Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

[Guest guest]

Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter

Ah, but Mikey, I did not say that truth does not matter. What I wrote, and what is true, is that it has little to do with who prevails in a debate or in court. (I would say it has more sway in a court with a properly instructed jury, however, than in a debate.) Because you are, in fact, mistaken in asserting that "ordinary people" will discern and embrace facts over rhetorical, well ...prestidigitation.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hey Mona,

Now that is exactly what I thought about what ppl were saying on

add_med. I know you are a lady but I am a vulgar man who has been up

all night and when all those ppl on add_med were kissing Punk Floyd's

ass saying how he trounced Peele in debate I was reminded exactly of

the comments of scientists who have had to fight Creationists in the

law courts. Their experience is exactly how you describe.

They came damn near close to losing in Louisiana, and also found that

thay had started adopting the tactiucs of the Creationists. Only a

last ditch wagon circling by Nobel Laureates saved the day - and

needless to say, Scalia gave a dissenting decision in the ruling Equal

Time legislation is unconstitutional.

I see the Senate has now passed a law which is basically putting

Creationism back in schools. My God, the most advanced nation on

earth, and its legislature wants its kids to study mythoology as if it

were science, and science as if it were mythology! Sheer science

fantasy.

P.

> In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

>

> > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > either.

> >

>

> Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how

to win a

> debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

Learned

> evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to the

podium

> armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find themselves

soundly

> trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position even

more

> lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which are

equally as

> incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory,

and

> manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but are

sheer

> nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of Thermodynamics

would

> render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

>

> Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

court.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hey Mona,

Now that is exactly what I thought about what ppl were saying on

add_med. I know you are a lady but I am a vulgar man who has been up

all night and when all those ppl on add_med were kissing Punk Floyd's

ass saying how he trounced Peele in debate I was reminded exactly of

the comments of scientists who have had to fight Creationists in the

law courts. Their experience is exactly how you describe.

They came damn near close to losing in Louisiana, and also found that

thay had started adopting the tactiucs of the Creationists. Only a

last ditch wagon circling by Nobel Laureates saved the day - and

needless to say, Scalia gave a dissenting decision in the ruling Equal

Time legislation is unconstitutional.

I see the Senate has now passed a law which is basically putting

Creationism back in schools. My God, the most advanced nation on

earth, and its legislature wants its kids to study mythoology as if it

were science, and science as if it were mythology! Sheer science

fantasy.

P.

> In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

>

> > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > either.

> >

>

> Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how

to win a

> debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

Learned

> evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to the

podium

> armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find themselves

soundly

> trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position even

more

> lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which are

equally as

> incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory,

and

> manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but are

sheer

> nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of Thermodynamics

would

> render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

>

> Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

court.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Only a very stupid person would think that facts and sensible

reasoning played any but a minor role in determining the outocme of

popular debates.

America twice elected as President a man who said " Facts are useless "

and already showed the signs of dementia. If the Constitution allowed

it they wmay wlell have elcted him a third time. They went on to

prefer ( or actually *almost* went on to prefer) over a very

intelligent man, a man who said " He says he invented the internet. In

that case, how come most internet addresses start with Dubya? " to

rapturous applause.

Mona did not only refer to sheer *volume* of words but also the nature

of the words themselves and how they are manipulated. On add_med

they're all sucking Garrett claiming he got a victory over Stanton

Peele on addict-l. Read even a handful of Garrett's posts and you'll

see he uses exactly the tactics Mona describes in spades.

P.

> Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter and sheer

volume of words will prevail over facts in a debate or an examination.

Only an arrogant person would think that ordinary people cannot see

through this.That is why law is such bullshit- it is only a bunch of

rules made up by some people, and that's why ordinary people have

contempt for lawyers- because lawyers have contempt for truth- they

think it is a toy. But then they turn around and coin phrases like

'the law in it's majesty' and 'we are a nation of laws not men' and

think that this is a GOOD thing. in the past laws said that some

people had the right to own other people- that should be all anyone

needs to decide whether to let the law guide their decisions in life.

Mike.

> Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

lunacy)

>

>

> In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

>

>

> . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> either.

>

>

>

> Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how

to win a

> debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

Learned

> evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to the

podium

> armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

themselves soundly

> trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position even

more

> lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which are

equally as

> incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory,

and

> manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but are

sheer

> nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

Thermodynamics would

> render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

>

> Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

court.

>

> --Mona--

>

[Guest guest]

The emotionally immature do not understand the effect that simple, honest

words have on people, preferring instead, to listen to the heady rhetoric of

what might be possible IF -----. Arrogance always gives these people away as

they belittle all who disagree.

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:30:32 EDT

>

>In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

>watts_pete@... writes:

>

>

> > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > either.

> >

>

>Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how to win a

>debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well. Learned

>evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to the podium

>armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find themselves soundly

>trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position even more

>lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which are equally

>as

>incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory, and

>manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but are sheer

>nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of Thermodynamics would

>render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

>

>Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in court.

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

You sound arrogant. I guess you are better than ordinary people?

Better? That is a subjective term I would not employ. I am more intelligent and infinitely less gullible than the overwhelming majority of people. These are important traits that can enormously benefit not merely the individual possessed of them, but also humanity at large; yet they are not the only characteristics worth having or cultivating.

You think too small, Mikey. Life is a Big Thing.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how

to win a

> debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

Learned

> evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to

the podium

> armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

themselves soundly

> trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position

even more

> lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which

are equally as

> incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory, and

> manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive,

but are sheer

> nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

Thermodynamics would

> render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

>

> Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

court.

>

> --Mona--

Hi, Mona,

The example you give about the " scientific creationists " and the

naivete of evolutionary biologists believing they can merely

present truth, logic, and scientific evidence and win these

debates is an example of the trap that we often fall into. This is

playing their game on their terms. To engage in such a debete

one legitimizes the debete. These scientists must stop

partiipating because there is no debate. The so called " creation

science " simply is not science it is right-wing xtian propaganda,

this is not an opinion, this is fact. End of debate.

Then change the rules on them. Address their accusation of

censorship, ok " creation science " can be taught in the schools.

We are a society that (theoretically) does not engage in

cansorship. It can be a good way to teach the students about

propaganda techniques, they can learn how to find faulty logic,

conclusions based on false premises, emotional maipulation

diguised as facts, compare it with nazi propaganda from the

German 3rd reich. Now, class, find the similarities, identify the

same techniques used in both examples. It can be taught as a

socialogical phenominon. Now, class let's disscus why it is that

this particular group, that already has an oppresive

srtrangle-hold on our society, still exhibits a maniacal greed for

even more control and power. It just can't be taght as a scientic

explanation for the origin of the universe, because that is not

what it is.

In the mandatory xA issue I see alot of the same thing going on,

splitting semantical hairs between spiritual and religious,

statistical back and forth over " success rates. " I know there is a

way to just turn the tables on them. I just haven't come up with it

yet. Maybe going with the " big book " definition of an AA meeting,

something to the effect of any time 2 or more alcoholics get

together and talk. And the " American College Dictionary "

(Random House) definition of the word " alcoholic " - " a person

suffering from alcoholism. " " Alcoholism " - " A diseased condition

caused by the eccesive use of alcoholic beverages. " Apprently,

anyone who has ever used alcoholic beverages eccesively is

suffering from this diseased condition. So, " Hi, . "

" Hi, Larry. "

" Sign my slip? "

" Sure "

" See you next week. "

By definition court requirement fullfilled.

Devin

[Guest guest]

> The emotionally immature do not understand the effect that simple,

honest

> words have on people, preferring instead, to listen to the heady

rhetoric of

> what might be possible IF -----. Arrogance always gives these

people away as

> they belittle all who disagree.

>

Yes, I still believe there is a place for restraint and courtesy in

treatment of those of differing understandings and achievements, even

in groups such as this. I certainly saw it with at least three nobel

laureates I worked alongside during my career... They were certainly

able to express themselves in lay terms without resorting to the role

of mystagogue, one sees in some " mature " student types here. lol. I

think it is doubly unfortunate, when it gives XA precisely the sort

of ammunition that so feeds it's extreme anti-intellectual stance...

Mack

[Guest guest]

and sometimes it takes drugs to suppress the emotional realities of life

before such rhetorical brilliance can emerge. hehe

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:00:00 EDT

>

>In a message dated 6/26/01 7:40:47 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

>mikdan7@... writes:

>

>

> > You sound arrogant. I guess you are better than ordinary people?

>

>Better? That is a subjective term I would not employ. I am more

>intelligent

>and infinitely less gullible than the overwhelming majority of people.

>These

>are important traits that can enormously benefit not merely the individual

>possessed of them, but also humanity at large; yet they are not the only

>characteristics worth having or cultivating.

>

>You think too small, Mikey. Life is a Big Thing.

>

>--Mona--

>

>--Mona--

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Guest guest]

>

> " Hi, . "

> " Hi, Larry. "

> " Sign my slip? "

> " Sure "

> " See you next week. "

> By definition court requirement fullfilled.

>

> Devin

------------

Hi Devin --

It's not that simple. Parole officers. EAP's, and other authority figures

who mandate XA know that " anyone " can initial the slips. Increasingly often,

they are requring MORE than just tattletale slip initials -- they quiz the

mandatees about steps, the locations and times of various meetings, etc., to

ascertain whether they have " really " been to meetings -- some even require

mandatees to present written " step-work " . Bob Warner still pops in here from

time to time -- read his groundbreaking case (Warner v. Orange County Probation

Dep't) -- when he was questioned by his probation officer about his " commitment "

to steppism, and told him he could not relate to it (he was GOING to the

meetings as required, mind you) the probation officer used his authority to

order Bob to attend MORE meetings, and Step meetings, Big Book meetings, etc.,

to increase his " commitment " .

I, too, was subjected to various step-loyalty interrogations -- my coercion

was by a state-paid EAP.

Coerced XA is about a hell of a lot more than initials on a slip.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

At 03:28 PM 6/26/01 +0000, you wrote:

> It's not that simple. Parole officers. EAP's, and other authority

> figures who mandate XA know that " anyone " can initial the

> slips. Increasingly often, they are requring MORE than just tattletale

> slip initials -- they quiz the mandatees about steps, the locations and

> times of various meetings, etc., to ascertain whether they have " really "

> been to meetings -- some even require mandatees to present written

" step-work " .

Good grief. That is outrageous. They are requiring people not only

to attend religious meetings, but to demonstrate knowledge of the

religion and proof that they are practicing it as assigned?

It is amazing that this kind of thing goes on in a once-free country.

It is so easy to lose important freedoms while we're paying attention

to something else.

> Coerced XA is about a hell of a lot more than initials on a slip.

Yes. Yes indeed. It is about so very much more.

[Guest guest]

The example you give about the "scientific creationists" and the naivete of evolutionary biologists believing they can merely present truth, logic, and scientific evidence and win these debates is an example of the trap that we often fall into. This is playing their game on their terms. To engage in such a debete one legitimizes the debete. These scientists must stop partiipating because there is no debate. The so called "creation science" simply is not science it is right-wing xtian propaganda, this is not an opinion, this is fact. End of debate.

Unfortunately, however, the masses are disposed to accept "scientific creationism," which is why scientists have concluded they must be willing to engage the debates. IOW, science is losing in the public arena, and must be recaptured. I don't have the polling data at my fingertips, but close to half of all Americans believe Genesis is literally true. A larger number than that are willing to entertain doubts about evolution -- which would be fine, except they are willing to consider the plausibility of creationism in its stead.

I am somewhat more tolerant of fundamentalists vis-a-vis creationism than I am about coercive XA. I would not take the former's views and invidiously contrast them with nazi propaganda, which is not merited. Most creationists are well-meaning but simply ignorant people who believe their Book to be inerrant. What I would do is teach creationism in public schools in a religious studies or sociology course, and examine what beliefs and values they believe they are fighting for.

I'm significantly more hostile to XA, because it exploits vulnerable people at a point when they are least able to resist indoctrination and emotional abuse. The tactics applied by some Grouper treatment staff in some rehabs is not unlike a Kafkaesque incarceration. I vest these people with far less good will than I do your average fundie naif.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Devin,

For a long time I've thought refusenik XA meetings the way to combat

XA coercion. I'll also repeat the offer that I think I've made

before, that I will sign the slip for anyone coerced to an XA meeting

who is able to come to me for me to sign it for absolutely any XA

fellowship whatsoever, full name, Group secretary, no shit. It's a

great pity that I live in the UK where my services are so little

needed. I'll sign 'em by mail if a reply-paid envelope is used. I

might even sign one claiming to be an American XA if folks want.

Maybe I should hang out AA/NA meetings and if I see any slip folks

approach them and co-ordinate a refusenik chain - but as I said, I've

never seen anyone need a slip signed here.

In his great book " Why People Believe Weird Things " Shermer

illistrates the great similarity between the tactics of Holocuast

Deniers and Creationists. One thing he points out is that the Deniers

can at least be partly right (as Holocaust historians make mistakes,

may inadvertantly overestimate the number of victims and such like)

but in the case of Creationism it's a total crock.

