Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - I hear America singing

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 73
11
General Off-Topic Board / Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« on: July 28, 2005, 10:27:40 AM »
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

While the top half of the website is biased, the bottom half concerning the interview with Meldrum is very objective and scientific.  He very calmly and quietly gives reason after reason why he thinks Bigfoot exists.

12
of course government can't hide war itself.  however, government can lie about war, and then, when particular lie uncovered, count on partisans like you to purport to explain it away--such as your pretending that army propoganda office can "accidentally" make up unnamed source for press releases.  julie couldn't make up sh*t like this if she tried.

better luck next time.

There's no impetus for the government to lie about the war.  At least, not anymore.  Bush is securely in his second-term; does it matter what happens now politically?  Why lie?  For a while there, all he did was go on TV and tell America how much the invasion was gonna suck and whatnot.  In the story you presented, any reasonably-minded person would have known that one person's opinion (fictitious or not) does not represent the opinion of the nation at large.  What do you expect the government to do, quote a girl who lost her arm a soldier accidentally hit her instead of a suicide bomber?  Be realistic.

13
General Off-Topic Board / Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« on: July 28, 2005, 10:08:26 AM »
You're referencing a website called the "Skeptical Inquirer".  Do you think they might have a bias.  Aren't biases generally disastrous when it comes to scientific research?  Aren't safeguards put in place to discourage bias.

Do you think perhaps that your little website might make money by being skeptical of anything and everything?

14
Cannot or Can Not?
According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "Both spellings are acceptable, but cannot is more frequent in current use. Chambers 1985 insists that cannot must be used in British English unless the not is to receive particular emphasis. A couple of American sources (Oxford American Dictionary 1980, Trimble 1975) mention that the two-word form can be used to indicate special emphasis.... "Can you jump? I can not, says the sergeant" (219).

Are you arguing that OP was trying to indicate special emphasis?  Because according to this source, "can not" is acceptable but is not the most appropriate choice here.

Did you read the passage, or just infer your own meaning into the text?

"Both spellings are acceptable, but cannot is more frequent in current use."

Everything that follows is a caveat that doesn't have to apply or a corollary that isn't applicable.

I cannot believe you don't understand this concept.

I can not believe you don't understand this concept.

15
General Off-Topic Board / Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« on: July 28, 2005, 10:01:02 AM »
Julie, the debate hinges on this: who is more qualified to comment on the existence of Bigfoot, you or Jane Goodall.  I don't care if Jane Goodall spent the last five years doodling or perfecting stir fried rice, she's still more qualified than you are.

This is the problem with always using an argument by appeal to authority. You can read here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html - where a biophysicist (Levengood) attempts to create hypotheses to explain crop circle phenomenon. He was certainly qualified and still he is dabbling in pseudoscience despite the fact of CSICOP refuting his claims and having Doug Bowers and Dave Chorley explain that they were the hoaxers on some of the crop circles that he stuided.

There is a great disparity between a biophysicist discussing crop circles (that are known hoaxes) and arguably the world's greatest primatologist commenting on the existence of an undiscovered hominid.

All science, at one point or another, was "psuedo-science", until it could be proven.

16
General Off-Topic Board / Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« on: July 28, 2005, 09:58:00 AM »
That picture is from the Patterson film, which everyone now knows to be a hoax.

Science can neither, at this time, prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot.  This is the "fairy" argument- science cannot prove that fairies don't exist.  They can look and say they're not there but that does not preclude existence.

There have been countless hair samples taken from sites where the DNA is primate but unknown.  This means, expressly, that there is an undiscovered species of primate.  Billy Redneck and Tom Hoaxer can't whip up a batch of fake DNA using a whiskey still.

Second, the dermal ridges and anatomical specificity of the casts have convinced renowned experts in various scientific fields.

My belief is Bigfoot is more substantiated than your non-belief in him.  I have evidence to support my claims, whereas you only have a lack of evidence.

17
Julie, we're never going to agree on the causes of the war.

I think the benefits outweighed the risks.  We've freed millions of people, overthrown a dictator, and virtually eliminated any NBC threat he might have posed.

I don't care whether he had WMD or not; the mere heightened possibility that he did was enough for me.  He was more of a risk than Canada or Mexico or just about any other country on the planet- and likely would have just grown stronger over time.  He constantly defied U.N. sanctioned and basically snubbed his nose at us.  If we had let him off the hook, what kind of message would that send to the other goons that want to blow us up?

You cannot hide something so large as a war from the American public.  Shameful infidelities, yes, but not war...

18
Cannot or Can Not?
According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "Both spellings are acceptable, but cannot is more frequent in current use. Chambers 1985 insists that cannot must be used in British English unless the not is to receive particular emphasis. A couple of American sources (Oxford American Dictionary 1980, Trimble 1975) mention that the two-word form can be used to indicate special emphasis.... "Can you jump? I can not, says the sergeant" (219).

19
General Off-Topic Board / Re: DNA test for bigfoot...
« on: July 28, 2005, 09:43:21 AM »
Julie, the debate hinges on this: who is more qualified to comment on the existence of Bigfoot, you or Jane Goodall.  I don't care if Jane Goodall spent the last five years doodling or perfecting stir fried rice, she's still more qualified than you are.

20
Both "cannot" and "can not" are acceptable; I'd suggest a quick Google before you try to be condescending.

There is no such thing as "Black English."  It is more realistic to say that slang originates from economic divides.  The rich upper-class black doctor will probably speak better English than the poor white boy on welfare, and vice versa.

It's about money, not color.

WoW, you are so wrong. A black doctor will not speak slang in the office, but at the family BBQ he will. It is definitely a race and culture thing. Economics might affect the ability for you to be able to speak both slang dialect and the kings English, but black professionals do have a life outside of being professional and sure don't go around making their subjects and verbs agree in a non-professional setting. That’s called being “buggie” or bourgeoisie in the kings English and is frowned upon in our community.

Wow.  You can call off the KKK, because you're already doing plenty to hold down your own race.  You actually think that every rich black doctor uses slang when he is out with his other rich black friends?  You're delusional.  I don't believe you can honestly say that your "community" frowns upon those who choose to use correct grammar in every situation.  I can imagine someone choosing to do so, but being ostracized for not might be the most backwards thing I have ever heard of.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 73