| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2004 07:58:21 PM |
| Object: |
Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
.
|
|
| User: "tim gueguen" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
20 Sep 2004 08:48:52 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com...
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So what?
tim gueguen 101867
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McKendry" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
20 Sep 2004 11:52:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:48:52 +0000, tim gueguen wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com...
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So what?
tim gueguen 101867
David's mind tends to race ahead in great leaps of logic, but here's
my plodder's guess at his implication:
Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_.
Humanists are atheists.
Therefore Dan Rather is an atheist. (C1)
Dan Rather said something that wasn't true.
C1.
Therefore, the things that atheists say aren't true. (C2)
Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
Richard Dawkins is a biol^K^K^K^Kevolutionist.
(Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other,)
Therefore evolutionists are atheists. (C3)
C2.
Therefore the things that evolutionists say aren't true. (C4)
Evolutionists say that evolution is true.
C4.
Therefore evolution is false.
David challenges you to find a flaw in this reasoning.
(Unless you find one, in which case that's not what he meant
at all.)
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Von Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
22 Sep 2004 02:30:18 PM |
|
|
John McKendry <jmckendry@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<7vO3d.79285$MQ5.48145@attbi_s52>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:48:52 +0000, tim gueguen wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com...
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So what?
tim gueguen 101867
David's mind tends to race ahead in great leaps of logic, but here's
my plodder's guess at his implication:
Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_.
Humanists are atheists.
Therefore Dan Rather is an atheist. (C1)
Dan Rather said something that wasn't true.
C1.
Therefore, the things that atheists say aren't true. (C2)
Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
Richard Dawkins is a biol^K^K^K^Kevolutionist.
(Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other,)
Therefore evolutionists are atheists. (C3)
C2.
Therefore the things that evolutionists say aren't true. (C4)
Evolutionists say that evolution is true.
C4.
Therefore evolution is false.
David challenges you to find a flaw in this reasoning.
(Unless you find one, in which case that's not what he meant
at all.)
Ooooh! Fun! Let me try one:
Charlton Heston was in "People" magazine.
Charlton Heston was in "Soy-lent Green".
"Soy-lent Green" is "People".
See, it works.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
25 Sep 2004 11:55:15 PM |
|
|
Von Smith wrote:
John McKendry <jmckendry@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<7vO3d.79285$MQ5.48145@attbi_s52>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:48:52 +0000, tim gueguen wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com...
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So what?
tim gueguen 101867
David's mind tends to race ahead in great leaps of logic, but here's
my plodder's guess at his implication:
Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_.
Humanists are atheists.
Therefore Dan Rather is an atheist. (C1)
Dan Rather said something that wasn't true.
C1.
Therefore, the things that atheists say aren't true. (C2)
Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
Richard Dawkins is a biol^K^K^K^Kevolutionist.
(Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other,)
Therefore evolutionists are atheists. (C3)
C2.
Therefore the things that evolutionists say aren't true. (C4)
Evolutionists say that evolution is true.
C4.
Therefore evolution is false.
David challenges you to find a flaw in this reasoning.
(Unless you find one, in which case that's not what he meant
at all.)
Ooooh! Fun! Let me try one:
Charlton Heston was in "People" magazine.
Charlton Heston was in "Soy-lent Green".
"Soy-lent Green" is "People".
See, it works.
.......you mean like:
Arthur Burgenstain was pulled from his burning car yesterday
but his wife and two children all perished.
He was saved by god, therefore there is a god
.......Is that the kind of thing?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
30 Sep 2004 12:57:05 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
Von Smith wrote:
John McKendry <jmckendry@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<7vO3d.79285$MQ5.48145@attbi_s52>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:48:52 +0000, tim gueguen wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com...
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So what?
tim gueguen 101867
David's mind tends to race ahead in great leaps of logic, but here's
my plodder's guess at his implication:
Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_.
Humanists are atheists.
Therefore Dan Rather is an atheist. (C1)
Dan Rather said something that wasn't true.
C1.
Therefore, the things that atheists say aren't true. (C2)
Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
Richard Dawkins is a biol^K^K^K^Kevolutionist.
(Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other,)
Therefore evolutionists are atheists. (C3)
C2.
Therefore the things that evolutionists say aren't true. (C4)
Evolutionists say that evolution is true.
C4.
Therefore evolution is false.
David challenges you to find a flaw in this reasoning.
(Unless you find one, in which case that's not what he meant
at all.)
Ooooh! Fun! Let me try one:
Charlton Heston was in "People" magazine.
Charlton Heston was in "Soy-lent Green".
"Soy-lent Green" is "People".
See, it works.
......you mean like:
Arthur Burgenstain was pulled from his burning car yesterday
but his wife and two children all perished.
