Now I am bent out of shape

| 254 Comments

Update: 1/13/06 11:17:25 As of this second, my post is back on Dembski and Friends’ blog. It looks like one needs to take a post-by-post snapshot there just so you can keep track of what’s happened.

And now DaveScot comments (with no mention of having deleted and then restored my post)

You’re saying an undergraduate degree in anthropology is more science than a PhD in math? There’s a good laugh.

How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design? I don’t see the connection. Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting. How does that make one an expert on the nature of digital codes and automated machinery? At least the math guys know a digital code when they see one.

Here are some quotes from your article that make me think you imply “chicken”

What are they afraid of here?

Who exactly is refusing to engage in a competition?

I’m not afraid of competition

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and say you aren’t implying the other side is afraid of the competition you represent? I’m going to have call you a liar if you do.

Well, for one thing I am a math teacher, and I do know a digital code when I see one. Secondly, math is not science. Third, my comments about “competition” were in reference to something John Calvert said about the ID movement in general, not about Dembski. (If one read the newspaper article and had an intent to keep context in mind, one would know that.)

And I am saying that “the other side” is afraid of the point of view about ID that I represent. However, I said that without calling people names, and without making demands.

I would like this conversation to go on at Uncommon Dissent, where it belongs, and not here. However, given that posts can so easily disappear there, I’ve posted this here so there is a record of this exchange.

===================================== Here’s my original post:

Well, I wasn’t “bent out of shape,” but now I am.

DaveScot over at Uncommon Dissent is the target of my ire. Let me tell you why.

This morning I saw that DaveScot had commented on my recent Panda’s Thumb post on my offer to discuss ID with Dembski at KU in a few weeks. Here’s what DaveScot wrote,

Jack Krebs at Panda’s Thumb is all bent out of shape because he wanted to present an opposing view alongside Bill Dembski. He then implies that Bill declined because Bill’s afraid of Jack or intimidated or something.

Excuse me, Jack, but you demanding an opportunity to present alongside Bill Dembski and calling him chicken for refusing is like the Oskaloosa High School Football Team demanding to play the University of Texas Longhorns and saying the Longhorns are chickens for refusing.

Sorry Jack, but you’re just not in the same league as Bill.

I am a registered Uncommon Dissent user, so I posted a comment (which I have attempted to reproduce below.) Thirty minutes later, upon arriving at work, I see that my comment was deleted.

Now I know that they delete stuff over there at the drop of the hat, and they’ve banned people over flame wars. I administer the KCFS forums, and I know the problems that can ensue.

But my post was not like that. DaveScot made comments about me, and I responded in a reasonable manner.

But still he deleted my post.

So now I am bent out of shape, and I am calling someone “chicken”: I’m calling DaveScot “chicken.” Maybe also “hypocritical.” Possibly … well, you decide.

Why should he be afraid to let my comment stand? More broadly, how can a movement that claims to be thwarted in their attempts to enter mainstream conversation about the important issues that they want to address constantly refuse to discuss things? – no comments at all on the DI blog, deletion by whim at Uncommon Dissent?

So I repeat a point from my earlier Panda’s Thumb post: “What are they afraid of?”

For what it’s worth, as best I can recollect, here is the comment I made at Uncommon Dissent that was deleted. Obviously this isn’t completely accurate, because I didn’t keep a copy of the original. But at least it will let you know approximately what I said. Judge for yourself why DaveScot didn’t like it.

Hmmm. Could you explain where I “demanded” anything? Or why you think I am “bent out of shape”? And I certainly didn’t call Dembski “chicken.”

I think your posts would have more credibility if you didn’t exaggerate.

What I did say was,

“ On the other hand, I do believe that they really don’t want to talk in public about the things I wanted to talk about. They want the façade of credibility for ID by setting it against evolution – against some well-know biology professor like Krishtalka, but they don’t want (and I find this ironic) to actually discuss the issue of Christianity and evolution in front of a group of Christians. What are they afraid of here?”

I believe that the discussion that should be taking place should be about the pros of ID versus the cons of ID, not about the pros of ID versus evolution.

