| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stork" |
| Date: |
13 Feb 2007 07:06:01 PM |
| Object: |
Another Big Woops for Science |
FDA warns that a vaccine could kill babies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134702/
So, was it the fault of the religious right that the scientists who
made the vaccine failed? Or is this perhaps one of those many
unacknowledged failures that continues to undermine the scientific
community? When's the first miracle cure from an embryonic stem cell
going to have some unforseen side effects?
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 08:26:48 PM |
|
|
"stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in news:1171415161.372157.210840
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
FDA warns that a vaccine could kill babies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134702/
So, was it the fault of the religious right that the scientists who
made the vaccine failed?
Was it your fault that you didn't actually read what the article had to say
and make a fool of yourself in public?
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo/King." |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 07:20:36 PM |
|
|
"stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in news:1171415161.372157.210840
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
FDA warns that a vaccine could kill babies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134702/
So, was it the fault of the religious right that the scientists who
made the vaccine failed? Or is this perhaps one of those many
unacknowledged failures that continues to undermine the scientific
community? When's the first miracle cure from an embryonic stem cell
going to have some unforseen side effects?
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the recently
approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases. The condition
also can occur spontaneously.
In the United States, rotavirus sickens about 2.7 million children younger
than 5, sends up to 70,000 to the hospital and causes 20 to 70 deaths each
year. NOT the vaccine, but the rotavirus that the vaccine protects against.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "stork" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 08:13:20 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the recently
approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases. The condition
also can occur spontaneously.
The salient fact is this:
The government WARNED on Tuesday of POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING
twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that
is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea.
In other words, the vaccine might be causing this condition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo/King." |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 09:28:31 PM |
|
|
"stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in
news:1171419200.632655.10500@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Stork replied to:
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the
recently approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases.
The condition also can occur spontaneously.
The salient fact is this:
The government WARNED on Tuesday of POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING
twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that
is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea.
In other words, the vaccine might be causing this condition.
Or it might not. They don't know. Err on the side of caution. Nothing mind
boggling about that. Anything in medicine, or life for that matter, has
it's risks. You don't stop doing medicine just because there is potential
risk.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "stork" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 02:54:16 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Or it might not. They don't know. Err on the side of caution. Nothing mind
boggling about that. Anything in medicine, or life for that matter, has
it's risks. You don't stop doing medicine just because there is potential
risk.
Or, it could be politically motivated. Perhaps the science is being
distorted because of a political axe to grind with that pharma
company.
We can't know. Either way, we are in a New Dark Ages, where, every
scientific advancement we have made seems to either come back to haunt
us, or doom the planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Kingsford Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 04:49:41 AM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2007 00:54:16 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171443256.220811.88450@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
Or it might not. They don't know. Err on the side of caution. Nothing mind
boggling about that. Anything in medicine, or life for that matter, has
it's risks. You don't stop doing medicine just because there is potential
risk.
:
Can't you quote who you are responding to?
You can't have done brown acid, yo don't seem old enough.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 11:00:39 PM |
|
|
On 13 Feb 2007 18:13:20 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
Stork replied to:
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the recently
approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases. The condition
also can occur spontaneously.
The salient fact is this:
The government WARNED on Tuesday of POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING
twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that
is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea.
In other words, the vaccine might be causing this condition.
It seems to me that god is the one who really fucked up here. How
many thousands of babies have been killed by his rotavirus? Don't
blame science because it isn't perfect. It never claimed to be. In
this case it seems to have been largely successful in combating god's
dangerous virus. What is god's excuse for putting that thing here in
the first place?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo/King." |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 09:38:39 AM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:ud55t2ps72emhg0ekel8rjsf9s857fci88@4ax.com:
On 13 Feb 2007 18:13:20 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
Stork replied to:
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the
recently approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases.
The condition also can occur spontaneously.
The salient fact is this:
The government WARNED on Tuesday of POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING
twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that
is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea.
In other words, the vaccine might be causing this condition.
It seems to me that god is the one who really fucked up here. How
many thousands of babies have been killed by his rotavirus? Don't
blame science because it isn't perfect. It never claimed to be. In
this case it seems to have been largely successful in combating god's
dangerous virus. What is god's excuse for putting that thing here in
the first place?
Yeah, I think god doesn't get enough credit for what he does. Like with
people who say god saved them from some disaster while three people
across the street died. Maybe he just screwed up and missed getting the
guy who was saved. How come god never gets the credit for spontaneous
abortions and miscarraiges, but he gets credit when doctors save a baby
through their heroic efforts and the scientific technology modern
medicine? Strange, huh?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 03:48:03 AM |
|
|
stork wrote:
Stork replied to:
Correction of the usual right wing distortion:
The Food and Drug Administration said it was unknown whether the recently
approved vaccine, called RotaTeq, caused the 28 new cases. The condition
also can occur spontaneously.
The salient fact is this:
The government WARNED on Tuesday of POTENTIALLY LIFE-THREATENING
twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that
is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea.
In other words, the vaccine might be causing this condition.
Your "in other words" is not a true reflection on the paragraph posted
above it.
It does NOT state the vaccine might be causing the condition, it states
infants who have been vaccinated might get the condition. The real
question for science will come in the epidemiology of the condition
which might show the vaccine is responsble
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "..andnothingbut" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
13 Feb 2007 11:54:01 PM |
|
|
"stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in news:1171415161.372157.210840
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
FDA warns that a vaccine could kill babies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134702/
So, was it the fault of the religious right that the scientists who
made the vaccine failed? Or is this perhaps one of those many
unacknowledged failures that continues to undermine the scientific
community? When's the first miracle cure from an embryonic stem cell
going to have some unforseen side effects?
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stork" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 02:48:39 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Kingsford Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
14 Feb 2007 05:07:49 AM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 08:48:50 PM |
|
|
In article <d9r5t2di6rcffjallrb3729uji0ch6plv2@4ax.com>,
Michael Kingsford Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Care to prove that?
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you? Why not explain why what he said was wrong?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
Do you?. Why not explain why what he said was wrong?
You've provided exactly nothing in rebuttal to his post. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 10:28:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:48:50 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-A2F28C.21485025022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <d9r5t2di6rcffjallrb3729uji0ch6plv2@4ax.com>,
Michael Kingsford Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Care to prove that?
That the Dark ages do not in fact "look good" when compared to today?
No, I do not care to waste my time "proving" that plain and obvious
fact to an ignoramus and his cretinous cheer squad.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you?
Yes.
Why not explain why what he said was wrong?
I am neither your, nor his, kindergarten teacher, that is why.
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
Do you?.
Yes.
Why not explain why what he said was wrong?
I'm not going to repeat my clear and excellent reason.
You've provided exactly nothing in rebuttal to his post. Try again.
You've proven that you are an ignorant dolt.
Don't try again.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 10:57:29 PM |
|
|
In article <i9o4u2hendcvbror5qe61pu4okp721p1dc@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:48:50 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-A2F28C.21485025022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <d9r5t2di6rcffjallrb3729uji0ch6plv2@4ax.com>,
Michael Kingsford Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks
to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Care to prove that?
That the Dark ages do not in fact "look good" when compared to today?
Nope, try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
26 Feb 2007 12:46:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:57:29 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-B71136.23572925022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <i9o4u2hendcvbror5qe61pu4okp721p1dc@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:48:50 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-A2F28C.21485025022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <d9r5t2di6rcffjallrb3729uji0ch6plv2@4ax.com>,
Michael Kingsford Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks
to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Care to prove that?
That the Dark ages do not in fact "look good" when compared to today?
Nope, try again.
I'm got bettwer things to do, to be bothered playing your pointless
puerile and ignorant games.
Conrtibute something to the discussion, or go away.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Burton" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
26 Feb 2007 02:35:22 PM |
|
|
In article <id05u2l8394c0290qsua8tf3gt523qkjvh@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:57:29 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-B71136.23572925022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <i9o4u2hendcvbror5qe61pu4okp721p1dc@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:48:50 -0500, Harold Burton
<hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer:
<hal.i.burton-A2F28C.21485025022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
In article <d9r5t2di6rcffjallrb3729uji0ch6plv2@4ax.com>,
Michael Kingsford Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in
the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency -
thanks
to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Care to prove that?
That the Dark ages do not in fact "look good" when compared to today?
Nope, try again.
I'm got bettwer things to do, to be bothered playing your pointless
puerile and ignorant games.
Not based on your postings.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 10:05:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 04:30:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 05:09:18 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 5:30 pm
Michael Gray perhaps from wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
< > wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and
in the market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory
agency - thanks to conservative republicans, helps grease the
path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting,
that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
The pictures are rather difficult to do on a typewriter (although there
is one human salvant that uses his toes to create pictures on one).
But give the monkeys four and a half billion years and they just might
accomplish it if the million monkeys don't take lunch or coffee breaks.
After all, they have created that work of literature known as The
Bible. Besides Shakesphere is actually good, well written literature
with believable stories and characters.
--
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
27 Feb 2007 06:32:07 PM |
|
|
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in
news:54ej6qF1vge4pU1@mid.individual.net:
The pictures are rather difficult to do on a typewriter (although
there is one human salvant that uses his toes to create pictures
on one). But give the monkeys four and a half billion years and
they just might accomplish it if the million monkeys don't take
lunch or coffee breaks. After all, they have created that work of
literature known as The Bible. Besides Shakesphere is actually
good, well written literature with believable stories and
characters.
I'm having a faint memory of reading about some art scandal, where an
artists instead of doing the paintings himself, let a chimp throw
paint on the canvas. The paintings were rather popular until someone
discovered who the real artist was. :-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
27 Feb 2007 08:07:36 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 27 February 2007 7:32
pm Lisbeth Andersson perhaps from wrote:
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in
news:54ej6qF1vge4pU1@mid.individual.net:
The pictures are rather difficult to do on a typewriter (although
there is one human salvant that uses his toes to create pictures
on one). But give the monkeys four and a half billion years and
they just might accomplish it if the million monkeys don't take
lunch or coffee breaks. After all, they have created that work of
literature known as The Bible. Besides Shakesphere is actually
good, well written literature with believable stories and
characters.