He was saved by god, therefore there is a god
......Is that the kind of thing?
Not quite the same. Your example works like thus:
Arthur Burgenstain was pulled from his burning car yesterday (everyone knows
that god is mercifull and it was mercy that allowed him to be saved so that
proves that god exists) but his wife and two children all perished (and
everyone knows that god works in mysterious ways and saving Arthur but
killing^H^H^H^H^H^Hallowing his wife and children to die is very mysterious
so that shows god exists.)
See how simple it all is when you get into "fundy mode(tm)"?
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
21 Sep 2004 01:47:33 PM |
|
|
(david ford) writes:
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
And Zell Miller wrote for _Chalcedon_, an organization dedicated
to the overthrow of our constitutional governement. What's your point?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
20 Sep 2004 11:26:54 PM |
|
|
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
And many members of the administration wrote for the anti-American
neo-Confederate white-supremacist rag Southern Partisan. The difference is that
the white and Christian supremacists have positions of political power whereas
Rather is just a powerless newsreader.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
21 Sep 2004 01:35:56 AM |
|
|
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0409201700.7433166b@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
So?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
20 Sep 2004 09:20:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
What did Rather write for _The Humanist_?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
21 Sep 2004 04:10:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
21 Sep 2004 06:50:31 PM |
|
|
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Sienkiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
23 Sep 2004 05:32:32 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-H934d.10$8H.7756@news.uswest.net>...
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
But what do we call a person who lies about most things, "major?"
YOU, for instance?
Your whole participation in talk.origins is based on a lie, sheldon.
It is comical as all get-out, though. I take a couple of days off,
and sure enough, you pop back in.
I think it's funny. Don't YOU think it's funny?
So, sheldon, what about this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0409141538.38e36c50%40posting.google.com
And this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=35fa3772.0409141536.5d80bcf3%40posting.google.com
I'm particularly interested in those "worse situations" you claimed to
be in, sheldon, when compared to average New Yorkers having to deal
with 9/11.
And in another message, we had this:
< repost >
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-WM7_c.51$Bz6.93519@news.uswest.net>...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:gvpfj0d31o1v4h3qia9tpcv1kgrij3k49a@4ax.com...
< snip >
Does that make the context a bit clearer?
What context?
I guess not.
Being so busy trying to tear each thing I say down does not excuse you
from the obligation of supporting your contentions or suggestive
interpretation of alleged events, Silberstein.
Sooooo...Matt has an "obligation" to provide an explanation and
support his statements, eh, sheldon?
Interesting.
You, of course, are under no such obligation, right?
I mean, that would certainly appear to be the case, as you have so
often explicitely stated that you are under no such obligation.
Sooooo...why isn't this hypocrisy, sheldon?
We'll forget for the moment that Matt HAS explained himself quite
adequately.
< snip >
I've been in worse situations, jerk off.
Like what? I walked through the ash of buildings and people. I
breathed in the smoke of burning buildings and people and smelled that
smoke for weeks (it seems likes weeks, I really don't remember how
long it was). If you want to make claims on your personal experience
tell us about them.
Sorry, Silberstein, you don't decide what I need to do.
sheldon, if you are going to make these kinds of claims, you need to
back them up.
Now the fact of the matter is that you lied. You've never been
through anything l[i]ke what the folks in NYC went through - certainly
in no wise have you been through it the same way.
What happened in New York on 9/11 - and in DC to a lesser degree - was
unique in American history, sheldon.
And you were not in NYC at the time.
You've never been through anything like it, and you certainly didn't
experience anything "worse."
< done >
I was particularly amused by the brazen hypocrisy you shows us there,
sheldon.
Oh, and did you write to Randi yet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
22 Sep 2004 12:24:50 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-H934d.10$8H.7756@news.uswest.net>...
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Well that settles it. Evolution is false. Time to close the lab down,
give back my NIH grants and open a feed store.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
22 Sep 2004 12:58:01 PM |
|
|
Andy Groves wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-H934d.10$8H.7756@news.uswest.net>...
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Well that settles it. Evolution is false. Time to close the lab down,
give back my NIH grants and open a feed store.
Too late! There are only GM grains left.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 10:51:57 AM |
|
|
Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:<h4ednTlJNJhTIMzcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>...
Andy Groves wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-H934d.10$8H.7756@news.uswest.net>...
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Well that settles it. Evolution is false. Time to close the lab down,
give back my NIH grants and open a feed store.
Too late! There are only GM grains left.
But there are no such things as genetically modified grains, because
genes don't exist. You've never actualy seen a gene walking around,
have you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 11:13:30 AM |
|
|
"The White House correspondent I wanted to emulate was Dan Rather, crisp
and tough. I wanted to stand up to bullying and ferret out dishonesty."