As to your remarks about the school I teach at: I am proud of my long career as a public school educator. However, I have education and skills that go beyond those of my paying day job. Given that it is ideas and the ability to articulate them to others that ultimately count, I think I am qualified to discuss ID with Dembski. And for what it’s worth, given that I have an undergraduate degree in anthropology, I think I have more official credentials in science than Dembski does. He (and others in the movement) have certainly not hesitated to critique evolution without having academic credentials in biology.

But thanks for referencing my Panda’s Thumb post.

254 Comments

Are you sure your comment successfully posted in the first place?

Don’t despair, Jack. Think of DaveScot as Hyde to Dembski’s Jekyll.

DaveScot never gets it right. I know Longhorns. Longhorns are friends of mine. And, Dembski is no Longhorn.

It would be more like the Oskaloosa High School football team challenging Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to a game and…

…oh, wait a second. SBTS doesn’t have a team.

Well, no matter, Dembski doesn’t have a theory, either.

As we say here in Texas, Dembski is all hat and no cattle. DaveScot doesn’t even have a hat.

Calling DaveScot a chicken does an extreme disservice to chickens, imo.

Jack, Just went over there - your post is present, in full.

Calling DaveScot a chicken does an extreme disservice to chickens, imo.

OUCH! Brilliant! What wit! Touche, touche, TOUCHE!!!

The Dave Scott blog is probably one of the best advertisers for PT. Does a day go by where he does not link to an article here?

And Dave Scott lying or distorting reality is no great shock. What intelligent design creationism cultist does not lie to further their theistic agenda whose governing goals include:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. 2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I mean, does that sound like the goals of any legitimate scientific organization you have ever heard of? That sound more like extreem religious propaganda to me.

Clearly they (intelligent design creationists like Dave Scott and William Dembski) have a religious agenda and view modern science as destructive. Furthermore, simply reading Dave Scott’s comments on his and Dembski’s common poop blog suggests he is very likely mental.

Personally I hope Dave has even more to say about anything PT related at his/Dembski’s intelligent design creationism blog. Whether it is a lie or not is moot. Reason will stand or fall on its own. Keep sending intelligent design creationists to this site, Dave Scott. Maybe some of them will see through the intelligent design charade as a result.

It really doesn’t help to get bent out of shape. Stress, high blood pressure etc. If you want to enter the PR war with them (and kudos for being willing) you will get some mud on you now and then- they do play dirty, that’s the only way they can win. Man that last statement I made sounds smug. But that’s the problem, how can I not sound smug? I mean, I ask them a question about their IDeas and they attack me for the question. I do have some questions. I always start with plate tectonics and the fossil record. They don’t answer it unless they are out and out creationists in which case god put fossils of common ancestors to diverged species on opposite banks (shorelines). Or they say that that is “micro-evolution not macro” or whatever. It’s a moving target. It’s frustrating. But relax, there’s no point getting bent out of shape. You’re born, you live, then you die. There are many worthwhile things to occupy yourself with including science education but it’s all just a fun pastime really.

In response to Jack, DaveScot–all riled up–lets fly with another of his ridiculous comments:

Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.

So, since this is William Demsbki’s official web-blog, are we to assuming this is his official opinion of biology and those who practice it?

Good on ya Bill, thanks to sycophants like DaveScot, your credibility is sinking lower than even we expected.

And religious wingnuts aren’t the only absurd thing out there. I mean, they are certainly absurd but have you looked at politics lately? Have you seen a modern porno? What about reality tv? We are absurd as a species because we have to consider, qualify, and categorize things as we eat, poop and procreate. When you realize the difference between the world and our ideas about the world, all we can do is laugh.

Would you really be surprised if DaveScot did delete your comment? I mean, DaveScot is the guy who proactive bans people like Mr. Christopher for posting anti-ID stuff on OTHER BLOGS.

(From the link)

The deal with this blog, since I’ve given it over to my friends, is to build community and “feel the love.” Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.

~ William Dembski

So there we have it. I think that’s as close as we’ll get to Dembski actually admitting that Uncommon Dissent is really just one big circle-jerk.

I’m confused. Why are you blaming Davescot for Dembski deleting a post? I thought Uncommon Dissent was Dembski’s blog.

Harq al-Ada Wrote:

I’m confused. Why are you blaming Davescot for Dembski deleting a post? I thought Uncommon Dissent was Dembski’s blog.

Maybe you missed it, but not long ago Dembski announced he was shelving his blog, only to bring it back as a group blog. DaveScot is now one of the mods, and from what I’ve seen, he’s a bit itchy with the banning finger.

DaveScot Wrote:

Sorry Jack, but you’re just not in the same league as Bill.

Who is in the same league as Bill?

DaveScot, Baron von Munchausen, Bill O’Reilly, Alibi Ike, and the Iraqi fellow who kept the press “informed” during the attack on Baghdad come to mind. A regular Bush League.

So.. the running score seems to be that Dembski will

1. Refuse to debate people 2. Hold “debates” in which he claims that people refuse to debate him 3. Refuse to let the people who are offering to debate him participate in the debate from (2) 4. Have his blog lackeys insult the people he refused to debate in (3) if they speak about it publicly

Have I got the situation right here?

The impression I keep having of Dembski was that he set up his “uncommon descent” blog with the goal of reaching out to the internet to proselytize, to convert the heathens and remake the internet in his own image. Unfortunately it just seems to be having the opposite effect, he’s being remade in the image of the internet. He’s becoming a blogger. He’s being gradually sucked out of his previous role of nationally recognized P.R. tool of a well-financed conservative Christian P.R. group, and more and more into just being a common net.kook. I’m expecting this to get worse now that his website has largely become his photo followed by the writings of people who have always been net.kooks.

Mr. Krebs, this entire situation must be terribly unpleasant for you, but I guess one way to look at this is that if you or Kansas Citizens for Science wind up involved in a court case over the new Kansas educational standards, you can hope that your opponents there will be as transparent as your opponents on the internet…

Jack, Just went over there - your post is present, in full.

Yup, it is. Now the question is, does this mean Mr. Krebs was confused and the post wasn’t deleted, or does it mean DaveScot un-deleted it after reading Krebs’ post on pandasthumb? From my understanding of the software running at Uncommon Descent no posts are ever totally deleted, just hidden from public view.

In the newest post, DaveScot smears Ed Brayton, so don’t feel alone.

Anyway, the real purpose of Uncommon Pissant is to be a comedy train, and that comedy train just keeps on rollin. Here’s a comment today:

#

This goes without saying but Pandas Thumb is a one sided Evolution side show thats not even funny. I’ve never posted on PT but checking out the links that DaveScot & others have posted before its clear to me that the site name should of long ago evolved to Pandas Dumb. PD - has a nice ring to because the pandas on the site have clearly devolved from their humble (questionable) beginnings. Im surprised that even in 2006 with all the advances in technology used help advance virtually all the areas of science & these evolutionary frauds wont admit they were wrong, have 0 facts to support their cause, pack up their suit case and run out of the country. I mean what will it take another George Bush ?

Charlie

Comment by Charliecrs — January 13, 2006 @ 11:23 am

Bear in mind that this is the same William A. Dembski who in December accepted Patricia Princehouse’s invitation to put up or shut up at Case Western and then somehow didn’t appear. His excuses were made by Casey Luskin. It appears that the Disco Institute is keeping Dembski on a shorter leash than heretofore. Perhaps his employment at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary makes it harder to sustain the fiction that “there ain’t no religion here, folks! Just plain old science.”

RBH

RBH: Which makes me curious, because Dembski actually is debating someone this month, it looks like. Exactly how did that come about?

I note the other debater has written some books on the subject, including Can a Darwinian be a Christian?

Here is an excerpt from a review of the book:

For those dissatisfied with the tenor of the evolution vs. creationism debate, or who simply long for a more moderate intellectual engagement, Ruse (philosophy and zoology, Univ. of Guelph, Canada; Mystery of Mysteries) offers another perspective here: one designed to help rationalists come to terms with religion. Written from the viewpoint of a scientist willing to engage Christian literalism on its own terms, he systematically compares historical Darwinism and Christian beliefs and sensibilities, finding surprising parallels in both methodologies as they search for the meaning of life.

