| 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: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 01:31:33 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1118513801.313243.178080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
Gee, herr Goebbels, that last spew sounded like the spew discribing some
conservative christian views.
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
Then what does that have to do with anything *now*?
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 02:35:36 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 11:16:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
Arrogance? In spades. Ignorance? You bet. We're all ignorant in one
way or another. Stupid? Not so much. O'Hair wasn't the sharpest tool
in the shed, but she wasn't really stupid.
And just for the record, David, I don't think you're really stupid
either. But I do think you're dishonest. You've been corrected many
times on your misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, yet you
persist in repeating them. And what would you call a person who
knowingly disseminates false information, David? Would you say 'liar'
would be an appropriate term? I would. That's why I yank your chain
the way I do. Because you are lying about us and about who and what we
are. And you know it.
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
And it did. O'Hair did not speak for all or even most atheists, but
her arrogance and ill nature certainly stigmatized us all. Just as the
deliberate dishonesty, willful ignorance and just plain arrogant
nastiness of *some* Christians reflects on them all.
So think about that before you post any more of your anti-athiest,
anti-evolution propaganda, David. By deliberately lying about atheists
and atheism, you're not doing your cause any favors. Just the
opposite, in fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 03:00:54 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:hfcma1dpar7nfal3335mf9sll5qjo7ftdl@4ax.com...
On 11 Jun 2005 11:16:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we
do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
Arrogance? In spades. Ignorance? You bet. We're all ignorant in one
way or another. Stupid? Not so much. O'Hair wasn't the sharpest tool
in the shed, but she wasn't really stupid.
And just for the record, David, I don't think you're really stupid
either. But I do think you're dishonest. You've been corrected many
times on your misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, yet you
persist in repeating them. And what would you call a person who
knowingly disseminates false information, David? Would you say 'liar'
would be an appropriate term? I would.
Or "propagandist".
That's why I yank your chain
the way I do. Because you are lying about us and about who and what we
are. And you know it.
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
And it did. O'Hair did not speak for all or even most atheists, but
her arrogance and ill nature certainly stigmatized us all. Just as the
deliberate dishonesty, willful ignorance and just plain arrogant
nastiness of *some* Christians reflects on them all.
So think about that before you post any more of your anti-athiest,
anti-evolution propaganda, David. By deliberately lying about atheists
and atheism, you're not doing your cause any favors. Just the
opposite, in fact.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
13 Jun 2005 02:05:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:00:54 -0500, "Boikat"
<boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:hfcma1dpar7nfal3335mf9sll5qjo7ftdl@4ax.com...
On 11 Jun 2005 11:16:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we
do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
Arrogance? In spades. Ignorance? You bet. We're all ignorant in one
way or another. Stupid? Not so much. O'Hair wasn't the sharpest tool
in the shed, but she wasn't really stupid.
And just for the record, David, I don't think you're really stupid
either. But I do think you're dishonest. You've been corrected many
times on your misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, yet you
persist in repeating them. And what would you call a person who
knowingly disseminates false information, David? Would you say 'liar'
would be an appropriate term? I would.
Or "propagandist".
But that would require that someone actually believe him, wouldn't it?
<G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 08:20:56 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 11:16:41 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
Arrogance? In spades. Ignorance? You bet. We're all ignorant in one
way or another. Stupid? Not so much. O'Hair wasn't the sharpest tool
in the shed, but she wasn't really stupid.
And just for the record, David, I don't think you're really stupid
either.
Just mildly.
But I do think you're dishonest. You've been corrected many
times on your misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism, yet you
persist in repeating them.
Two illustrations of these "misconceptions regarding atheists and
atheism" that I supposedly "persist in repeating"?
And what would you call a person who
knowingly disseminates false information, David? Would you say 'liar'
would be an appropriate term? I would.
Do you think Gould has "knowingly disseminate[d] false information"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This post looks at _Basilosaurus_ and how its purported vestigial leg
turns out to, upon closer examination, not be vestigial.
part of 3rd paragraph from end: "Patellar asymmetry and the narrowly
rounded edge separating patellar surfaces on the femur suggest a
stabilizing mechanism locking the knee in partial extension when the
patella was pulled onto the anterior surface of the femur. This
unusual
knee of _Basilosaurus_ indicates a single alternative to its posture at
rest. A downwardly rotated femur, extended locked knee, abducted hip,
and dorsiflexed ankle are shown in open outline in Fig. 1, C and D."
second to last paragraph: "Hind limbs of _Basilosaurus_ appear to have
been too small relative to body size (Fig. 1A) to have assisted in
swimming, and they could not possibly have supported the body on land.
