The Darwinists' insistence that ID is creationism
A continuing theme of the Darwinists is their insistence that intelligent design is just creationism in disguise. Recent examples of this insistence are here on Panda's Thumb and here and here on Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton's blog. Furthermore, the religious motivations of a few leading ID proponents are used to stereotype all proponents of ID as religiously motivated.
Unfortunately, I am banned from commenting under my real name on those blogs, so I am restricted to posting my comments here.
A big reason for this insistence is, of course, that since creationism is identified with religion, anything identified with creationism is therefore religious and subject to attack by means of the establishment clause if taught or even mentioned in the public schools. The Darwinists have perverted the establishment clause into a means of attacking scientific ideas that they disagree with. Whether or not ID has religious connotations is irrelevant so far as its scientific merits are concerned. The Darwinists are just taking out their hostilities by attacking the kiddies, who are the victims of the censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools. Also, as a result of the attacks on ID in the public schools, the Darwinists can now brag that a judge supported the claim that ID is just creationism.
This insistence that ID is creationism is one reason why I have preferred to concentrate on non-ID challenges to Darwinism, e.g., challenges concerning co-evolution, the propagability of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts. These challenges do not involve the issue of "design." With no design, there is no supernatural "designer." With no supernatural designer, there is no religion. With no religion, there can be no violation of the establishment clause. Simple. Unfortunately, the Darwinists have also been insisting that all challenges to evolution are forms of ID, but that is of course ridiculous.
Unfortunately, I am banned from commenting under my real name on those blogs, so I am restricted to posting my comments here.
A big reason for this insistence is, of course, that since creationism is identified with religion, anything identified with creationism is therefore religious and subject to attack by means of the establishment clause if taught or even mentioned in the public schools. The Darwinists have perverted the establishment clause into a means of attacking scientific ideas that they disagree with. Whether or not ID has religious connotations is irrelevant so far as its scientific merits are concerned. The Darwinists are just taking out their hostilities by attacking the kiddies, who are the victims of the censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools. Also, as a result of the attacks on ID in the public schools, the Darwinists can now brag that a judge supported the claim that ID is just creationism.
This insistence that ID is creationism is one reason why I have preferred to concentrate on non-ID challenges to Darwinism, e.g., challenges concerning co-evolution, the propagability of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts. These challenges do not involve the issue of "design." With no design, there is no supernatural "designer." With no supernatural designer, there is no religion. With no religion, there can be no violation of the establishment clause. Simple. Unfortunately, the Darwinists have also been insisting that all challenges to evolution are forms of ID, but that is of course ridiculous.
Labels: Intelligent design
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/04/2006 07:29:00 PM
39 Comments:
You are not seriously claiming that ID is not creationism?
FishyFred said ( 6/05/2006 01:47:17 AM ) --
>>>>>The posts you linked to are all about proving that the ID movement was initiated and is being run by creationists.<<<<<<
So far as I know, no one has ever called Michael Behe, who popularized the concept of irreducible complexity, a creationist. I don't know about all the other initiators or leaders of the ID movement. Certainly many of the followers are not creationists. Also, ID is not necessarily creationist just because many of the leading proponents are creationists -- you seemed to admit that when you said, "That alone is not why ID = creationism."
I just want to mention at this point that the creationism being discussed here is specifically "creation science" -- originally known as "scientific creationism" -- instead of biblical creationism. Creation science uses scientific arguments (or pseudoscientific arguments, depending on your viewpoint), but according to Wikipedia supposedly still includes the idea of a creator (calling it "creation science" would otherwise be a contradiction in terms}. My non-ID anti-Darwinism arguments concerning co-evolution et al. might be considered to be part of "creation science," since these arguments offer no alternative scientific explanations -- I just don't mention a "creator."
