NCclimber

Bullshit - show me how religion or politics changes a chemical reaction and I'll cede the point. Who distributes the chemicals to whom? What they do with them? What teh shelf life is in relation to which countries tiring of that country. It is really a convoluted mess. A better example of politics and science would be your hero and stem cell research. So, politics and science have no correlation, huh? Never did address the Mendell or Darwin cite. Again, bullshit - religion and politics have no effect on the combination of oxygen and hydrogen to create water. Keep the politics out of the classroom unless you're teaching a political science class. And skydiving has no relationship with simply pulling your hacky out, it can be done on teh ground or any time. You can say, "bullshit" till you balls fall off, but when your hero cuts any future gov funds from stem cell research, there is a direct political influence on science. Then when you take the motivation for that influence, pandering to the moral right to keep the moral vote on the GOP, there is now a direct religious influence on science. If we polled the public on this I believe it would be clear that most people believe there are politics in science. OK, your turn, here's a start...... I say Bullshit.... That's nice that you have your quaint little opinion, but we're waiting for an official university accreditation coordinator to explain it to us.

Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point? Your analogy was crappy. Hence the "NO". Simple really. Still waiting.

I'm at a loss. What was your point about: Was he annoyed that the DVD didn't offer his "alternative view" about biblical prophecy? Or was it about the absence in the DVD of any alternative view? Or that the school wasn't planning to offer an alternative view? It's pretty clear this man is ultra-fundie, but I missed where he was demanding for his interpretation of recent changes should be presented as the alternative view. Or are you of the opinion that everything this man says should be summarily dismissed because he holds some beliefs you dislike???

No more so than the actual number of people killed by secondhand smoke.

Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too? No. What was your point?

He thinks the sun is burning out in the end times. He's insane. This answers - "that the 'alternative view' which he is annoyed does not appear in the DVD is in fact insane."? Where did he say anything about DVDs? His 'legitimate request' was to either stop playing the video or a present it along with a balanced view of scripture, not opposing science but scripture. This is from the original article:

Can you GUARANTEE that everyone in the PoliSci class has taken enough chemistry to understand the issues? Do you want to make Chem a prerequisite for PoliSci? Where will you find a PoliSci prof who knows any chemistry anyway? And even then, some whacko will complain that Chemistry is being taught in PoliSci. What is your point? That because there are some overlaps, professors should lecture on subjects outside of their field of expertise? So, you liked my butterfly analogy, too?

I seems pretty obvious. Why? Because he's forcing the school system to follow it's own policies? I missed that part. Perhaps you could re-post it. Of course, the teacher and a number of others think that kind of request is worthy of derision. My beef is about the response to his legitimate request.

But Kallend has shown very clearly how chemical reactions can affect politics.... Is this like that "if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Illinois, winter hurricanes hit the UK" analogy?

More on this story, from the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/01/30/EDG56N760N1.DTL

Tell us! PLEASE!!!!

Strawman. Just because you don't get it....

Especially if it involves indoctrination consistent with your prefered ideology.

I gave up on objectivity just to ram some of the right wings own hypocrisy down their collective throats.. Many of us got tired of the gloating arrogance of many of the ULTRA RIGHWINGNUTS coming up with all kinds of denigrating stupidity like DIMS... El JEffe Clintonista etc etc......or being unpatriotic because we were argueing AGAINST an ill concieved WAR.. and we have been proven right. Tough shit...CUPCAKE. You voted for this stupidity.. eat the shit the administration has dealt you. You know... one of the key characteristics of racists and bigots is using the behavior of a few to justify attacking a whole group. But what the fuck... as long as you feel justified...

Or at least ONE rightwingnut. Then again you do have a knack for making across the board generalizations from one person's actions.

I cant help that they were too fucking stupid to research GW and his NEO CON buddies... and SOOO many of them have gleefully rammed all this morality and WAR crap down the rest of our throats for 6 years....Turns out they voted for Incompetence.. arrogance...and a president that turns out to not be so moral after all. How many of these has he and his friends broken in the six years..??? http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/10_Comm.gif I got three real easy.. Thou shalt not covent they neighbors OIL Thous shalt not lie Thou shalt not misuse the name of GOD( Supposed personal conversations with the entity telling him to go to war) Thou shalt not murder hunderds of thousands of people in your greed for OIL Obviously, I wasn't talking you. You're a model of even-handed, objectivity.

What's the deal with some people's animosity towards this site? I've found it to be a great resource for getting basic info. I understand how it's run and see the relevant problems. But by and large, it's pretty credible. And on the contentious topics, there's usually a warning about it being locked or that the accuracy is contested. And sometime the infomation is lacking. Is it secretly run by Haliburton? Murdock? Why is it not a credible, objective site? Who does it favor? Who does is slight? What's the deal?

Okay people... I said "everyone who ever voted for Dubya"

Sadly, quite a few people on this site and in the right wing media seem to support almost anything the repubicans who put Dubya in power parrot those positions on a daily basis. Oops. I seem to have hit a nerve.

Here is my source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm As you can see, you are wrong about any omission at the bottom of the article. Oh yeah. That sourcewatch is an objective, unbiased source. From wikipedia:

Sadly, a few people on this site seem to think everyone who ever voted for Dubya has those same beliefs.

Why so testy? Please tell us about the part detailing how professors can/should offer political opinions, unrelated to the stated course material. You could always try reading what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up and attributing it to me. What part of the highlighted text did you fail to comprehend this time? What part of this whole thread did you fail to comprehend, this time? Did you think Michele's comments were about non-specific generalities? DURRR

I'd be surprised if they could do that. My primary amusement in Speakers Corner is watching the extreme Bush apologists make stuff up and attribute it to me. It goes on and on and on and on... Hey Chester, Wassup??? How about some examples to support your claim?

Why so testy? Please tell us about the part detailing how professors can/should offer political opinions, unrelated to the stated course material. You could always try reading what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up and attributing it to me.

If you'll show me where I wrote that, I'd be quite interested to see what I wrote since I don't recall being drunk. Of course, it could be that I didn't write that and you are making it up. Or were you talking about something completely unrelated to the points being discussed in this thread?