Hello Christian, it's been a while.

I find it a tad disingenuous of both you and Bill S. to even infer that I
was trying to censor Wirt.  I certainly do not remember either of you fine
gentlemen jumping down Wirt's throat when he blasted some of my links simply
because they were in the Washington Times.  (If you did, especially Bill,
please show me where in the archives; I can't find it.)

Having put that one to rest, let's move on.

I have no problems with Wirt saying whatever he wants; he (and you) can
accuse whomever you want of censorship, even if it's not true, or certainly
not one-sided.  I would suggest to you that the left is far more inclined
and experienced at censorship than the other way around; history is replete
with examples of that (Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, Communist
China, Socialist Baathist Iraq...).  (It's interesting that Wirt mentioned
Scientific American, they are one publication that practices censorship on
ideas opposed to or questioning their beliefs.)

Like you, I deplore the fact science has fallen prey to political pressures,
but that pressure has come from the left.  Why else do you have farces like
Kyoto, DDT, CFCs and asbestos bans, and other such things that impact our
lives but have no scientific basis?  If you repeat a lie long enough, some
people begin to believe it.  Science should not be based on majority
opinion; it should be based on scientific fact.  It should be demonstrable
and repeatable and people should be allowed to question it, unmolested.  If
you have to threaten someone with loss of tenure, job or funding simply
because they dare question "common knowledge" then we are no different from
the folks who persecuted others for "heresy" or "thinking different" in the
past.

As you well know, I read a lot and I have little time for articles where I
find two big mistakes right in the first paragraph and where these mistakes
go at the very premise of the article, I simply put it down and move on to
another one.

In the US right now, there has definitely been a move either to the right,
or perhaps a retreat from the direction in which it seems the rest of the
world is marching, like docile, unquestioning lemmings.  I attribute this
"reassessment" to the greater availability of information, unfiltered by the
"elite."

It remains to be seen if the "elite" manage to stifle the freedom of the
Internet.  I certainly hope they do not succeed.

And finally, I have to disagree with you, evolution has NOT been confirmed.
It is the current thinking, but as Wirt observed some time back, even with
all the bones that have recovered, not a single case has ever been
documented to illustrate the evolution of one "ancestor" to a later form
where there are major changes.  There are also other problems with various
facets of the current theory of evolution that are simply ignored, glossed
over, or better yet, where the questioner is cowed into silence.  I will be
happy to describe some of them and if someone can reconcile these for me,
that would be wonderful.

Please be aware I do not subscribe to "creationism" or ID.  But neither do I
accept the totality of the current evolution mantra on faith alone :-) .  I
can question it without a hidden agenda and I chose to do so.  I would
really be interested in scientific PROOF.  I actually think we do not
currently know everything and there is more to discover, which is what
science is all about.

What if?  Why?  How?  Those are eternal questions that should never be
stifled.
 
Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Christian Lheureux
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Off-topic, but not by much (Part I)

The French philosopher Voltaire once wrote that "I may disagree with you,
but I'll struggle to make you express your viewpoint" (translated from
French). In that respect, I applaud Wirt's postings and Denys' reaction,
even if I certainly do not agree with one of these gentlemen. Bill Shanks
also expressed his viewpoint, which I certainly subscribe to : read a piece
of opinion, just in case you learn something from it.

To put things in another perspective, it's not because one does not like a
message that one should blast (or, worse, to physical force to annihilate)
the messenger.

Denys, you once wrote very correctly that "it's tremendous how far right
this country has shifted". I assume you were referring to the United States
of America. I agree with your comment. Were you applauding to such a move ?
Perhaps - and I have no problem with that opinion of yours. But I certainly
share Wirt's (and others') concern that, with the USA markedly shifting
right, science is blurred with non-scientific opinion. Evolution has been
confirmed and proved by plenty of hard fact. Creationism has been based on
faith from Day 1.

As for attacking the NYT mostly because it's the NYT, I raise the same
objection : don't blast the messenger because you do not agree with the
message.

Now I have a concern, and I wish to share it. The late-30s Nazi Third Reich
was perceived as a dictatorship when its minions began to burn books, for
the sole reason that these books has been written by Jews. Is the string of
attempts to blur the message of science with creationist opinion a similar
action of putting politics ahead of education, mostly because professors are
perceived as left-leaning and, as such, not in favor with the current
administration ?

OK, now flame suit on, I believe. You may call me what you want, but
certainly not a leftist honcho - I supported Reagan's deployment of cruise
missiles in Europe, I never supported the nationalization of businesses, I
support most schemes that intend to put people out of welfare and back at
work, etc. But I certainly do not support neglecting education in favour of
politics. That was done before, including in my own country by a
self-proclaimed elite of leftist professors in the 70s, and it has failed.

Christian

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part
> de Denys Beauchemin
> Envoyé : mercredi 6 avril 2005 04:15
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Off-topic, but not by much (Part I)
> 
> Wirt, why do you insist on posting press articles which are incorrect?
> 
> When Columbus sailed west from Europe, he was not trying to get to India,
> he
> was on his way to Cathay.  That was the name the people of Columbus' times
> had for China.
> 
> Also, nobody was disputing the fact the Earth was round, what they were
> arguing about was the fact Columbus would never make it to Cathay with his
> ships, it was way too far.  The detractors were right; if the (now named)
> American continent had not been there, Columbus an his 3 crews would have
> perished on their way to Cathay.
> 
> I stopped reading the article right after the first couple sentences.
> Would
> you please refrain from posting such crap in the future?
> 
> Denys
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Wirt Atmar
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Off-topic, but not by much (Part I)
> 
> Tom Friedman was on NBC's Today Show this morning promoting his new book,
> "A
> Brief History of the 21st Century." He also wrote the following a few days
> ago
> in the NY Times. And he has a program on the Discovery Channel this coming
> Thursday night on somewhat the same subject.
> 
> People have discussed the "threat" that India and China represent to the
> American way of Life, especially to IT departments, before on this list,
> and
> that
> concern represents a good deal of the material to follow. But the bottom
> line
> that Friedman argues is that a failing education in America underlies much
> of
> the problem -- and is the ultimate source of much of the whining.
> 
> Due to email space limitations, I can't put everything I would wish in
> this
> one email, so read this one first and then the one to follow.
> 
> Wirt Atmar
> 
> ======================================
> 
> April 3, 2005
> It's a Flat World, After All
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> 
> In 1492 Christopher Columbus set sail for India, going west. He had the
> Nina,
> the Pinta and the Santa Maria. He never did find India, but he called the
> people he met ''Indians'' and came home and reported to his king and
> queen:
> ''The world is round.'' I set off for India 512 years later. I knew just
> which direction I was going. I went east. I had Lufthansa business class,
> and I came home and reported only to my wife and only in a whisper: ''The
> world is flat.''
> 
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *