Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 10:08 PM
443 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 440 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,897 Year: 6,503/21,208 Month: 2,264/2,634 Week: 452/572 Day: 69/99 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 256 of 283 (651587)
02-08-2012 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Warthog
02-06-2012 12:28 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
No, because a knowledge foundation is a structured thing and when some idiot comes along and decides to teach them that evolution is an atheist hoax and that divining rods are powered by the devil, it'll screw up their education. First grade science is the foundation for the next grade and so on. Without that, they can never get to the point that they can seriously decide for themselves - they don't have the skills.

If that was true then evolution would have never been taught and we wouldn’t be were we are today.

quote:
You're the one who misrepresented it to be about teaching kids...

Tell me what I am saying again. LOL you will do well around here with those tactics (they are extremely popular).

If we're just talking about elementary school, then there's really no debating the science at that level. This is foundational stuff. Why should anyone want to change what is taught according to their own 'higher' understanding?

I dunno. I have already said this is some nonsense BS bill, but you came to the party late so I guess I have to repeat everything.
What would you change with yours?

Nothing. I went to Catholic School, I was taught by Jesuits, we don’t allow this crazy protestant creationism in our schools (at least to ones I went to). I never even heard about creationism till I got to public school (university) at age 18, it is still kinda funny to me in a ridiculous way. Always beware of Sola Scriptura
Elementary school is not the place for religious quacks to confuse the meaning of science for children.

I agree with you, but this bill doesn’t say anything about that.

That's what churches are for.

That is what parochial schools are for, it’s just sad that these fundaMENTALists don’t put this energy into having their own private schools, or take the time to do more home schooling.

If I'm wrong about this, what are the things that schoolteachers should be allowed to do that they shouldn't be doing?

It seems we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the bill and if Missourians should be able to implement it, and I not talking about teaching religion in science class.

I can’t believe these guys are try to do this in the form of legislation, I think it would be more sneaky and efficient to create their own textbooks, and then get schools to use their “question science” textbooks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Warthog, posted 02-06-2012 12:28 PM Warthog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2012 12:33 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 259 by Trixie, posted 02-08-2012 1:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 02-08-2012 5:46 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Warthog, posted 02-09-2012 8:43 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15470
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 257 of 283 (651598)
02-08-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
If that was true then evolution would have never been taught and we wouldn’t be were we are today.

A point. However, the people who figured out evolution for themselves did not suffer from the handicap of being taught, as fact, the stuff that creationists have made up. If they had, and they believed what they were taught, they wouldn't have. Creationists have made up all sorts of stuff that, if true, would annihilate evolution; for example, their claim that there are "no beneficial mutations". If they were right, that's the game.

Now, OK, if we "teach both sides" then the kids are in with a chance, but have you ever thought about how that's meant to work?

The biggest creationist lie, which subsumes all the other creationist lies, is that evolutionists and creationists are "looking at the same facts", and have different "interpretations" of them. But this isn't true. Creationist rhetoric depends on statements which are false as to fact. My interpretation of the "fact" that there are no beneficial mutations would be exactly the same as a creationist's interpretation of it, namely that Darwin sucks donkey balls. But it is not a fact, 'cos of not being true.

So teaching both sides goes like this: "There are no beneficial mutations, yes there are."

At this point little Timmy raises his hand.

"So, of the two things you just told us, one is a lie."

"Yes."

"Which one?"

If the teacher answers this honestly, s/he isn't teaching both sides, but if s/he refuses to answer, s/he isn't even teaching. The students have gained no knowledge. After listening to the teacher, they would know that there either are or there aren't beneficial mutations, which is just the law of the excluded middle. It would be as though math teachers were required to teach that seven eights either are or are not fifty-six, and that seven eights either are or are not forty-three. What would be the point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 1:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 258 of 283 (651609)
02-08-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
02-08-2012 12:33 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Now, OK, if we "teach both sides" then the kids are in with a chance, but have you ever thought about how that's meant to work?

not really. I would guess by having and elective religion class, and the religion class teaching stuff contrary to the science class, maybe? This is a difficult topic for me because in my 13 years of elementary and high school, I attended Catholic school, and the religion and the science never got mixed up, they weren't against each other. One was natural and the other was supernatural. the religion did get mixed into history class a little bit, and social studies a bit, but that is not the argument.

So teaching both sides goes like this: "There are no beneficial mutations, yes there are.

sry but I doubt timmy learns much of anything about mutations.

I think it is more like this:

(a picture of an apple tree) "what is this?"