However, maintenance of some function is likely for several reasons:
most bones are present; some elements are fused, but remaining joints
are well formed with little suggestion of degeneracy; the patella and
calcaneal tuber are large for insertion of powerful muscles; and the
knee has a complex locking mechanism."
break inserted. "The pelvis in generalized mammals supports
reproductive organs in addition to its common use in locomotion. The
pelvis of modern whales serves to anchor reproductive organs (_5_),
even
though functional hind limbs are lacking. Thus hind limbs of
_Basilosaurus_ are most plausibly interpreted as accessories
facilitating reproduction. Abduction of the femur and plantar flexion
of the foot, with the knee locked in extension, probably enabled hind
limbs to be used as guides during copulation, which may otherwise have
been difficult in a serpentine aquatic mammal."
first sentence of last paragraph: "Characteristics related to
reproduction are often dimorphic in mammals, and dimorphism in a larger
sample of limb elements would support the interpretation of hind limb
function proposed here (lack of dimorphism would not necessarily refute
it)."-Philip D. Gingerich, et al, _Science_ 249:156 (1990).
Perhaps "lying for Darwin" is a mite too strong, but Gould is really
being disingenuous when he states, "The authors strive bravely to
invent
some potential function for these minuscule limbs and end up
speculating
that they may have served 'as guides during copulation, which may
otherwise have been difficult in a serpentine aquatic mammal.' (I
regard such guesswork as unnecessary, if not ill-conceived. We need
not
justify the existence of a structure by inventing some putative
Darwinian function....)."[Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,"
_Natural History_ May 1994, 13. Article reprinted in _Dinosaur in a
Haystack_.]
The authors of the _Science_ piece are looking at the item in question,
and asking, as biologists (not evolutionists), whether it had a
function, concluding that it did for several reasons. Gould's desire
to
believe in the blind watchmaker thesis blinds him to the evidence, or
rather, lack thereof. Poor guy, and he had such high hopes, too: "The
embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of new
evidence--and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils an
evolutionist could ever hope to find."[_Natural History_ (5/94), 10.]
I'd like to know how Gould can sleep at night knowing that he's been
less-than-candid for Darwin.
Note also the _Basilosaurus_ illustration Gould provides. In tiny
letters, it contains at the bottom "Adapted from _Science_, vol. 249,
13
July 1990." The major change from the _Science_ piece is leaving out
Gingerich, Smith, and Simon's illustration of the 2 positions of the
purported vestigial limbs. Maybe you can answer these questions: what
terrestrial vertebrate, living or dead, has a "complex locking
mechanism" in its knee? Can there be such a thing as a leg
having only two stable positions?
Only in the world of evolutionary make-believe does a fossil with limbs
that probably had a function constitute evidence for evolution by
supposedly being vestigial. If an evolutionist persists in calling the
appendage in question a vestigial organ in spite of the fact that it
has
a known use, he may as well proceed to call every organ vestigial and
thus evidence for evolution. The precursor to the human heart was,
long
ago, a blood vessel. The human heart is vestigial in terms of coming
from a blood vessel, but is now an organ that pumps blood throughout
the
body. Because the human heart is vestigial, it is evidence for
evolution. Evidence for evolution is everywhere, in every organ, in
every fossil, in every animal. A theory with this much evidence must
be
very strong. This, of course, would be absurd, just as absurd as a
chess game where every move is right.
_Assuming_, as an evolutionist might like to _assume_, that they were
legs to begin with, then yes, they are vestigial legs:
Statement: Evolution is true.
Q: How do you know evolution is true?
A: We have evidence for evolution's truth from this vestigial limb,
showing that the organism evolved from a predecessor having
full-
length legs.
Q: How do you know that it is a vestigial limb?
A: We know that it is a vestigial limb because the thing no
longer functions as a leg.
Q: How do you know that it originally was a leg?
A: We know that it was originally a leg because it evolved from a
predecessor with legs.
Questioner: Stop right there. You're attempting to prove evolution's
truth by saying that this thing evolved. In other words, in
attempting to prove that evolution is true, you make use of the
assumption that evolution has happened. You are assuming the
truth of your conclusion in an attempt to prove your conclusion.
This is illogical and very poor reasoning. Are _all_ your
arguments for the blind watchmaker thesis this rotten?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That's why I yank your chain
the way I do. Because you are lying about us and about who and what we
are. And you know it.
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
And it did. O'Hair did not speak for all or even most atheists, but
her arrogance and ill nature certainly stigmatized us all. Just as the
deliberate dishonesty, willful ignorance and just plain arrogant
nastiness of *some* Christians reflects on them all.