--Lesley Stahl in her 1999 book, Reporting Live.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When it gets down to the choice of action or reflection, I'll probably
take the action. I am from a school, professionally, that says, 'Damn it,
grab a pencil and get out of the office'...journalism is not a haven for
philosophers, intellectuals, academics." --Dan Rather in Playboy, January
1985.
[Photograph: Dan Rather clinging to a telephone pole in the middle of a
hurricane, shouting to the camera.]
"I have had a lifetime fascination with hurricanes. And whenever the wind
blows -- particularly when the wind blows strong -- I want to go."
--Dan Rather on Larry King Live, January 10, 2001.
"And I say to you: want to be where the big story is. And you bet, Larry,
I would be shot from a cannon or swim the Atlantic, if I was capable of
doing it, of getting to that kind of story."
--Dan Rather on Larry King Live, January 10, 2001.
"Where are the publishers, editors, and reporters of grit, gumption, and
guts? Where are the ones who will follow their conscience or even their
'nose for news' instead of the public opinion polls?"
--Dan Rather in The Humanist, November/December 1990.
"Do powder puff, not probing interviews. Stay away from controversial
subjects. Kiss *****, move with the mass, and for heaven and ratings' sake,
don't make anybody mad -- certainly not anybody you're covering, and
especially not the Mayor, the Governor, the Senator, the Vice President,
or the President, or anybody in a position of power. Make nice, not news."
--Dan Rather complaining to the Radio and Television News Directors
Association, September 1993.
A writer asked Rather, "What is the quality you like most in a man?":
"Courage." --Dan Rather in Vanity Fair, September 1996.
[Photograph: A 1986 photograph of Dan Rather in a rural setting wearing
outdoor clothing.]"With news, my motto is, 'Wherever it breaks, whatever
it takes.'"
--Dan Rather, as reported in a June 16, 1997 Knight-Ridder story.
"[I]f you ever see a reporter and his heels are not worn down, you know he
is spending too much time in the office with his feet propped up on the
desk." --Dan Rather in The Camera Never Blinks, 1977.
"I dream of being a great reporter. I haven't achieved it yet."
--Dan Rather on Larry King Live, celebrating fifteen years as anchor of
the CBS Evening News, March 1996.
"...the integrity that Murrow had, the bravery, the courage he had to take
on the tough ones, the McCarthy era being one. "
--Dan Rather to Brian Lamb on C-SPAN's Booknotes, January 25, 1999.
At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Dan Rather was
knocked to the ground by a security guard. CBS anchor Walter Chronkite
asked him if he needed medical attention:
"Don't worry about it, Walter, I'll answer the bell."
"CBS Evening News is, well, it's the rock, it's hard news. NBC is
something else, it's a blend of softer stuff..."
--Dan Rather in an interview for Brill's Content, October 1998.
"When I am gone, the best someone could say about me to my children would
be: 'He did not buckle. Not before President Johnson, not before President
Nixon. He stood his ground.'"
--Dan Rather, quoted in Washington Post Magazine, March 15, 1981.
"The greatest shortage on every beat, in every newsroom in America, is
courage."
--Dan Rather speaking at the forty-eighth annual conference of the
Radio-Television News Directors Association, September 29, 1993.
Source:
http://www.ratherbiased.com/courage.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Sienkiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
23 Sep 2004 07:11:11 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-H934d.10$8H.7756@news.uswest.net>...
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
What's YOUR point, "major?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "386sx" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
26 Sep 2004 05:11:45 PM |
|
|
Glenn writes:
Bob Casanova wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Well, if he is guilty of some bias, one can hardly blame him. After all,
we're talking about George Bush here. George Bush: either you love him, or
you hate him, or you like him a lot, or you dislike him a little bit, or you
love him a little tiny bit, or you dislike him somewhat and yet like him
more than you dislike him, or you don't like him very much, or anywhere in
between.
--
http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images/saintclinton.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
26 Sep 2004 05:47:15 PM |
|
|
In article <m2zn3cbrtaXx386xX.fsf@kc.jms.earth>,
386sx <mail.386sx@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn writes:
Bob Casanova wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Well, if he is guilty of some bias, one can hardly blame him. After all,
we're talking about George Bush here. George Bush: either you love him, or
you hate him, or you like him a lot, or you dislike him a little bit, or you
love him a little tiny bit, or you dislike him somewhat and yet like him
more than you dislike him, or you don't like him very much, or anywhere in
between.
That's a pretty "aggressive-passive" way of putting it! :)
Kind of like saying, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm only going to take it a little while longer!"
- Felix
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
22 Sep 2004 04:22:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "dave e" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 08:44:16 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
snip
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
My ex-girlfriend (who was actually rather skinny) frequently asked me
that question. I once answered, "Its OK. I like fat girls."
