| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2004 06:34:23 AM |
| Object: |
Curse CNN |
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
.
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
04 Apr 2004 07:23:26 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
#948
--
The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true
liberty.
James Madison
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
05 Apr 2004 05:02:57 AM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 05:14:59 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> astounded us with: news:6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-
hg@comcast.com:
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
I'm guessing you meant "professional ethics"
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is an oxymoron
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 07:41:17 AM |
|
|
"Phÿltêr" <Phltêr@freeway.com> wrote
I'm guessing you meant "professional ethics"
Yes. One of these days I've got to learn to type without
wearing mittons...
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is
an oxymoron
They were once the greatest name in news. Take for example
Bush War I, back in 1991. They managed to ***** off both the
U.S. and Iraqi governments with their live reporting from
Baghdad.
Now they're the Let's-Cut-The-Right-Wing-Even-More-Slack
network, avoiding at all costs what would have been headline
stories during the Clinton administration.
Heck, they reported FALSE stories about Al Gore during the
2000 election, yet they refuse to report scandalous bevhavior
of the Bush administration.
They're a joke.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 06:07:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:14:59 +0000 (UTC), they came to take "Phÿltêr"
<Phltêr@freeway.com> away for writing the following in alt.atheism:
<snip>
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is an oxymoron
Given what passes as "professional" these days, just "professional
ethics" _alone_ might qualify as an oxymoron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 06:07:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:14:59 +0000 (UTC), they came to take "Phÿltêr"
<Phltêr@freeway.com> away for writing the following in alt.atheism:
<snip>
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is an oxymoron
Given what passes as "professional" these days, just "professional
ethics" _alone_ might qualify as an oxymoron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
07 Apr 2004 04:50:57 AM |
|
|
"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> astounded us with:
news:98e6709k01n98ihidnp5ske2gh127r5evb@4ax.com:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:14:59 +0000 (UTC), they came to take "Phÿltêr"
<Phltêr@freeway.com> away for writing the following in alt.atheism:
<snip>
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is an oxymoron
Given what passes as "professional" these days, just "professional
ethics" _alone_ might qualify as an oxymoron.
<nods> troo dat
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 10:12:20 AM |
|
|
Phÿltêr wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> astounded us with: news:6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-
hg@comcast.com:
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
I'm guessing you meant "professional ethics"
It's my view that CNN and "Professional ethics" is an oxymoron
You might like "Smear without Fear" by Paul Krugman" of NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
--
Richard Uhrich
--
Nothing America could have done would have provided al Qaeda and its new
generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device then our
unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country. Nothing else could
have so well negated all our other positive acts and so closed Muslim
eyes and ears to our subsequent calls for reform in their region. It
was as if Usama bin Laden hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were
engaging in long range mind control of George Bush, chanting "invade
Iraq, you must invade Itaq". -- Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
05 Apr 2004 11:05:47 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
Doesn't theory mean 'we guess that it should mean that'? ;-)
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
05 Apr 2004 11:52:07 AM |
|
|
"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@sasktel.net> wrote in
news:10730vb2902e9cf@corp.supernews.com:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
Doesn't theory mean 'we guess that it should mean that'? ;-)
No, that would be "speculation" or perhaps "conjecture".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
05 Apr 2004 03:42:39 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
"garbage"? "dishonest"? "professional ethics"?
What on earth has that to do with journalism as practiced by the modern media?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 08:18:25 AM |
|
|
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote
"garbage"? "dishonest"? "professional ethics"?
What on earth has that to do with journalism as
practiced by the modern media?
Good point.
But I feel it necessary to remind you that it wasn't
always this way. The media had a feeding frenzy
during the Clinton years. The media went so far as
to actually invent garbage to report on Al Gore.
Journalism might have died years ago, but American
news didn't become slaves to the GOP until 2000.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 12:14:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:18:25 +0000 (UTC), "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>,
Message ID: <AMOdnQI-ZoivM-_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote
"garbage"? "dishonest"? "professional ethics"?
What on earth has that to do with journalism as
practiced by the modern media?
Good point.
But I feel it necessary to remind you that it wasn't
always this way. The media had a feeding frenzy
during the Clinton years. The media went so far as
to actually invent garbage to report on Al Gore.
Journalism might have died years ago, but American
news didn't become slaves to the GOP until 2000.
News from "The Ministry of Truth." Same level as Stalinist era
'Pravada."
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 01:04:40 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:18:25 +0000 (UTC), "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>,
Message ID: <AMOdnQI-ZoivM-_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote
"garbage"? "dishonest"? "professional ethics"?
What on earth has that to do with journalism as
practiced by the modern media?
Good point.
But I feel it necessary to remind you that it wasn't
always this way. The media had a feeding frenzy
during the Clinton years. The media went so far as
to actually invent garbage to report on Al Gore.
Journalism might have died years ago, but American
news didn't become slaves to the GOP until 2000.
News from "The Ministry of Truth." Same level as Stalinist era
'Pravada."
Pravda. (Truth.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
07 Apr 2004 12:56:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:04:40 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
<uhrich@san.rr.com>, Message ID:
<AiCcc.43105$Lq4.42928@twister.socal.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:18:25 +0000 (UTC), "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>,
Message ID: <AMOdnQI-ZoivM-_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote
"garbage"? "dishonest"? "professional ethics"?
What on earth has that to do with journalism as
practiced by the modern media?
Good point.
But I feel it necessary to remind you that it wasn't
always this way. The media had a feeding frenzy
during the Clinton years. The media went so far as
to actually invent garbage to report on Al Gore.
Journalism might have died years ago, but American
news didn't become slaves to the GOP until 2000.
News from "The Ministry of Truth." Same level as Stalinist era
'Pravada."
Pravda. (Truth.)
I know.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 12:54:03 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
[snip]
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
Um, I'm going to procede on the assumption that's a typo and
should be "professional ethics."
It violates what? Journalism is not a profession in the sense
that being a doctor or an engineer (in Canada at least) is.
Doctors swear an oath to follow certain ethical principles.
In Canada, so do engineers. For both there's a professional
organisation that will come and put their gonads in a vice if
they don't follow those rules. In theory, it's the same with
lawyers who are supposed to follow a set of ethics rules.
Though there is a certain amount of "inbreeding" since it will
likely be lawyers who are tasked with discipline of a lawyer
who misbehaves, doctors for doctors, engineers for engineers.
All I know is that engineers in Ontario have gone to jail for
failing to follow the ethics guidelines.
Who is going to come squash journalists if they say crap in
the press? If somebody fakes a huge number of stories and
gets them published in a major news magazine (No! That
could never happen. Could it?) what's the worst he can expect
as a punishment? Maybe he gets fired. Or maybe just demoted.
Jail time? Pshaw. Fines? Never. Give back any awards he got
for those articles? Maybe, but probably not. Hell, if he
toughs it out and continues to claim the articles were real,
he can probably get on the lecture tour circuit for years.
The freedom of the press is a good thing. I don't know what
to do to keep a strong free press and at the same time make
journalist responsible for lies and rubbish they print. But
I'd like to hear some fresh new ideas. I admit I'm going to
be pretty damn hard to please.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
05 Apr 2004 01:49:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:02:57 +0000 (UTC), "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>,
Message ID: <6JOdne0L-qVGs-zdRVn-hg@comcast.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
There is no theory of "Intelligent Design."
That's the point.
If there was a theory, no matter how stupid it was it might
make sense to report it as a "Theory."
But there is no theory, and reporting "I don't want evolution
to be true" as a theory is nonsense. It's garbage. It's dishonest.
It violates professional ethnics.
Wow, learn something new every day. Journalism is now an ethnic
group....... :)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
04 Apr 2004 10:14:05 PM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote in message
news:4G1cc.15196$Dv2.6296@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
#948
--
The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true
liberty.
James Madison
I suspect they were using the word 'Theory' in the common way, meaning
supposition
I believe most people would think it so.
....At least I hope so.
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim M" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
04 Apr 2004 10:21:19 PM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote in message
news:4G1cc.15196$Dv2.6296@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip]
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
I would call it:
"Intelligent Design Creationism"
and its backers:
"Proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 01:33:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
--
<http://www20.brinkster.com/beowulf9/gottod/Jesus%20Hates%20The%20Little%20Children.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 11:28:40 PM |
|
|
"Beowulf" <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
Perhaps "undeveloped hypothesis" would be more accurate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
06 Apr 2004 11:41:05 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
<v1u570ppoarr9ob68v2c6he8bt66delg1r@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
You must have meant _ntestable_hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
07 Apr 2004 12:16:29 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
<si1770pauk5tnnlsn08u9elilo0uv9h8kq@4ax.com>:
In talk.origins, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
<v1u570ppoarr9ob68v2c6he8bt66delg1r@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
You must have meant _ntestable_hypothesis.
or, at least, _untestable_ hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
07 Apr 2004 04:32:38 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
<si1770pauk5tnnlsn08u9elilo0uv9h8kq@4ax.com>:
In talk.origins, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
<v1u570ppoarr9ob68v2c6he8bt66delg1r@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
You must have meant _ntestable_hypothesis.
or, at least, _untestable_ hypothesis.