Did Mencken ever engage in "deliberate dishonesty, willful ignorance"
or "arrogant nastiness"?
If 'yes,' do you think his "deliberate dishonesty, willful ignorance
and just plain arrogant nastiness" "is guaranteed to drive people away
from" atheism "in droves"?
Wolfe in _The New Republic_
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
We ought never to forget that the
twentieth century's greatest American skeptic, H.L.
Mencken, was an ugly anti-Semite. Refusing to
believe in God does not by itself make you right-
thinking. .... Hugo Black, a hero to strict
separationists, joined the Ku Klux Klan in his youth
as much for its hostility to Catholics as for its
racism....
So think about that before you post any more of your anti-athiest,
anti-evolution propaganda, David. By deliberately lying about atheists
and atheism, you're not doing your cause any favors. Just the
opposite, in fact.
"you're not doing your cause any favors"
To which of my many causes do you refer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
12 Jun 2005 09:27:44 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2005 18:20:56 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1118539256.771827.87790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip non-Basilosaurus stuff]
Do you think Gould has "knowingly disseminate[d] false information"?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This post looks at _Basilosaurus_ and how its purported vestigial leg
turns out to, upon closer examination, not be vestigial.
part of 3rd paragraph from end: "Patellar asymmetry and the narrowly
rounded edge separating patellar surfaces on the femur suggest a
stabilizing mechanism locking the knee in partial extension when the
patella was pulled onto the anterior surface of the femur. This
unusual
knee of _Basilosaurus_ indicates a single alternative to its posture at
rest. A downwardly rotated femur, extended locked knee, abducted hip,
and dorsiflexed ankle are shown in open outline in Fig. 1, C and D."
second to last paragraph: "Hind limbs of _Basilosaurus_ appear to have
been too small relative to body size (Fig. 1A) to have assisted in
swimming, and they could not possibly have supported the body on land.
However, maintenance of some function is likely for several reasons:
most bones are present; some elements are fused, but remaining joints
are well formed with little suggestion of degeneracy; the patella and
calcaneal tuber are large for insertion of powerful muscles; and the
knee has a complex locking mechanism."
break inserted.
Why? Nothing is missing in the quoted text.
"The pelvis in generalized mammals supports
reproductive organs in addition to its common use in locomotion. The
pelvis of modern whales serves to anchor reproductive organs (_5_),
even
though functional hind limbs are lacking. Thus hind limbs of
_Basilosaurus_ are most plausibly interpreted as accessories
facilitating reproduction. Abduction of the femur and plantar flexion
of the foot, with the knee locked in extension, probably enabled hind
limbs to be used as guides during copulation, which may otherwise have
been difficult in a serpentine aquatic mammal."
first sentence of last paragraph: "Characteristics related to
reproduction are often dimorphic in mammals, and dimorphism in a larger
sample of limb elements would support the interpretation of hind limb
function proposed here (lack of dimorphism would not necessarily refute
it)."-Philip D. Gingerich, et al, _Science_ 249:156 (1990).
Perhaps "lying for Darwin" is a mite too strong, but Gould is really
being disingenuous when he states, "The authors strive bravely to
invent
some potential function for these minuscule limbs and end up
speculating
that they may have served 'as guides during copulation, which may
otherwise have been difficult in a serpentine aquatic mammal.' (I
regard such guesswork as unnecessary, if not ill-conceived. We need
not
justify the existence of a structure by inventing some putative
Darwinian function....)."[Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,"
_Natural History_ May 1994, 13. Article reprinted in _Dinosaur in a
Haystack_.]
What's so disingenuous about it? It's pretty obvious that the hindlimb
of _Basilosaurus_ is homologous with the hindlimbs of other vertebrates.
We can debate that if you like.
The authors of the _Science_ piece are looking at the item in question,
and asking, as biologists (not evolutionists), whether it had a
function, concluding that it did for several reasons. Gould's desire
to
believe in the blind watchmaker thesis blinds him to the evidence, or
rather, lack thereof.
How so? Gould simply stated that it's not necessary to know the function
of something to recognize homology. Do you disagree?
Poor guy, and he had such high hopes, too: "The
embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of new
evidence--and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils an
evolutionist could ever hope to find."[_Natural History_ (5/94), 10.]
I'd like to know how Gould can sleep at night knowing that he's been
less-than-candid for Darwin.
And I'd like to know why you think he's been "less-than-candid".
