Expressing Glee At The Prospects of Humanity's Mass Death
by bipodNotice: Hypothetical Only
My personal view is that this whole story is going to amount to a case of an insulated University professor taking part in some innocent fun without fully recognizing the severity of his comments. But this happens all the time in the Academy. So many people speaking so much nonsense.
What I'd like to discuss in the comments section of this post is the following:
Hypothetically, if Pianka has indeed expressed glee at the prospects of Humanity's mass death, what follows? What should the consequences be? Is it something to be ignored as innocent fun? Is it something that demands minor correction? Major correction? Other options?
If you are not willing to consider the hypothetical, then please do not post or else you'll find yourself slip,slip,slipping down the Memory Hole.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Pianka gave this address as the Texas Academy of Science's distinguished professor of the year. Thus he knew going in that he had high credibility with this audience and that they would view him as authoratative. One doesn't get such an award by being viewed by peers as undistinguished and of little influence. Further, in requesting recording be turned off, Pianka telegraphed that he knew his comments would be considered highly controversial…not ready for prime time, as it were. As a matter of course, scientists who make public addresses need to excercise special care and caution. This is all the more true when a scientist speaks from a forum such as Pianka did. Whatever Pianka may have actually said, he clearly did not excercise humility or caution in his remarks. In fact, it appears he expected to generate controversy…indeed seemed to want it. That is not good practice for anyone in science.
So, I don't think this can be simply dismissed as "innocent" fun. How many harmful things have been said with the add on "just kidding" expected to wash away the harm? So much more so when one speaks with scientific authority.
That brings us to "minor" correction. Well, I'll toss the ball back to you, bipod. What would a "minor" correction be in this case? If Mims account is correct (and for this thread, I'm assuming it is), then some fairly "major" comments with "major" implications were made. Something beyond a "minor" correction would seem to be in order.
Well, how about "major" correction, then. In this case, I don't know what would constitute a "correction". If he really didn't mean what he spaid, and he really meant something else, then he needs to fully explain why he said what he said, and then fully explain how what he said really means something else. That would seem to be a tall order in this case.
That brings us to "other options". How about a full blown, public apology?
Not only should he apologize for what he said, but he really ought to apologize for violating the public trust in his position as scientist and professor. Wasn't it Feynman who said that scientist need to bend over backwards in caution when dealing with the public, to show how, maybe, they're wrong…or something to that effect? Pianka ought to make a statement that from now on, he will follow the Feynman directive!
Comment by DonaldM — April 5, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Hi, bipod,
I still think the "expressing approval of humanity's deserved come-uppance" is by far the best-supported interpretation of what was said, based on the sum of the different accounts given, and based on what we do know. The "he was only kidding" interpretation doesn't fit what we know as well, imo, though it's not completely implausible – although even then it would be extremely innappropriate.
So, the question from my perspective is, what should happen to him? My answer is nothing, except for bad press. I don't think a decree is desirable from University of Texas staff either. None of them is obligated to prove to us that they aren't pro-near-extinction. They should get the benefit of the doubt on that.
I do think, however, that his statements, and the response by the Texas Academy of Science, should be publicized, as they have been and are being. The public should be aware of some of the stuff that comes out of the Universities, so they can make their own informed decisions. They are, after all, the ones footing the bill and trying to decide where to send their kids.
Comment by Deuce — April 5, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
What type of glee are we talking about?
Is it ironic glee? "I've been predicting disaster but no one believes me! How happy I'll be when the disaster occurs and the survivors have to admit I was right!" I can't condemn that, because I've said the same sort of thing myself. (Of course, I don't really want the disaster to occur. I want people to believe me and work to prevent the disaster!)
Or is it faux-misanthropic glee? In the words of Gilbert & Sullivan's Lord High Executioner: "But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list/ For they'd none of them be missed — they'd none of them be missed." I can't condemn that either, because I've said the same sort of thing myself. (The top of my list is telemarketers and people who talk in movie theatres, but people with too many bratty children are in there somewhere, too.) But the point is that it's just fake misanthropy…I'm blowing off steam, not literally wishing death on people.
Or maybe it's psychopathic glee, and he's genuinely wishing for a disaster. I'll condemn that without reservation. But I have to say that I think it's pretty unlikely…that sort of glee is incredibly rare. I don't think it's even worth considering as a possiblity.
So my feeling is that correction isn't neccesary or desirable. We should just let Pianka be Pianka, and hope that he extends the same courtesy to us.
Of course, that's just according to my personal moral system. I understand that people of good conscience can and do disagree over trivial issues like this. For example, if "forchristbible" has never committed the sins of irony or faux-misanthropy, then certainly he has the right to cast the first stone.
Comment by chaosengineer — April 5, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Donald,
By "innocent fun" I meant to reflect the fact that he *wasn't aware* of the nature of his ideas. Just like a dirty joke that's innocently and unaware told in the presence of someone who is the brunt of the joke.
Also, my hypothetical doesn't say that Mims account is true. It would be more accurate to say that my hypothetical reflects the reports of various student evaluations. In otherwords, my hypothetical does not require that Pianka advocated death. Just that he reflected glee in the prospects.
Comment by bipod — April 5, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
As Brer Rabbit might quip – please don't send me down the Memory Hole again, but, just asking, don't we still have 1st Amendment rights, even in Texas?
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 5, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
If in fact he requested that the recorders be turned off, then I don't know how he could argue he wasn't aware of the nature of his ideas. Quite the opposite in fact. Based on what appears took place, I think Pianka would have a pretty tough time defending "innocent fun". To me it appears that he knew exactly what the consequences of his remarks would be…or at least had a pretty good idea.
I know YOU didn't claim that Mims' account was true or accurate. I was trying to say that I was assuming it was for purposes of my comments on this thread.
Comment by DonaldM — April 5, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
People who say things like this and then go on living should be called out as the hypocrites they are. Thats what should be done if he was decrying over population on the earth. He should be censured for advocating ideas that he is too cowardly to take seriously and for lacking the courage of his so called convictions.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 5, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Donald,
On the recording issue – has anyone considered the legality of doing this? After all you can't take photographs in a theater. Lots of issues including intellectual property rights come up. For example, according to him, an interview with Dawkins was edited to make it sound like he was clueless on some question or other.
I strongly suspect that the recording issue is being blown out of all proportion since the facts are almost nonexistent. Most likely unauthorized recording/filming was simply prohibited.
Further, have a look at the TAS Annual meeting program – somehow I don't believe that the people listed in its 99 pages as being speakers at this event are all naive enough to give a standing ovation to a radical but evil eugenics master.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 5, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I don't think Pianka should be made to suffer any consequences. But if I was him, I would apologize. You don't joke about cancer. You don't joke about rape. And for goodness sake, you don't joke about ebola killing nine out of ten of your fellow humans.
Furthermore, I would also clarify not merely that I wished no ill will to anyone, but that I would also be immensely horrified if such a pandemic took place, as I certainly don't want to see the human population massively culled by a virus.
Finally, I would promise to edit my "doomsday" speech so such misunderstandings would not happen again. In fact, I would probably toss it and start with a fresh one.
Anyway, the really interesting part of your blog is about the "insulated University professor." Is he really insulated within academia? Or is academia becoming more and more insulated from the rest of society?
Comment by MikeGene — April 5, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Mike-
I appreciate your point, but I disagree. Some talks (or books, etc) simply aren't meant to be understood by everyone. They are aimed at a particular audience. Good talks make efficient use of what the audience already knows in order to show them a little bit that they didn't. People working in any given field have their own world-view, their own language, and their own type of humor, well-understood from inside their own culture but easily misunderstood outside. A speaker working fluently with an audience that bears with him can produce a downright brilliant talk, although perhaps unintelligible to the outsider.
My hypothesis regarding Pianka is that the talk was aimed at a particular group, and those who weren't at that level just did not get it. It was, after all, a scientific meeting. Those familiar enough with Pianka's field got his meaning, picked the hyperbole and the innuendo from the serious, and ended up enjoying the talk, maybe agreeing or disagreeing with it, without getting the impression that Pianka was a loon calling for mass murder.
Had Pianka followed your suggestion, I suspect that the standing ovation would be replaced by tepid applause from a largely bored audience. Imagine pulling an edgy and mellifluous novel through a panel of lawyers and consultants to remove any chance of misunderstanding. It'd turn straight into oatmeal.
Comment by Myrmecos — April 6, 2006 @ 12:40 am
April 6th, 2006 at 9:47 am
If, hypothetically, a tenured professor publicly expressed glee at the thought of the horrible deaths of billions of people, and I was president of the university, I would condemn his remarks. I'm guessing that disciplinary measures aren't available against tenured professors exercising free speech rights.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 6, 2006 @ 9:47 am
April 6th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Now, in Pianka's defense, if he did express glee, we should keep in mind that it wasn't probably focused on the thought of mass death. It was probably focused on what he sees mass death acheiving. If he expressed glee, it was probably more focused on the huge sigh of relief that Nature would be able to breathe without the scourge of humanity so that she could get on with her proper business.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 9:53 am
April 6th, 2006 at 10:04 am
We're now being accused of using excessive word-parsing and irrelevant hypotheticals. But hypotheticals aren't irrelevant and here's why.