Ooooh. Wrong thing to say.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
25 Sep 2004 03:13:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:44:16 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by
(dave e):
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
snip
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
My ex-girlfriend (who was actually rather skinny) frequently asked me
that question. I once answered, "Its OK. I like fat girls."
Ooooh. Wrong thing to say.
Yep (and was this perhaps the dividing point between
"girlfriend" and "ex-girlfriend"?). You're still breathing,
though, so you can probably consider yourself fortunate.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 02:26:18 AM |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
RF
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan S" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 01:09:55 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
(Richard Forrest):
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
The smart woman never asks that question; it puts her mate in an
impossible position.
Susan Silberstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 01:37:42 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Susan S <otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(Richard Forrest):
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
The smart woman never asks that question; it puts her mate in an
impossible position.
Implying, of course, that a smart woman never wants to do
that. I'm not sure I buy that premise.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 04:26:15 PM |
|
|
Susan S wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(Richard Forrest):
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
The smart woman never asks that question; it puts her mate in an
impossible position.
Either you are by and large incorrect about this or I must be
extraordinarily fortunate. My wife actually relies on my being honest
about this when we go shopping, and bases her decision partly on my
response.
GlennGlenn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
24 Sep 2004 02:34:31 PM |
|
|
news:qoo8l09pqcm9ig0ci0mfhfsl5mb55saic8@4ax.com by Susan S
<otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com>:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(Richard Forrest):
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
The smart woman never asks that question; it puts her mate in an
impossible position.
My only hope is to answer "Yes" randomly about 5% of the time. I catch
hell that 5% but my spouse knows I am sincere the rest of the time. I am
hoping to notch it down to 2%.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
30 Sep 2004 11:58:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:26:18 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
I tried "That looks lovely." Then I get "Which shoes are better?". If
I say "the one on the left" I get "Because it looks more feminine?" At
which point I usually scream, a scream that tapers off into whimpers.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
30 Sep 2004 03:11:47 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:26:18 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<17r3l01vb3qvfebik1hagsps51l00pvplr@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
I tried "That looks lovely." Then I get "Which shoes are better?". If
I say "the one on the left" I get "Because it looks more feminine?" At
which point I usually scream, a scream that tapers off into whimpers.
This question is the ultimate proof that there is something
fundamentally different about the male and female brain. My present gf
insists it is possible to answer that question without causing emotional
upset but in every instance where she asked that question every
available answer has resulted in hurt feelings for her. It is my present
hypothesis that the best response to this question is entry into a
witness relocation program. ;)
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Dan Rather wrote for _The Humanist_ |
30 Sep 2004 06:38:03 PM |
|
|
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:26:18 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:31 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net>:
"Bob Casanova" <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:j961l05s0rp09v4g0thqf2kahgfpr3r5ss@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:58:21 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by (david
ford):
"Among the social commentators who wrote for _The Humanist_ were Dan
Rather, Noam Chomsky, Faye Wattleton, Barbara Trent, Justice Harry
Blackmun, and Howard Zinn."
From
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morain/chapter-9.html
Imagine that. Your point?
Perhaps... "But I think you can be an honest person and lie about any
number of things." -
http://208.56.145.244/compare.htm
Perhaps, but I can't really disagree with the statement,
even though I consider Dan Rather to be a poor excuse for a
human being *or* a newsman. Try answering the question
"Honey, does this make me look fat?" honestly, and let me
know how you make out.
I've tried the "You look beautiful not matter what you're wearing"
counter to this ploy, but had no counter to the response - the loud
sniff. Checkmate.
I tried "That looks lovely." Then I get "Which shoes are better?". If
I say "the one on the left" I get "Because it looks more feminine?" At
which point I usually scream, a scream that tapers off into whimpers.
This question is the ultimate proof that there is something
fundamentally different about the male and female brain. My present gf
insists it is possible to answer that question without causing emotional
upset but in every instance where she asked that question every
available answer has resulted in hurt feelings for her. It is my present
hypothesis that the best response to this question is entry into a
witness relocation program. ;)
Ken
You poor fools. Has nobody told you The Secret?
Pick the very worst one in every case. Choose the dress that the worst
outcast would reject as being too bad taste. After only two instances,
she will stop asking you. Moreover, you avoid follow-on questions.
As an added bonus, you then get to wear what you like, because she has
you down as "with taste in clothing" and will tolerate almost anything.
The caveat for this Method, though, is that you have to be pretty
wonderful in other respects (like supporting retail therapy when it's
needed) or she'll drop you as "unfit for the decore of the house". It's
been a near-thing a few times...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