>>>>>ID = creationism because ID proponents are using the exact same arguments that were shot down when creationists used them two decades ago (and earlier). <<<<<<
The arguments are not exactly the same, though they may be similar in principle. Many of the arguments for irreducible complexity are now being made in microbiology and biochemistry (sometimes called molecular biology) -- quite a bit different from the argument, "what good is half an eye?" Also, I don't agree that the creationists' arguments were ever "shot down" -- the arguments might have even just been ignored. According to Wikipedia, the term "exaptation," the name of the concept that is probably the principal argument against irreducible complexity, was introduced in 1982, long after creation science (formerly known as scientific creationism) was introduced, though I don't know if the concept of exaptation was introduced before then. I said the following about exaptation in my article titled Views on Intelligent Design: "Exaptation" is the concept that features that evolve for one function may be converted to serve another function and that hence many of the parts of irreducibly complex systems may have come ready-made or nearly so. However, exaptation does not change the fact that all of the parts of an irreducibly complex system must come together simultaneously in their final forms to create the complete system, and that is very unlikely. Also, a feature that is already serving an essential or important function may not be available to help form the irreducible system unless a duplicate is created.
Finally, as I said in my article here, "whether or not ID has religious connotations is irrelevant so far as its scientific merits are concerned." The Darwinists' claim that ID is creationism is just a charge of guilt by association.
> I just want to mention at this point that the creationism being discussed here is specifically "creation science" <
creationsim science is a oxymoron.
> My non-ID anti-Darwinism arguments <
We haven't seen arguments, only statements supported by misinterpretations.
> The Darwinists' claim that ID is creationism is just a charge of guilt by association.<
The claim that ID is creationism passes the duck test. Your drivel does not.
noah cronym said ( 6/05/2006 01:00:13 PM ) --
>>>>>Larry, amazingly enough, Barbara Forrest, on cross in Dover, said that Michael Behe is a creationist.
At the same time, she said that Ken MIller is not.<<<<<
So? Is it so just because she said so? And Miller is religiously motivated, whether he is a creationist or not -- he wrote a book titled, "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."
Larry said, "So far as I know, no one has ever called Michael Behe, who popularized the concept of irreducible complexity, a creationist."
Noah Cronym said, "Larry, amazingly enough, Barbara Forrest, on cross in Dover, said that Michael Behe is a creationist."
Larry replied, "So? Is it so just because she said so?"
Irrelevant.
Please acknowledge that "someone" has said so.
P.S. After reviewing Barbara Forrest's testimony, I agree that she called Michael Behe a "creationist" -- it is very clear.
referee said ( 6/05/2006 02:08:45 PM ) --
>>>>>Larry said, "So far as I know, no one has ever called Michael Behe, who popularized the concept of irreducible complexity, a creationist."
Noah Cronym said, "Larry, amazingly enough, Barbara Forrest, on cross in Dover, said that Michael Behe is a creationist."
Larry replied, "So? Is it so just because she said so?"
Irrelevant.
Please acknowledge that "someone" has said so. <<<<<<
Well, OK, I was considering acknowledging it before but considered such acknowledgment to be unnecessary because it was obvious that an exception to my statement had been presented. OK, I acknowledge it now. But I still stand by my statement, "Is it so just because she said so?"
Chris Hyland said ( 6/05/2006 11:00:01 AM ) --
>>>>"Whether or not ID has religious connotations is irrelevant so far as its scientific merits are concerned."
Maybe, but it does matter if you want to teach it in schools. If it didn't have religious connotations then you couldn't use the establishment clause to stop it being taught in schools. <<<<<<<
I question whether merely having "religious connotations" is sufficient reason to ban something as a government endorsement of religion. Santa Claus and Christmas trees have religious connotations, but I don't think that the courts would ban them from public places -- we do have a national Christmas tree in Washington, DC, you know.
Also, in the three cases where the courts struck down evolution disclaimers, Dover, Selman and Freiler, neither ID nor creationism was actually being taught -- only Darwinism was being taught. The Selman disclaimer did not specifically identify any challenges to evolution, the Freiler disclaimer mentioned only biblical creationism but did not endorse it, and the Dover disclaimer mentioned only ID and arguably appeared to endorse it.
In the "Chromosome Counts and Evolution" thread on this blog, you yourself wrote,
"I don't think creationism and ID should be introduced as legitimate scientific alternatives to evolution, but I do think they should be mentioned." (emphasis added) -- from
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/chromosome-counts-and-evolution.html#c114667832399713799
Also, as I pointed out, the Freiler case came within one vote of being granted a rehearing en banc (i.e., a rehearing by the full appeals court) and within one vote of being granted certiorari by the Supreme Court (four yes votes minimum). See http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/close-votes-in-freiler-case-show.html
Also, the Selman district-court opinion said,
Unlike the disclaimer in the Freiler case, the Sticker in this case does not contain a reference to religion in general, any particular religion, or any religious theory. This weighs heavily in favor of upholding the Sticker as constitutional. See Adler, 206 F.3d at 1083 ("For the most part, statutes which the Supreme Court has invalidated for lack of secular purpose have openly favored religion or demonstrated a religious purpose on their face."). (emphasis added) -- from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
>>>>>But then if it didn't have religious connotations, no one would be trying to teach it in schools, so it's screwed either way.<<<<<
This blog presented three non-ID challenges to evolution -- challenges concerning co-evolution, propagability of beneficial mutations, and chromosome counts. There is no "design" involved, hence no supernatural "designer" and no religion. Do you think that therefore no one would try to teach these challenges in public schools?
> Santa Claus and Christmas trees have religious connotations, but I don't think that the courts would ban them from public places <
As a matter of fact in some places they have.
< another hint >
Not necessary; I think I already know who you are.
Larry, are you bringing this up because you have realized that the Christian Myth (And Jewish and muslim and Aztec and Gubangi and aboriginal and all the other god myths) is a pile of crap with not the slightest shred of truth or are you trying to hide from that unpleasant fact?
noah cronym said ( 6/05/2006 09:43:15 PM ) --
>>>>Larry, you seem to be a little overly defensive:<<<<<<
So you think I am "a little overly defensive"? Have you seen some of the crap I have been getting on this blog? I know that I should just ignore disparaging comments, but unfortunately there are some readers who are impressed by such comments. I should also just forget about readers who are dumb enough to be impressed by such comments.
>>>>>>Your pointing out that Miller is religiously motivated only underscores the irony of Forrest calling Behe a creationist while denying that Miller is. Both men are Catholics, both men believe that God is the creator of the universe, both men feel that it is possible that God may have subtly guided evolution at the quantum level. The only difference is that Miller believes this could never be empirically demonstrated.
In my opinion Forrest's say so says nothing but that she is biased and wrong.<<<<<<
So what kind of credibility should Forrest have? Yet her testimony has been described as a critical factor in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision -- see my article titled "Barbara Forrest and the Dover Decision". Also, I am astonished that the plaintiffs had the chutzpah to choose a religiously motivated expert witness, Kenneth Miller, when they made such a big deal about the religious motivations of the defendants and ID proponents in general -- see "Kenneth Miller the hypocrite".
Actually, IMO, there should have been no expert witness testimony at all in the Dover case. My article titled "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in the Dover Intelligent Design case" says:
(19) If Judge Jones had followed the precedent of the Edwards v. Aguillard creation-science case, he would have refused to hear expert witness testimony on the grounds that none of the expert witnesses had participated in or contributed to the enactment of the Dover school board's ID policy. The syllabus of Edwards v. Aguillard said, "The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596." (the "appellants" were government officials of Louisiana).
I am always being called stupid about legal matters just for making literal interpretations of what I read.
>>>>>I only supplied you with the information that you might have the facts and that you would not have to hear it from somebody thinking they had some brilliant argument against you for having remembered the assertion.<<<<<
Yes, this is a problem -- some commenters just like to show off that they are one up on someone else in regard to knowledge of a particular fact. For example, I was not aware that the wing joints of albatrosses can lock rigidly in the extended position, enabling these birds to soar effortlessly. I would have been pleased to get this interesting fact, but the rude commenter on Panda's Thumb who gave it to me spoiled my pleasure by calling me names for being so ignorant as to not know this fact.
>>>>>Some of you bloggers really need to learn to relax.<<<<<
It is hard to relax when so many comments are from trolls.
Anyway, Noah, thanks a lot for the info.
> Have you seen some of the crap I have been getting on this blog? <
Why are you posting this crap on your blog?
> I know that I should just ignore disparaging comments <
Then why do you initiate these exchanges?
> I am always being called stupid about legal matters just for making literal interpretations of what I read. <
I have never seen a case of this. You are being stupid by making wild interpretations of what you think someone "really" meant. If you actually stuck to literal interpretations you would not have this problem. Often what people mean is what they say, not a tortured reconstruction of it by a warped mind.
> I think I already know who you are. <
But you are keeping it to yourself?
Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/06/2006 07:16:54 AM ) --
<<<<<<> I know that I should just ignore disparaging comments <
Then why do you initiate these exchanges?>>>>>>
Now that is a stupid question.
<<<<<<> I am always being called stupid about legal matters just for making literal interpretations of what I read. <
I have never seen a case of this. You are being stupid by making wild interpretations of what you think someone "really" meant.>>>>>>
Often commenters will just say that I am wrong without even stating what they think is the correct interpretation.
>>>>Then why do you initiate these exchanges?<<<<
>Now that is a stupid question.<
I have shown where you have initiated name calling. If you don't like it, why do you do it?
That is a good question. I am awaiting your stupid answer.
Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>>I have shown where you have initiated name calling. If you don't like it, why do you do it?<<<<<<<
I just get pissed off when commenters here just say that I am wrong without saying why they think so. That just clutters up my blog with garbage. Most other bloggers would just delete those stupid comments, but I cannot do that because of my no-censorship pledge. So my only recourse is to use name-calling.
Manuel said ( 6/06/2006 08:03:14 AM ) ---
>>>>>The difference between Behe and Miller is that one argues for evolution within the confines of science and the other breaks the rules of science to argue for the creator (intelligent designer). That's what makes Behe a creationist and Miller not a creationist -- and why Forrest's testimony was consistent.<<<<<<
I have read very little of Behe's writings, but so far as I know he generally does not directly argue for a creator.
Also, a lot of people -- myself included -- think that the just-so stories of Darwinism are so farfetched that they can be explained only by assuming supernatural causation. So to me, it is just a case of take your pick -- supernatural causation in ID or supernatural causation in Darwinism. One of the things that I like about ID is that its actual scientific claims are modest whereas those of Darwinism are not.
Anyway, Forrest was just stating her own personal opinion.
>>>>>> In the same vein, the comments of Pope John Paul II would make him not a creationist.<<<<<<
JP II's statement that Darwinism is "more than just a hypothesis" has often been quoted out of context. See
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4340
-- and --
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/08/08/is_the_catholic_church_rethinking_its_view_of_evolution/?page=1 (this is a 2-page article)
Also, there are all kinds of creationists nowadays -- young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, day-age creationists, theistic evolutionists (actually a kind of creationist), etc..
Chris Hyland said ( 6/06/2006 09:27:12 AM ) --
>>>>>"I question whether merely having "religious connotations" is sufficient reason to ban something as a government endorsement of religion."
It is a shame that science has to resort to these lawsuits in the first place to stop bad science being taught in the classroom.<<<<<<
In the three lawsuits against evolution disclaimers, Kitzmiller, Selman, and Freiler, no challenges to Darwinism were actually being taught in the public schools. Also, in none of those cases was Darwinism not being taught in the public schools.
Also, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. The establishment clause is being abused for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas.
Also, I said in my article, "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case",
(18) There ought to be a general principle that judges should not rule on the scientific merits of ideas unless doing so is absolutely essential to reach a decision in the case. Such rulings are essential in, say, product liability cases, but -- as shown above -- such a ruling was not essential in the Dover ID case. Courts have no general legal or constitutional authority to settle disputes on scientific issues, and the courts are ill-suited to settle such disputes, e.g., the Supreme Court said in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, "....there are important differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for truth in the laboratory. Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly." Eighty-five scientists filed an amicus brief in the Dover case urging the judge to refrain from ruling on the scientific merits of ID.
>>>>>"In the "Chromosome Counts and Evolution" thread on this blog, you yourself wrote,
"I don't think creationism and ID should be introduced as legitimate scientific alternatives to evolution, but I do think they should be mentioned.""
Yes they should be taught as examples of bad science and how not to do science. Science does research, ID does press releases.<<<<<<
Many Darwinists are even opposed to the idea of teaching criticisms of Darwinism as bad science, because of a fear that the students might believe these criticisms anyway.
> I just get pissed off when commenters here just say that I am wrong without saying why they think so. <
They say so and you pretend you haven't read it. That is the sort of thing that frustrates everyone with you. You are impervious to arguments that go against your opinions.
> So my only recourse is to use name-calling. <
Then you have nothing to complain about when others reply in kind.
> Also, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <
How can you possibly claim that Darwinism is bogus science? You may try to support a competing scientific theory but you don't.
> The establishment clause is being abused for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas. <
Nobody is suppressing scientific ideas. They are trying to keep pseudo-science from being mixed with science. I have no problem with ID being taught as mythology.
Do you want equal time for flat-earth science?
> Also, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <
How can you possibly claim that Darwinism is bogus science? You may try to support a competing scientific theory but you don't.
> The establishment clause is being abused for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas. <
Nobody is suppressing scientific ideas. They are trying to keep pseudo-science from being mixed with science. I have no problem with ID being taught as mythology.
Do you want equal time for flat-earth science?
Voice In The Wilderness said ( 6/06/2006 02:26:37 PM ) --
>>>>>>> Also, there is no constitutional separation of bogus science and state. <
How can you possibly claim that Darwinism is bogus science? <<<<<<
In this context, I was referring to allegations that ID -- not Darwinism -- is bogus science.
>>>>>>>You may try to support a competing scientific theory but you don't.<<<<<<
So Darwinism is not bogus science just because there are no competing theories? LOL
>>>>>> The establishment clause is being abused for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas. <
Nobody is suppressing scientific ideas. They are trying to keep pseudo-science from being mixed with science.<<<<<<
OK, I will amend that to say, "The establishment clause is being abused for the purpose of suppressing ideas that are either scientific or pseudoscientific, depending on your viewpoint."
>>>>>I have no problem with ID being taught as mythology.<<<<<
A lot of people who oppose ID have a problem with ID being taught at all.
>>>>>Do you want equal time for flat-earth science? <<<<<<
Kitzmiller, Selman, and Freiler are evolution-disclaimer cases. Equal time is not an issue in evolution-disclaimer cases.
Voice In The Wilderness said ( June 06, 2006 2:19:40 PM ) --
<<<<<> I just get pissed off when commenters here just say that I am wrong without saying why they think so. <
They say so and you pretend you haven't read it. <<<<<<
You are so full of crap it is coming out your ears, VIW. No replies are more direct and better backed up by references than mine. Just look at my replies in this thread. In contrast, you often make assertions about things that you know absolutely nothing about, like my lawsuits over the smog impact fee.
> I was referring to allegations that ID -- not Darwinism -- is bogus science. <
I don't think that it is accurate to call ID bogus science. It is not science.
> So Darwinism is not bogus science just because there are no competing theories? LOL <
Some day you need to learn to read. I didn't say that. I didn't imply that.
>>>>>I have no problem with ID being taught as mythology.<<<<<
> A lot of people who oppose ID have a problem with ID being taught at all. <
I have no problem with ID being taught as long as nobody pretends that it is science or has a scientific background.
> No replies are more direct and better backed up by references than mine. <
Your replies are rarely direct. Often you misunderstand what someone has said and run off on a tangent. As for references, nearly all fall into two categories. Ones that are completely irrelevant to the case at hand and ones that prove the opposite of your position.
Sorry that Sherlock and I have been away. We were filling in as election workers on Tuesday (that is hard work! -- and rather depressing -- too many Dumbocrats in this precinct).
> I think I already know who you are. <
"But you are keeping it to yourself?"
Sorry. I suddenly realized that the prime suspect is much too young. So I had to go back to the drawing board.
I'm a little surprised that L isn't playing -- I'd think he has the best shot. It seems he has just one obsession, maximum, at a time.
I now think that ViW is either RK or AH.
Voice said, "I have no problem with ID being taught as mythology."
It's less entertaining.
> I now think that ViW is either RK or AH. <
You have made two guesses. I could just count it as a compound guess and answer yes or no, but I want you to see what the options really are.
You only get five guesses and I have been charitable in saying you have only previously used one. (I am not counting Colin as that guess appeared before the game begin.)
If you chose either RK or AH, and guess wrong, you will only have one guess deducted, but won't really know if the other is me. On the other hand you may choose both with two possible outcomes; 1. Neither may be correct and you will have only two left or 2. I will tell you that I am one of the two, but not further enlighten you as to which one. Of course in that case you could find out who I am with only one further guess.
There is a third possibility. You could guess that I am neither and am trying to draw you into wasting two guesses, and then you could go off on a new track without really knowing if either of these were actually correct. Let's see how good a poker player you are.
Neither of you have asked any questions. This is a separate category from guesses. You still have five to go between you. While I am allowing each of you five guesses, the questions will be five combined. Since Bill Carter has stated that you are in "almost daily contact" you may coordinate your efforts on the questions but only one can win so the guesses will be counted for or against the one posting them.
After you decide what your guess or guesses will really be, I will post the next hint (if necessary).
Larry,
Don't you want to participate in this. In your case I will allow ten guesses since, as you have indicated, you only have half a brain.
VIW,
This is a guess, not a question. I am presuming that since it is a compound guess, it will only count as one. If not, don't count or answer it.
I realize that if the answer is yes, I will not know for sure which one and would be in a race with Dave to then guess which one.
Are you a relative of Dave and Larry?
> This is a guess, not a question. <
No, that is a question, not a guess.
If you want me to answer, I will count it as such. I will not answer unless you agree that it counts as a question.
> I now think that ViW is either RK or AH. <
"You have made two guesses. I could just count it as a compound guess and answer yes or no ..."
OK, let me be very explicit. It is a compound question, the answer is either yes or no, and it counts as one of the questions.
In the event that the answer is "yes", we need to do something to keep this a sporting proposition, so you can perhaps then give us a clever hint (or I may ask a question other than the obvious one).
Also, please advise whether you still desire a (somewhat) anonymous profile.
P.S. I'm not sure what I would do with a bag of acorns if I won it. I tried preparing acorns once according to my probable misinterpretation of an old Indian recipe -- wasn't too impressed with the result.
> OK, let me be very explicit. It is a compound question, the answer is either yes or no, and it counts as one of the questions. <
The answer is no. I am not either RK or AH. Acutally I am giving you even more information as there may be more than one with either of these pairs of initials.
I had hoped to draw you into making two incorrect guesses. You probably played this hand best with the compound question.
> In the event that the answer is "yes", we need to do something to keep this a sporting proposition, so you can perhaps then give us a clever hint <
Since the answer is no. I will give you a less than clever hint. Since it is established that I know Larry, and he is still glued to your mother, telling you that I know her won't count for much. The hint is I know your father. (You didn't get much out of the last hint.)
> Also, please advise whether you still desire a (somewhat) anonymous profile. <
If you guess correctly within the rules, I am already committed to come clean. If you use up your guesses and questions I will not answer any more but I may still slip at one time or another and let the cat out of the bag. If so, I can survive being dragged into the open.
Bill Carter has still not guessed and you have only guessed once (counting the last as a question rather than a guess). You have probably already eliminated 99% or more of the population so you have a good chance. On the other hand, Larry is no threat with his ten allowed guesses. As someone said "He is as dense as a neutron star."
Voice: Are you MH?
Voice: Are you MH?
No. And I will give you a free hint. I don't know who MH, AH, and RK are.
Now my next to the last hint: Unix.
Quoting myself "Now my next to the last hint: Unix."
Note the spelling. If I were referring to Larry it would be "Eunuch".
Larry, It looks like you are getting all that you are paying for with this blog site. I continuously get a message "This file contains no data." when attempting to get on your site. While I might agree with the error message, it does get tiresome.
ViW,
I am asking for a clarification of the rules. Can we ask compound questions? The advantage for us would be that we could possibly clear the air on a number of items. Your benefit is that you would be able to answer yes or no and we would still be stuck needing an additional question or questions to determine exactly what we had learned from the first answer.
I understand that we will be missing your brilliance for a few days. I hope that you have a good time. Don't worry. Rob Serrano has stepped in to take the position of chief heckler and he is making mincemeat out of Larry.
Your site is on top of my favourites - Great work I like it.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home