I assume that everyone reading this blog agrees with the following:
If X= some statement
Then,
There is some X such that if Pianka were to have publicly said X, he deserves public condemnation.
For example, let's say that X had been "Men are much better ecologists than women. We'd make a lot more progress on ecological problems if we got rid of all the female ecologists." Or, X could have been "Muslims shouldn't be allowed to be politicians. We'd be letting potential terrorists sneak into our government"
I suspect that in both cases, we'd all agree that X deserves public condemnation. I also suspect that there is some X regarding the mass death of humanity that would deserve public condemnation.
So, while the critics here accuse us of jumping on the Mims/RightWing nutcase bandwagon, we're really just saying "Look. If there is any truth to the claim that Pianka has been irresponsible with his rhetoric, then it deserves the attention it is getting as well as something like a public condemnation."
I should also add that we tend to think that the issue is more complex than "Either Mims was right or Mims was wrong." There is a body of evidence that suggests that Pianka has been irresponsible in the past with use of rhetoric concerning overpopulation.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 10:04 am
April 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Hi bipod,
As university president, I would still have a problem with a professor publicly expressing glee at the thought of the horrible deaths of billions of people. Even if I thought a population crash was inevitable, and would prefer that it happen before much of the earth's biodiversity is extinguished, it is not a prospect to be contemplated with glee.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 6, 2006 @ 10:13 am
April 6th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Of course, that's the case with nearly all such ideologies, if not all of them.
Comment by Deuce — April 6, 2006 @ 10:26 am
April 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Thinking about it, shouldn't the Telicthoughts position be that nothing should happen in order to protect acedemic freedom, regardless of how far outside of the scientific mainstream an academic's comments are?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 6, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Aagcobb,
Exactly – plus the 1st Amendment applies. Since Pianka wasn't teaching it's nothing to do with the University unless he stated that he was representing UT.
Can anyone imagine Pianka doing what Dembski did and reporting someone to the FBI for something like this?
Also, it seems that Salvador's comments have been obliterated.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 6, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Aagcobb. Not exactly. I think academic freedom can be preserved within a context of general disapproval. "You're free to hold that position, but we're free to object and condemn the position."
Ideas have implications that an insulated community may be myopic too. It would be a positive development if the ideas of the Academy were more frequently subject to wider scrutiny. The ideas would come out strengthened or undermined and not just floating in mid-air.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Hi, Aagcobb, as I said, the only thing that should happen should be that views like Pianka's should be widely reported on. The public pays for this stuff, this stuff can be influential, and so they have a right to know what they're paying for. I don't think general disapproval steps on freedom of speech or academic freedom. Just the opposite, freedom of speech guarantees the right to share your views publicly without governmental reprisal (or University reprisal in the case of academic freedom), so that the public can decide whether they approve or not. It doesn't protect the right to make your views public, but only within the sphere of people you want hearing them.
Comment by Deuce — April 6, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Three points:
(i) An academic can pretty much say whatever he or she likes as an ordinary citizen. Pianka was speaking to the Texas Academy of Science and he wasn't on the UT campus nor was this part of his official duties so far as I can tell. So it isn't academic freedom particularly but 1st Amendment freedom.
(ii) Academic freedom comes in when a professor expresses his views in research articles or in his or her teaching capacity.
(iii) Publicizing and criticizing such positions – protected or not by academic freedom – is legitimate. Libel, slander or repeating heresay evidence isn't.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 6, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
1st Amendment freedom goes in two directions.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
bipod,
What's that supposed to mean?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 6, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
freedom of speech includes freedom to complain, freedom to voice dissent, freedom to say someone's views are rubbish and inhumane, etc.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Bipod,
Nobody is disagreeing with that. The discussion is about whether Pianka's statements have been reported accurately and whether it is acceptable – and, indeed is in the interests of ID – for the Batman and Robin team of Dembski and Cordoba to, in the one case report Pianka to the DHS and in the other to call him a Himmler and an Osama on this site.
The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to smear others and label them Nazis.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 6, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Fine. But we've already established that telicthoughts thinks Dembski went over the line and we've put many of Cordova's posts in the memory hole.
Comment by bipod — April 6, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
April 6th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
bipod,
My earlier point was on the distinction between the 1st Amendment and academic freedom. Your reponse to that was cryptic and implied that, somehow, people were complaining that pianka should be immune to critcism, i.e, teh 1st Amendment only applied to Pianka supporters. So you re-opned that cat of worms, bipod.
I'm glad telicthoughts has reached that conclusion – putting Cordoba in the Memory Hole is admirable but it hardly changes what Cordoba thinks. It does speak well of telicthoughts though.
Best,
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 6, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:23 am
Just my two cents, I've appreciated the relatively measured commentary from the Telic thoughts folks about this whole affair.
Comment by Myrmecos — April 7, 2006 @ 2:23 am
April 7th, 2006 at 2:59 am
Thanks, Myrmecos. If I had to do it all over again, I would not have blogged the original blog. My focus really was on the decrees. I can kinda understand the decrees from LeHigh and Idaho, because Behe and Minnich were about to testify in Dover and both have tenure. But I believe to this day that the Iowa decree was intensely vicious and Guillermo Gonzalez did not deserve to be publicly described as one who was planted at his school by the DI and as one who teaches ID when he does not. I was trying to get back to that and thus probably placed too much faith in Mims's account to make my point. And when people so quickly started to accuse Mims of being deluded and lying, well, you know I don't have much patience with that.
Anyway, I did not foresee Drudge picking this up, nor did I foresee such hatred, including things like death threats and FBI interviews (the news of the FBI interview sickened me). Seen against the backdrop of such ugliness, I can understand how my blog offended some people. Like I said, if I had to do it all over again, I would not have blogged the original blog. But then I'm not sure I could have sat quietly when Mims was being attacked. Who knows? I gotta go to bed….
Comment by MikeGene — April 7, 2006 @ 2:59 am
April 7th, 2006 at 3:13 am
Mike
Out of curiosity if the transcripts exonerate Dr. Pianka (as it appears they are) do you happen to think that something should be done to discipline Mims for his overblown and harmful account? Do you think Mims should just be able to walk away, smiling happily at the fact he's just caused a fellow associate to recieve death threats, be reported to the FBI and publically humiliated?
If we want 'decrees' Mike you might just get them soon. Because Kathryn Perez has circulated a petition (that apparently is gaining signings fast from other staff) that condemns the account Mims made. This petition is only going to those who were actually there. What do you think if the others there come out and publically rubbish Mims account? Is Mims going to be a victim to you or someone who is simply meeting something called "Karma". Do you at the very least feel Mims would owe Dr. Pianka an apology if it really did turn out Mims just 'misunderstood' him? Do you think after that Dr. Pianka had been put through based on this misunderstanding an apology would have been in order?
I think there is time for an anecdotal story about me.
Once at a departmental talk I made a flippant remark about my supervisor not being present. It was intended as a joke and I meant no harm, but many in the department interpreted what I said as being accusatory of my supervisor. Upon learning of this, I immediately apologised to my supervisor and immediately sent a public correction out to members of my department. What I had said publically to the department had basically unfairly maligned my supervisor, who had really helped me a lot.
If I had done what Mims did to Dr. Pianka, which was go to the public press (not just my department) and malign my supervisor I would have faced severe reprocussions. Especially if I had made allegations of the sort Mims did and that turned out not to have any real support behind them. Mistake or not, I imagine I would have paid for it with expulsion from the University.
I wonder should Dr. Pianka be exonerated, what punishment (if any) Mims will have to suffer and if blogs like Telic Thoughts will rush to Mims defence, despite having been in the wrong to begin with.
Time will tell.
Comment by Aegeri — April 7, 2006 @ 3:13 am
April 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I think highly of Telic Thoughts and I can understand why they thought putting my comments in the memory hole was the appropriate action.
But I point I out, my post was in response to describing what would happen in a hypothetical scenario. My comments were not intended to represent what I absolutely believe about Pianka in real life.
You're attributing something to me as true that was only hypothetical.
That said, I think, on the assumption Pianka is gleeful, some of my description of the hypothetical outcome is well in line with what has come out of his own mouth.
This is not too far from the truth:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 7, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Salvador,
That's the weakest and most dishonest excuse I've ever heard. You used Pianka's actual name as in
It is a very childish trick and is much like telling a lie wiith one's fingers crossed. At least have the deceny to stand by your original and overly emotional post instead of squirming out of it. Have a read of Job. 13 – it has much to say about those who would lie for God.
I hope Nature picks up on this.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 7, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
His actual name is Eric, not Osama.
By the way, what do you think of his comments about AIDS?
Hypothetically speaking of course. Oh, wait, he actually said that. What say you now?
Why am I the one claimed by Andrea Bottaro as having despicable words, when those are the kinds of words coming out of Pianka's own mouth?
If I ever said something like that, I'd never hear the end of it, yet you seem to be doing all you can to sugar coat his callous statements (even if made in jest).
So, if hypothetically he's gleeful over death, I don't advocate any kind of punishment. I even rather let the world hear what he has to say.
But it's interesting that he's the one who is eager to turn the cameras and recorders off and speak only to "the coverted".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 7, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Salvador,
Combining somebody's first or last name name withOsama or Adolf or Hitler or whatever is a common ploy for insulting somebody. For example, if someone called you Salvador Dembski you'd probably get the point.
As for the quote – here's what Pianka said (I can't find the exchange with a reporter that you cite without a source – I suggest that you read the actual transcript);
While the choice of words is unfortunate because of quote miners such as yourself, he's simply using "no good" as in "ineffective." Typical dishonest quote-mining. It certainly does not qualify Pianka as advocating using ebola as Dembski emotionally claimed in his original post.
But as for AIDS, Salvador, isn't this the scourge that will rid the world of homosexuals? Pianka's remarks pale compared to those found here, e.g.,
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/
Shouldn't Dembski be calling the FBI to report Falwell?
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 7, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Sal, firt of all, it is plain to see that your comparison of Pianka to Osama and Himmler had nothing to do with the hypothetical situation considered in this thread. (Unless, of course, you think that the only problem with bin Laden and Himmler is that they "expressed glee at the prospect of humanity's mass death".) I suggest you quit embarassing yourself and digging yourself in a deeper hole. A quick apology would solve your problem.
Second, I can't find the source of that quote about HIV from Pianka. Where is it from?
Comment by Andrea — April 7, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Wait, was that quote from Sal really made up by splicing a sentence out of a Pianka's talk and prefacing it with a leading question by a non-existent reporter?
Sal, where did you get your quote from?
Comment by Andrea — April 7, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
A transcript of the earlier radio interview? That's the only place that I can think of…
Wait, where did that come from? I can't recall that in the radio interview either, although I'll have another listen to it after I'm done what I'm doing.
Comment by Aegeri — April 7, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Now I see, I thought by "not far from the truth" Sal meant something from a different source that would give us an idea about what Pianka thinks in general. But I was wrong, "not far from the truth" for Sal means "made up of whole cloth".
Scotty, beam us all up to the memory hole, where Sal's journalistic standards can be enshrined for eternity.
Comment by Andrea — April 7, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Wait a moment, I see what he has done. He's made up a 'reporter' from the looks of things and given Dr. Pianka an answer that makes him look deliberately stupid. The reporters question doesn't appear anywhere that I can find and neither from the audio interview with Dr. Pianka.
Yes, Sal has just made up a reporter asking Dr. Pianka a question and copied and pasted a an answer out of context to make Dr. Pianka look really bad.
Here Sal, take your shovel and kindly dig your way to hell. I'm certain after this fiasco is over you're going to find it colder than what you'll end up facing up here.
[Or alternatively demonstrate who the reporter was that asked that question and wher Dr. Pianka answered with that response]
Comment by Aegeri — April 7, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Salvador,
I am leaving for Europe so that gives you a week to find the source of the reporter-quote that you used. Better yet you can apologize. Falsification and fabrication are forms of lying and, again, I direct your attention to Job. 13.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 7, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
No. And your citation is just another off topic red herring.
Of course, that's exactly what I did as we were talking hypothecially here on the presumption he's gleeful at death. His comments on AIDS have been made. Then on the presumption he's hypothetically gleeful, then that scenario should not be far from the truth in my estimation. No where am I representing this as an absolute fact.
By all means let him get up before the cameras and speak his mind rather than having them turned off. I think he should have a fair hearing.
If he is hypothetically gleeful at death, well, all the more reason taxpayers should be made aware of the kinds of professors there are at their schools. If he's not gleeful, perhaps he should work on his communication skills.
It was a hypothetical scenario, get a clue.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 7, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Salvador,
I'm glad you are an ID proponent. I certainly wouldn't you on my side of the issue. As it is you are great for a laugh. For a man with so many degrees you really look more and more ridiculous with each and every post.
Must dash….
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 7, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Awh shucks. Well, I hope I put smile on your face then. Have a nice trip.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 7, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
April 7th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Comments in this thread are done. No more insults or angry smack. Not sure about everyone else, but when I read many of these comments, the words look awfully red.
If you post comments beyond this point, I'll delete them.
Comment by bipod — April 7, 2006 @ 4:27 pm