No, it's a hypothesis that n tests will not decide in favor of...
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Curse CNN |
07 Apr 2004 10:33:36 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 04:41:05 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> ejaculated:
In talk.origins, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
<v1u570ppoarr9ob68v2c6he8bt66delg1r@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
You must have meant _ntestable_hypothesis.
We were shooting for non-offensive. Untested is accurate without
tweaking anyone's nose.
If I were to express my true feelings about ID it would be something
along the lines of "slop bucketful of inane religious doctrinal
horseshit trying unsuccessfully to masquerade as science".
--
"You claimed all this time that you would die for me.
Why, then, are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?"
- Tool, "Eulogy"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Curse CNN |
08 Apr 2004 05:56:55 AM |
|
|
Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> astounded us with:
news:ko7870pk6jusupdfi2qg8mnqq7ql587bbr@4ax.com:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 04:41:05 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> ejaculated:
In talk.origins, Beowulf <beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote in
<v1u570ppoarr9ob68v2c6he8bt66delg1r@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> ejaculated:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
You could be honest and call it an untested hypothesis.
You must have meant _ntestable_hypothesis.
We were shooting for non-offensive. Untested is accurate without
tweaking anyone's nose.
If I were to express my true feelings about ID it would be something
along the lines of "slop bucketful of inane religious doctrinal
horseshit trying unsuccessfully to masquerade as science".
Plus, never mind the insult to intelligences everywhere.
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
04 Apr 2004 11:21:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC), "gammajoe8"
<gammajoe@yafoo.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
Religious conclusion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
04 Apr 2004 07:54:20 PM |
|
|
gammajoe8 wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-qudnbWt8PAjb_LdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
If you were the reporter - and didn't want to offend a huge
group - how would you describe Intelligent Design - other
than a theory?
I think I would have described it as "religious opinion pretending to be
science".
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louis Friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
08 Apr 2004 09:27:30 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
Not that I'm defending what they did,
which likely was to allow for the implication
that it was similar to a scientific theory...
but did they call it a scientific theory?
Seems they used the word theory in the common sense,
that has a broad and pretty weak meaning...
so they didn't do anything wrong technically;
but it was an obvious compromise for ratings sake.
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
Trust? CNN like all major news networks in the
U.S. has virtually eliminated their investigative
reporting... I mean in their regular news broadcasts.
60 minutes and 20/20 are okay... but it seems they
too have suffered significantly in quality.
CNN reruns "CNN Presents" on American
Vietnam vets and American gymnasts, whereas the
history of American foreign policy past and present
leading up to 9/11 remains unexplored on their
network... that among dozens of other worthwhile
stories.
CNN lost *all* credibility for me when it came to my
attention from a British show that explored the
Florida voting debacle with far more depth in 15 mins,
then CNN has to date! It certainly appears the Bush
campaign helped provide a felon list that was ~95%
wrong, and the company (hired by Florida govt.) DBT,
didn't check the list.
Seriously impacting black (democrat) voters in Florida.
So I watch PBS and British news/documentaries for
more accurate in-depth information, and CNN for the
"Breaking News!!!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Curse CNN |
09 Apr 2004 10:38:57 PM |
|
|
"Louis Friend" <louis_friend@email.com> wrote
CNN "Headline News" just ran a story on teaching
the alternatives to evolution. Figuring prominently
in this story was "Intelligent Design," which it
described as a "Theory."
What theory?
Not that I'm defending what they did,
which likely was to allow for the implication
that it was similar to a scientific theory...
but did they call it a scientific theory?
Given the context -- that is was an alternative and/or
competing "theory" to evolution -- yes.
And, no, they did not voice a single argument against
intelligent design, except that is was creationism by
another name.
What they avoided mention of was the fact that there
is no theory of A.I.
Seems they used the word theory in the common sense,
No. They were using it along side "The theory of evolution."
CNN: A name you once thought you could trust, but
now it's just Fox "news" light.
Trust? CNN like all major news networks in the
U.S. has virtually eliminated their investigative
reporting...
Virtually?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