P.

>

> > Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how

> to win a

> > debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

> Learned

> > evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to

> the podium

> > armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

> themselves soundly

> > trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position

> even more

> > lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which

> are equally as

> > incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory,

and

> > manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive,

> but are sheer

> > nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

> Thermodynamics would

> > render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

> >

> > Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

> court.

> >

> > --Mona--

>

> Hi, Mona,

>

> The example you give about the " scientific creationists " and the

> naivete of evolutionary biologists believing they can merely

> present truth, logic, and scientific evidence and win these

> debates is an example of the trap that we often fall into. This is

> playing their game on their terms. To engage in such a debete

> one legitimizes the debete. These scientists must stop

> partiipating because there is no debate. The so called " creation

> science " simply is not science it is right-wing xtian propaganda,

> this is not an opinion, this is fact. End of debate.

>

> Then change the rules on them. Address their accusation of

> censorship, ok " creation science " can be taught in the schools.

> We are a society that (theoretically) does not engage in

> cansorship. It can be a good way to teach the students about

> propaganda techniques, they can learn how to find faulty logic,

> conclusions based on false premises, emotional maipulation

> diguised as facts, compare it with nazi propaganda from the

> German 3rd reich. Now, class, find the similarities, identify the

> same techniques used in both examples. It can be taught as a

> socialogical phenominon. Now, class let's disscus why it is that

> this particular group, that already has an oppresive

> srtrangle-hold on our society, still exhibits a maniacal greed for

> even more control and power. It just can't be taght as a scientic

> explanation for the origin of the universe, because that is not

> what it is.

>

> In the mandatory xA issue I see alot of the same thing going on,

> splitting semantical hairs between spiritual and religious,

> statistical back and forth over " success rates. " I know there is a

> way to just turn the tables on them. I just haven't come up with it

> yet. Maybe going with the " big book " definition of an AA meeting,

> something to the effect of any time 2 or more alcoholics get

> together and talk. And the " American College Dictionary "

> (Random House) definition of the word " alcoholic " - " a person

> suffering from alcoholism. " " Alcoholism " - " A diseased condition

> caused by the eccesive use of alcoholic beverages. " Apprently,

> anyone who has ever used alcoholic beverages eccesively is

> suffering from this diseased condition. So, " Hi, . "

> " Hi, Larry. "

> " Sign my slip? "

> " Sure "

> " See you next week. "

> By definition court requirement fullfilled.

>

> Devin

[Guest guest]

Actually I have read that Gore did not claim to have invented the

internet, but instead the word " internet, " and that his opponents

misrepresented the claim. I have never looked into this.

> > Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter and sheer

> volume of words will prevail over facts in a debate or an

examination.

> Only an arrogant person would think that ordinary people cannot see

> through this.That is why law is such bullshit- it is only a bunch

of

> rules made up by some people, and that's why ordinary people have

> contempt for lawyers- because lawyers have contempt for truth- they

> think it is a toy. But then they turn around and coin phrases like

> 'the law in it's majesty' and 'we are a nation of laws not men' and

> think that this is a GOOD thing. in the past laws said that some

> people had the right to own other people- that should be all anyone

> needs to decide whether to let the law guide their decisions in

life.

> Mike.

> > Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

> lunacy)

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > watts_pete@h... writes:

> >

> >

> >

> > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > either.

> >

> >

> >

> > Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely

how

> to win a

> > debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

> Learned

> > evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to

the

> podium

> > armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

> themselves soundly

> > trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position

even

> more

> > lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which

are

> equally as

> > incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric,

oratory,

> and

> > manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but

are

> sheer

> > nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

> Thermodynamics would

> > render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

> >

> > Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

> court.

> >

> > --Mona--

> >

[Guest guest]

> Actually I have read that Gore did not claim to have invented the

> internet, but instead the word " internet, " and that his opponents

> misrepresented the claim. I have never looked into this.

>

We like to think it was a " European " invention at CERN. ;-) It could

be a bit of a moot point, but it certainly wasn't either of those two

well known protagonists lol. My earliest recollection however was of

the American ARPANET, which (among other things) allowed me to logon

from UK Universities to a computer in Stanford Uni. USA - to find out

what was on the menu at *their* local restaurants. As you see there

were fairly immediate and useful applications. Heheh.

