A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

President Bush / Astro - Relevant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 16th 03, 12:42 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

In article k.net,
Edward wrote:

wrote in message ...
Hello Al (& Wayne),

Sorry, but I think my post is relevant.

However, your counter argument, as was Wayne Howell's in another post:
...Please, crawl back into your hole and go back to lurk mode!...)

were very well thought out, I admit. I guess I will be spending the
night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me.

Thanks for the kind welcome.

Linwood


)
Other than that, have you been getting much observing in?


Ed

-------
Hello Ed,

A little. Here in south Louisiana, just outside of New Orleans, the
air has been terrible. The sky is poor where I live with so much sky
fog that I can seldom see much more than 2nd and 3rd magnitude stars
from my house. I viewed Mars several times with my C8 SCT (on an
equatorial mount). I could see the air currents and heats waves just
shimmering across the face of the planet. I still saw, of course, much
more than I ever saw previously. I look at astro pictures on the
internet mostly and read S&T regularly but I go outside to look at the
sky mostly to remember that it is all real and not just another TV
program.

How about you? Where are you located?

Linwood
  #12  
Old September 16th 03, 12:44 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

In article , Gareth Slee
wrote:

Path:
news1.east.cox.net!east.cox.net!peer02.cox.net!cox .net!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!n
ewsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc3-ptal1-5-cust49.swan.cable.n
tl.COM!not-for-mail
From: "Gareth Slee"
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: President Bush / Astro - Relevant
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:13:33 +0100
Lines: 18
Message-ID:
References:


NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3-ptal1-5-cust49.swan.cable.ntl.com (81.103.82.49)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063664019 27154518 81.103.82.49 (16 [162923])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: east.cox.net sci.astro.amateur:905543
X-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:13:40 EDT (news1.east.cox.net)



wrote in message ...

I guess I will be spending the
night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me.



Linwood.

Don't take it personally
This is USENET!!!

--
Gareth Slee

Gareth,

I am familiar with USENET. I was just being sarcastic before, though.

Thanks for replying, I appreciate it.

Linwood
  #13  
Old September 16th 03, 01:26 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

Hello Bill,

I think you may be right. I must be liberal. After reading a couple
of replies, I thought about them long and hard, so convincing were
their refutations (go back in my hole). Then I, coincidentally, looked
down in the front end of my telescope and realized that I could not see
my reflection, not even an out of focus relection, in the main
objective.

Oh Deity, I'm doomed.

I do apologize a little for bringing the subject up in an Astronomy
(Telescope) newsgroup; I couldn't help myself. But I really do think
it has some relevance. Astronomy is Science. And the Scientific
Method (the best part of Science), I believe, is sometimes in jeopardy
from dogmatic and demagogic leaders.

Linwood
----------------
In article . net, Bill
G. wrote:


There you go, Linwood, speaking the truth about the Lunatic Right. You will
simply **** them off, and they will retaliate by calling you "biased" and,
shudder, "liberal."

Bill G.


wrote in message ...
Hi,

I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

But - to George Bush and the latest threads regarding his grades and
qualifications - and his intelligence. This is not only about
Astronomy but also and more so about a very close relative of it -
Evolution. In this case Evolution Scienceıs continual battle against
the onslaught of Scientific Creationism believers, mostly the Moron
Far Right but also some Stupid Lefters too. But among political
leaders actively pushing it, mostly the Right Wing. Creationists label
their (theory) Science so that it may possibly sneak through the
courts, because their goal is to pass legislation which forces schools
to teach Creationism (Bible stories) alongside Evolution in science
classes, and our US Constitution wisely forbids that. Creationism
Theory is the modern equivalent of (as far as being Science) Flat Earth
Theory. The world was created approximately five or so thousands of
years ago, so goes its main tenet. A 5,000 year old universe would
present a lot of problems with current Cosmology Theory. Unless The
Creationists' deity is tricking us, we should not be able to see any
stars, or galaxies, or anything, farther than around 5,000 light years
away, because their light would not have reached us yet. Those damn
Cepheid Variables must be The Big Guy's little jokes.

Our wonderful President, George W. Bush, along with his Sheriff, John
Ashcroft, also believes that Creationism should be taught alongside
Evolution in science classes. To those (astronomers) who believe in
Creationism, I would guess that youıre looking at the world through the
wrong end of your telescope, which would decrease resolution
significantly and would make the ³what really is² harder to see. For
those pocketbook-first Right Wingers, who really know better, and yet
still praise Bush and his myopic and astigmatic judgment, wake up and
see who and what you're lying in bed with. And how much you have to
lie to yourselves to excuse him.

