--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to > > check I was right, it's part of their tagline, it's what they > > always say, that's why me and Vaj posted it at the same time. > > Jesus.
Note that professional apologists rarely apologize to those they have called liars in their attempts to defend the indefensible. Instead they often go off on a tangent, as if to "prove" that the thing they called the critic a liar for saying wasn't really as damning as implied. > It is a quoate from teh editor of the magaizine and creator of > the award. Here is a more complete quote: > > http://www.cascadiacon.org/Marc.htm > > Marc Abrahams is known for a number of things (most of them not > worthy of arrestâ¦), but probably the two best-known things he > has created are the Ig Nobel Prizes and his magazine, The Annals > of Improbable Research. The Ig Nobel Prizes grow out of Marcâs > belief that research ought to be recognized for being > differentâ"not just good. He says of the Ig Nobel Prizes, > > âEach year, ten Ig Nobel Prizes are awarded. The selection > criterion is simple: the prizes are for âachievements that > cannot or should not be reproduced.â Examine that phrase > carefullyâ"it covers a lot of ground. It says nothing about > whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or pernicious. I > raise this matter of good or bad, because the world in > general seems to enjoy classifying things as being either one > or the other. The Ig Nobel Prizes aside, most prizes, in most > places, for most purposes, are clearly designed to sanctify the > goodness or badness of the recipients. Every year, of the ten > new Ig Nobel Prizes, about half are awarded for things that > most people would say are commendable, if perhaps goofy. The > other half go for things that are, in some people's eyes, less > commendable. All such judgments are entirely up to each observer. Clearly, the professional apologist observer tends to see things differently than the less critical observer. :-) I just think it's hilarious that I threw out the term "professional apologist" yesterday to taunt Judy into shooting the rest of her posting wad, and the moment she did and could no longer compul- sively defend anything about the Holy Research on TM, Lawson jumped into the fray. I *still* say that these folks have a career wait- ing for them in politics. There, the proven tendency to call critics liars just because they ARE critics will be considered a plus.