I'm having a faint memory of reading about some art scandal, where an
artists instead of doing the paintings himself, let a chimp throw
paint on the canvas. The paintings were rather popular until someone
discovered who the real artist was. :-)
Lisbeth.
Other recent exposes include paintings by a gorilla (though IIRC the
buyers knew that) and an elephant.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stork" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
25 Feb 2007 08:16:31 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Besides Shakesphere is actually good, well written literature
with believable stories and characters.
Shakespeare believable? My oh my, does that mean on alt.atheism,
people believe in the Ghost of Hamlet's father?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
26 Feb 2007 03:41:17 AM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 9:16 pm
stork perhaps from wrote:
Stork replied to:
Besides Shakesphere is actually good, well written literature
with believable stories and characters.
Shakespeare believable? My oh my, does that mean on alt.atheism,
people believe in the Ghost of Hamlet's father?
You don't think it bellevable that there could have been a king of
England and he might have acted in the way Shakesphere portrayed?
You don't think there could have been a man from Scotland who might have
believed he communicated with his dead father? So nobody you have ever
heard of or read about in present day real life has ever believed he
talked with a dead relative or loved one?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "aversiveness" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
01 Mar 2007 02:01:19 AM |
|
|
On Feb 25, 9:16 pm, "stork" <tband...@storkyak.com> wrote:
Stork replied to:
Besides Shakesphere is actually good, well written literature
with believable stories and characters.
Shakespeare believable? My oh my, does that mean on alt.atheism,
people believe in the Ghost of Hamlet's father?
No. But one could believe Hamlet believed he saw the ghost of his
father in a dream/delusion. I believe people have such delusions and
dreams.
Besides, moron, the statement was that Shakespeare was literature
'with' believable stories and characters. That doesn't mean it wasn't
also 'with' other unbelievable (i.e. fantastical) stories and
characters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
05 Mar 2007 08:03:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:13 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
Of course not. All they can produce is misery and gibberish.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
06 Mar 2007 02:43:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:03:10 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0uipu21f7sh3g37qbihf628qoohs9aq18n@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:13 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
Of course not. All they can produce is misery and gibberish.
And Monkey-*****.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
06 Mar 2007 10:39:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:13:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:03:10 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0uipu21f7sh3g37qbihf628qoohs9aq18n@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:13 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
Of course not. All they can produce is misery and gibberish.
And Monkey-*****.
The weapon of choice in the monkey house when they're not busy "calibrating"
their reproductive equipment. :-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
06 Mar 2007 03:11:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:39:23 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <086ru21nr7qnq58ol1vl0rkd0il81m0lhd@4ax.com>
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:13:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:03:10 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0uipu21f7sh3g37qbihf628qoohs9aq18n@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:13 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
Of course not. All they can produce is misery and gibberish.
And Monkey-*****.
The weapon of choice in the monkey house when they're not busy "calibrating"
their reproductive equipment. :-)
Indistinguishable from Capitol Hill, then?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Big Woops for Science |
06 Mar 2007 09:55:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:41:04 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:39:23 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <086ru21nr7qnq58ol1vl0rkd0il81m0lhd@4ax.com>
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:13:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:03:10 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0uipu21f7sh3g37qbihf628qoohs9aq18n@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:00:13 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:05:37 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ntc3u21mrdgvp5sevau2ngc9svjd403660@4ax.com>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:49 +1030, Michael Kingsford Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 14 Feb 2007 00:48:39 -0800, "stork" <tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171442919.644954.10540@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Stork replied to:
How about something more based in reality .....
such as the drug companies so anxious to get a drug approved and in the
market, they cut corners ... AND the federal regulatory agency - thanks to
conservative republicans, helps grease the path!
1) At the core of every drug company is a scientist who is ambitious
enough to say a drug is ready to go to the next step.
2) You would have the government slow down the pace of technological
change in order for its larger risk to be studied. Interesting, that
you would use the government to suppress science. Isn't that the
charge that you leveled at the Pope vs Galileo?
It is funny though, that, if we were still in the Dark Ages, there
would be no global warming. Oh Humanity! We have screwed ourselves
so well that we make the Dark Ages look good! What sort of
"enlightened age" do we live in today!
You are either a nutter, or EXTREMELY ill informed.
Do you really know what you are saying?
Do you really know what the dark ages were all about?
The monkeys certainly haven't produced Shakespear.
They haven't even produced MAD Magazine.
Of course not. All they can produce is misery and gibberish.
And Monkey-*****.
The weapon of choice in the monkey house when they're not busy "calibrating"
their reproductive equipment. :-)
Indistinguishable from Capitol Hill, then?
The monkeys have an excuse,....
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
