Pathology and laboratory medicine

pathology, laboratory medicine, clinical pathology laboratories, pathology definition, clinical pathology, pathology laboratory, pathology report, human pathology, lab medicine

Re: Short verse, rather terse

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:28:41 +0000 (UTC), gen2rev

- — -

<gen2…@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:46:21 +0000 (UTC), edcon…@shenhgts.net (Ed
>Conrad) wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:52:04 +0000 (UTC), david.sienkiew…@attbi.com
>> (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:

>[snip]

>> >The problem here, Ed, is that YOUR lies have been exposed.  You have
>> >exposed no lies of mine because there are no lies to expose.  Even if
>> >I am in error, that is not a lie.

>> >But you lied about Krogman, you lied about Hooton, you lied about the
>> >American Medical Labs reports, you lied about the Smithsonian episode,
>> >you lied about it all.

>> Dead wrong, Attorney Dave, I’ve lied about NOTHING.

>> Not about Krogman.
>> Not about Hooton.

>Oh yes you *have* Ed. Care to refute anything I posted in
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=k6jjevopmbl62fmbf4s27ijkabi9938j…
>?

>Remember on page 59 of "Apes, Men and Morons", where Hooton writes:

>     For the last quarter of a century, at least, evolution has been
>     axiomatic. The enormous amount of intensive research which has
>     been devoted to the manifold aspects of this subject has
>     accumulated masses of confirmatory data without uncovering any
>     significant information which weakens the evolutionary hypothesis.

>I certainly sounds like Hooton believed in the reality of evolution.
>Care to put your spin on this passage?

=======================================

Certainly!

Straight from Hooton’s book, "Apes, Men and Morons."

" I can point to many anatomical
  features of man in which the known
  courses of evolution can be explained
  plausibly by the theory of natural
  selection, but I do not know of one
  in which it can be proved."

======================================

- — -

>> Not about the American Medical Labs reports.
>> Not about the Smithsonian Shenanigans.

>> Repeat: I have lied about nothing.

>I’m hard pressed to think of anything you *don’t* lie about.

>> Yes, I have played games with certain postings — about my
>> non-appearance on The Larry King Show, for example. But,
>> hell, I think we all like to chuckle now and then.

>But that’s no reason to play the fool.

>> >You’ve been exposed, Ed, and your own behavior underscores the lack of
>> >integrity that you possess.

>> >You can whine at me all you like, Ed.  It makes no difference to me
>> >because I DON’T have a "vested interest."

>> >YOU do.  That’s why you "protest too much."

>> All seriousness aside, Attorney Dave, how much IS the
>> Pseudoscientific Establishment really paying you?

>All seriousness aside Ed, why don’t you provide evidence that David’s
>actually on the payroll of the Pseudoscientific Establishment?

>Other than your own fantasies of course.

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

One Response to “Re: Short verse, rather terse”

  1. admin says:

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:16:53 +0000 (UTC), edcon…@shenhgts.net (Ed

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Conrad) wrote:
    >On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:28:41 +0000 (UTC), gen2rev
    ><gen2…@crosswinds.net> wrote:

    >>On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:46:21 +0000 (UTC), edcon…@shenhgts.net (Ed
    >>Conrad) wrote:

    >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:52:04 +0000 (UTC), david.sienkiew…@attbi.com
    >>> (David Sienkiewicz) wrote:

    >>[snip]

    >>> >The problem here, Ed, is that YOUR lies have been exposed.  You have
    >>> >exposed no lies of mine because there are no lies to expose.  Even if
    >>> >I am in error, that is not a lie.

    >>> >But you lied about Krogman, you lied about Hooton, you lied about the
    >>> >American Medical Labs reports, you lied about the Smithsonian episode,
    >>> >you lied about it all.

    >>> Dead wrong, Attorney Dave, I’ve lied about NOTHING.

    >>> Not about Krogman.
    >>> Not about Hooton.

    >>Oh yes you *have* Ed. Care to refute anything I posted in
    >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=k6jjevopmbl62fmbf4s27ijkabi9938j
    >>?

    >>Remember on page 59 of "Apes, Men and Morons", where Hooton writes:

    >>     For the last quarter of a century, at least, evolution has been
    >>     axiomatic. The enormous amount of intensive research which has
    >>     been devoted to the manifold aspects of this subject has
    >>     accumulated masses of confirmatory data without uncovering any
    >>     significant information which weakens the evolutionary hypothesis.

    >>I certainly sounds like Hooton believed in the reality of evolution.
    >>Care to put your spin on this passage?

    >=======================================

    >Certainly!

    >Straight from Hooton’s book, "Apes, Men and Morons."

    >" I can point to many anatomical
    >  features of man in which the known
    >  courses of evolution can be explained
    >  plausibly by the theory of natural
    >  selection, but I do not know of one
    >  in which it can be proved."

    Whoops: I forgot another good one, also straight from Hooton’s book:

     “I am also convinced that science
       pursues a foolish and possibly
       fatal policy when it tries to keep up
       its bluff of omniscience in matters
       of which it is still woefully ignorant.
       Sooner or later the intelligent public
       is going to call that bluff."

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >======================================

    >>> Not about the American Medical Labs reports.
    >>> Not about the Smithsonian Shenanigans.

    >>> Repeat: I have lied about nothing.

    >>I’m hard pressed to think of anything you *don’t* lie about.

    >>> Yes, I have played games with certain postings — about my
    >>> non-appearance on The Larry King Show, for example. But,
    >>> hell, I think we all like to chuckle now and then.

    >>But that’s no reason to play the fool.

    >>> >You’ve been exposed, Ed, and your own behavior underscores the lack of
    >>> >integrity that you possess.

    >>> >You can whine at me all you like, Ed.  It makes no difference to me
    >>> >because I DON’T have a "vested interest."

    >>> >YOU do.  That’s why you "protest too much."

    >>> All seriousness aside, Attorney Dave, how much IS the
    >>> Pseudoscientific Establishment really paying you?

    >>All seriousness aside Ed, why don’t you provide evidence that David’s
    >>actually on the payroll of the Pseudoscientific Establishment?

    >>Other than your own fantasies of course.