Kansas USD 383: Kansas State University Letter

Posted 1 March 2006 by PvM

We, the undersigned faculty and professional staff of Kansas State University science departments, express our continued commitment to maintaining the highest quality science education for the children of USD 383 and Kansas. We are also concerned about the negative impact the Science Standards recently passed by the Kansas State Board of Education will have on our children, our community, and Kansas State University. We are especially concerned about the continued high quality of science teaching, and the continuing recruitment efforts to bring talented workers and educators to our community. We ask that you adopt the following resolution:

USD 383 endorses the following definition of science developed by the Kansas Science Education Standards Revision Committee on March 9, 2005, a definition consistent with that of all major professional science organizations in this country: Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes. The Science Standards that use this definition will be used in science curricula in all appropriate USD 383 K-12 science courses. USD 383 does not support the redefinition of science included in the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State Board of Education on November 8, 2005; this document changed the definition of science to allow non-natural (including supernatural) explanations of natural phenomena.

The reasons we urge you not to support the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State School Board that redefine science include the following: 1. Adoption of these standards will diminish the quality of science teaching in USD 383 and disadvantage our children relative to their peers in states that adhere to the standard practice of science. 2. The Kansas State Board of Education standards have created enormous negative publicity, which threatens to compromise K-State and local business efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified professionals to the district. 3. The Kansas State Board of Education standards singled out evolution for criticism while excluding other scientific theories from such criticism. We think this is unfair and suggests there may be ulterior motives at work, such as the introduction of a particular religious viewpoint into the curriculum. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a federal district judge has ruled actions such as this to be unconstitutional. 4. There is clear concern in all quarters that U.S students are falling farther and farther behind worldwide norms. It is highly predictable that students from other countries will gain even more on U.S. students, as measured by achievement, if we accept the modified definition of science recently adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education. 5. The changes made to the science standards are based on the utterly false belief that evolutionary science, and the scientific method itself, is based on an atheistic philosophy. Promoting this false conflict between science and faith erects unnecessary barriers to student learning, discourages many students from pursuing careers in the sciences, and perpetuates public misunderstandings of the nature and conclusions of science. Signed, Michael Herman Associate Professor Biology Gary W. Conrad University Distinguished Professor Biology Walter Dodds Professor Biology Carolyn Ferguson Assistant Professor Biology Anthony Jeorn Professor Biology Loretta Johnson Associate Professor Biology A. Lorena Passarelli Assistant Professor Biology A. Spencer Tomb Associate Professor Biology Mark Ungerer Assistant Professor Biology John Staver Professor Education Center for Science Education Ruth Douglas Miller Associate Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering Keith B. Miller Research Assistant Professor Geology Bruce Glymour Associate Professor Philosophy Director, Center for Origins Timothy Bolton Professor Physics Bharat Ratra Professor Physics Michel D. Ransom Professor Agronomy Assistant Head for Teaching Charles W. Rice Professor Agronomy James P. Shroyer Professor Agronomy John Tatarko Adjunct Professor Agronomy Paul White Research Assistant Agronomy Kimberly Kramer Assistant Professor Architectural Engineering and Construction Science Larry Davis Professor Biochemistry Michael Kanost University Distinguished Professor and Mead Biochemistry Karl Kramer Adjunct Professor Emeritus Biochemistry S. Muthukrishnan Professor Biochemistry Thomas Roche Professor Biochemistry Qize Wei Assistant Professor Biochemistry Anna Zolkiewska Associate Professor Biochemistry Michal Zolkiewski Associate Professor Biochemistry James K. Koelliker Professor Biological and Agricultural Engineering Kyle R. Mankin Associate Professor Biological and Agricultural Engineering Kasutra Asano Assistant Professor Biology Susan Brown Associate Professor Biology Stephen K Chapes Professor Biology Rollie Clem Associate Professor Biology Abigail Conrad Research Professor Biology Jack Cully Associate Professor Biology Robin Denell University Distinguished Professor Biology Director, Johnson Center for Basic Cancer Research Keith Gido Assistant Professor Biology Lynn Hancock Assistant Professor Biology David C. Hartnett University Distinguished Professor Biology Helmut Hirt Assistant Professor Biology Eva Horne Research Assistant Professor Biology Ari Jumpponen Assistant Professor Biology Donald Kaufman Professor Biology George Marchin Associate Professor Biology Mark Mayfield Research Assistant Professor Biology Beth Montelone Professor Biology Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences David Rintoul Associate Professor Biology Robert J. Robel Professor Emeritus Biology Judith Sabah Research Associate Biology Jyoti Shah Associate Professor Biology Brian Spooner University Distinguished Professor Biology Director Chris Thorpe Assistant Professor Biology Larry Williams Associate Professor Biology Associate Director for Undergraduate Education Gail Wilson Research Assistant Professor Biology Samantha M. Wisely Assistant Professor Biology Peter P. Wong Professor Biology Larry A. Glasgow Professor Chemical Engineering Keith Hohn Associate Professor Chemical Engineering Peter H. Pfromm Associate Professor Chemical Engineering Mary Rezac Professor and Head Chemical Engineering Christer B. Aakeroy Associate Professor Chemistry Stefan H. Bossmann Professor Chemistry Daniel A. Higgins Associate Professor Chemistry Duy H. Hua Professor Chemistry Ryszard Jankowiak Professor Chemistry Kenneth J. Klabunde University Distinguished Professor Chemistry Christopher J. Levy Assistant Professor Chemistry Eric A. Maatta Professor and Head Chemistry Maria K. Paukstelis Instructor Chemistry Sundeep Rayat Assistant Professor Chemistry Lou Wojcinski Instructor Chemistry Maarten van Swaay Professor Emeritus Computing and Information Sciences Alley Stoughton Associate Professor Computing and Information Sciences Luba Roitman Application Developer Continuing Education Larry Scharrnann Professor Education Richard Beeman Adjunct Professor Entomology Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS Ming-Shun Chen Adjunct Associate Professor Entomology Research Scientist USDA-ARS J.P. Michaud Assistant Professor Entomology James Nechols Professor and Interim Head Entomology Brenda Oppert Adjunct Assistant Professor Entomology Research Molecular Biologist- USDA-ARS John Reese Professor Entomology Susan Romero Research Associate Entomology Greg Zolnerowich Assistant Professor Entomology Ludek Zurek Assistant Professor Entomology George Clark Professor Geology Robert Cullers Professor Geology Mary Hubbard Professor and Head Geology Kirsten Nicolaysen Assistant Professor Geology Jack Oviatt Professor Geology Iris Totten Assistant Professor Geology Matf Totten Associate Professor Geology Ron West Professor Geology Bradford W. Seabourn Research Chemist and Adjunct Professor Grain Science Paul Seib Professor Grain Science Feng Xie Research Associate Grain Science Zhikai Zhong Research Associate Grain Science Chen-Yen Cochrane Research Associate Professor Human Nutrition Margaret J. Rys Associate Professor Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Tom Barstow Professor Kinesiology David Dzewaltowski Professor Kinesiology Craig Harms Associate Professor Kinesiology David C. Poole Professor Kinesiology Anatomy and Physiology Stewart Trost Associate Professor Kinesiology Maria Angeles Alfonseca Assistant Professor Mathematics David Auckly Professor Mathematics Andrew Bennett Professor Mathematics Robert Burckel Professor Mathematics Todd Cochrane Professor Mathematics Marianne Korten Assistant Professor Mathematics Zongzhu Lin Professor Mathematics Genevra Neumann Instructor Mathematics Michael Roitman Assistant Professor Mathematics Yan Soileiman Professor Mathematics William L. Stamey Professor Emeritus Mathematics Former Dean of Arts and Sciences Huanan Yang Associate Professor Mathematics Kevin Carnes Associate Research Professor Physics C. Lewis Cocke University Distinguished Professor Physics Brett DePaola Professor Physics Glenn Horton-Smith Assistant Professor Physics Hongxing Jiang University Distinguished Professor Physics Tina Kahniashvili Associate Research Professor Physics Jingyu Lin Professor Physics lgor Litvinyuk Assistant Professor Physics Yurii Maravin Assistant Professor Physics Michael O'Shea Professor Physics Carol Regehr Assistant Scientist Physics Pat Richard University Distinguished Professor Physics Chris Sorensen Professor Physics Uwe Thumm Professor Physics Larry Weaver Professor Physics Dean Zollman University Distinguished Professor and Head Physics Robert Bowden Adjunct Professor Plant Pathology Bernd Friebe Research Professor Plant Pathology Bikram Gill University Distinguished Professor Plant Pathology Director, Wheat Genetics Resource Center Scot Hulbert Professor and interim Head Plant Pathology Doug Jardine Professor Plant Pathology Judy O'Mara Plant Pathology Instructor Xiaoyan Tang Associate Professor Plant Pathology John E. Boyer Professor and Head Statistics Suzanne R. Dubnicka Assistant Professor Statistics Paul St. Amand Research Geneticist USDA Agricultural Research Service Rachel Allbaugh Ophthalmology Resident Veterinary Medicine James Carpenter Professor Veterinary Medicine Clinical Sciences Lisa Freeman Professor Veterinary Medicine Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs George Kennedy Professor Emeritus Veterinary Medicine Donald C. Robertson Professor Veterinary Medicine Diagnostic Medicine Chris R Ross Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology Masaaki Tamura Associate Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology Mark L. Weiss Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology Associate Director, Terry C. Johnson Center for Basic Cancer Research Kimberly D. Douglas Director Women in Engineering & Science John Blair Professor Biology Brad Logan Research Associate Professor Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work Donna C. Roper Research Associate Professor Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work Timothy H. Parker Research Assistant Professor Biology George Strecker Professor Mathematics

36 Comments

csadams · 1 March 2006

Manhattan, KS, is one of the largest cities in KS state board of education member Kathy Martin's district.

Kudos to USD 383!!

JONBOY · 1 March 2006

csadams post,Some of Kathy Martins are worth highlighting

Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."

While Martin was unable to provide examples of scientific facts that
back up Intelligent Design Theory, she did explain that ID believes in micro evolution," but not "macro evolution."

Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a
hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is
not well disguised.

"Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation," said
Martin. "Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't
often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,"
said Martin.
Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a
hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is
not well disguised.

"Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation," said
Martin. "Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't
often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,"
said Martin.Most high school students don't care where they came from. They are
more worried about where they are going on Saturday night," said Martin.
Lenny will have a great time with that

JONBOY · 1 March 2006

Sorry for the double post

Don · 1 March 2006

I just think it's funny that there are about 150 signatures of actual scientists on just this one single letter from this one single school in a district of Kansas. This slightly obliterates the pace of the Disco Institute's Dissent from "Darwinism", who claim that in 5 years, worldwide, they've accumulated about 150 biologists and lesser amounts each of chemists and physicists. And I thought Project Steve was illuminating.

Doc Bill · 1 March 2006

And, all of the signers of the KSU letter are alive!

Double Bonus Score!

Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006

It's people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

Raging Bee · 1 March 2006

"Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard..."

Typical Christofascist double-talk: "We're the majority, but we're also a persecuted minority and we have to speak up against all the bad people who are oppressing us!"

How these crybabies get to call themselves God's children is beyond me.

wamba · 1 March 2006

Ha! Apparently not one single member of the Phys-Ed department has signed on to this letter. Teach the controversy!

AD · 1 March 2006

Silencing the irrevocably stupid is not oppression, it's public service.

It's people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

Was the use of "fundamentally" a deliberate pun there? Or do I just over-think these things? Either way, I think Kansas, should they not repeal such standards, is leaving the same kind of wildly religious paper trail that slaughtered the ID crowd in Dover. It seems the decision is almost already made...

Mr Christopher · 1 March 2006

In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for "mocking god" once. I should have kept a copy. She's a full mooner to be sure.

normdoering · 1 March 2006

Rilke's Granddaughter wrote:

It's people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

True, but do you know a better system? The only reason democratic representative government is fundamentally nuts is because human beings are fundamentally delusional. Seeing as we're not out to change the system of government, (at least I hope you aren't) we have to learn to work within it. ID is a case of shrewd marketing and the recasting of a religious belief as science. In the end court cases will not win the war -- we have to reach the whole monkey mass and change millions of minds. Scientists are going to have to start marketing their ideas. And I see hope for a real interest in science movies after seeing how well "March of the Penguins" did at the box office. Though I wonder, if the word "evolution" had been inserted into the film, would it's box-office have dropped? I wish they would follow up "March of the Penguins" with a sequel called "Evolution of the Penguins."

Stephen Elliott · 1 March 2006

Posted by Mr Christopher on March 1, 2006 10:24 AM (e) In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for "mocking god" once. I should have kept a copy. She's a full mooner to be sure.

I remember you posting that. Either in whole or on part. IIRC it was on a thread about the FSM. You posted replies from board members saying how funny and original most writers had been, while she said, "mocking God is a sin" or words to that effect. Anyhoo, my point is that you may be able to find it in the archives.

Dizzy · 1 March 2006

Maybe Martin and her fellows are from the distant future, when major discoveries about the origin of life produce irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God, and the resulting collapse of major governments precipitates a nuclear holocaust that wipes out 99.9% of the human race and leads to the rise of giant flesh-eating squirrels, so their efforts to come back in time and undermine biology and science are a last, desperate attempt to save humankind from near-extinction!

