Critical Thinking
by MikeGene1. gather complete information - more than one source
2. understand and define terms (make others define terms, too)
3. question the methods by which results were derived
4. question the conclusion: do the facts support it? is there evidence of bias? remember correlation does not equal causation.
5. uncover assumptions and biases
6. question the source of information
7. don't expect all the answers
8. examine the big picture
9. look for multiple cause and effect
10. watch for thought stopping sensationalism
11. understand your own biases and values
From Human Biology: Health, Homeostasis, and The Environment, 3rd Edition, by Daniel D. Chiras.
HT: Dawgnotes
September 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I think most Darwin-proponents fail critically at their thinking at least on:
2. The word evolution is usually so poorly defined when used by Darwinists that I am not very surprised they completely misunderstand/misrepresent ID as creationism.
4. The problem with most of the evolutionary theory (molecule to man) is that it's totally biased. Biased because it's the only theory possible with core assumptions about the reality as materialistic (no intelligence allowed). By their definition of science evolution becomes unfalsifiable and the only possibility.
5 and 11. Most Darwinists are happygolucky oblivious to the bias they hold but are more than happy blaming religion or God delusion as the motivation for those that don't agree with them. They fail to realize that they are trying to promote logic and rationality with irrational behavior and emotional arguments.
There is more that could be said here but I give others the chance as well.
Comment by innerbling — September 17, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
innerbling:
Examples please. What is your definition of evolution?
Explain why it is the only possible theory please. Hint: it isn't.
Comment by Raevmo — September 17, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
This seems like a debate-worthy new article:
God and Evolution
by Avery Cardinal Dulles
Copyright (c) 2007 First Things (October 2007).
Comment by stunney — September 17, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
How is that remark to be interpreted Raevmo? Is an intelligent cause for the origin of life an allowable possibility for you?
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Bradford:
Always safely hiding behind the deep-time OOL, eh Bradford? What I meant was that current mainstream evolutionary theory is clearly not the only possible materialistic evolutionary theory, contra innerbling's bold assertion. Lamarck comes to mind.
I would like to answer your second question, but I need to know what you mean exactly by an intelligent cause.
Comment by Raevmo — September 17, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Not at all Raevmo. I'm interested in the truth about natural history, not just what happened after life already existed. Why would one hide behind an exclusive focus on evolution unless he were uncomfortable with exploring the evidence of what preceeded an evolutionary process?
I think you do know. An intelligently directed outcome can effect results that natural forces alone cannot. The issue is which of the two alternatives does the data better support?
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Bradford:
I have no idea. You tell me.
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by intelligent causes. Please let me know your definition of intelligence. How else can I judge which of the alternatives does the data better support?
Comment by Raevmo — September 17, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Why would one hide behind an exclusive focus on evolution unless he were uncomfortable with exploring the evidence of what preceeded an evolutionary process?
Scientific data, related to a precellular world, does not support the meme that science stands in opposition to ID.
I think you do know. An intelligently directed outcome can effect results that natural forces alone cannot. The issue is which of the two alternatives does the data better support?
Add a purposeful, knowledgable component to the directing cause and you have a comprehensible notion of properties pertaining to an intelligent agent. Of course you can always pretend you do not understand.
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Yes I concede with Raevmo that there have been other hypothesis as well, Lamarck which could in the future be a part of evolutionary theory although in a different form (epigenetic modifications and/or cell memory) .
There was also hypothesis proposed by Fred Hoyle that fit the materialistic presuppositions some decades ago.
However today the only theory that fits the materialistic world view and the data even somewhat is the current synthesis of the theory of evolution.
I can be wrong but I think the only serious competition for theory of evolution comes from ID, because it's the only theory that has been proposed in decades that explains the data better and can falsify evolutionary theory as we know it. Also it's the only theory I know that cannot be assimilated completely to the ever growing wobbling monster we call theory of evolution.
Comment by innerbling — September 17, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Critical thinking works best when you apply it to yourself and your own views.
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Here we go again:
Is "˜Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?
And, er, again:
Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins.
Comment by stunney — September 18, 2007 @ 4:41 am
September 18th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Any theory that proposes that X is true because a designer with unknown powers and aims made X true will, of course, explain the data perfectly.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 18, 2007 @ 8:07 am
September 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
What designer would that be- the one who caused cells to arise through unknown, unidentified pathways? How was natural selection able to simulate intelligence at that point in time?
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2007 @ 9:34 am
September 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
The basic idea of ID is really simple:
a) choose an object
b) look for gradual natural processes and physical laws that could plausibly explain the characteristics of the object
c) if such process or physical law is found and the process can be validated through empirical method we can conclude that objects characteristics are probably result of that process.
d) if no such gradual naturalistic processes are found one is allowed to make inference to the best explanation ie intelligent design.
In no point does the theory propose that intelligence with unknown powers made the object/information unless it's the only plausible explanation.
After some months of research in this subject and reading counter arguments from both sides I can only conclude that the data doesn't support any known gradual/uniform natural process so only plausible explanation is intelligent design.
Comment by innerbling — September 18, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
This is quite a nice summary of the ID position. It can be applied to any phenomenon where you don't find current theories plausible.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 18, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
innerbling wrote:
I think you've presented the idea behind the design inference argument very well. And you're probably aware of the argument involved in the inference referenced in (d). But as this inference is really the crux of the matter let me give, probably a standard, breakdown of the issue.
After law and chance hypotheses have been eliminated via the UPB threshold, what we are left with is a set of additional causal hypotheses for which we cannot calculate probabilities. This set is composed of:
1. Set of hypotheses associated with causal mechanisms yet undiscovered but consistent with unguided natural processes.
2. Set of hypotheses associated with intelligent design.
Either 1 or 2, or both, may be empty, and we cannot determine the structure, i.e., we cannot determine whether 1 is larger than 2, 2 is larger than 1, 1 is empty, 2 is empty, or both are empty.
Also, since we cannot calculate probabilities for these hypotheses, we cannot determine whether 1, 2, or 1 and 2 combined has sufficient probabilistic resources to outweigh law and chance hypotheses, i.e., all causal hypotheses could, in principle, be eliminated by UPB.
The inference which allows us to choose 2 is based on the idea that intelligence is something fundamental and not specific to animal intelligence and human intelligence. The idea is that whatever embodies intelligence is capable of guided change, from our present to the remote past. We choose 2 not because it has a higher likelihood in a probabilistic sense "“ we have no way to knowing this "“ but because intelligence can do things unguided natural processes cannot. We choose 2 over 1 because yet undiscovered unguided processes cannot be counted on to exist.
(I'm not an ID proponent so the above description may seem critical to some. But I tried to summarize from the ID perspective accurately.)
Comment by Zwischenzug — September 18, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Innerbling did not write that he found current theories implausible. He pegged his conclusion to a finding that "the data doesn't support any known gradual/uniform natural process." That in itself could be explored of course but the question for you is if it were true that data did not support a gradual natural process, what ateleological, non-incremental process to life are you able to cite even in theory?
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Zwischenzug:
Not bad for an non-IDist however I would modify this to indicate that contemplated pathways to life's basic unit- the cell- and properties of specific polymers linked to life can supply evidence favorable to ID and in opposition to abiogenesis.
Comment by Bradford — September 18, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
None. I would admit I did not know the answer.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
September 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Thanks for the compliment Zwischenzug.
Yes indeed the inference to the best explanation is the crux of the issue. I personally think that choice 2. takes precedence over 1. especially when it seems to me that the data doesn't seem to support *any* imaginable gradual/uniform unguided naturalistic process.
To my knowledge we don't know any naturalistic unguided processes that is not gradual/uniform and predictable expect perhaps quantum mechanics.
However it's logical to favor 2. choice because inference to the intelligent agent is based on empirically tested knowledge that animal and especially human intelligence can create objects/information with characteristics that easily break the UPB that known uniform and gradual processes would have to overcome if it created object/information with same characteristics.
So the strength of choice 2. lies in a fact that we have at least some information about the characteristics of intelligence but choice 1. ie unknown process/causal mechanism is well… totally unknown.
Comment by innerbling — September 18, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Bradford wrote:
Thanks. I often play the devil's advocate in discussions of this kind. I think, to criticize something legitimately I need to understand it thoroughly. Otherwise, I'm at risk in constructing strawman arguments. Trying to argue for the other side I've found is a good way to critically think about issues. Nevertheless, my bias will always show up somewhere, and finding where is interesting to me.
Evidence for an ID hypothesis for the origin of the cell would be big news, go a long way toward confirming ID, and perhaps substantiate but certainly legitimize the arguments for design in nature. But even if such evidence is lacking, any credible ID hypothesis for the origin of the cell would be more than what abiogenesis has to offer at present. From a design inference perspective, however, if we cannot calculate the likelihood for the ID hypothesis, then the solution remains eliminative. Since no law and chance hypotheses are available, we are reduced to choosing between 1 and 2.
Speaking from an ID perspective, we would choose 2 for the reasons in my previous post. The case for ID hypothesis for the origin of the cell may be stronger, not necessarily because the ID hypothesis is more likely, but because the abiogenesis case is weaker. Whenever we consider yet undiscovered unguided processes, we look at past and recent trends to gauge the outlook for such processes. And in the case of abiogenesis, the outlook can be seen as dim, even among non-ID scientists.
