-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> 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.
Wow, is Barry confused. Once again, he thinks he can tell what a discussion is about without having followed it. This isn't a "tangent," it's the whole point: > > 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. :-) Barry's totally lost. > 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. Barry, dear, what this discussion was about is whether an Ig Nobel Award is a judgment about the quality of the research for which it is given. Vaj and Hugheshugo have claimed it is such a judgment, but Lawson and I have quoted the guy who *invented* the awards saying that it is not. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that. Vaj and Hugheshugo are wrong, Lawson and I are right. You and Vaj and Hugheshugo are free to make your own judgments about the quality of ME research, *but you can't legitimately use the fact that it got an Ig Nobel as evidence*. You really, really need to learn to take the time to figure out what a discussion is about before you leap in to dump on the TMers' side of it.
