You also tend to come to the highly mistaken conclusion that people
are "proving your point" when they, in fact, are DISproving your
point. Must be nice in your lavender colored world.
On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:45 AM, justifiedright wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
But only if you know what you're talking about.
On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:45 AM, justifiedright wrote:
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way: just "doing your own analysis" isn't necessarily
> 'science'. The guys at Enron were "doing their ow
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way: just "doing your own analysis" isn't necessarily
> 'science'. The guys at Enron were "doing their own analysis". It
> didn't make it accounting. The Bush WMD guys were doing their own
> analysis. I
"pro-science"?
as opposed to...?
"dark ages superstition adherent"?
"fairy tale follower"?
By the way: just "doing your own analysis" isn't necessarily
'science'. The guys at Enron were "doing their own analysis". It
didn't make it accounting. The Bush WMD guys were doing their own
analy
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Conversely, the pseudo-science of intelligent design is accepted
>as fact despite
> lacking anything resembling real scientific support."
Irreducable Complexity. It's a science thing. Wonder if the pro-
science poster who wrote t
