You will understand that I will take the announced malicious false report far more seriously than your attempted brushing aside just now as mere "satire." Sorry, I was not born yesterday. As to Mr Dembski and Mr Pianka's public announcements in which he gleefully projected -- perilously close to hoping for -- the demise of a large fraction of humanity, that is a serious matter; just as new US Science Advisor Mr Holdren's views published in 1977 on population control etc look -- ever so sadly -- a lot like genocide advocacy. And, all of this aptly underscores my point on leading in, tolerating, enabling or taking advantage of the breakdown of civility and how it converts democracy into mob-ocracy, a prelude to tyranny. GEM of TKI PS: FYI I am not a "preacher," and hold relevant qualifications in the physical sciences to speak with some measure of understanding on the intersection between information theory, digital systems theory and bio-information based systems, with applications to both education and general policy and the associated institutional and trans-institutional conflict and change process. As my always linked has long since made plain; for I am an independent ID thinker.kairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, In 143-44, I was satirizing Dembski's report of Eric Pianka to Homeland Security, which Barrett Brown covers in his article. Pianka no more advocated bringing about the death of 90% of the human population than you advocated violence against jeering evolutionists. Both of you merely stated that dire events could be coming our way. Only a propagandist and/or drama queen would represent either of you as a menace to homeland security. It's sad when a bit of obvious humor elicits 908 words of irrelevant response. Will you return now with a doubly-agitated post of 1816 words and four postscripts?T M English
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Mr Barry Arrington (and Mr Tom English): In response to the slanderous false report of myself as a threat in 143-44 above by Mr English, I have just now filed a false threat report complaint with the US Homeland Security Department, cc blog owner. I also note that Mr English took occasion of making such a malicious false report -- itself redolent with issues over breakdown of civlity and resort to abuse of policing powers to address differences of opinion [i.e precisely the trend I am warning against] -- to violate my privacy. GEM of TKI PS: Mr English [I believe a representative of the anti evolution forum, but I am not sure my memory is accurate on that] doubtless knows how to contact me. If he does so I would be more than happy to communicate to him a copy of my counter complaint on his malicious false threat report intended to block my travel. And I note that such a block is a measurable point of damage so it makes the matter a tort.kairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
@145 should read, "empirically-based nonotion of the “big bang,” and the Genesis [not Gospel] command, “Let there be light.”StephenB
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
I see that I am being accused of dishonesty and cowardice for not responding to several comments on this blog; this is ironic, as I did respond at around 10:00 pm with an explanation that I had articles to finish though I will respond when I have more time, but my comment is still "awaiting moderation" at the time of this writing, 5:00 am EST, even as some ten other comments have gotten through. Again, I fully intend to finish this argument, but I'll be doing so from another, more reliable venue. Assuming you get this message, any of you are of course welcome to comment at my Huffington Post blog, where I'll respond to anyone who cares to question me.BarrettBrown
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
PS: It seems the case of the quote-mined Logos reference shredded above is an all too typical illustration of the level [utter want] of analysis in Mr Brown's "Flock of Dodos [Strawmen]," which is advertised as "a superbly unorthodox, serenely offensive and splendidly hilarious look at the forces behind the most talked-about pseudo-theory in modern history." In short, the article at HuffPo is part of a longstanding slander campaign on Mr Brown's part. Those who enable such incivility should think very carefully about the trends they are enabling by praising or distracting from corrections of such slander, and where such a real-world slippery slope historically heads.kairosfocus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 10

Leave a Reply