See http://www.netvalley.com/intval2.html and the rest...

Cheers, Mack

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleigh,

Yes I know that Gore denies claiming that he invented the internet.

However, I was quoting Bush's account of Gore, which of course is

extremely likely to be false. Iirc Gore said that he didnt claim to

have invented the internet, ( he might well have been in grade school

when its earliest form appeared) but invented the idea of expanding it

to include ordinary ppl beyond the universities, major corporations,

and military establishments that had used it up until then. He may

well have coined the word " internet " , I dont know - however what I do

know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more

brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.

P.

> > > Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter and

sheer

> > volume of words will prevail over facts in a debate or an

> examination.

> > Only an arrogant person would think that ordinary people cannot

see

> > through this.That is why law is such bullshit- it is only a

bunch

> of

> > rules made up by some people, and that's why ordinary people

have

> > contempt for lawyers- because lawyers have contempt for truth-

they

> > think it is a toy. But then they turn around and coin phrases

like

> > 'the law in it's majesty' and 'we are a nation of laws not men'

and

> > think that this is a GOOD thing. in the past laws said that some

> > people had the right to own other people- that should be all

anyone

> > needs to decide whether to let the law guide their decisions in

> life.

> > Mike.

> > > Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

> > lunacy)

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard

Time,

> > > watts_pete@h... writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > > either.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely

> how

> > to win a

> > > debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

> > Learned

> > > evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to

> the

> > podium

> > > armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

> > themselves soundly

> > > trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position

> even

> > more

> > > lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which

> are

> > equally as

> > > incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric,

> oratory,

> > and

> > > manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but

> are

> > sheer

> > > nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

> > Thermodynamics would

> > > render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

> > >

> > > Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing

in

> > court.

> > >

> > > --Mona--

> > >

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 6/26/01 10:59:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> manypaths@m... writes:

>

>

> > The example you give about the " scientific creationists " and the

> > naivete of evolutionary biologists believing they can merely

> > present truth, logic, and scientific evidence and win these

> > debates is an example of the trap that we often fall into. This is

> > playing their game on their terms. To engage in such a debete

> > one legitimizes the debete. These scientists must stop

> > partiipating because there is no debate. The so called " creation

> > science " simply is not science it is right-wing xtian propaganda,

> > this is not an opinion, this is fact. End of debate.

> >

>

> Unfortunately, however, the masses are disposed to accept

" scientific

> creationism, " which is why scientists have concluded they must be

willing to

> engage the debates. IOW, science is losing in the public arena, and

must be

> recaptured. I don't have the polling data at my fingertips, but

close to

> half of all Americans believe Genesis is literally true.

Please tell me you are kidding/exaggerating. Please.

A larger

number

> than that are willing to entertain doubts about evolution -- which

would be

> fine, except they are willing to consider the plausibility of

creationism in

> its stead.

>

> I am somewhat more tolerant of fundamentalists vis-a-vis creationism

than I

> am about coercive XA. I would not take the former's views and

invidiously

> contrast them with nazi propaganda, which is not merited. Most

creationists

> are well-meaning but simply ignorant people who believe their Book

to be

> inerrant. What I would do is teach creationism in public schools in

a

> religious studies or sociology course, and examine what beliefs and

values

> they believe they are fighting for.

>

> I'm significantly more hostile to XA, because it exploits vulnerable

people

> at a point when they are least able to resist indoctrination and

emotional

> abuse.

EXACTLY!

The talk about " choice " overlooks this one fact.

The tactics applied by some Grouper treatment staff in some

rehabs is

> not unlike a Kafkaesque incarceration. I vest these people with far

less

> good will than I do your average fundie naif.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

> I read that he had co-sponsored some kind of federal legislation

that is

> being credited as being some kind of spawner of the 'Net. I don't

> know-any man who hires a woman to tell him how a man should act is a

> fartknocker in my book. Mike.

As said to me a while back, I think it's fair to say you aint a

very PC kinda guy Mike.

*Almost* agree with you completely about what you said about psych

meds. With the newer antippsychotics tardive dyskinesia is likely to

be a much less serious problem in future.

[Guest guest]

At 11:58 PM 6/26/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Kayleigh,

>

>Yes I know that Gore denies claiming that he invented the internet.