Note also the _Basilosaurus_ illustration Gould provides. In tiny
letters, it contains at the bottom "Adapted from _Science_, vol. 249,
13
July 1990." The major change from the _Science_ piece is leaving out
Gingerich, Smith, and Simon's illustration of the 2 positions of the
purported vestigial limbs. Maybe you can answer these questions: what
terrestrial vertebrate, living or dead, has a "complex locking
mechanism" in its knee?
Humans. Perhaps you've noticed that when you stand up, you need to exert
little or no energy to keep your legs straight.
Can there be such a thing as a leg
having only two stable positions?
Why not? Legs aren't required to be stable at all times. Do you disagree
with that? Walking is a situation where constant and absolute stability
would be a detriment.
Only in the world of evolutionary make-believe does a fossil with limbs
that probably had a function constitute evidence for evolution by
supposedly being vestigial.
Who claims that they were vestigial? Certainly not Gould, who a few
sentences after your quotation wrote:
The limbs, although complete, are too small to work as true
intermediates must (if these particular limbs worked at all)--that
is, for locomotion on both land and sea.
Gould obviously doesn't know if the limbs had a function or not.
If an evolutionist persists in calling the
appendage in question a vestigial organ in spite of the fact that it
has
a known use, he may as well proceed to call every organ vestigial and
thus evidence for evolution.
And if someone persists in misrepresenting someone, they end up being
called a liar.
The precursor to the human heart was,
long
ago, a blood vessel. The human heart is vestigial in terms of coming
from a blood vessel, but is now an organ that pumps blood throughout
the
body. Because the human heart is vestigial, it is evidence for
evolution. Evidence for evolution is everywhere, in every organ, in
every fossil, in every animal. A theory with this much evidence must
be
very strong. This, of course, would be absurd, just as absurd as a
chess game where every move is right.
Yes, it is absurd. Fortunately, no evolutionist claims that.
_Assuming_, as an evolutionist might like to _assume_, that they were
legs to begin with, then yes, they are vestigial legs:
Statement: Evolution is true.
Q: How do you know evolution is true?
A: We have evidence for evolution's truth from this vestigial limb,
showing that the organism evolved from a predecessor having
full-
length legs.
Q: How do you know that it is a vestigial limb?
A: We know that it is a vestigial limb because the thing no
longer functions as a leg.
Q: How do you know that it originally was a leg?
A: We know that it was originally a leg because it evolved from a
predecessor with legs.
But that's not the answer an evolutionist would give.
Questioner: Stop right there. You're attempting to prove evolution's
truth by saying that this thing evolved. In other words, in
attempting to prove that evolution is true, you make use of the
assumption that evolution has happened. You are assuming the
truth of your conclusion in an attempt to prove your conclusion.
This is illogical and very poor reasoning. Are _all_ your
arguments for the blind watchmaker thesis this rotten?
Actually, we know that it was originally a leg because it has a femur,
patella, tibia and fibula, fused astragalus, navicular, ectocuneform,
and mesocuneiform bones (all bones in the ankle, see figure 3 of
Gingerich et al.), metatarsals and phalanges. As Gingerich et al. state
in the abstract: "The foot is paraxonic, consistent with derivation from
mesonychid Condylarthra". Is that illogical, or an example of poor
reasoning, or rotten?
[snip non-Basilosaurus stuff]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 04:59:16 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 05:31:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 07:59:16 +1000, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 05:57:53 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 07:59:16 +1000, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
I'm not sure i agree. Certainly if he is a troll then the first two
conclusions are almost a given, but i think David is very good at
deluding himself. A month ago he was all fired up about TS and was
determined to fight her cause to the death, all the while basically
accusing those who didn't feel as he did of complete inhumanity. A month
down the road and you cannot tell the difference between him and us on
the subject. I.e he doesn't mention it, nor do we.
So what changed in that month? Other things came up and he moved on, and
this is where i think the delusion comes in. I think he imagines himself
as the Horatio at the bridge, but, IIRC, Horatio was defending the
bridge to give his army time to prepare, whereas David soon learns that
there is no army there to back him up, and he is not the sort of captain
who will go down with his ship (to mix metaphors) so he deserts the
bridge and looks for another to defend. Repeat
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 07:25:24 PM |
|
|
shane wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
I'm not sure i agree. Certainly if he is a troll then the first two
conclusions are almost a given, but i think David is very good at
deluding himself. A month ago he was all fired up about TS and was
determined to fight her cause to the death, all the while basically
accusing those who didn't feel as he did of complete inhumanity. A month
down the road and you cannot tell the difference between him and us on
the subject. I.e he doesn't mention it, nor do we.
"A month ago he was all fired up about TS.... A month down the road
and.... he doesn't mention it"
Haeckel and Buchner and the rise of a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler
was a homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
So what changed in that month? Other things came up and he moved on, and
this is where i think the delusion comes in. I think he imagines himself
as the Horatio at the bridge, but, IIRC, Horatio was defending the
bridge to give his army time to prepare, whereas David soon learns that
there is no army there to back him up, and he is not the sort of captain
who will go down with his ship (to mix metaphors) so he deserts the
bridge and looks for another to defend. Repeat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 07:50:59 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1118535924.720072.89810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
shane wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can
we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in
droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at
O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running
this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individua
l.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic,
homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely
embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than
a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individua
l.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic.
Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce
3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
I'm not sure i agree. Certainly if he is a troll then the first two
conclusions are almost a given, but i think David is very good at
deluding himself. A month ago he was all fired up about TS and was
determined to fight her cause to the death, all the while basically
accusing those who didn't feel as he did of complete inhumanity. A month
down the road and you cannot tell the difference between him and us on
the subject. I.e he doesn't mention it, nor do we.
"A month ago he was all fired up about TS.... A month down the road
and.... he doesn't mention it"
Haeckel and Buchner and the rise of a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler
was a homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
Still trying for the "guilt by association" points, eh, herr Goebbels?
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
11 Jun 2005 10:14:56 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
shane wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
I'm not sure i agree. Certainly if he is a troll then the first two
conclusions are almost a given, but i think David is very good at
deluding himself. A month ago he was all fired up about TS and was
determined to fight her cause to the death, all the while basically
accusing those who didn't feel as he did of complete inhumanity. A month
down the road and you cannot tell the difference between him and us on
the subject. I.e he doesn't mention it, nor do we.
"A month ago he was all fired up about TS.... A month down the road
and.... he doesn't mention it"
Haeckel and Buchner and the rise of a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler
was a homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
Well that is certainly support for my hypothesis. No mention of TS at
all. How soon even her champion forgets. Well done David, you have the
stick-to-itveness [sic] of teflon.
So what changed in that month? Other things came up and he moved on, and
this is where i think the delusion comes in. I think he imagines himself
as the Horatio at the bridge, but, IIRC, Horatio was defending the
bridge to give his army time to prepare, whereas David soon learns that
there is no army there to back him up, and he is not the sort of captain
who will go down with his ship (to mix metaphors) so he deserts the
bridge and looks for another to defend. Repeat
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Stalin encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism |
13 Jun 2005 12:42:10 PM |
|
|
shane wrote:
david ford wrote:
shane wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On 11 Jun 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Below is an account of Stalin's encounter with the T0E. What can we do
to help ensure numerous similar successes for the cause of atheism?
Just keep doing what you're doing, David. Your arrogance, stupidity
and monumental ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from
Christianity in droves. <G>
What's your view of O'Hair?
Do you think she had "arrogance, stupidity and monumental ignorance"?
If 'yes,' do you think her "arrogance, stupidity and monumental
ignorance is guaranteed to drive people away from" atheism "in droves"?
[O'Hair to her father during an all-too-common argument, after a
policeman noticed William distributing communist literature at O'Hair's
instruction]"Look who's talking about politics, you Nazi. If you
weren't blind, you'd see how the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground. The poor working man hasn't got a chance in
our system."
Cite in
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net
[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com
David you seem to have lost all concern for Terri Schiavo. The truth
finally sink in did it?
I think it's more that he realized he couldn't get any more mileage
out of that one.
David doesn't really care about the causes he espouses. He doesn't
even believe most of the crap he posts. He's just a troll.
I'm not sure i agree. Certainly if he is a troll then the first two
conclusions are almost a given, but i think David is very good at
deluding himself. A month ago he was all fired up about TS and was
determined to fight her cause to the death, all the while basically
accusing those who didn't feel as he did of complete inhumanity. A month
down the road and you cannot tell the difference between him and us on
the subject. I.e he doesn't mention it, nor do we.
"A month ago he was all fired up about TS.... A month down the road
and.... he doesn't mention it"
Haeckel and Buchner and the rise of a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler
was a homosexual
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/9024224bd3d87aec?
Well that is certainly support for my hypothesis. No mention of TS at
all.
Terri is mentioned twice therein (once in a caption to a URL).
How much of the URL have you read?
How soon even her champion forgets.
I have not forgotten.
Well done David, you have the
stick-to-itveness [sic] of teflon.
Persistence is needed for victory.
Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?
Stalin encounters the T0E: Another Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/af7ba99b77080b21?
So what changed in that | | | | | | |