"an apple tree"

"yes it is a KIND of fruit bearing tree, it was created on the x day"

"it is scientifically a plant"

wow big confusion. one is plant, one is a kind of fruit bearing tree.

next slide (a wolf).

now in 7th grade science i am sure it gets tricky because that is when biology comes in.

If the teacher answers this honestly, s/he isn't teaching both sides, but if s/he refuses to answer, s/he isn't even teaching. The students have gained no knowledge. After listening to the teacher, they would know that there either are or there aren't beneficial mutations, which is just the law of the excluded middle. It would be as though math teachers were required to teach that seven eights either are or are not fifty-six, and that seven eights either are or are not forty-three. What would be the point?

I am not even sure the teachers dispense that much knowledge to begin with. I think the knowledge comes from reading materials that are assign as homework and study. I didn't learn biology from the lecture, I learned it by reading the book three times and memorizing the material.

if you really wanted to teach both sides, then give the data on both sides, and have the students (at an appropriate age) read both of them, and make thier decision in the form of a supported report, and then give the report to the class. that way the students could learn, research, critical thinking, and speaking at the same time.

but i digress, my argument here has nothing to do with teaching creationism in school, I am not even a creationist, that shit is wack. I was just saying the fundies put a good bill together here, its too loose and unenforceable, so its mostly BS and wont effect anything, but they are free to do this. Somehow my support for self determination made me into a supporter of teaching religion in science, but hey this the "slander Christians, make strawmen about them and call them names website, so it has to be expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2012 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2012 2:23 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 262 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2012 2:42 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1054 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 259 of 283 (651621)
02-08-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Artemis Entreri writes:

I can’t believe these guys are try to do this in the form of legislation, I think it would be more sneaky and efficient to create their own textbooks, and then get schools to use their “question science” textbooks.

That's exactly what they tried to do in Dover with the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People". It was ruled unconstitutonal because ID was deemed to be religiously motivated. So now they're trying it using Bills. The wording is deliberately loose in the hope of getting round the Establishment clause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 02-08-2012 2:00 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 260 of 283 (651623)
02-08-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Trixie
02-08-2012 1:37 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
There is also which are sold as "Home School" and Christian Academy text books. They distort not just science but history, geography, art, literature, ...

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Trixie, posted 02-08-2012 1:37 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15470
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 261 of 283 (651625)
02-08-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 1:07 PM


Teach Both Theories: How?
sry but I doubt timmy learns much of anything about mutations.

Well, what does he learn about? What, exactly, are we teaching when we "teach both sides"?

We have to teach some creationist propaganda, don't we? Or we're not teaching both sides?

"yes it is a KIND of fruit bearing tree, it was created on the x day"

Now, let's teach both theories.

"It was created on the x day no it wasn't."

I am not even sure the teachers dispense that much knowledge to begin with. I think the knowledge comes from reading materials that are assign as homework and study.

But the teachers assign the homework and study, yes?

So what happens then? The textbook says: "There are no beneficial mutations yes there are"?

Or there are two textbooks saying different things? But then what happens when someone asks the teacher which is true?

if you really wanted to teach both sides, then give the data on both sides

Yes, but this is what I'm talking about. The "data" on the creationist side is lies that creationists made up. It's not data. Teaching the "data" on both sides involves saying: "There are no beneficial mutations yes there are, there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record yes there are, there are no "ape-men" in the fossil record yes there are, there is no evidence for evolution yes there is, speciation has never been observed yes it has, Darwin himself admitted that he couldn't explain the evolution of the eye no he didn't, the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible no it doesn't, genetic analysis shows that humans are more genetically similar to frogs than to chimps no it doesn't, the eye of a human is more similar to that of an octopus than that of a chimp no it isn't, Archaeopteryx is anatomically a completely modern bird no it isn't since it has gastralia and no pygostyle and no synsacrum unlike every modern bird ..."

Creationism is not another interpretation of the data. If it was, I would support teaching it. It is based on claims that are simply false as to fact.

The last guy I saw on the internet calling for "teach both theories" gave as his single example one thing that he thought should be taught. I quote:

Why can't both sides be taught. 'Here is what the bible states. Here is what we are finding through science.' There are still so many unexplained "Scientific Facts" that science is unwilling to take an unbiased look at. Example: The turkey found during a dinner in Pompeii during the eruption. It was carbon dated to millions of years old, though it wasn't. Science is constantly being proven wrong and your asking the world to toss everything aside. I know where my faith will stay.

He can have his faith in God and Jesus if he likes. So can you. But his faith that there was a turkey in pre-Columbian Europe is something that he should keep to himself. How are we to "teach both theories"? "Scientists have found a turkey in the ashes of Pompeii no they haven't BWAHAHAHAHA! Creationists are so retarded."

If it was a question of the interpretation of the data, then, as I say, there would be some room to discuss creationism. But there isn't. Scientists have actual data, creationists have made-up "data". How are we meant to teach both sides? "This is true and this is also false."

Well at that point little Timmy is going to raise his hand.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 1:07 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 262 of 283 (651626)
02-08-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 1:07 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
AE writes:

Somehow my support for self determination made me into a supporter of teaching religion in science...

Real self-determination means you can choose for yourself whether or not you want religious instruction. Therefore, naturally, you're defending mandatory religious propaganda in public schools due to your love of freedom and independence.

If Christians want to hear "both sides" taught in the same room, they should do it in Sunday School. Why won't they teach evolution in church--are they afraid of the debate?

...but hey this the "slander Christians, make strawmen about them and call them names website, so it has to be expected.

Yeah, and it's also the "make shit up and whine like punk-ass victims" website, so there you go.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 1:07 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 263 of 283 (651635)
02-08-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
I agree with you, but this bill doesn’t say anything about that.

That is the intent of the law, to allow teachers to teach their students about religious objections to evolution. It is the Dover case all over again.

Did the Missouri legislators consult the top scientific coucils and foundations (e.g. NIH, NSF) and ask them if evolution was a controversial theory? Are the top scientific organizations calling for teachers to teach that evolution is false? What exactly is the reason for acting as if evolution is controversial?

We all know the answer to that, and it has nothing to do with science. The same senators have pulled propoganda from the Discovery Institutes own pamphlets and tried to insert them into previous bills. The intent is clear, and there is nothing secular about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(2)
Message 264 of 283 (651681)
02-09-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Artemis Entreri
02-08-2012 12:03 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
If that was true then evolution would have never been taught and we wouldn’t be were we are today.

This is laughable but it was answered before I got around to it, so I won't bother.

quote:
You're the one who misrepresented it to be about teaching kids...

Tell me what I am saying again. LOL you will do well around here with those tactics (they are extremely popular).


here's where I started...

quote:
AE writes:

I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.


Warthog writes:

AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.


AE writes:

Relevant education to understand elementary school level science class, and its instruction to 6 year olds (as stated previously here). Check, I have that knowledge.


So, I'll say it again - You are the one who misrepresented it to be teaching about kids. I am talking about the fact that you say you have the magic ability to know more about any field than a specialist. God-given right to be right?

quote:
I have already said this is some nonsense BS bill,

No you haven't. You did say it wouldn't work but you haven't once said you disagree with it. You never called it nonsense.

quote:
but you came to the party late so I guess I have to repeat everything.

What makes you think I arrived late?

quote:
we don’t allow this crazy protestant creationism in our schools

So why do you think it should be allowed in pubic schools anywhere? State rights to abuse the rights of children?

quote:
Elementary school is not the place for religious quacks to confuse the meaning of science for children.

I agree with you, but this bill doesn’t say anything about that.


Yes it does.

The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.

I believe that this is unconstitutional.

quote:
That is what parochial schools are for

Government funded schools should not be religious indoctrination centres and the constitution says so. For that matter, the concept of religious schools in general is dubious at best.

quote:
it’s just sad that these fundaMENTALists don’t put this energy into having their own private schools

They do and they're scary places. 'schools' like this keep getting shut down and opened up elsewhere.

quote:
or take the time to do more home schooling.

You're kidding, right? There's a whole industry devoted to supporting fundamentalist home indoctrination e.g.

http://www.exploringhomeschooling.com/

http://www.utmostway.com/

etc.

quote:
It seems we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the bill and if Missourians should be able to implement it, and I not talking about teaching religion in science class.

This bill is about teaching religion...

quote:
I can’t believe these guys are try to do this in the form of legislation, I think it would be more sneaky and efficient to create their own textbooks, and then get schools to use their “question science” textbooks

They've tried that and been caught out too. This is a recurring pattern.

Speaking of recurring patterns...

quote:
There is always a place for state’s rights.

quote:
I defend self determination

quote:
There are other people here who favor Liberty

quote:
this is a self determination issue

quote:
I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are.

quote:
And as we can see by your example, Authoritarians will stop at nothing to make everyone follow “their rules”

I can see where you're coming from. You are arguing that the state (or the people) has the right to determine this for themselves. I agree with the principle of self determination but this it a little different.