When did biology become concerned about “the meaning of life”, again?

Im sorry you guys should know better why moan about Dembski’s blog we all know its one big circle jerk with simply no credibility in the slightest. Opposing viewpoints get banned we know this.

http://fortress-forever.com/upload/[…]i-censor.png

Whats the point even worrying about what goes on there its obvious the place has nothing of merit to contribute at all.

Andrew McClure

I suspect it’s because Dembski and Ruse are bosom buddies and Bubba Dembski knows Ruse won’t tear into him too hard.

Or maybe because Dembski thinks Ruse is an easy target. Could be a little bit of both.

I.D. is not religion!!! Find out why at the next Campus Crusade for Christ event!

I find that far too funny.

I resent that. I spend most of my efforts here making it funny.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 66, byte 66 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

theonomo said:

OUCH! Brilliant! What wit! Touche, touche, TOUCHE!!!

Got something relevant to say yourself?

Didn’t think so.

Maybe he meant you are not in Dembski’s league as a fraud and grifter. Your problem is that you are too honest to share the stage with the great man.

Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.

DaveScot and Dembski have a permanent, and all-important interest in convincing the world that knowledge of biology is irrelevant to understanding evolution. That’s the only way they can win in the arena outside of fundamentalists. The fundamentalists can’t be reasoned with.

I think DaveScot is turning Demski’s blog into one of the worst advertisements for IDC that we could ever ask for. Another 2-3 months of this and uncommondescent will be about as reputable as little green footballs. Let him continue to run it into the ground.

Jack,

I find that the IDists, especially Dembski & Co., almost always claim my educational background is lacking just after I’ve zinged them with another question they cannot answer, or pointed out that their emperor has no clothes. I have observed they do that with everyone else, too. P. Z. Myers can’t answer Dembski, they claim, because Myers doesn’t have a math degree (on an issue of embryological development). A mathematician can’t answer Dembski because, the DembskiIDists claim, the mathematician doesn’t understand theology. Albert Einstein can’t answer Dembski on radioactive decay because Einstein was just a physicist, not a nuclear physicist. Mother Theresa can’t answer Dembski on theology because she was, after all, Catholic.

That’s their way of saying “You scored, man, and I’m bleedin’.”

But I can’t provide you that translation because I don’t have the DembskiDecoder Ring …

Im surprised that even in 2006 with all the advances in technology used help advance virtually all the areas of science & these evolutionary frauds wont admit they were wrong, have 0 facts to support their cause, pack up their suit case and run out of the country. I mean what will it take another George Bush ?

I had to laugh at this. How exactly does this dingbat think that George Bush is going to rescue him, and help external reality better match his interior landscape?

These guys really do have a problem with not confusing religion and politics. Bush seems to have become some kind of Southern Baptist saint, to whom prayers can be addressed and miracles attributed.

These guys really do have a problem with not confusing religion and politics. Bush seems to have become some kind of Southern Baptist saint, to whom prayers can be addressed and miracles attributed.

What did you think those wire taps were for?

DaveScot and Dembski have a permanent, and all-important interest in convincing the world that knowledge of biology is irrelevant to understanding evolution. That’s the only way they can win in the arena outside of fundamentalists. The fundamentalists can’t be reasoned with.

It seems that each IDiot generally thinks that the most relevant credentials for understanding biological origins are their credentials, whatever they may be (engineer, mathematician, politician, etc.) while holding that biologists in particular are just blinded by, you know, all that godless biology stuff.

windy:

I’d say he unconsciously knows that LIVING THINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED

I think you have to be a bit careful with that argument. After all, those bacteria that are happily churning out human insulin after the human insulin gene was spliced into them could certainly qualify as living things that have been (at least partly) designed.

Tice Chill I think it is helpful to “get inside” the Fundamentalist’s thinking and try to see if their views are just plain cynical obscuring of the facts or if there is a flaw that can be exploded.

Caledonian I started this a few days ago when I started to get to grips with your reasoning which I must say i have never come across before.