Comment by Zwischenzug — September 19, 2007 @ 3:53 am
September 19th, 2007 at 4:22 am
innerbling wrote:
You're welcome.
I have no objections to your post. I think it adds more substance to the argument for choosing 2, and that was good.
I will add the following though. One of the principle disputes between ID proponents and ID critics is regarding how complexities arise in nature. One way to express the ID position is that complexities require discontinuities and cannot be achieved by gradual, successive modifications. Behe's arguments can be expressed this way. Choosing 2 based on at least partly accepting this ID position, however, in some sense ignores the dispute, which to me is far from settled. That's not a problem, but I just wanted to make you aware of it.
Comment by Zwischenzug — September 19, 2007 @ 4:22 am
September 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am
Bradford wrote:
Zwischenzug wrote:
innerbling wrote:
I think this issue is crucial.
Let us take two examples of intelligent design: a) the Empire State building; b) Microsoft Word. It seems clear that both items were intelligently designed. Yet it also seems clear that both items were brought into existence in accordance with the laws of physics, and that both could, in principle, be given wholly physical explanations. And yet… they obviously could not have arisen without the intentional agency of intelligent designers. There is a paradox here, is there not?
The fact that we cannot predict things like the Empire State building, Microsoft Word, language, morality, the experience of beauty, etc from physics prima facie indicates that matter does not fully determine human nature; rather, that nature also intelligently shapes the way matter behaves. One might say the software causes or determines that the hardware acts in certain ways and not in other, equally physically possible ways. And that's because the software is designed in something like the way a program is designed by a computer programmer"”–the programmer has choices. Within certain broad logical limits and self-imposed constraints which reflect the programmer's purposes, it appears that the details of the program aren't logically or physically necessitated, but are instead designed. The key thing about software is that it does not reduce to the properties of hardware. If it did, software would be unnecessary.
Materialism, however, suggests that the Empire State building and Microsoft Word are, despite appearances, as necessitated by the physical laws, initial conditions, and physical constants of this universe as are the motions of the planets. Everything, materialism asserts, is mechanically determined (at least above the level where quantum effects must be taken into account). But that seems enormously counterintuitive. Our strong modal intuitions are that the Empire State building and Microsoft Word cannot possibly have arisen by the operation of natural forces that were 'left to themselves'. They had to have been intelligently designed. Yet their intelligent design was itself in fact, so the materialist insists, simply the outcome of physical nature taking its course. Intelligent agency is, on the materialist account, just another physical process in a universe of physical processes.
But what this claim amounts to is that whatever happens, be it the construction of the Empire state building, or the production of Microsoft Word, it is just the result of necessitating physical causes operating in accordance with physical laws. So regardless of what biology might discover, any non-human ID activity will be compatible with, and an outcome of, the normal operations of physical nature.
What then are the criteria for detecting intelligent agency on the materialist view? It can't be that something happened which would not have 'naturally' occurred, since on the materialist view, there is and can be no such thing as an event or process that did not 'naturally' occur. Hence, the Empire State building and Microsoft Word occurred 'naturally', on that view. Both are products of nature. This implies that something can occur 'naturally' and yet also be intelligently designed. So the claim that all biological facts occur naturally does not rule out their being intelligently designed, on the materialist account (assuming the materialist agrees that some things, at least, that are part of the natural order are also intelligently designed).
Now every biological organism we observe has many characteristics that we normally associate with being intelligently designed, such as functionality of various kinds. There is, therefore, I suggest, no reason in principle, even on materialist premises, to rule out something being intelligently designed even if it does not require for it to be so designed that it lack a fully 'natural', physical causal history. At least, not if the Empire State building and Microsoft Word also have such natural physical histories, and yet nonetheless are the result of intelligent design.
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 12:48 am
September 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Good post, stunney. It was well written and I agree with much of it.
ID critics sometimes get caught up with focusing on supernatural intervention, leaving other kinds of intelligent design unaddressed. To me, the Empire State Building and Microsoft Word are intelligently designed in the same sense Mt. Rushmore is intelligently designed, through natural intervention. To say that these things are not designed because they came to being through natural means restricts intelligent design to only supernatural causes, a restriction which is not supported by the design inference argument. The design inference argument is based on examples of and analogy from human design. There is nothing to rule out design through natural intervention as an ID hypothesis, even if some ID proponents see supernatural intervention as equally valid.
ID is concerned with proximate causes. There is an open question regarding the source of intelligence. The materialistic view is that intelligence arises from material. There are probably many different views among ID proponents, some in agreement with the materialistic view and many others in disagreement. But this open question does not affect the design inference argument, which is concerned with whether intelligence is involved and not where intelligence originated. So I agree with you that materialistic bias would not (and cannot) rule out intelligent design.
Comment by Zwischenzug — September 21, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 am
stunney wrote:
Not.
It indicates that we aren't very good at making predictions.
One might, if one had no idea what one was talking about.
Are you suggesting that computer hardware is not designed? Presumably even you wouldn't make a mistake like that, but I if you don't mean that then there is no sense at all to be gotten from the above.
Hardware and software are both designed, and both only exist in physical incarnations. In fact, there is no real difference between hardware and software — any program can be realized as hardware, so software strictly speaking is unnecessary.
If you mean that the laws of physics that underlie the operation of hardware are not designed, then that's something else again. But in that respect there is no difference between a computer and any other machine (or living creature for that matter).
So? A great many things that seem counterintuitive have turned out to be true. The sun does not revolve around the earth, objects increase in mass as they go faster, and our cells contain descendents of what were once separate organisms. All of these are or were extremely counterintuitive.
By George, he's got it!
This is true. Darwin's discoveries did not rule out an intelligent designer, but they made it possible to explain the natural world without having to invoke one.
Obviously, nothing can "rule out" an intelligent designer, or the possibility that the whole universe sprung into being five minutes ago with false evidence of a longer history, or that we are living in the Matrix. Is the great theist philosopher so reduced that he can only weakly argue that a designer isn't "ruled out"
Comment by mtraven — September 22, 2007 @ 1:15 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 am
mtraven wrote:
Wrong.
No, buttercup. It indicates that physics doesn't completely determine everything. As any normal, sane person already knew, just from doing things by their own free volition.
Is that, you know, like, a counter-argument?:grin:
No, ya miserably stupid eejit..
Computer hardware is designed. But according to folk like you, brains aren't.
Brains are hardware, chum. I'm glad you're now admitting they're designed.
And you have the brass neck to lecture others about not making sense? Yarra comedic genius.:smile:
An unintentional one, of course. But a comedic genius all the same.
Call Microsoft with the news.:mrgreen:
Quick!
You are one sharp cookie. As sharp cookies go.
Mind you, I've never cut myself on a cookie.
Right. Indeed. Quite so. Amen.
But my question, in effect, was: are the programs—the 'laws'—-they implement, machines? You've been falling at that hurdle from the get-go. And it has been very funny to watch you continually tie yourself in knots and knickers of your own making while trying to clamber over it.
Quite simply, you've got no clue. Not even a scoobie.
A great many more haven't. For instance, it seems counter-intuitive that every Jew should be killed just because they're Jewish. And that hasn't turned out to be true.
So is the idea that Jews should be exterminated en masse.
And it's enormously counter-intuitive that we can rest assured that materialism is true just because it's, er, enormously counter-intuitive.
Got that materialists try to make their theory of evolution true by fiat? Oh yes, I got that a long time ago.
In your diseased dreams, perhaps. But Darwin had no explanation for the origin and persistence of natural laws. None whatsoever. Hence he had no explanation for the natural world, contrary to your stupendously wrong assertion.
Hahahahahaha. I've given loads of unrebutted arguments favoring the probability of a designer. Your pretending otherwise only confirms what a pathetic, delusional freakshow you are.
Comment by stunney — September 22, 2007 @ 7:16 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Not true. Darwin's explanations encompassed existing life and variation of it. It did not explain how life came to be. The natural world includes the whole causation trail.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 8:57 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 am
The relationship between the sun and earth was determined through observations and calculations based on them. Materialism presupposes its axioms to be true and is philosophical in nature. Although they do not think of themselves in this way materialists believe in that which is unseen and scientifically unverified. In that way they are similar to all others having philosophical and religious beliefs- and all of us have one or the other or both.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:16 am
September 24th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Hi Bradford. You wrote:
Judging by the materialists who post on TT, materialism is very confused. For example, what a difference a week makes.
First there was this:
Got that? Okaaaayy. Then there was, er, this:
Notice the contradiction. First we have it's either 'impersonal physical laws' explain things, or rational agency does. But not both. Then, all of a sudden, it's okay if it's both.:lol:
And they have the cheek to call themselves partisans of Reason, and 'Brights'!
Let me suggest a more accurate sobriquet: 'Clowns'.
Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 4:20 am
September 24th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Bradford,
Of course it does. So does geometry.
What do you think the word 'axiom' means?
Comment by keiths — September 24, 2007 @ 7:22 am
September 24th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Stunney - you are right - at least for this materialist (whatever that means)! So I detect intelligence by looking for evidence for intelligence - not by the absence of other things.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 24, 2007 @ 7:34 am
September 24th, 2007 at 9:55 am
It's OK to assume and then reason in geometry. Science needs to take the further step of experimental testing. So if the math relates to a physics matter the "axiom" is tested. Materialism is philosophical in nature and philosophies are not empirically tested. Some confuse their philosophies with their scientific convictions.
Comment by Bradford — September 24, 2007 @ 9:55 am
September 24th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Mark Frank:
If I were to assemble a mechanical device of many pieces you would rightly conclude that no laws of physics were violated in the process. OTOH, laws of physics alone are insufficient to explain the cause for the device. If the insufficiency of natural law explanations is an "absence" then it is also an indicator.
Comment by Bradford — September 24, 2007 @ 10:10 am
September 24th, 2007 at 11:42 am
What does this mean other than to say that it could not have been assembled without intelligence? You are just rephrasing the design argument in different language and the same old arguments for and against apply.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 24, 2007 @ 11:42 am
September 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am
It is a reminder, for those needing it, that evidence indicating the improbability of x is also evidence for y when y is the alternative.
Comment by Bradford — September 24, 2007 @ 11:51 am
September 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Yeah, me too.
But just out of curiosity, what kind of thing in general do you as a materialist consider to be such evidence? Remember you're not allowed to point to 'things that would not have occurred naturally', given your agreement with my comment.
More specifically, what kind of evidence would you accept for the existence of any rational conscious minds separated from yours in space and/or time? Your answer should avoid implying that evidence of non-human minds is impossible, lest you violate the Principle of Mediocrity and expose yourself as a vile speciesist.
Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Stunney - OK I will have a go.
A couple of points first.
I wrote "materialist (whatever that means)" the bit in brackets was significant. I don't think the distinction between materialist and non-materialist is clear.
I am not going to write an essay on the problem of others minds. That is much too big a thing to address in a blog posting.
So let me just say what I consider evidence for intelligence. It is something on these lines (and rather banal I am afraid).
I guess the key elements are:
1) Evidence of a plan or intention. This might be explicit but most likely I deduce it from the context. e.g. my dog is often hungry so when he opens the cupboard door with his paws I have a pretty good idea of his plan.
2) Evidence of the existence of agent(s) with the capacity to fulfil that plan. I know my dog was in the kitchen last night - so when I see the cupboard door open and the biscuits gone I have a good idea of who the agent was.
3) Evidence of how the agent(s) have fulfilled that plan. The cupboard door is open and the biscuit wrapper is ripped up on the floor.
An agent could be a human, another animal or something I have never come across.
(There is an interesting question as to why we don't consider vegetables intelligent. To me this is a matter of degree. Anyone who has gardened knows that plants do try to do things - reach for sunlight, water, etc. But they do it so slowly and in such an automatic, limited way we could not possibly describe it as intelligent. On the other hand dogs and cats are clearly intelligent. Somewhere between come ameoba, worms and insects.)
Comment by Mark Frank — September 24, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Mark Frank wrote:
Fantastic. I never thought I'd see the day.
As long as it's not more than three points first, I'm cool.
Awww nawwwwwwwwwww. And all the while there was me, thinking it to be limpid.
But that's just me—always Mr Optimist.
Say it ain't so!
Afraid of what? Oh, banality?
Right. I get it.
The profundity of your answer leaves me spellbound.
No, on second thoughts you were right the first time. You're banal.
I'm, er, how shall I put it? Ah yes—"none the wiser" is the technical expression.
I take it you've had your research published in a mainstream refereed scientific journal? It surely merits such recognition.
Tell me, er, more.
But keep in mind—-I reserve the right to regret that request.
We don't? I'll have you know, some of the smartest carrots I've ever come across were, um, carrots.
How about 'kind'? Would you go out on a limb to that extent?
That rules me out right from the get-go.
Wow. Why wasn't I told?
Ah. So you're being completely fucking irrelevant, then?
That's ok. I'm cool, if you are.
There's always another hand. My question is:
Why is there always another hand?
I knew we discovered complex numbers from observing dogs and cats. Just knew it. You know?
That's the part I didn't know.
But thanks for the, er, information.:shock:
Comment by stunney — September 25, 2007 @ 7:29 am
September 25th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Stunney
The truth is often banal. I am sorry I can't do anything about that.
You seem to revel in being rude and sarcastic. If that is what you enjoy I am powerless to stop you - but it doesn't make for a very fruitful debate.
Rgds
Comment by Mark Frank — September 25, 2007 @ 10:13 am