| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Goebbels & Hitler on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption" |
02 Jul 2005 10:15:29 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 16:23:33 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Goebbels, Joseph. 1948. _The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943_, edited,
translated, and with an introduction by Louis P. Lochner (NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 566pp. Brackets and elisions aren't mine;
on 374-5, from the entry for 12 May 1943:
[snip]
It was a great mistake that we failed to win science over to support the new
state. That men such as Planck are reserved, to put it mildly, in
their attitude toward us, is the fault of Rust and is irremediable.
[snip]
Thanks for the quote. Interesting. Unfortunately, since I discovered
recently that you or your source radically re-wrote a passage from one
of Dr. Deborah Lipstadt's books to change it's meaning, to support
your purpose, none of your quotes can be trusted for veracity. I'll
have to check this one myself before I use it to demonstrate the
hostility of the German scientific community to the Nazis.
Thanks anyway.
"you [df] or your source radically re-wrote a passage from one of Dr.
Deborah Lipstadt's books to change it's meaning, to support your [df's]
purpose"
Illustrative URL? Is it this?:
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Goebbels & Hitler on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption" |
04 Jul 2005 02:37:04 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2005 20:15:29 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 16:23:33 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Goebbels, Joseph. 1948. _The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943_, edited,
translated, and with an introduction by Louis P. Lochner (NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 566pp. Brackets and elisions aren't mine;
on 374-5, from the entry for 12 May 1943:
[snip]
It was a great mistake that we failed to win science over to support the new
state. That men such as Planck are reserved, to put it mildly, in
their attitude toward us, is the fault of Rust and is irremediable.
[snip]
Thanks for the quote. Interesting. Unfortunately, since I discovered
recently that you or your source radically re-wrote a passage from one
of Dr. Deborah Lipstadt's books to change it's meaning, to support
your purpose, none of your quotes can be trusted for veracity. I'll
have to check this one myself before I use it to demonstrate the
hostility of the German scientific community to the Nazis.
Thanks anyway.
"you [df] or your source radically re-wrote a passage from one of Dr.
Deborah Lipstadt's books to change it's meaning, to support your [df's]
purpose"
Illustrative URL? Is it this?:
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
Yes, specifically what you write here:
"Lipstadt, Deborah E. 1986. _Beyond Belief: The American Press and the
Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945_ (New York: The Free Press), 370pp.,
37 (during a 1933 Nazi parade, a reporter points to the Nazi
leadership and identifies Roehm as a former lover of Hitler, and
identifies another person there as the current lover of Hitler).
[?: did American reporters on assignment in Berlin fail to report on
Hitler's homosexuality in part because to do so would remove them from
the good graces of their colleagues?] "
I've already pointed this out. In the actual passage in Lipstadt's
book the reporter does not identify Roehm or anyone else as a current
or former lover of Hitler, or in any way say or imply that Hitler was
homosexual. In fact, the full passage implies that the reporter
believed Hitler was heterosexual.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: David Ford on "chaging the subject when it feels convenient" |
01 Jul 2005 06:48:43 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
(quote-mining snipped)
Changing the subject again, David? How convenient.
The results of the Schiavo autopsy must bother you
quite a bit these days.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
03 Jul 2005 11:16:31 PM |
|
|
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
One might well ask why are there any Jews in the world order?
That would be exactly like asking why are there potato bugs?
Nature is dominated by the law of struggle. There will always
be parasites who will spur this struggle on and intensify the
process of selection between the strong and the weak. The
principle of struggle dominates also in human life. One must
merely know the laws of this struggle to be able to face it. ....
In nature life always takes measures against parasites; in the
life
of nations that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish
peril actually stems. There is therefore no other recourse left
for modern nations except to exterminate the Jew....
....we are forever members of the Aryan race. .... Aboriginal
man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie....
The nations that have been the first to see through the Jew and
have been the first to fight him are going to take his place in
the
domination of the world.
Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5c52c58f8f123208?
Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
1942 Heydrich:
The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the
hardiest among them, must be given an appropriate
treatment, because they represent a natural selection....
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
Hitler and Rolle parallel
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/5fa25b3efc264596?
Hitler and Haeckel parallel
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/a70c547d1f53588b?
Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fuller Text
Goebbels, Joseph. 1948. _The Goebbels Diaries: 1942-1943_, edited,
translated, and with an introduction by Louis P. Lochner (NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc.), 566pp. Brackets and elisions aren't mine;
on 376-7, from the entry for 13 May 1943:
I have devoted exhaustive study to the _Protocols of Zion_. In the
past the objection was always made that they were not suited to
present-day propaganda. In reading them now I find that we can use
them very well. The _Protocols of Zion_ are as modern today as they
were when published for the first time....
[_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ were a scurrilous
publication of alleged Jewish aims for world conquest
and of the existence of an occult Jewish Government
which formed the basis of a celebrated libel suit at Berne,
Switzerland, in 1935. Experts from a number of
countries, including Germany, were summoned to testify.
One claim was that the _Protocols_ had been fabricated
by the Russian Czarist police. The ruling of the court on
May 14, 1935, was that the _Protocols of Zion_ were
forged and faked.]
At noon I mentioned this to the Fuehrer. He believed the _Protocols_
were absolutely genuine.... The Jewish question, in the Fuehrer's
opinion, will play a decisive role in England.... In all the world, he
said, the Jews are alike. Whether they live in a ghetto of the East or
in the bankers' palaces of the City or Wall Street, they will always
pursue the same aims and without previous agreement even use the same
means. One might well ask why are there any Jews in the world order?
That would be exactly like asking why are there potato bugs? Nature is
dominated by the law of struggle. There will always be parasites who
will spur this struggle on and intensify the process of selection
between the strong and the weak. The principle of struggle dominates
also
in human life. One must merely know the laws of this struggle to be
able to face it. The intellectual does not have the natural means of
resisting the Jewish peril because his instincts have been badly
blunted. Because of this fact the nations with a high standard of
civilization are exposed to this peril first and foremost. In nature
life always takes measures against parasites; in the life of nations
that is not always the case. From this fact the Jewish peril actually
stems. There is therefore no other recourse left for modern nations
except to exterminate the Jew....
There is no hope of leading the Jews back into the fold of civilized
humanity by exceptional punishments. They will forever remain Jews,
just as we are forever members of the Aryan race.
The Jew was also the first to introduce the lie into politics as a
weapon. Aboriginal man, the Fuehrer believes, did not know the lie....
The higher the human being developed intellectually, the more he
acquired the ability of hiding his innermost thoughts and giving
expression to something different from what he really felt. The Jew as
an absolutely intellectual creature was
the first to learn this art. He can therefore be regarded not only as
the carrier but even the inventor of the lie among human beings.
Because of their thoroughly materialistic attitude, the English act
very much like the Jews. In fact, they are the Aryans who have
acquired most of the Jewish characteristics.... The nations that have
been the first to see through the Jew and have been the first to fight
him are going to take his place in the domination of the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
03 Jul 2005 11:35:19 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
04 Jul 2005 12:06:24 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
04 Jul 2005 12:40:29 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120453584.757062.126140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text
below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
As usual, Ford won't answer any questions about the relevance of his quote
mining.
What can he say? That he's trying to prove evolution wrong because he's
found
some quotes from Nazis that are a grotesque parody of evolution? He's not
going
to say that because he knows the blasting he'll receive.
What can he say? That he's trying to associate Nazism with evolution in the
hope
that some taint of association will rub off? He's not going to do that
either.
What can he say? That any tactic, no matter how dishonest, is allowed in
his
pathetic fascination with evolution? Nope.
As usual, there is no "point," no rational argument, and no justification.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
05 Jul 2005 12:45:21 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120453584.757062.126140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text
below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
As usual, Ford won't answer any questions about the relevance of his quote
mining.
What can he say? That he's trying to prove evolution wrong because he's
found
some quotes from Nazis that are a grotesque parody of evolution? He's not
going
to say that because he knows the blasting he'll receive.
What can he say? That he's trying to associate Nazism with evolution in the
hope
that some taint of association will rub off? He's not going to do that
either.
What can he say? That any tactic, no matter how dishonest, is allowed in
his
pathetic fascination with evolution? Nope.
As usual, there is no "point," no rational argument, and no justification.
"his [df's] pathetic fascination with evolution"
Meaning of "evolution"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Right back at you, David Ford (was Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak") |
05 Jul 2005 09:49:20 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2005 10:45:21 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120453584.757062.126140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text
below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
As usual, Ford won't answer any questions about the relevance of his quote
mining.
What can he say? That he's trying to prove evolution wrong because he's
found
some quotes from Nazis that are a grotesque parody of evolution? He's not
going
to say that because he knows the blasting he'll receive.
What can he say? That he's trying to associate Nazism with evolution in the
hope
that some taint of association will rub off? He's not going to do that
either.
What can he say? That any tactic, no matter how dishonest, is allowed in
his
pathetic fascination with evolution? Nope.
As usual, there is no "point," no rational argument, and no justification.
"his [df's] pathetic fascination with evolution"
Meaning of "evolution"?
Why don't you tell us, David? What is the scientific definition of
evolution?
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
06 Jul 2005 11:48:45 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2005 10:45:21 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Deadrat wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120453584.757062.126140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text
below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
As usual, Ford won't answer any questions about the relevance of his quote
mining.
What can he say? That he's trying to prove evolution wrong because he's
found
some quotes from Nazis that are a grotesque parody of evolution? He's not
going
to say that because he knows the blasting he'll receive.
What can he say? That he's trying to associate Nazism with evolution in the
hope
that some taint of association will rub off? He's not going to do that
either.
What can he say? That any tactic, no matter how dishonest, is allowed in
his
pathetic fascination with evolution? Nope.
As usual, there is no "point," no rational argument, and no justification.
"his [df's] pathetic fascination with evolution"
Meaning of "evolution"?
evolution, of course, preceded darwin by millenia. ford doesn't know
his history.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
04 Jul 2005 12:41:52 AM |
|
|
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
05 Jul 2005 12:47:20 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
05 Jul 2005 09:50:13 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons, but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
06 Jul 2005 06:15:58 AM |
|
|
"On 6 Jul 2005 02:50:13 GMT, in article
<slrndcmhop.6eq.mightymartianca@the.spanish.inquisition>, AC stated..."
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons, but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
I just want to point out, one more time, that the fallacious appeal
to consequences are consequences of genetics or -- at most --
"micro"evolution. That is, consequences of sciences which the
anti-evolutionists fully accept. Indeed, they insist on pointing out
to us that they accept "evolution within kinds".
None of this, even if it were true, and even if it were not a
fallacy, applies to "macro"evolution.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
...The Earth obey'd, and strait/Op'ning her fertil Woomb teem'd at a Birth/
Innumerous living Creatures, perfet formes,/Limb'd and full grown: out of the
ground up rose/As from his Laire the wilde Beast...
Milton, Paradise Lost. Book VII 453-457
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 01:26:55 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On 6 Jul 2005 02:50:13 GMT, in article
<slrndcmhop.6eq.mightymartianca@the.spanish.inquisition>, AC stated..."
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons, but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
I just want to point out, one more time, that the fallacious appeal
to consequences are consequences of genetics or -- at most --
"micro"evolution. That is, consequences of sciences which the
anti-evolutionists fully accept. Indeed, they insist on pointing out
to us that they accept "evolution within kinds".
None of this, even if it were true, and even if it were not a
fallacy, applies to "macro"evolution.
"the fallacious appeal to consequences" 4 examples of these
"consequences"?
Meanings of:
'"macro"evolution'?
'"micro"evolution'?
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 01:30:13 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons,
Who is "us"? (I might have to disagree with you.)
but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
Berlinski, David. _Commentary_ (Sept 1996), 26:
DANIEL C. DENNETT is under the curious impression that the best
rejoinder to criticism is a robust display of personal vulgarity.
Nothing in his letter merits a response.
Still, one general point deserves attention. Both Daniel Dennett
and Richard Dawkins have fashioned their reputations as defenders
of a Darwinian orthodoxy. Their letters convey the impression of
men who expect never to encounter criticism and are unprepared to
deal with it. This strikes me as a deeply unhealthy state of
affairs. Ordinary men and women are suspicious of Darwin's theory;
Dennett and Dawkins hardly go far here in persuading them that
their intellectual anxieties are in any way misplaced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 03:45:37 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jul 2005 11:30:13 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons,
Who is "us"? (I might have to disagree with you.)
but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
Berlinski, David. _Commentary_ (Sept 1996), 26:
DANIEL C. DENNETT is under the curious impression that the best
rejoinder to criticism is a robust display of personal vulgarity.
Nothing in his letter merits a response.
Still, one general point deserves attention. Both Daniel Dennett
and Richard Dawkins have fashioned their reputations as defenders
of a Darwinian orthodoxy. Their letters convey the impression of
men who expect never to encounter criticism and are unprepared to
deal with it. This strikes me as a deeply unhealthy state of
affairs. Ordinary men and women are suspicious of Darwin's theory;
Dennett and Dawkins hardly go far here in persuading them that
their intellectual anxieties are in any way misplaced.