But there's more. The greatest Republican ever, so Right Wingers
claim, was President Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan also believed that
the Bible should be taught alongside Evolution (if Evolution should be
even taught at all). And whom is Bush trying to load the Courts with?
His favorite Supreme Court Justice is Antonin Scalia, the wisest of the
wise. In Louisiana, where I live, in the 1980's, we (I abstained)
tried to legislate Creationism into our laws and we took it all the way
to the US Supreme Court. See Edwards VS Aguillard, 1987. Creationism
lost (thank a deity). But there were two dissenters. Can you guess
whom? Justice Scalia, along with Justice Rehnquist, another Bush
favorite, thought and ruled that Creationism should be taught alongside
Evolution, and in science classes.

Around that same time, however, there was another politician, who was
speaking out against the then current legislative attacks by
Creationism advocates. I had never heard of him before that. Guess
who! None other than that terrible Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas,
the scourge of Right Wing America as seen against that shining
Supernova of Wisdom, George W. Bush.

If the world was created 5,000 years ago, I guess that means President
Bush was born yesterday. Hey, maybe it was.

Clear skies without cloudy heads,

Linwood Albarado

  #14  
Old September 16th 03, 03:05 AM
Matt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

wrote:
I guess I will be spending the
night tending the new asshole you and Wayne have ripped me.

Thanks for the kind welcome.


You have got to be kidding me. You come on here and basically say that
anybody who doesn't see things the way that you see them are idiots
and you expect a "kind welcome?"

You think that those of us who believe that we were created by a
super-intelligent being are silly and dilluted, but YOU beleive you
evolved from a ROCK! Furthermore, dismissing another theory of
anything without any proof or hard evidence to support that dismissal
is in and of itself UNSCIENTIFIC. The fact is that evolution and the
Big Bang Theory have had major problems from day one, and both
theories have been twisted so much, they remind me of the Christmas
Tree in Charlie Brown's Christmas. They tried hanging all sorts of
crap on it, but it was still and freakin' ugly tree. No one here
expects you to beleive in Creationism and I don't want to debate it
here, as it is REALLY OFF TOPIC, but don't come here and hurl insults
at peoples beliefs and faith and expect to not get your teeth kicked
in. Thats just stupid. Maybe your children will be more EVOLVED than
you.

Matt
  #15  
Old September 16th 03, 07:42 AM
Sean Golden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

In article , wrote:

Hi,

I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado


Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg
  #16  
Old September 16th 03, 12:57 PM
Chris Nicholl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

commentary/perspective snipped

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg


Or, that most rare of Usenet jewels, praise. Excellent post, Sean.

Chris Nicholl
  #17  
Old September 16th 03, 03:17 PM
Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant


Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...
--------------------------------------------------------------
You will not get any flames from me! This is a well thought out and very
well written statement, and I applaud you.

Al


"Sean Golden" wrote in message
...
In article , wrote:

Hi,

I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado


Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg



  #18  
Old September 16th 03, 05:16 PM
Cousin Ricky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

(Matt) wrote in message . com...
You think that those of us who believe that we were created by a
super-intelligent being are silly and dilluted, but YOU beleive you
evolved from a ROCK!


Last time i checked, evolution stated that he evolved from similar
life forms. But when i checked the Bible, it said:

"then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living being."
--Genesis 2: 7, RSV

Now which theory is saying that Linwood evolved from a ROCK?

Furthermore, dismissing another theory of
anything without any proof or hard evidence to support that dismissal
is in and of itself UNSCIENTIFIC.


Come again? There is plenty of evidence that the world was not
created in the manner described by Genesis. If you respond with the
assertion that God made the universe "in progress"--an assertion which
is impossible to dismiss--it begs the questions: 1) Creating the
world so that we couldn't tell the difference is, by definition,
untestable; how can we even talk about whether dismissing it is
scientific? 2) If we can't tell the difference, then *does* it make
any difference? ...unless God is testing our faith in an ungodly
sadistic way...?

For a young Earth creationist to lecture anyone about being
unscientific strikes me as ludicrous.

The fact is that evolution and the
Big Bang Theory have had major problems from day one, and both
theories have been twisted so much, they remind me of the Christmas
Tree in Charlie Brown's Christmas. They tried hanging all sorts of
crap on it, but it was still and freakin' ugly tree.


That's only because science doesn't start out with the answers.
Science is a discipline of discovery, not of dogma. If you want
contortions, try the so-called "evidence" that the Scientific
Creationists have conjured up to try to fit their pre-ordained
answers.

And perhaps my memory is faulty, but i seem to remember in the TV show
that after they finished hanging all the crap on the tree, it was far
from ugly.

P.S. With the recent enthusiastic participation in the "God or the
Big Bang" thread (and other off-topic stuff, such as Mac vs. Windows
vs. Linux), it seems a bit incongruous to me to come down so hard on
Linwood, who is at least making a case that he is on-topic. The
president's attitude towards science vs. religion, and its effect on
education and public policy, are certainly more relevant to astronomy
than his astronomy grade in college.