What this bill is really about is to create a gap to allow religion in schools in any way possible. It's a door opener. Once they're in, it's harder to get them out while they busily chisel hole in kids educations. These kids have had no say in this, so it's not really about self determination but indoctrination.

One thing I have always thought is both amusing and horrifying is that religious types who cry freedom loudest are always the ones who push hardest to force their doctrine one everyone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-08-2012 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 10:22 AM Warthog has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 265 of 283 (651690)
02-09-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Warthog
02-09-2012 8:43 AM


here is the crux
Warthog writes:

Yes it does.

The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.

I believe that this is unconstitutional.

in bold there is a link ( http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html )

see what's wrong? you are arguing here about a Missouri bill and when confronted you link an Indiana bill? do you have any clue what the fuck you are talking about? (wait don't answer, your actions are louder than your words)

you post tons of examples of things i have said to try and paint a picture about me and then in reference to Missouri you post some off the wall shit from Indiana.

I basically don't have to say anything because you defeat yourself with this kind of nonsense.

Warthog: "see AE here is the Missouri bill (link to something in Indiana)"
ME: funniest post i read all week. milk almost came out my nose.

LOL you are arguing with me about what i said and then you link something completely off topic. and then your aha momenent with your snarky concealed link, and BAM its about something in another state! haha I guess this just shows you are pretty clueless about what you are talking about, when you don't even know the difference between two states.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"all too easy" --- Darth Vader

I know it's very difficult for you to keep up but this thread is a about Missouri house bill 1276 and NOT Indiana senate bill 89.

you are hilarious man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Warthog, posted 02-09-2012 8:43 AM Warthog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Panda, posted 02-09-2012 10:43 AM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 270 by Warthog, posted 02-09-2012 8:11 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1061 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 266 of 283 (651695)
02-09-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Artemis Entreri
02-09-2012 10:22 AM


Re: here is the crux
Fair enough.
Your retraction is accepted.

Next time, please try and maintain a reasonable level of consistency in your statements.
Thank you.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 10:22 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 1:39 PM Panda has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1577 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 267 of 283 (651709)
02-09-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Panda
02-09-2012 10:43 AM


Re: here is the crux
try and keep up, I'll post what i want.

thank you


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Panda, posted 02-09-2012 10:43 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Panda, posted 02-09-2012 5:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1054 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 268 of 283 (651711)
02-09-2012 1:59 PM


Link to the first Missouri bill which does't mince it's words one bit

http://www.house.mo.gov/...bills121/biltxt/intro/HB1227I.htm

Can anyone argue that this one isn't proposing the teacing of ID aka religion in science classes?

The authors of this bill are the authors of the second one. Can anyone doubt their intent? This bill, as written, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject, yet they feel they are qualified to comment and legislate on it.

Edited by Trixie, : Adding a bit more diatribe


  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1061 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 269 of 283 (651739)
02-09-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Artemis Entreri
02-09-2012 1:39 PM


Re: here is the crux
AE writes:

try and keep up, I'll post what i want.

thank you


Apology accepted.

Try to not make the same mistakes again.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 1:39 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-13-2012 11:31 AM Panda has responded

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 270 of 283 (651760)
02-09-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Artemis Entreri
02-09-2012 10:22 AM


Re: here is the crux
quote:
see what's wrong? you are arguing here about a Missouri bill and when confronted you link an Indiana bill? do you have any clue what the fuck you are talking about? (wait don't answer, your actions are louder than your words)

Hah! You're right! I managed to screw up my references. Somehow got it into me that that was a recent addition to it. Shouldn't have had that last joint...

I agree with you that the bill said nothing directly about teaching religion. You are right and I was wrong.

I still see the danger with it as the combination of the the idea of teaching the controversy coupled with the general push for ID to be considered science. This is a repeating pattern of argument by creationists to gain legitimacy and the bill reeks of it.

quote:
you post tons of examples of things i have said to try and paint a picture about me and then in reference to Missouri you post some off the wall shit from Indiana

Of course, this doesn't change the majority of what I have posted.

quote:
and then your aha momenent with your snarky concealed link,

What snarkily concealed link? Do you mean the fact that I don't clog up my writing with distracting urls? If so, note that every post of mine is formatted the same. At least I try to back up my argument instead of sliding past things with diversionary babble like...

quote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"all too easy" --- Darth Vader


For the record, after rereading my last post, I would say that my aha moment was...

Warthog writes:

So, I'll say it again - You are the one who misrepresented it to be teaching about kids. I am talking about the fact that you say you have the magic ability to know more about any field than a specialist. God-given right to be right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-09-2012 10:22 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
14151617
18
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017