Dualism eh? Yes indeed the ‘western’ problem. Hmmm me thinks your construction is a metaphysical method- a system of operations designed to to logically(or not) support a world view. Generally a system that is constructed with some part of what may be factual taken into account and the rest is denied otherwise said system will “explode”. Probable true for every world view BTW.

That Dualism you have correctly identified can quite easily be rationalized by have a theistic god and denying atheism and vice versa.

Theism For the aware self/EGO What is known is known and what is unknown is god. Taken to the extreme digestion would be equal to ‘god’

Atheism For the aware self/EGO What is known is known and what is unknown is not available to aware thought-reason(unknown)

Non Dualistic Hinduism What is known is IS GOD and what is unknown is IS GOD The self… both the thinking abstract mind and that self’s body IS PART OF THE WHOLE

However the Hindu ‘god’ is not your Yahweh or other SUN based sky daddy The entire universe and all living things including the aware ego IS GOD Consider the Hindu Greeting “Namatse”.

Now as you are aware Kings and Priests get to set the agenda when setting the populations world view. Religions that grew up with invading infidels needed to make the outsiders .…well infidels. So having a vengeful god who can Holocaust the enemy (at the hands of the righteous of course) is well .…politically handy if not an absolute necessity. We are animals and everyone is going to have to get used to it. So for survival i.e. enlightened self interest a total neutrality to each others gods is a ‘middle way’.

Buddhism is almost a Protestant version of Hinduism with the added kink the psyche is the creator of the world view and the various schools provide a metaphysics where the known and the unknown can be logically dealt with according to the way the individuals mind works with the known and the unknown, theists and atheists for “life long learning” “instant awakening” not necessarily in that order.

With all religions revealed knowledge(none of which is objective fact) is largely mundane everyday stuff, the really interesting bits (for me)are the bits that reveal what I don’t already know and these are the dreams(unconscious revelation of desires and fears) and the modus operandi of those whose views I have not yet understood. Mostly religion reveals the desires and nature of the priests and kings who created them.

For me I need to be provoked to understand that and Caledonian you have provoked.

Caledonian your world view as with all others (including mine)reveals your desires and your fears nothing more.…why? Because it is a projection of your persona, a mask that you(I) wear to tell the world what you(I) are acting out. Note: this applies to all u other smug buggers as well :)

If “Caledonians MetaphysicsTM” is used to support a method for observing nature that reduces inner conflict then why would you need to tell others ?

That is begging the question :)

The Fundamentalist’s worst enemy and our greatest ally.

I can see that your system would work fine .…if you didn’t “think about it” and just BE that is almost Zen.

I collect quotes, with a section for whack-jobs, and I’d like to properly credit DaveScot for “Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.” Is his actual name and affiliation known?

Caledonian seems to be a one-issue crank with digital diarrhea, determined to impose his own dictionary or semantic scheme on the world, despite the distinctions made between math and science by vitually everyone. Reminds me of the IDiots redefinition and deliberate misunderstanding of “scientific theory,” and I wonder whether that is coincidence or trolling.

In fairness to Caledonian dkew he seems to be genuine, using what appears to me, a unique metaphysics to support his world view that just happens to appear like some of the arguments the ID crowd use. His posts on other threads show he seems to understand the evolution evidence and the wackiness of the ID crowd , it takes all sorts.

All this talk of science/not science is killing me. Why is it even important?

Because our ability to evaluate an argument on its merits, and not according to our prejudices and mental habits, is ultimately the only thing that separates us from the creationists.

There are important distinctions to be made between mathematics and other scientific disciplines, just as there are important distinctions to be made between physics and biology. But it’s still all science.

And since arguments about the nature of science, and what is or isn’t part of science, are at the core of the arguments against ID, how can is possibly NOT be considered important?

From Wikipedia, which basically sums it all up well (not that it will convince Caledonia):

“Mathematics is often referred to as a science, but the fruits of mathematical sciences, known as theorems, are obtained by logical derivations, which presume axiomatic systems rather than a combination of observation and reasoning. Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories.”

Math and science are fundamentally distinct and blurring that distinction serves no good purpose (unless one is, like Dembski, frying fish for some reason).