Or maybe they're just hyper-religious wackos.

Does Occam's Razor apply to explanations for social behavior?

Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006

True, but do you know a better system? The only reason democratic representative government is fundamentally nuts is because human beings are fundamentally delusional.

Government by elected representatives is predicated on the existence of a reasonably informed and intelligent electorate. If no such electorate exists (and I'd argue that the push towards universal sufferage that began in the nineteenth century made that inevitable), then perhaps we seriously ought to rethink how we create a government.

Seeing as we're not out to change the system of government, (at least I hope you aren't) we have to learn to work within it. ID is a case of shrewd marketing and the recasting of a religious belief as science. In the end court cases will not win the war --- we have to reach the whole monkey mass and change millions of minds.

And this is what causes me to be a closet monarchist - we have no hope whatever of changing millions of minds. Worse yet, under our current system, we don't have the right to change their minds. People in America (and most other places) possess the God-given, inalienable right to be stupid as bricks (e.g. Larry, Carol, and David: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil). Given that people aren't generally interested in being educated; given that they really don't care what's going on, why should we include them as part of the electorate? I'd argue that we do so out of 'moral' fairness, not rationality. But then, I'm a flagrant and unreconstituted elitist: I don't believe that all men (and women) are created equal. And to predicate a governmental system on that demonstrably false idea is... well, nuts.

CJ O'Brien · 1 March 2006

I'm a flagrant and unreconstituted elitist: I don't believe that all men (and women) are created equal. And to predicate a governmental system on that demonstrably false idea is... well, nuts.

erm, not to derail... But, isn't this just begging the question, in that I don't think anyone believes it, in a strong sense, i.e. it's clear that not everyone has the same abilities. The point of operating on egalitarian principles, based on a "false idea" though they may be, is who gets to decide who is "more equal than others?" You? I'm sure you're a well-intentioned elitist, but we've heard that before. No thanks.

AD · 1 March 2006

There is a very significant upside to democracy; when you have a large group of idiots in conflict with themselves, they often manage to accomplish nothing particularly bad, because there is no consensus on which idiotically bad thing they should be doing.

That barrier is removed with monarchic systems of government. Plato's Republic is perfectly useful in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. There is no way to distinguish the philosopher king, so to speak.

I'm all for gridlock through stupidity. It sure beats efficient oppression by an organized elite.

Just remember: Democracy is a terrible form of governemt, but we use it because it's still better than everything else we've come up with.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006

I'm all for gridlock through stupidity. It sure beats efficient oppression by an organized elite. Just remember: Democracy is a terrible form of governemt, but we use it because it's still better than everything else we've come up with.

So your argument is that Democracy is good because it's bad? %:->

Dizzy · 1 March 2006

I think he's arguing that it's good because it's relatively difficult to make sweeping changes to the status quo without almost universal agreement.

Compare to dictatorship or monarchy where someone can immediately decree that all brown-haired people must be neutered/spayed.

The problem is that an individual with a good grasp of events and facts about how policies will affect them has as much voting power as someone who lives in a cave. And the fact that people are elected based not on their actual ability to lead or govern, but on how they present themselves to the public (via sound bites, TV, advertisements).

wamba · 1 March 2006

Government by elected representatives is predicated on the existence of a reasonably informed and intelligent electorate.

Well, they seem to be reasonably informed about prime time animation: Study: Few Americans Know 1st Amendment

CHICAGO - Americans apparently know more about "The Simpsons" than they do about the First Amendment. Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey. ...

AD · 1 March 2006

So your argument is that Democracy is good because it's bad? %:->

No, I said terrible, in fact! I'm arguing it's good, however, because it is LESS terrible than everything else. Dizzy hit the nail on the head - the primary benefit of a democratic system is that it makes it very hard to efficiently do anything highly negative. We'd actually have to pass an ammendment through congress and the senate, then have it ratified by a super-majority of states, and then signed into law by a president to start doing something like putting all people with "e" in their name to death. In a monarchy, you could just order it. Find me a system that is better in practice (which is different than in principle - I don't care how government works in some ideal world, I care how it works in this one), and I'll support it.

Henry J · 1 March 2006

Re "As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century,"

27st?

Dizzy · 1 March 2006

Haha. You know, back in 17th-century China when the printing press started being put into widespread use, the vast majority of literate people were interested primarily in pornographic literature. So a Confucian scholar decided to write an erotic novel ("The Carnal Prayer Mat") embedded with moral lessons in order to reach the masses.

Maybe they should start doing that with the Simpsons and CSI...

AC · 1 March 2006

I can't help but hear the subtext of Ms. Martin's comment:

"Most high school students don't care where they came from, nor should they; just read Genesis and shut up. They are more worried about where they are going on Saturday night, which of course is not to have ignorant, unprotected sex, since we have done our jobs as good Christian parents so well."

Or perhaps I have become too cynical.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006

I'm arguing it's good, however, because it is LESS terrible than everything else. Dizzy hit the nail on the head - the primary benefit of a democratic system is that it makes it very hard to efficiently do anything highly negative. We'd actually have to pass an amendment through congress and the senate, then have it ratified by a super-majority of states, and then signed into law by a president to start doing something like putting all people with "e" in their name to death. In a monarchy, you could just order it.

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping? Did I miss something?

Dizzy · 1 March 2006

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping?

Yep! I mean...er...hmm.

AD · 1 March 2006

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping? Did I miss something?

Only the demolishing of the checks and balances that define our democratic form of government so that we are, in fact, moving closer and closer to the monarchic ideal. Well, we modeled our government after the romans in part. I suppose it should come as no surprise we flirt with the Empire idea either.

Andy H. · 1 March 2006

Wow -- look at all the physicists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., who signed the letter --- all experts, no doubt, in evolutionary biology.

A layperson who accepts Darwinism is considered qualified to have an opinion about it, otherwise not.

Having a Ph.D. in a technical field that is unrelated to the origin of species is no evidence that one knows anything at all about the controversy. Of course, this applies to signers of anti-Darwinism letters as well as signers of pro-Darwinism letters, but I presume that the signers of the anti-Darwinism letters tend to have given the issue more thought because they are taking a position that is considered to be unorthodox in the scientific community.

Defining science as limited to natural explanations does not prevent scientists from admitting that there is no reasonable natural explanation for a particular natural phenomenon, e.g., the origin of species.

The letter has the usual phony scare predictions that the new state standards will hurt the state's technological competitiveness and result in discrimination against the state and state residents.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006

Larry. you haven't answered the questions:

1. Are you aware that posting in violation of rule 6 makes you look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no credentials, experience, or study on any of these topics, why should we take anything you say seriously?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 March 2006

In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for "mocking god" once.

I've emailed her twice. Both times, my message consisted of a single word. In December, it was: "Dover". And a few weeks ago, it was: "Ohio". Never heard back from her.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 March 2006

Shut up, Larry.

B. Spitzer · 1 March 2006

I'm surprised that nobody's quoted Winston Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others."

Paul Flocken · 1 March 2006

Comment #82859 Posted by Raging Bee on March 1, 2006 09:43 AM Quoted from above: "Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard..."

Typical Christofascist double-talk: "We're the majority, but we're also a persecuted minority and we have to speak up against all the bad people who are oppressing us!" How these crybabies get to call themselves God's children is beyond me.

Comment #82862 Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 09:50 AM Silencing the irrevocably stupid is not oppression, it's public service.

But, RB and AD, aren't we supposed to remember that we must always be polite and not offend the people on the opposite side of the debate with unnecessarily hostile, inflammatory language. Especially, RB, about their religion. Isn't that right?

AD · 2 March 2006

I do not necessarily advocate being polite or nice in all circumstances. I would go so far as to say that there are times when it is, in fact, counterproductive to do so.

However, what I do advocate is being impolite and not so nice to the correct target. Personally, I find it frustrating when I hear things like "most Christians" or "most scientists" or "most Darwinists" being thrown around, because it's a giant, giant red flag that someone is rolling out a biased and unrealistic stereotype, then blasting a bunch of people who are entirely innocent as a result of their choice of language.

I think irrevocably stupid is a pretty clear target - I am specifically referring to, in this case, any group which is willfully ignorant, deliberately obstructive, and incapable of changing their beliefs based on those pesky things called facts.

I would cite Larry "Legion" as an example.

Raging Bee · 2 March 2006

Larry: given your demonstrated --- and often admitted --- lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 March 2006

not offend the people on the opposite side of the debate

Um, no --- that would be "on the SAME side of the debate". Unless you are debating something different than the rest of us are . . ?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 March 2006

Dudes, Larry (or whatever his name is this week) is a parasite. A tapeworm.

So why offer him your intestines? Let him find his nourishing sh*t somewhere else. (shrug)