>However, I was quoting Bush's account of Gore, which of course is

>extremely likely to be false. Iirc Gore said that he didnt claim to

>have invented the internet, ( he might well have been in grade school

>when its earliest form appeared)

He did say that he invented it. It was after the statement was

publicized, and knowledgeable people started guffawing at him,

that his spin doctors tried frantically to find another interpretation.

This worked badly, since his false claim was made so baldly. There's

really no other interpretation you can put on a statement like that.

> but invented the idea of expanding it

>to include ordinary ppl beyond the universities, major corporations,

>and military establishments that had used it up until then.

No, he didn't do that either. But that wasn't his claim anyway --

he claimed to have spearheaded the creation of the whole thing.

> He may

>well have coined the word " internet " , I dont know -

Hardly. That's an old old OLD term for a network of networks.

> however what I do

>know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more

>brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.

He may well be smarter than Bush, but he also lies a lot. He sure

the heck did claim to be the inventor of the Internet. His exact

words were " . . . I took the initiative in creating the Internet. " This

statement was a lie, of course -- as you mention, he was not even

in the Senate yet when the actual creation occurred.

He's made some other goofball claims, too. I think my favorite was

when he claimed that _Love_Story_ (the schmaltzy novel) was

based on him and Tipper. h Segal, the author, expressed

public bafflement as to how Gore could say such a thing -- he

had no idea what Gore was talking about.

After a few more days, though, Segal asserted that Gore had been

a partial model for one of the minor characters. I amused myself

by wondering if Gore's people had bribed him or threatened him.

[Guest guest]

> I am sure the mental patients who have permanent neurological damage

will be

> happy to know that the future is safe for the next generation of

nutcases.

> Mike.

Any reason why they shouldnt be?

[Guest guest]

Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter and sheer volume of words will prevail over facts in a debate or an examination. Only an arrogant person would think that ordinary people cannot see through this.That is why law is such bullshit- it is only a bunch of rules made up by some people, and that's why ordinary people have contempt for lawyers- because lawyers have contempt for truth- they think it is a toy. But then they turn around and coin phrases like 'the law in it's majesty' and 'we are a nation of laws not men' and think that this is a GOOD thing. in the past laws said that some people had the right to own other people- that should be all anyone needs to decide whether to let the law guide their decisions in life. Mike.

Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

.. Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate either. Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely how to win a debate, which so-called "scientific creationists" know well. Learned evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to the podium armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find themselves soundly trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position even more lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which are equally as incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric, oratory, and manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but are sheer nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of Thermodynamics would render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.) Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in court. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

> > In a message dated 6/26/01 10:59:22 AM US Eastern

Standard Time,

> > manypaths@m... writes:

Hi, All,

> >

> > > The example you give about the " scientific creationists " and

the

> > > naivete of evolutionary biologists believing they can merely

> > > present truth, logic, and scientific evidence and win these

> > > debates is an example of the trap that we often fall into.

This is

> > > playing their game on their terms. To engage in such a

debete

> > > one legitimizes the debete. These scientists must stop

> > > partiipating because there is no debate. The so called

" creation

> > > science " simply is not science it is right-wing xtian

propaganda,

> > > this is not an opinion, this is fact. End of debate.

> > >

> >

> > Unfortunately, however, the masses are disposed to accept

> " scientific

> > creationism, " which is why scientists have concluded they

must be

> willing to

> > engage the debates. IOW, science is losing in the public

arena, and

> must be

> > recaptured. I don't have the polling data at my fingertips, but

> close to

> > half of all Americans believe Genesis is literally true.

-----------

> Please tell me you are kidding/exaggerating. Please.

-----------

I do believe that this can be a an exageration, one thing I can

point out is the word " literal " is freqently misunderstood. Think

about how many times you've heard the word " literally, " followed

by a metaphorical statement, for instance; " It literally pulled my

my heartstrings. " " I was literally thowing money out the window. "

The book of Genesis is also something that a great deal of

Americans have no clue about. I read that it's over 70% of the

U.S. population considers themselves to be " xtian, " of this; how

many are practicing? How many are knowledgable about

xtianity? When the GP is presented with the question " Do you

believe that Genesis is literally true? " I would guess that a great

portion of them don't really understand the question.

> A larger

> number

> > than that are willing to entertain doubts about evolution --

which

> would be

> > fine, except they are willing to consider the plausibility of

> creationism in

> > its stead.

> >

> > I am somewhat more tolerant of fundamentalists vis-a-vis

creationism than I am about coercive XA. I would not take the

former's views and invidiously contrast them with nazi

propaganda, which is not merited.

---------

I would not propse the outcome of the propaganda to be the

same, many of the the techniques are the same, I see it as a

perfectly valid comparrison, not exclusivly, of course, other

examples would also have to be included.

----------

Most creationists are well-meaning but simply ignorant people

who believe their Book to be inerrant.

------

I don't agree, I believe that the creationist movement is of

completely malicious intent.

---------

What I would do is teach creationism in public schools in a

religious studies or sociology course, and examine what beliefs

and values they believe they are fighting for.

-------

Again, they are not fighting for any belifes or values they are

attempting to infiltrate the public school system for the specific

purpose indoctrinating our children with their bullshit, in order to

gain power and control in the society at large.

-----------

I'm significantly more hostile to XA, because it exploits vulnerable

people at a point when they are least able to resist

indoctrination and emotional abuse.

------------

> EXACTLY!

> The talk about " choice " overlooks this one fact.

------------

> The tactics applied by some Grouper treatment staff in some

> rehabs is

> > not unlike a Kafkaesque incarceration. I vest these people

with far less good will than I do your average fundie naif.

> > --Mona--

----------

I, infact, have been a victim of such Kafkaesque incarceration in

1985. I wrote to Stuart about it in more detail.

The fact is that any group of vulnerable people are exploited by

oportunistic preditors, those who are at the mercy of the courts,

teenagers, the poor, homeless, lonely, desperate, etc. By no

means, am I an xA apologist, but when I look at the mandatory xA

indoctrination I blame the opression of a xtian-dominated

society. You can smell the xtian over tones in xA a mile away (not

intended to be taken literally The point is that mandatory

indoctrination, or coersed participation of religious bullshit, must

not be tolerated, under any circumstances.

Devin

[Guest guest]

You sound arrogant. I guess you are better than ordinary people? Mike.

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

Only a lawyer would say that the truth doesn't matter Ah, but Mikey, I did not say that truth does not matter. What I wrote, and what is true, is that it has little to do with who prevails in a debate or in court. (I would say it has more sway in a court with a properly instructed jury, however, than in a debate.) Because you are, in fact, mistaken in asserting that "ordinary people" will discern and embrace facts over rhetorical, well ...prestidigitation. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hold on watts,

In Time magazine, Gore's I.Q. as well as our President, W. (pronounced W) was given. Gore's 'I.Q'. was only slightly higher than our Presidents. If playing (feigning) tag football while waiting for the 'real' vote returns to come in is considered smart than we would have been in for a real dose of 'Kennedy' liberalism.

Careful with those trite Liberal comments, they can get you into a lot of trouble if this were a political list. Thankfully, it's not.

Lets just stay sober - K?

With respect,

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

He may > well have coined the word "internet", I dont know - however what I do > know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more > brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.> > P.> >

[Guest guest]

Hello

Tx for this info, though it is unfair to categorize my comments as

" Liberal " (even if they were trite) since I made no reference to the

politics of the individuals other than to say " whatever you might say

about Gore's politics " i.e. acknowledged that one might have grounds

for disliking them. Do you remember what the I.Q.'s actually were? I

am curious.

Bush is well known for his " Bushisms " none of which I was trite enough

to invoke, merely the " W " oneliner which was almost certainly written

by some well-paid spin doctor. Many 'Bushisms' are merely the kind of

verbal trips all of us make at some time or another, made worse by

blanket coverage and the pressure of being put on the spot constantly,

but some of them do suggest Bush is not a very cerebral man. Perhaps

he is not too skilled verbally but has skills in other areas (perhaps

he can whistle a mean " Dixie " !). I am grateful if you have corrected

a misapprehension on my part. Again, I'd be interested to know what

those figures were.

P.

> Hold on watts,

>

> In Time magazine, Gore's I.Q. as well as our President, W.

(pronounced W) was given. Gore's 'I.Q'. was only slightly higher than

our Presidents. If playing (feigning) tag football while waiting for

the 'real' vote returns to come in is considered smart than we would

have been in for a real dose of 'Kennedy' liberalism.

>

> Careful with those trite Liberal comments, they can get you into a

lot of trouble if this were a political list. Thankfully, it's not.

>

> Lets just stay sober - K?

>

> With respect,

>

>

>

> Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

lunacy)

>

>

>

> He may

> > well have coined the word " internet " , I dont know - however what I

do

> > know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more

> > brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.

> >

> > P.

> >

> >