Just for the record, in response to a couple of comments early in this thread: Michael Ruse is neither a lightweight nor a crank. He’s a distinguished philosopher of biology and a thoroughgoing supporter of evolution by natural selection. His book Darwin and Design makes this clear, and also sets the bar for Christian belief in a Darwinian world fairly high. In brief, a Darwinian Christian must believe, Ruse argues, that this is the best of all possible worlds: that is, that God works through evolution and that, despite extinction, parasitism, and that damn vermiform appendix, no other mode of creation would have been better. I find that a sterling example of the stark separation of science and faith, though I do not agree with Ruse’s conclusion.

In brief, a Darwinian Christian must believe, Ruse argues, that this is the best of all possible worlds: that is, that God works through evolution and that, despite extinction, parasitism, and that damn vermiform appendix, no other mode of creation would have been better.

In my experience “Darwininan” Christians use their knowledge of evolution to account for parasites/the appendix/assorted other bad stuff. Iit’s easier to argue that those horrors really are necessary in the best of all possible worlds when you see them as part of a unified natural process that also produced humans and wildflowers and honey badgers and whatever else you value. An ID supporter, on the other hand, has to believe that God considered parasitism such a wonderful idea that he took special trouble to independently add it in. Darwin himself seemed to reason this way in the Origin:

“Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers,–ants making slaves,–the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars,–not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

The above typos being, of course, evidence of an imperfect and naturally-arising universe…

Re “An ID supporter, on the other hand, has to believe that God considered parasitism such a wonderful idea that he took special trouble to independently add it in.” Yeah, that by itself would make me wonder about the I.D. advocates viewpoint - if everything really were “designed” the way they appear to want people to think, it says some bad things about the “designer” that I somehow don’t think they’re actually wanting to say (or wanting people to think). But they don’t seem to think it through to the point of realizing what they’re actually implying?

If it weren’t for this point, I’d think their beloved conjecture were wishful thinking, but with this above point in mind, I’m puzzled as to what exactly it is they’re wishing for. (Well, besides $ contributions and political power.)

Henry

Yeah, that by itself would make me wonder about the I.D. advocates viewpoint - if everything really were “designed” the way they appear to want people to think, it says some bad things about the “designer” that I somehow don’t think they’re actually wanting to say (or wanting people to think). But they don’t seem to think it through to the point of realizing what they’re actually implying?

Well, I think it’s the flipside of the “God of the Gaps” complaint. Do you prefer a hands-off god who can’t be blamed as easily for the bad stuff in the world, or a constantly-fiddling god who can be credited more easily for the good stuff? Those who choose the former usually have some explanation for why said bad stuff really isn’t bad at all–the victims deserve it, or it’s only inflicted on dumb animals so it doesn’t count, or (as IDers have said) it’s an expression of God’s “whimsy.” Darwin, during his theist phase, apparently didn’t find such explanations satisfying.

DaveScot sent me an email with only two sentences, and he managed to completely prove the point I was making in one of my first posts at my blog, and at the same time show himself to be the egomaniac that he is: “I modified it a bit so it strips your URL but leaves your name. That way the embarrassment factor is maximized while at the same time you don’t get to plug your blog on mine.”

He seems to think that Uncommon Descent is HIS blog.

Click on http://www.inoculatedmind.com/?p=10 to view the blog entry. I welcome comments.

We always knew Davey boy was nuts.

do we need to keep piling on the evidence?

mentally ill patients often don’t see themselves as nuts.

eventually, someone has to force them to take medication, which I’m sure WD40 will do when he gets bored of having his own personal “axemaniac” running unleashed on his blog.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it appears obvious to me that these shenanigans started shortly after WD40’s initial statement that he was shutting down his blog.

seems obvious to me that letting a crazy axe-murderer run around on your blog is a much more entertaining way of shutting it down.

I’ve managed to save up roughly $18431 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Krebs published on January 13, 2006 11:03 AM.

Signs you’ve been involved in the E/C “debate” too long was the previous entry in this blog.

Journalists are beginning to get it is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter