|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
Memekiller (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:10 AM Original message |
New Scientist pulls story on Creationist Code words |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:19 AM Response to Original message |
1. They're just a subset of the more general "how to spot a scientific idiot" words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrModerate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:47 AM Response to Original message |
2. That's pretty gutless of the New Scientist . . . n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SkyDaddy7 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:06 AM Response to Reply #2 |
7. I know! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrModerate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:05 PM Response to Reply #7 |
18. Well, let's see . . . I'm certainly perturbed by the outsized influence . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:15 PM Response to Reply #7 |
19. Galileo? Being a scientist requires a degree of guts sometimes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tommy_J (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:58 AM Response to Original message |
3. Too bad they pulled it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OVERPAID01 (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:25 AM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Give credit if they stand by their editor. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tommy_J (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:13 PM Response to Reply #6 |
16. I think your way off base here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrModerate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:34 PM Response to Reply #16 |
25. So who stole their mojo? You have to admit that "somebody complained . . ." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tommy_J (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:45 PM Response to Reply #25 |
27. Yes, "somebody complained" is weak |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrModerate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-16-09 02:40 AM Response to Reply #27 |
30. I'd hate to think that an article on detecting pseudoscience was "daring" . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truthisfreedom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:06 AM Response to Original message |
4. I wanna see it, now. NOW. Anyone have a link? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Memekiller (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:10 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Link in the post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Commie Pinko Dirtbag (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 09:03 AM Response to Reply #5 |
38. Streisand effect, we welcome thee! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ArbustoBuster (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:30 PM Response to Reply #4 |
24. There's a link in the Examiner article, but the link is broken. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mainer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:08 AM Response to Original message |
8. I do think this part of her editorial is not entirely true |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hassin Bin Sober (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:31 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. I'll hazard a guess... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Doctor. (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 10:53 AM Response to Reply #8 |
14. The point is the connotation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Penance (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 05:57 PM Response to Reply #8 |
21. It's a creationist straw man argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mainer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:29 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. Boy, the semantics seem pretty obtuse to me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrModerate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:39 PM Response to Reply #23 |
26. It's code because . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KakistocracyHater (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 06:00 PM Response to Reply #8 |
22. 'too complex' is a code |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JPettus (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 09:52 PM Response to Reply #8 |
29. Not according to the article |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 07:47 AM Response to Original message |
10. What appears to be the full text, available here: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rasputin1952 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 09:24 AM Response to Reply #10 |
11. I just checked it out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Speaker (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 01:22 AM Response to Reply #10 |
35. I'm betting it was an advertiser that objected. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 06:05 AM Response to Reply #35 |
36. I wouldn't think so - you'd expect pro-science, anti-BS articles in New Scientist |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HereSince1628 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 09:59 AM Response to Original message |
12. Its published out of London ... mebee someone in the monarchy didn't like it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nichomachus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 10:27 AM Response to Original message |
13. They pulled it because of "a" complaint??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DavidDvorkin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 10:58 AM Response to Original message |
15. Could be fear of Britain's libel laws |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kablooie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 01:35 PM Response to Original message |
17. Scientists are so damned biased. They only want the real truth not God's Truth. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 03:27 PM Response to Original message |
20. Simma down, now. The site says that the story is TEMPORARILY unavailable while they investigate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Memekiller (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 12:40 AM Response to Reply #20 |
34. Due to suit... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Igel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Mar-15-09 08:50 PM Response to Original message |
28. The writer overstepped. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jmondine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-16-09 02:49 AM Response to Reply #28 |
31. Perhaps, but... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Night Owl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-16-09 08:49 AM Response to Reply #28 |
32. I can't reach the site with the full article but my impression based on reading... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Memekiller (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-16-09 01:15 PM Response to Original message |
33. More on the New Scientist story |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mainer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 08:39 AM Response to Reply #33 |
37. Legal? As in a charge of plagiarism or something? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-17-09 09:26 AM Response to Reply #37 |
39. More likely libel |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat Jun 15th 2024, 03:36 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC