…and this is a 
Well. There's another paper out discussing science blogs, which is a good thing, I suppose. I just find the conclusion a bit disappointing. Bora has an exhaustive dissection, and both The Panda's Thumb and Cosmic Variance have briefer (they'd have to be! Bora got loquacious) discussions of the topic.
Where the author loses me is with this summary.
To become a tool for non-scientist participation, science blogs need to stabilize as a genre or as a set of subgenres where smaller conversations may facilitate more meaningful participation from members of the public. Science bloggers need to become more aware of their audience, welcome non-scientists, and focus on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication rather than on reporting and opinionating.
We don't need to 'stabilize' on anything: the virtue of this medium is unfettered diversity. Pharyngula is not to everybody's taste (really!), but is just right for some others — the wonderful part of the science blogosphere is that we have so many different ideas bouncing around out here. Why, there are even people who disagree with me!
I also think I am pretty aware of my audience, and if you look at the comment threads here, they aren't just scientists. This is the gladiatorial arena of the science blogosphere, and we don't restrict attendance to the prissy ol' patricians — everyone likes a good bloody rhetorical battle now and then. I know my readers like it when the bestiarii take on those animals, the creationists, and they also like the gladiatorial competitions between equals. And then we often break into homilies and tutorials. If that isn't appealing to a wide audience, I don't know what is.
I can't help but think that the author had some preconceptions about how a science blog should be (which usually means antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical) and found that they are rarely that way at all. And was a bit disappointed.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 9, 2010 10:50 AM
No there are not.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
March 9, 2010 10:53 AM
I'm not a scientist, and sometimes the subjects of the articles contain words that I haven't seen before and can only guess at by their latin roots.
Do I want them dumbed down or made more accessible? No.
Why? Because for those who do have the understanding, they can distill the information they need from the current density. The author doesn't need to waste time making sure the layman understands everything, and the readers with the knowledge don't have to sit through a primer in every article.
The internet is a vast resource in which to learn exactly what is meant by the original posts. I've occasionally lost three hours just tracking down the information on a single article. Along the way I amassed resources that I would want to address at a later time.
It might not be what everyone wants, but then we have a fluid blogosphere. Some will post in Barney -speak, and others in Binary.
Posted by: vanharris
|
March 9, 2010 10:56 AM
Yeah, but they're only religious nutjobs, so they don't count, eh.
Posted by: dinkum
|
March 9, 2010 10:56 AM
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?
*spit*
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 9, 2010 11:03 AM
Yes, be nice and be informative. Good thing we know that now!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: michelr
|
March 9, 2010 11:04 AM
"Why, there are even people who disagree with me!"
Sorry to disagree, this is wrong :-)
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
March 9, 2010 11:16 AM
All I can say is that I have learned so much lurking this blog (and a few others like it). The rough and tumble dialog only makes it more enjoyable.
PZ said:
I got the same impression.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
March 9, 2010 11:18 AM
That's right. This is a gladiator arena. I'm wearing a slave Leia outfit with a gladiator helmet right now and I'm looking goooooood.
Posted by: ernestotinajeroseo
|
March 9, 2010 11:19 AM
It brings about an interesting question of what Science blogging is. Is Science Blogging about Science or Blogging by a Scientist? If it means science, then many of the blogs he mention, including this one fail to meet the criteria. Not a criticism, but the reality as many of the post here are of personal nature, (travels, movie reviews and such make their way into this electronic media). Also, would it be blogging without the personal voice?
Blogging has more, as a medium, in common with an intellectual diary or memoir than does it mean "... a focus on explanatory, interpretative, and critical modes of communication." His question seems begged. He defines a blog as: "Blog is a frequently updated webpage that facilitates informal communication between the author of
the blog and its audience." Then he calls for a change in the nature of the Blog, (informal communication between the author of
the blog and its audience) to one more formal and non blog like. Boiled down he says a blog is better if it becomes less like a blog.
It seems to me that if Science Blogging is a blog written by a scientist, a more interesting question is how a popular sciences blog effects attitudes toward science, rather than calling for a revision of how blogs are done. I don't believe any blogger will change how they blog on the advice of an academic paper.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
March 9, 2010 11:23 AM
Let the author of the paper start his/her own science blog with the desired tone and report back in 5 years on how it is going.
Posted by: Moggie
|
March 9, 2010 11:24 AM
#8:
Coincidentally, I closely resemble Jabba the Hutt. We should get it on!
Posted by: bpesta22#b99c7
|
March 9, 2010 11:26 AM
I think you can't reduce most fields of science to sound bites. It creates the illusion that one doesn't need intense study in his/her field to figure what the best answers are to the field's current questions.
Without knowing anything about a field, one can't even understand why the current questions are what they are. I remember Palin making fun of fruit fly research. I'm sure she has a soundbite understanding of most science, and that's dangerous.
Worse, it marginalizes true expertise and brings science into the realm of opinion, where yours is no better than the experts.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Scienceblogs needs humility, in my humble opinion.
Scienceblogs also needs as much academic integrity as required for science itself. Anything else demeans the brand (unfairly).
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
March 9, 2010 11:28 AM
Peace and love through anarchy and chaos!
Posted by: RAMausII
|
March 9, 2010 11:30 AM
At least the science here is legit. If one wants old boring science go read an old science textbook. Here I feel I'm at the frontier of science and at the front of the science/faith wars. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Newfie
|
March 9, 2010 11:33 AM
you think?
Maybe that's why he gets so few comments/readers, compared to other blogs.
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
March 9, 2010 11:45 AM
OT, except maybe for a etiolated link to preconceptions in general:
Echoing the US civil rights movement, Muslim women in Washington, DC are refusing to stay in the "penalty box" rear section of their mosque for prayer services. Unable to enforce God's Rules on their own, mullahs at the Islamic Center of Washington called the cops and are seeking a restraining order to keep these uppity women in their place.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 11:50 AM
Holy crap. 15 comments each from 11 different blogs? I would return a student paper in a class to redo for having such a small sample size, never mind actually trying to get something published with it. The blogosphere is BIG. It's not that hard to get a lot of data.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 11:54 AM
Newfie, some people actually like to read posts that transmit information. Not everyone is stupid and needs things to be simple. And if you would go read his blog, you would find that his writing style is quite clear, crisp, and entertaining all while exhaustively taking down the article in question.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
March 9, 2010 11:55 AM
I'm sure the way the comments here instantly degenerated into some kind of bizarre Gladiator/Star Wars mashup* will confirm the author's thesis, at least in their own mind.
*I would totally watch that movie.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 9, 2010 11:55 AM
and?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 9, 2010 11:57 AM
Exactly. Bora does a great job. Not sure what length of posts has to do with anything.
Newfie have you ever read one of Orac's posts?
Posted by: arrakis
|
March 9, 2010 12:01 PM
I personally love the diversity of Pharyngula. I am not scientifically-minded but have a fascination with science. As a history/music major, my understanding of complicated science is limited, but my biologist sister and her biochemist boyfriend are always willing to help me out. I think it's great that some of the science here is easy to understand and other examples make my head hurt. It just helps me appreciate the complex, intricate work that scientists do. Some people seem to think that science is no more than mixing two beakers together and seeing what combinations blow up, and those people can't grasp that science cannot and should not always be dumbed-down.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 9, 2010 12:07 PM
Looking at Bora's post on this is a great education in the process of peer review. Basically he's posted his peer review of the paper to his blog, so if you are a young academic looking to publish your first paper, this is what you should expect from a good reviewer.
@Carlie - Well, it's actually 1409 comments from 174 posts. The 11 blogs is certainly an inadequate sample, but I think that there is an adequate sample of posts and comments.
Posted by: Larry
|
March 9, 2010 12:07 PM
Now there's a fine idea. Let's distill and homogenize the inter-tubes down to the lowest common denominator for a one-size-fits-all experience. That way, no one feels left out.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
March 9, 2010 12:09 PM
Great, another dumbass who has never set foot in a lab opining on science, and in an academic journal no less. (And, really - 'The Journal of Science Communication'? - I think we need a moratorium on new journals.) Reminds me of Feyerabend's remarks about how 'Bastard subjects such as the philosophy of science, which have not a single discovery to their credit, profit from the boom of the sciences.'
*flush*
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 12:11 PM
Gus - sorry, I was focusing on the 15 comments per post and blurring that into total sample size. I agree with Bora, though, that 15 per post is incredibly inadequate. Sometimes it can take 30-50 posts of quickie observations just to gear up a substantial fight over the post material.
Posted by: negentropyeater
|
March 9, 2010 12:14 PM
Wrong methodology, worthless conclusions.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 9, 2010 12:16 PM
@Carlie - I agree on the 15 comments, but I also agree with Bora that the number of total blogs and the manner of their selection is a bigger problem. (Well, he doesn't directly say bigger, but he mentions it more often.)
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
March 9, 2010 12:16 PM
As a non-scientist I think I already spend far too much time on these blogs. Making them more addictive would be a bad idea. Though his recomendations are incredibly obvious and would be dealt with through market forces anyway.
Posted by: thomas.c.galvin
|
March 9, 2010 12:21 PM
I just come here for the diemvoweling. And the bacon.
Posted by: Louis
|
March 9, 2010 12:22 PM
I find Pharyngula comment threads to be a generally poor place for me to pick up scientific information, the signal to noise ratio is all kinds of wrong. The posts are a different matter. However, the comment threads are also one of the few places on the web I genuinely learn something, scientific as well as personal. Interesting, no?
If I want a specific piece of scientific information I have plenty of places to go. If I want a detailed (and there really is no other way in research) dissection of some piece of science in a sober and informed manner, then sorry, but these comment threads aren't usually the place. Nor should they be, they serve a far better (and far rarer for me) purpose. A place to bang ideas about with people who are more than capable of banging them back.
Incidentally, I don't think this derives from a limitation of the people here, I think it's a limitation of the format. We don't get into images and equations a lot, whilst html and the text editor can cope with such things we generally agree not to, and the linear format can sometimes hinder following a subthread clearly/quickly.
Again, I don't see this as a problem. In fact, it's an advantage, a feature. If I have an idea (quasi-scientific or otherwise) I know of no better place to voice it than the comment threads at Pharyngula. The ravening hoardes tear it to shreds (or ignore it!) in the appropriate manner. This is a Good Thing! It's just not the best format for an in depth, technical discussion of detailed science.
I think mistaking the comment threads for serious discussions of science (on average) is an error, and misses the point of what they are good at. The original posts are a different matter perhaps, being a mixture of science, news and comment.
Like PZ said, many formats, many voices. It all goes to serve many needs. And that is good!
Louis
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eJREANl71tBZaeOyZkJr9VcGGg4h#2f844
|
March 9, 2010 12:30 PM
Eh. I sample a variety of science blogs and I wouldn't much want them to resemble each other more than they do.
However, anyone who used the wordoid "interpretative" gets the eyebrow from me. Ditto "orientated." Just remember: Everything not prohibitated is compulsorary.
Ron Sullivan, still plaginuated with a surfeit of letterittilies
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
March 9, 2010 12:31 PM
Except for a couple of physics courses in college 30 years ago, I'm entirely self-taught in the sciences, and I work as a journalist, not a scientist.
However, I still enjoy your blog and find I can understand about 80-90% of the hard science. I don't feel put off by the technical stuff, and I flunked high school algebra. Don't change a thing!
Posted by: Kobra
|
March 9, 2010 12:41 PM
Rhetorical battles with creationists: Running an instance.
Rhetorical battles with fellow atheists: Playing in a Battle Ground.
Dealing with trolls: Defending a major city from a stray member of the opposing faction.
We are all nerds. That's your audience, PZ.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
March 9, 2010 12:52 PM
Just what science-blogging needs, another concern/tone troll.
What is so hard to understand about "blogs are personal expression"? If someone wants to blog about monkey butts, all monkey butts all the time, so what? Read it or don't read it, who cares?
You want all science all the time? Go read Eruptions. I do. I like that blog.
These trolls are just annoyed by which science blogs are the most widely read. Sorry, but popularity can't be mandated.
Posted by: Newfie
|
March 9, 2010 12:56 PM
Nothing wrong with that. He was talking about becoming a tool for non-scientist participation. Being technical and non-concise seems counterproductive to that aim, and after a quick look for comment counts, I was noting the irony.
Yes.
Posted by: circleh
|
March 9, 2010 1:03 PM
Some people need to just grow up and learn to deal with real people, I guess.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
March 9, 2010 1:03 PM
Oh, and if you want to increase the hits for your less-than-popular blog, just start shit with the Pharyngula horde.
Though it only buys you a spike
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 9, 2010 1:08 PM
Ok, while he doesn't get the PZ traffic he does pretty well as far as the SciBlogs go.
Posted by: Les Lane
|
March 9, 2010 1:28 PM
The beauty of the web is that novices have Google search and wikipedia fill in the blanks in their understanding. Modern technology continually improves permitting information to be presented at continually higher levels
Posted by: Newfie
|
March 9, 2010 1:32 PM
There's plenty to be learned from the comments, here, and on other blogs. They provide links, insight, maybe some clearer context/examples for the average reader, and a sense of community that keeps people around and brings them back.
I realize that PZ gets a lot of traffic for Scienceblogs, but as an average reader, I don't find his posts too technical to absorb, or too winded, and the comments keep it interesting.
A good model, IMO, if reaching a wider audience is the goal.
Posted by: abb3w
|
March 9, 2010 1:49 PM
Science blogs may be a bit of a sociological platypus: "Neither fish, flesh, nor fowl, nor good red herring". (Oh, and yes, with venomous claws along with all the other weirdness.)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl61Xz3jVOoXQLeonr0QlIml85KT81ad3U
|
March 9, 2010 2:03 PM
Wow, such a debate over Bora's (admittedly long-winded) article.
I find it a bit amusing to see a journal analyzing blogs "scientifically".
What is the hypothesis being tested?
What is the "problem" being solved?
As another poster stated, the marketplace will work it out. I see the whole exercise as a bit pointless (i.e. the analysis of blogs - not blogging itself)
Posted by: negentropyeater
|
March 9, 2010 2:03 PM
Newfie,
The person talking about becoming a tool for non-scientist participation is the author of the paper, Inna Kouper, not the author of the blog, Bora.
btw Bora's post isn't technical.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
March 9, 2010 2:16 PM
Welcome to the Monkey House. Who doesn't enjoy a good scat flinging fest from time to time? On a meta level we are a scientific experiment in cultural anthropology.
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
March 9, 2010 2:26 PM
I just love the bacon recipes, My heart doesn't!
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
March 9, 2010 2:29 PM
I am a scientist, but only in a narrow sense; I have a field of expertise* and outside of that field I am a curious child/noob. I want to know more, and am poorly implemented to do so on my own**...and so I go on the interwebs. I suspect that this is true of most other scientists. Besides having a passion for science, I love profanity...not a big user myself, but when eloquence and profanity are combined...magnifique. I learn a lot here about things that I wouldn't be pondering on my own, and during slow science weeks (eg..the fucking holidays when discovery comes to a grinding halt), I at least get to enjoy the rants. If I want to talk nice with the
respectablemembers of my field, I use my real name and a telephone.*C'mon. Field of competence? Field of employment? Throw me a bone here.
**Because of the employment thing. It eats a lot of time.
Posted by: Anodyne
|
March 9, 2010 2:44 PM
OT, but there's a humorous piece in the Washington Post regarding the superiority of our tentacled friends...
Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal
|
March 9, 2010 3:00 PM
I'm certainly no scientist, I'm an artist and photographer. I learn a great deal here, and much of what I learn is in the comments - extended discussion and lots of clarification, for which this non-scientist is grateful. An antiseptic, pure, aloof, esoteric, and technical science blog wouldn't teach me nearly as much. Nor would it be remotely as enjoyable.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
March 9, 2010 3:08 PM
@34 What remains to be determined: Who will be the alpha nerd?
Posted by: statueofmike.myopenid.com
|
March 9, 2010 3:09 PM
I think he's saying that he wants space in scienceblogs for pseudoscientists to pontificate without having to deal with all of your "Scientist" words and theories getting in the way.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
March 9, 2010 3:12 PM
Krouper's paper seems to me a perfect example of my hobby horse -- the limits of scientific knowability.
The original paper wants to take a scientific, sociological approach to studying "Science blogs", and then extract some "lessons" -- and Bora critiques from a scientific perspective.
I find that besides the point. Science blogs are a form of literature (good, bad, irrelevant). They are only amenable to "sociological" research insofar as you're extracting sociological networks and movements. But in terms of what they MEAN, what they really are, you're not going to get much out of any scientific approach -- any more than studying Shakespeare or the latest soft-porn novels "scientifically".
It's silly -- literature is only superficially analyzable from a scientific perspective. A completely different genre is needed to study basically opaque human artistic output -- artistic criticism. It may be unuseful, bullshitting, etc -- but that's just the nature of the beast.
And the beast here is our opacity to ourselves -- that we simply can't study "scientifically" certain very complex systems other than for a few, very limited issues (social networks, their evolution, etc). We have to accept the fact that they are under-determined, that we will be quite ignorant about them, and the best thing we can do is put them in perspective -- which is the domain of the humanities.
To relate this to something more important -- Orwell is a better political analyst than 10,000 pseudo-scientific papers. Why? Because politics is opaque, and the best you can do is get perspective -- you can't get the important structure from "data", but you're better off with appropriately analyzed and contextualized "anecdotes". There's too much information, but too little data (selected and analyzed info) EVER for the complexity of the system.
Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359
|
March 9, 2010 3:20 PM
The whole idea of a blog is that it's about whatever its author(s) wants it to be about. There are plenty of formal publications in technical fields already.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 3:29 PM
frog, what's your point? It doesn't matter if you want to look at blogging from a sociological or scientific perspective (should there really be a difference there, which I don't think there is); the sampling was inadequate and terribly done to meet their own stated goals of analysis.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
March 9, 2010 3:49 PM
Carlie: frog, what's your point? It doesn't matter if you want to look at blogging from a sociological or scientific perspective (should there really be a difference there, which I don't think there is); the sampling was inadequate and terribly done to meet their own stated goals of analysis.
My point is that even if they met their "stated goal", it would have been pointless. What you can get from sociology would have been an analysis of class, race, occupation, etc. To find out what the science blogging "should be", or "what it is" -- you're better off hiring an English Lit grad student than a Library Sciences grad student.
Who would you hire for a PR campaign? Mostly sociologists, or mostly humanists? I'd hire a ratio of 10:1 latter to former, myself.
There's a reason why most cultural anthropology isn't "scientific" -- at the end of the day, measuring caloric intake gives you very loose constraints. An interpretation of a joke gives you a much better "interpretation" -- even if you can't get to "explanation".
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 9, 2010 4:15 PM
Science is done here. Every so often PZ or another biology type will tell us biological stuff. In the early Everlasting Threads a couple of YEC were the objects of a geology seminar which didn't do them any good but was educational for the rest of us.
But I'm mainly here for the bacon, lesbians and...
...oh look. Sniny!
Posted by: menckensghost
|
March 9, 2010 5:31 PM
When I was a lurker, I came here to read PZM, marvel at the lightning-fast exchanges, and hoot and holler whenever a halfwit was defenestrated.
But now... now that I'm registered with *^&#@^% Moveable Type, I come here to be told that my password is incorrect. That's what it's all about for me now. Just me and MT, locked in a death-spiral...
Be right back. Gotta go find a claw hammer.
Posted by: Frank b
|
March 9, 2010 5:34 PM
PZ can speak with authority because his blog is so successful. As previous posters have said, whether you know a little or a lot, this is the place. Tutorials are not particularly fun, but a little info and irreverent discussion is fun.
Posted by: Kobra
|
March 9, 2010 5:42 PM
@50: I nominate myself on account of my new sweet LARP sword.
I have since put reflective duct tape on the "edge" to indicate the legal striking surfaces.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
March 9, 2010 5:47 PM
From the snippet you provided, it sounds like the authors are operating in some kind of Habermasian ideal type of "the public sphere." Always problematic in theitr assumptions about order and power, reasons for legitimacy being granted to speakers, and modes of communication.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
March 9, 2010 6:09 PM
I wonder which blogs they've been looking at ? Which blogs are unwelcoming to non-scientists around here ?
Aren't plenty of the sciencebloggers happy to get any traffic at all ?
And I agree with Louis on the observation that a lot of information and education will be picked up just by reading the comments here sort of accidentally, which is a great thing, and doesnt happen this way on many other blogs.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
March 9, 2010 6:28 PM
I think we all know what it's like to be males in the preconception stage and what that can do to a lens.
It's like crashing your motorcycle into a Miracle Whip factory, coming up for air, and pretending to rational response.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
March 9, 2010 6:34 PM
It's blogs like this that are pushing my scientific understanding of reality. This is a precious resource, so many people here with different fields of expertise and understanding - not only to find out what to learn but how to find it too.
Posted by: andrewblairesch
|
March 9, 2010 7:04 PM
I only like science writing that are polite, respectful, and provide totally inane cocktail party anecdotes.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 7:39 PM
Okay, so I read. Then I think. And this is what I think.
More science content in "science blogs".
Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there.
Now yes it is a blog and as such, PZs little kingdom, where what he says goes. But maybe not always, but only sometimes a science blog. Like the squidy pics and the Monday Metazoans, but how is Sunday Sacralidge science content?
To bad these blogs dont do XML tags, I'd love to tag this whole thing to an opinion tag.
Posted by: dnbarabash
|
March 9, 2010 7:47 PM
Your concern is noted, Sandi.
Posted by: claire-chan
|
March 9, 2010 7:47 PM
@50: Alpha... nerd...? Do we have such a system?
Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal
|
March 9, 2010 7:58 PM
Sandis @ 65:
Which is, as usual, not much.
^Pretty much gives a healthy fucking clue as to what the content might be. There is plenty of science here, search evo-devo. Thing is, you usually aren't around to voice your concern then. So go clutch your pearls elsewhere - the intersection is waiting for you.
Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
|
March 9, 2010 8:03 PM
So, Sandi, please provide the scientific backing for Deepak.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 8:05 PM
Sandi, please look at the categories and the number of posts in each category (conveniently found in the archive section), and then think for a few minutes.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 8:06 PM
Caine @ 68:
I have seen the tagline. Nothing I said was untrue.
As for how much I think, clearly a lot more than you did in your clearly reactionay comment.
Furthermore, I don't own any pearls, and "the intersection is waiting"? WTF?
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 8:12 PM
SANDI,
These totals are from a few days ago, but please explain your contention in the light of these data:
Archive category posts on Pharyngula:
Genetics 86
Neurobiology 74
Nutrition 1
Science 830
Cephalopods 457
Development 213
Environment 108
Evolution 429
Fossils 106
Galapagos 12
Molecular biology 137
Reproduction 144
Science Philosophy 4
Communicating science 136
That’s about 2737 posts in science categories.
Religion 728
Godlessness 975
That’s 1703 posts. I guess you could include the “stupidity” and “kooks” category, but that’s if you assume that those terms accurately describe religion. Still only takes you to 2466, less than the science categories. Carnivals (239) and Creationism (1776) span both.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 9, 2010 8:15 PM
Sandi isn't blog savy. Mooney.
Sandi, there is a lot of science involved especially when we bash creationist. We don't do with nothing, like you seem to think we do. There is a lot of scientific data used into trumping them.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 8:22 PM
@73: could you point out to me where I said or gave the impression that I believe that the bashing done here is with a hollow rod?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 9, 2010 8:25 PM
Sandi here:
Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but it sure sounded like you trying to say we had no substance. Especially since the sentance were paired together.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 8:27 PM
sandi, can you please address the fact that your assertion "Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing. Amusing as it is, some time the science content is just not there." is incorrect?
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 8:29 PM
Perhaps there should have been a linebreak there. Those are two seperate thoughts. But thats grammarnazi nitpicking. Lets not go there :-)
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 8:34 PM
Sandi, would you care to own up to the fact that you were wrong in stating that science content is often not here?
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 8:35 PM
Gyeong, thought of this as I clicked the submit button last.
What definition would you give for "blog savy"?
Just curious.
Posted by: Carlie
|
March 9, 2010 8:38 PM
I'm being ignored. *sniff*
Posted by: The Pint
|
March 9, 2010 8:40 PM
For the record: work in publishing, hold a BFA in Literature/Writing, am a hobby artist/cook/firedancer; in other words, not a scientist. And I love this blog. 90% of the time I have to work at following the more science-heavy posts and comments and content myself with learning something new, rather than being able to contribute to the fray (unless it's to throw out/respond to a geek reference - you guys are awesome with those!). Which is the main reason I come here - to learn from some extremely knowledgeable people who don't shy away from saying exactly what they think in no uncertain terms. And occasionally engage in dialog when I feel I can contribute to the discussion.
And really, it's rather easy to participate in discussion here - as far as I can tell, the basic rule of thumb is anyone's welcome, as long as they refrain from saying anything patently stupid.
I'm still surprised at how often that happens. Damned entertaining when it does, though.
PS - all the bacon love and Cthulhu references don't hurt the attraction, either.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 9, 2010 8:40 PM
There is a search box in the upper left corner. If you are unsure of the meaning of something, you could always look it to see if it were mentioned before. That's what I meant by blog savvy; the ability to navigate a blog. Even if you only frequent this blog every now and then, you should have learned from other blogs on how to use this one. It's not like blogs are new things and all unique. They have similar structures.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 8:41 PM
Carlie, u wernt ignored, you made your argument, you win whether or not I acknowledge you or not.
Posted by: jesusfetusfajitafishsticks
|
March 9, 2010 8:50 PM
PZ,
here is a poll that needs your help and an article that needs to be laughed at...
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/atheists-95335-religion-good.html
he didn't leave many options on the poll though.
http://jesusfetusfajitafishsticks.blogspot.com/
Posted by: jenbphillips
|
March 9, 2010 8:54 PM
True, but failure to acknowledge it, in light of the scornful tone of your #71 and the like, makes you look like a colossal ass. If it were me, I'd cop to it and get it overwith.The Intersection is one of the Discover magazine blogs. As luck would have it, the blog master/mistress and the commentariat are all colossal asses. Y'all should get along beautifully.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 9, 2010 8:59 PM
Kobra #59
Is that anything like Pox Day's vorpal blade?
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 9, 2010 8:59 PM
sandiseattle
No,it isn't, and sometimes, it is (respectively).
Overgeneralising is not wisdom.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 9, 2010 9:04 PM
jesusfetusfajitafishsticks #84
Your blog would be a lot more user friendly, i.e., possible to read, if it weren't light gray letters on a dark blue background. If you make your blog difficult to read then people won't read it.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 9:05 PM
John@87:
Yes I was generalizing, but that is sometimes the nature of an opinion.
Love the last line too. Very PHI 101, and a truism.
Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal
|
March 9, 2010 9:09 PM
Sandi @ 71:
Wrong. What you said is untrue. There is science here, a great deal of it. My comment regarding The Intersection was referring to another blog; one which has many of the same problems you do when it comes to Pharyngula. Your comments largely consist of "concerns" you have regarding style a/o tone, which don't add anything of substance to a discussion.
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
March 9, 2010 9:16 PM
Even if that were true (it isn't), exploring those topics among a scientifically-minded audience brings scientific knowledge. People bringing up Noah's flood? Geologists to the rescue. Creationists talking their nonsense? Biologists and palaeontologists come to play. Presuppositional apologists? Well then there are the philosophers who rip apart the logic. Biblical apologetics? Plenty of former Christians and those who have studied on the bible (including in Hebrew) put out their arguments.Lets face it, it's not just "ha ha, you believe in magic sky daddy" - even if it is just religion bashing it is done by exploring the issues therein.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 9:18 PM
OMG, perusing The Intersection and guess who? John Kwok! I remember that idiot from his posts here. Gonna steer clear of The Intersection.
Posted by: Truthmachineom
|
March 9, 2010 11:26 PM
Coturnix says this blog is "carefully moderated". I called him on his silliness and he simply redefined "moderated" (and ignored his "carefully" claim). That's consistent with previous experiences with him. Good takedown of this crappy paper, though.
Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com
|
March 9, 2010 11:38 PM
sandi: Are you kidding me? The Intersection is a veritable clown car filled with rejects from any blog with standards of discourse.
It is so much better there. There is NO SWEARING.
Oh, and by the way, fuck their sorry, appeasing, milque-toast bullshit. Fuck them all sideways with a rusty fucking knife*.
* This particular post to be whined about on the Colgate Twins blog around mid-2011.
Posted by: Truthmachineom
|
March 9, 2010 11:39 PM
Lets face it, this blog itself is usually a forum for theist/creationism/religion bashing.
Is that what this post is about? No. How about the one before it? No. How about the one before that? No. Sorry, but you lose. Try looking up the word "usually" in the dictionary.
some time the science content is just not there.
Yes, sometimes. So what?
maybe not always, but only sometimes a science blog
Yes, not always, only sometimes. So what?
Like the squidy pics and the Monday Metazoans, but how is Sunday Sacralidge science content?
Who said it is? But if you read what PZ writes about scientific thinking being incompatible with religious thinking, you might figure out the connection.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 9, 2010 11:50 PM
stuv@94: Nope, gonna stand by my guns on this one. If Kwok is there, I'm staying here.
(BTW, will someone please pass the eyebleach?)
Posted by: thebmcc
|
March 9, 2010 11:54 PM
Yes! There are plenty of people who disagree with PZ who read this blog and I'm one. I can't say that I agree with everything PZ does. Yeah, I was raised catholic and I don't always love how PZ trashes them. I went to a catholic high school and some of the most influential people in my life were catholic priests. In fact, it was a priest who introduced me to the world of chemistry and another priest who introduced me to biology and I've loved them since. They didn't do that whole "maybe God guided evolution" stuff. They taught real science and let us come to our own conclusions. I was taught by Jesuits and they've been criticized and banned by the catholic church in every European country in the past, so maybe they had it right and being criticized by the church counts as points in their favor.
Anyway, I didn't love PZ's whole eucharist in the trash thing. I know as an educated and enlightened person it shouldn't bother me but the image still struck a nerve with me. Its amazing how cognitive thought and emotional urges are so disconnected at times. That is why I love this blog. It is informative and challenging all at the same time.
Not sure if the point of my post is clear so I'll simplify. PZ... keep it up. I think you do a great service to the blogosphere and the world. Thank you. I'm very much in your debt. Reading this blog has educated me and helped me to understand the world I live in.
thanks.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
March 10, 2010 12:00 AM
Yep, that's as good a description of that gaggle of pissant simpering ass-weasels as I've heard.
Posted by: Kobra
|
March 10, 2010 1:02 AM
@86: My sword is not vorpal, but it does have an equivalent +5 enhancement bonus. Also, because it's only double-edged on the upper half of the blade, I can wield it in a wider variety of styles than normal nodachi or completely double-edged nodachi. :)
Posted by: DLC
|
March 10, 2010 2:28 AM
Concern troll is concerned.
Kobra should have a sonic damage bonus on his sword.
I want John Kwok's camera.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
March 10, 2010 2:33 AM
I was lost at "To become a tool" - it sounds like the title of an instruction pamphlet for the religious.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
March 10, 2010 3:21 AM
@thebmcc:
"I was taught by Jesuits and they've been criticized and banned by the catholic church in every European country in the past ..."
Apparently they didn't do a terribly good job of teaching you Jesuit history. The Jesuit Order was officially disbanded twice; this was not a European thing, it was global. The order obviously simply ignored the popes and their minions - it certainly doesn't seem to have done them any harm. The disbanded order was welcomed in Russia - who knows, perhaps it was a means to annoy the hell out of the pope.
Now you musn't confuse individual religious people, who may be very good people indeed, with the institution of the church which is an instrument and enabler of evil. As the folks of the Apostates of Islam put it, they reject Islam but they have no hatred of nor harbor malice toward any muslims.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
March 10, 2010 3:30 AM
Hmmm ... then again, the interwebz seem to be consistent about the jesuits being disbanded only once. Perhaps I only want to replay such a happy thought twice - alors, I will write a Revised History of the Soldiers of Christ. I may even leave out that nasty bit about the (literal) war against the Reformists. Then again maybe I should embellish the tales of murder instead - it would make the story so much more compelling.
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 10, 2010 3:45 AM
Obscure reference time: Lettres provinciales.
Posted by: Kobra
|
March 10, 2010 3:45 AM
@100: Yeah, because in 3.5, there was almost nothing resistant to sonic damage but plenty of things weak to it.
*Reads up on resonance.*
Posted by: mick.long
|
March 10, 2010 4:58 AM
For my part I'm an ESL teacher, I appreciate science on a professional level because it informs the study of language and pedagogy but I also appreciate it from the sense of wonder that scientists bring us.
Creatures that live in boiling hot deep sea vents, a cosmos teeming with billions of galaxies, particles that seemingly pop in and out of existence. Reading and learning about these things is simply fun! I'm glad that there are people out there whose profession allows them to discover these wonders for the rest of us.
I also appreciate the utility science has in dispelling harmful superstitions and myths. I don't claim to understand much of the universe but I know a sucker play when I see one. Science is the dynamite that can blast through the snake oil salesman's bullshit.
Lastly, with specific reference to this blog, as a atheist I like hearing the perspective of other non - believers. I also like to stay informed about the dangers posed by superstition and have the odd belly laugh at it.
Posted by: shonny
|
March 10, 2010 5:03 AM
Who the hell needs a social life when there's Pharyngula . . . and WEIT and Sandwalk and RDN and . . .
Posted by: shonny
|
March 10, 2010 5:24 AM
And for the love of Islam . . .
http://chromatism.net/current/images/thoughtpolice.gif
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 10, 2010 7:26 AM
'Tis Himself, OM | March 9, 2010 8:59 PM:
Vox Day's sword is actually a blade of vorpal delusion. Instead of removing the target's head, it deludes the wielder into thinking the target's head has been removed, when in fact the sword missed entirely, and left the wielder dangerously vulnerable.
Posted by: DLC
|
March 10, 2010 8:35 AM
I'm too geeky by half.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
March 10, 2010 9:29 AM
From article: "The findings suggest that science blogs are too heterogeneous to be understood as an emerging genre of science communication. The blogs employ a variety of writing and authoring models, and no signs of emerging or stabilizing genre conventions could be observed."
Three cheers for heterogeneity, variety, and destabilization! Those are the best thing about the blogosphere. Shake it up!
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 10:08 AM
I just posted this over at Bora's blog - reposted here in case he decides to delete it:
Posted by: Barrett808
|
March 10, 2010 10:50 AM
Science fights back:
Exclusive: Dr. George Woodwell sets the record straight
Posted by: drawingbusiness
|
March 10, 2010 11:40 AM
I'm far from being a scientist (I'm a videogame concept artist), but I'm always interested in learning how things work. Anything will do; plants, animals, people, machines, velcro, the cosmos: I don't really mind. Aside from the almost irresistible lure of PZ's religion bashing, I find the science here fascinating. Much of it I don't understand, but even if that's the case, it's often lead me to other posts and topics that have expanded my understanding and knowledge; if I don't understand something, then the onus is on me to go away and learn more about it. I have a young son; as he gets older, then the more knowledge I can stuff into him, and the more I can develop his fascination with the workings of the universe, the better.
I certainly don't feel unwelcome here, though of course the very few comments I've posted have yet to attract the attention of the ravening hoards. I'm sure if I made more noise, I'd quickly be torn limb from limb and scattered over a wide area. But that's as it should be; I consider myself bright enough to know when to say nothing.
*tiptoes away quietly*
Posted by: Celeste
|
March 10, 2010 11:48 AM
Speaking as someone with only a little college experience and absolutely no scientific expertise, I love PZ's blog. I also read Dispatches From the Culture Wars and occasionally read Not Exactly Rocket Science. I've learned so much from all of these blogs and have never felt they were over my head. As one of the commenters above pointed out, if I need a little extra background info on something, I Google it or check Wikipedia.
While I'm less likely to take on a creationist in an argument since I don't have the scientific background, I find myself jumping into political and social discussions far more readily these days. Thank goodness for ScienceBlogs!
Posted by: Celeste
|
March 10, 2010 11:57 AM
Wow. My post should have just said "Ditto Mick.Long #106". You were far more eloquent than I was. :-)
Posted by: Bastion Of Sass
|
March 10, 2010 12:15 PM
If I wanted to read a purely stick-to-the-facts-and-keep-it-simple science website*, I would. But that kind of site just doesn't appeal to me enough for me to spend my limited time reading regularly, and I doubt if I'd ever comment on one.
I come to Pharyngula primarily for the snark, the atheism, and the community of commenters. The science is merely a nice bonus.
*Site, not blog, because it doesn't sound very bloggy to me.
Posted by: kiki
|
March 10, 2010 12:29 PM
#114: Heh. You said 'onus'.
Posted by: drawingbusiness
|
March 10, 2010 12:40 PM
#118: Uh-oh. Have I sprung sort of trap? Should I expect the ravening hordes at any moment? Oh Jebus, what have I done?! I feel like those guys running through the long grass in Jurassic Park 2 (specifically one of the ones at the back). I knew I shouldn't have broken cover.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
March 10, 2010 1:04 PM
Christ, another pretentious corporate communications director wannabe with a stupid opinion and a thesaurus...
Posted by: markabbott50
|
March 10, 2010 1:37 PM
I'm not a scientist, and I like coming here to be educated, even if many of things I read here and don't interest me, or is beyond my understanding. I actually learn a lot from the propeller head scientists making comments on the posts. It can also be very entertaining.
There are plenty of dumbed down places I can get information. I come here for a reason.
Posted by: Paul
|
March 10, 2010 1:39 PM
Posted by: Paul
|
March 10, 2010 1:49 PM
OK, fuck it, I'm not using any html tags for a couple days. I'm messing up every single time somehow. Anyway, what I meant to say in 122 is it's being complained about right now. Screw 2011. The commenters are basically wetting themselves hoping Kirshenbaum comes down hard because people are saying she should be raped with a rusty knife, and Myers "likes it that way".
At least they provided a link this time, I suppose. I need to stop reading there again, for the sake of my health.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
March 10, 2010 1:56 PM
SC,
What fascinates me about Pharyngula is that it mostly functions as an anarchy--under the benevolent tentacles of our overlord, of course. There are a core group of values that most participants agree on, although dissent is tolerated even on these if
1)it is fairly well thought out
2)the dissenter is willing to accept a degree of criticism with good humor
3)the dissenter isn't a boring pissant
The dungeon is there for as a disincentive for the incorrigibly stupid/boring/pretentious/nasty..., but it isn't used all that often. Beyond that, few subjects are off limits. A variety of opinions are tolerated and one is free to enjoy the eloquence and/or rants of all the oddball participants or even to add to the strangeness should one so desire.
When you compare that to all of the nastiness that pervades so much of the anonymous corners of the intertubes, the society functions amazingly well. I'd think bloggers would be interested in understanding how it works.
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 3:45 PM
Well said, a_ray. I agree. I've always thought it a great example of a community that functions without heavy-handed control or strict rules of interaction, and doesn't (OK, rarely) descend into chaos and 'violence'. It doesn't appear that many of the people presenting their so-called observations have any real interest in understanding how or why it works as it does.
OK, so I saw that the sidekick sniped at me over at A Blog around the Clock. Here was my response (the only one I'll be making to her), in case it disappears from there:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 10, 2010 3:50 PM
Most of the regulars here respect each other. We may disagree loudly and at length but for the most part we recognize the intelligence, wit and sagacity of the others. There are exceptions. For several months I had another OM killfiled.
Our tentacled overload rules more or less by benign neglect. As I've told the Colgate Twins et al several times, one has to work hard to be put in the dungeon. That's not what they want to hear so they ignore this point, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
March 10, 2010 3:54 PM
Who are the Colgate Twins?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 10, 2010 3:55 PM
themPosted by: drawingbusiness
|
March 10, 2010 4:16 PM
Good grief, I never realised how apposite their nickname was until I just looked at that photo. They are indeed the inane, grinning buffoons I imagined them to be.
Posted by: drawingbusiness
|
March 10, 2010 4:21 PM
Ah, I see that the Science Blogs comment gremlins remove "title" attributes from the HTML tags. Well, that will save me some typing if I am brave enough to comment on a more regular basis.
I was trying to be helpful and include the commenter in the "title" attribute.
Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 4:26 PM
Really? I think they're both quite attractive. :-)
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 10, 2010 4:35 PM
The girl is attractive, but the guy is average.
Posted by: Paul
|
March 10, 2010 4:40 PM
Don't say she's attractive, or we'll have another blog war on how it's unacceptable to mention a woman's looks.
Also, while you're looking at the Colgate ad note how Mooney's still not being up-front about having taken Templeton money (apparently Knight Science Journalism Fellow sounds better than Templeton Fellow).
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
March 10, 2010 4:44 PM
my last blog war was a stalemate, don't care to bother with another. :-)
Posted by: jenbphillips
|
March 10, 2010 4:53 PM
[joshua]The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? [/joshua]Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 5:00 PM
Well, I think Chris Mooney is attractive too.
(Draw from this what inferences you will...)
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 5:09 PM
It...would...not...be...a...battle. It...would...be...a...massacre.
[This attempted quotation brought to you by my suretobe faulty recollection of an episode of Kung Fu, the TV series.]
Posted by: Paul
|
March 10, 2010 5:20 PM
You're not an out and out homophobe afraid to admit that other men can be attractive. Good on you. I don't think much of your taste, but mine isn't exactly normal either.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
March 10, 2010 5:22 PM
Walton, one can be physically attractive and an inane, grinning buffoon - since all three relate to behaviour not appearance.
Conversely, I'm frequently an inane, grinning buffoon - but I ain't as pretty as either of them...
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 5:30 PM
Walton, what is your sexual orientation?
Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 5:37 PM
With all due respect, SC, that's hardly any of your business.
Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 5:40 PM
SC, I apologise for my post at #141. It was needlessly rude.
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 5:44 PM
With all due respect, Walton, this isn't the first comment you've made with a hint that you're gay or bi. Far from it. If it's so private, I don't understand why you keep doing this. And frankly, since I don't see being gay or bi as anything remotely to be ashamed of or to hide, I don't understand why you'd be coy about it if you are. You don't live in Iran.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
March 10, 2010 5:45 PM
Two words: John Barrowman. There's something almost disturbingly good looking about that man - and I'm (otherwise) straight.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
March 10, 2010 5:50 PM
With all due respect, SC, stating a man is attractive isn't necessarily a sign that another man is gay. Just like me looking at Iman and saying, "Dayum!" doesn't make me straight.
We've made the ability to say someone of the same sex is attractive a marker of homosexuality. I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and George were telling Elaine that they were incapable of telling when a man was attractive because they were heterosexual (and in which Kramer called George Will attractive but not terribly bright...he got part right)
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 5:56 PM
:)
Hitchcock's version of Rope was fantastic. Never seen the play.
Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 5:56 PM
I like to be mysterious. :-)
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 6:02 PM
Of course not. But again, this isn't this first such coy comment on his part. I'm not trying to put any pressure on Walton, but it has seemed that some of his angst might be related to his being conflicted about his orientation. I don't know how to provide a welcoming home without appearing to demand an "outing," but I want to do this. Sigh.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 10, 2010 6:03 PM
Chimes in
Well, I think Chris Mooney is attractive too.(Draw from this what inferences you will...)
Mooney is okay, I guess. I think Brian Switek is cuter. (because he's got more muscle.)
SC, if I say Taylor Swift is hot, does that make me straight? In my opinion she is hot, but I've no attraction to her.
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 6:04 PM
Very well. :)
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 10, 2010 6:07 PM
Ahem,
I caught the failed blockquote in the process of being submitted.
was Walton's quote.
Though to be fair to SC, you did permit us to make inferences Walton.
Posted by: Walton, Janine's Hero
|
March 10, 2010 6:09 PM
True. It was unfair of me to snap at SC, and I apologise.
Posted by: Louis
|
March 10, 2010 6:10 PM
Commenting that another man is attractive indicates Teh Gaynezz now does it? Well paint me pink and stick me in a fucking parade!
I've been in a variety of sketchy sexual situations throughout my life (and I'm hoping for more!) but never have I engaged in anything as unsketchy (or as sketchy) as proper sexual activity with another chap, even using a cigar. Well apart from that one time I wanted an A for my Latin exam back in prep school....
I'd possibly break years of quasi-heterosexuality for Dr No era Connery or Raiders era Harrison Ford. Does that make me gay or even bi? Or does it mean I recognise the greyness of human sexuality and realise that even an ostensibly hetero chap like me has limits when it comes to hot men? As Wowbagger mentioned John Barrowman, I have to agree. Gay or not, he'd learn a chap a thing or two!
Why do we have to fit in boxes? Gay, straight or bi?* Can't we just be fluid and situational? Maybe I'm just a pervert. Scratch the maybe! LOL
Louis
*I'm not gay you understand. But my boyfriend. Oy vey he sucks a mean cock.
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 6:11 PM
First, I asserted nothing - simply asked a question. Second, again, there's a historical-commenting context. Third, if you said "Draw from this what inferences you will...," yes, I would draw an inference.
(It's a little odd that people seem to be approaching this as though I'm "accusing" him of something. *grimace*)
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 6:17 PM
While we're on the subject, I'm a bit annoyed with Jon Stewart's recent "so gay" bits.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ
|
March 10, 2010 6:25 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/obamas_speech_to_the_national.php#comment-1595596
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Tai Dam lum Pun
|
March 10, 2010 6:29 PM
Tone is hard to read without using pinyin, SC
And what does a purple chicken mcnugget has to do with anything
Posted by: SC OM
|
March 10, 2010 6:32 PM
?