Sorry, David, don't play your games.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 09:34:31 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 11:30:13 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons,
Who is "us"? (I might have to disagree with you.)
but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
Berlinski, David. _Commentary_ (Sept 1996), 26:
DANIEL C. DENNETT is under the curious impression that the best
rejoinder to criticism is a robust display of personal vulgarity.
Nothing in his letter merits a response.
Still, one general point deserves attention. Both Daniel Dennett
and Richard Dawkins have fashioned their reputations as defenders
of a Darwinian orthodoxy. Their letters convey the impression of
men who expect never to encounter criticism and are unprepared to
deal with it. This strikes me as a deeply unhealthy state of
affairs. Ordinary men and women are suspicious of Darwin's theory;
Dennett and Dawkins hardly go far here in persuading them that
their intellectual anxieties are in any way misplaced.
Sorry, David, don't play your games.
"frightened side in you [df]"
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. "How to Sink a Battleship" in _Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design_ (Illinois:
InterVarsity Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe's book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 10:16:40 PM |
|
|
On 7 Jul 2005 19:34:31 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. "How to Sink a Battleship" in _Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design_ (Illinois:
InterVarsity Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe's book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him....
Those of us who've met behe, and have graduated from lehigh
university's chemistry dept. have a less sanguine view of the august
professor behe.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 11:44:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:16:40 GMT,
Bob <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 19:34:31 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. "How to Sink a Battleship" in _Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design_ (Illinois:
InterVarsity Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe's book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him....
Those of us who've met behe, and have graduated from lehigh
university's chemistry dept. have a less sanguine view of the august
professor behe.
Beyond which, I can't imagine why anybody but liars like DAvid Ford would
care what Johnson thinks anyways.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong andthe weak" |
08 Jul 2005 05:16:40 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 11:30:13 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 10:47:20 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Of course there's a point, DAvid. You are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences. It's an ugly game, but it seems to be the only one
left to you.
"You [df] are intentionally making a fallacious
appeal to consequences."
"consequences" of what?
Neither of us are morons,
Who is "us"? (I might have to disagree with you.)
well I make sense you don't. and I think you make a fallacious appeal
to consequences trying to paste together Darwinism, which is a
sceientifice therory, and Nazism, which is a political therory. and we
all know political theory can abuse all kinds of science and make
falacious conclusions based on improper application of science.We can
build bigger and better bombs and explain it as justified because ......
This is what you are doing. misaplying history and science. Neither of
which do you seem to have any understanding. Lying by misdirection and
omission is still lying.
josephus
but if you wish to act like one, be my guest. I
refuse to play your games, but amuse myself in drawing out that dishonest,
frightened side in you.
Berlinski, David. _Commentary_ (Sept 1996), 26:
DANIEL C. DENNETT is under the curious impression that the best
rejoinder to criticism is a robust display of personal vulgarity.
Nothing in his letter merits a response.
Still, one general point deserves attention. Both Daniel Dennett
and Richard Dawkins have fashioned their reputations as defenders
of a Darwinian orthodoxy. Their letters convey the impression of
men who expect never to encounter criticism and are unprepared to
deal with it. This strikes me as a deeply unhealthy state of
affairs. Ordinary men and women are suspicious of Darwin's theory;
Dennett and Dawkins hardly go far here in persuading them that
their intellectual anxieties are in any way misplaced.
Sorry, David, don't play your games.
"frightened side in you [df]"
Johnson, Phillip E. 1998. "How to Sink a Battleship" in _Mere
Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design_ (Illinois:
InterVarsity Press), William A. Dembski ed., 475pp., 446-53. On 453:
Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on
public television about his reaction to Michael Behe's book. You
can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster and how much
he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with
him....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the weak" |
07 Jul 2005 08:24:41 AM |
|
|
On 3 Jul 2005 22:06:24 -0700, in talk.origins , "david ford"
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> in
<dford3-1120453584.757062.126140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120450591.444214.186670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
highlights of Goebbels diary entry for 13 May 1943 (fuller text below):
What's your point?
As usual, there is no "point."
1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b74948086f4a6984?
Prior to Darwin no one ever selected anything. Prior to Darwin no one
ever had a notion of strong and weak.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
| | | | |