Clear skies!

--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
---------------
http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------
  #20  
Old September 16th 03, 09:31 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default President Bush / Astro - Relevant

In article
, Sean
Golden wrote:

Hello Sean,

Actually I agree with some of your post. But we have a different view,
it seems. You appear to be an educated decent guy who is trying to see
the best in people. And you are taking the middle ground about whether
the Left or the Right is correct. Truth doesnıt care if its Left or
Right or in the Middle. It just is. You are correct that this
newsgroup is a place for telescopes, not politics. But, often,
straight lines or different paths intersect. When Politics start
determining what is taught, and enforced, it is no longer just
Politics. I doubt if Isaac Newton, whom you mention, living today,
would believe in Creationism, but you never know. And Iıve read
Tolkien's LOTR 3 times and love it. It is fantasy, of course, and I
appreciate his work, but differently than I do the work of Carl Sagan
or Arthur C. Clarke. But, I would not support LOTR to be taught as
actual History. We are all individuals and as such, each of us can be
smart in one thing and a fool in another. So it's hard to judge any
individual accurately. So I try to judge by actions. The posts
(regarding President Bush) in this newsgroup made for several days
before I jumped in, made me feel compelled to input something. In my
original post I made some value judgments but all of my facts, I
believe, were correct, which no one yet has disputed.

You labeled my post demagoguery. Demagoguery: Making use of popular
prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. I do
not believe I was demagogic. Forceful, yes; arrogant, probably;
opinionated, yes; my conclusions, always debatable, of course. But
incorrect, I don't believe so. But if I was, which of my facts were
incorrect.

Let me put it simply. If people's religious beliefs were practiced
benignly and kept personal, I would respect that, and many do just that
and it is and should be their right. However, respecting a person's
beliefs is not what this is about. Not at all! A powerful,
shortsighted, Right Wing / Conservative movement has, for a good while
now, been very actively attempting to move our government into the
early stages of a Theocracy, using religious demagoguery to manipulate
a malleable public. Whether that is overstatement, only time will
tell. But ³actively² is the key word here. The RW is constantly trying
to change the US Constitution, changing my world and limiting my
Freedom, and tolerance is not their underlying trait.

I think that the best thing about America is its Constitution and its
natural resources, but unfortunately I now feel that the greatest
danger to Freedom are the people themselves. In a Democracy (Republic)
the citizens should be taught to be smart and educated. Taught to be
curious, somewhat skeptical, and objective. Teaching fantasy in place
of Science does not keep people smart. Teaching fantasy to control
people is a bad thing. Religion is not and never was benign. It seems
benign here today, in America, but it seems so only because it has
been, through much suffering, politically defanged. The Right Wing is
trying to give Religion fangs again. Do I believe that President Bush
and the part of the Right Wing that is supporting him in this cause are
demagogic? Definitely, and malignantly so. Do I think that President
Bush is dumb? Less than I used to. I think you are confusing
education (Yale) with wisdom. Will all this have an effect on
sci.astro.amateur.? Probably not, but who knows.

In my post, I stressed the 5,000 year old universe as the main tenet of
current Creationism. Being a physicist, by nature and/or by
profession, do you, Sean, believe that the universe is only 5,000 years
old? Do you think it would be a good thing to teach students in
schools that the universe is only 5,000 years old? Do you feel that
Newton would believe so if he lived today and know what we know? If
you knew decent loving people who believed sincerely in Astrology, or a
Flat Earth, or other pseudo-science, would you support them if they
wanted their beliefs taught as fact in science classes? Would you
support teaching about divining rods in Geology and petroleum
engineering classes? Would you like to give Jerry Falwell or Pat
Robertson more influence on your life and beliefs? Galileo, too, was a
scientist and look what state-enforced religion did to him. He was
forced to deny what he saw through his telescope. Look at the Mid-East
world today, ruled by rigid interpretations of ancient religions,
written by superstitious peoples who believed that demons might be
behind every rock. This Right Wing (not all * mostly the ones I am
speaking about) has no foresight, no understanding of history and
cannot even see that that could happen anywhere. Why shouldnıt I be
forceful against such bunk. The other side has not been shy. The
Liberals are not clean either, of course, and it burns my ass when
they, too, are sloppy about their facts. Tribalism is the norm on both
sides and Objectivity is the crazy uncle in the closet. You are
correct about that. I believe it would be great if the best ideas from
the Right and from the Left were brought together and applied, without
the blind Group Loyalty on both sides, and I do not confess to that
here. But right now, the Right has been taken over and the moderate
Republicans, like many Democrats, are afraid to be outspoken. They are
afraid of the common man. They helped train us too well to be reactive
rather than reflective.

You state below ³...this is the last place (sci.astro.amateur) I know
of that suffers from a lack of science Perspective . . .² I am not
sure that I agree completely with that. Just as the Shuttle, as
opposed to Hubble, is the cowboy whiz-bang aspect of astronomy, so too,
are telescopes another cowboy aspect. I have always loved telescopes
but recognize this is so, and have no problem with that. Telescopes
are technology, not science, though they are a means to learn science.
Though some I have read here seem brilliant to me, it is not a given
that most here have a good feel for science itself.

My end goal is not to insult, though some people will be insulted. Is
it ³Politically Incorrect² to criticize Bush and his religious
demagoguery and his followers, or does political correctness only apply
to Liberals? I am not accusing you of inferring that, but the question
is relevant.

I will try to keep to Astro subjects after this thread dies. (Unless
the devil makes me do it.)

Linwood


In article , wrote:

Hi,

I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado


Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg





In article , wrote:

Hi,

I havenıt posted to sci.astro.amateur for a while. But I have been a
"lurker" and have enjoyed much of the information about telescopes, and
the little bit about Astronomy.

snipped all the political demogoguery

Linwood Albarado


Linwood. (Actually this is being posted to all those future Linwoods
out there in hopes it will deter them from similar postings.) Why would
you interrupt some perfectly good lurking with this sort of post? I
think the general consensus is that it is not relevent to the newsgroup.
It is also supremely rude and insulting to people you don't even know
and would probably have a good time observing with at a star party.

You think Bush (and Reagan) are/were great threats to the sanctity of
the US. Some conservatives think Clinton and Carter are/were great
threats to the sanctity of the US. You think you are right and are
dismissive of those who disagree. Some conservatives take a similar
perspective about your beliefs. In kindergarten they have a shorthand
way of arguing these points, it goes like this... "Nyah nyah nyaaahh..."

I have a degree in physics and greatly enjoy stargazing. I am firmly
agnostic in most things. I am as appreciative of science as anyone, and
as concerned as anyone about threats to science education. But this is
the last place I know of that suffers from a lack of science
perspective, and so has the least need for this sort of "protection."
More to the point, I am getting damned sick and tired of people dragging
their politics into this newsgroup as if they have something new, clever
or pertinent to say. Truth is, none of it is any of that, quite the
opposite, it is old, trite and off-topic. Not to mention insulting to
many people I consider to be decent and interesting folk on both sides
of the issues.

I personally find myself in agreement with you when it comes to Creation
"science" but I don't care to insult those who believe it. As far as
the intellectual credentials of those who believe fervently in the
Christian religion, read CS Lewis or Isaac Newton (not to mention JRR
Tolkien). Not bad company, and hardly dunces. I personally learned a
lot from each of them (and others on the "other" side).

I truly don't see the point in belittling the intelligence of a
President who has received a bachelor's degree from Yale and MBA degree
from Harvard. Do you feel Yale and Harvard sell those degrees to
people? If so, who are you really attacking, Bush or Yale and Harvard?
If you feel these two paragons of US intelligentsia are not providing
degrees for a fee, then you must admit that G.W. Bush is not a complete
moron. And if you feel he somehow bought or was given those degrees,
what does that say about others who have similar degrees? I know
fighter pilots and they have a lot of respect for G.W. Bush, and quite
frankly I haven't met a stupid fighter jet pilot yet. I grew up in the
air force and I will admit that many pilots are arrogant and downright
nuts, but not stupid.

I am no great fan of Bush, but I was no fan of Clinton either.
Personally I feel the choices we have had for President in my lifetime
demonstrate the absurdity of general elections in a country where
education is less important than entertainment. If you truly look at
the single most qualifying attribute of a male politician when compared
to the general public it is clear the answer is "a full head of hair."
What really just puzzles me to no end is how people can truly believe
that it is any better on the left than it is on the right, or vice
versa...

The truth is that Clinton was neither as smart as his supporters believe
nor as evil as his attackers believe. Bush is neither as stupid as his
detractors believe nor as pure as his supporters believe. Both played
to their supporters and received the vilification of their attackers.
But both have nice coiffures. The general reaction of the right and left
to these two Presidents says a whole lot more about the polarization of
the electorate in this country than it says about either man, imho. And
that worries me immensely. The violent way that each side disagrees
with the other is far more dangerous to this country than what either
man has done in office.

For those of us who believe that life, politics and religion are more
complicated than can be presented in a Usenet post, the whole thing is
perplexing. Why is the need to attack and insult others so incredibly
powerful that otherwise intelligent and reasonable people feel a need to
expose their prejudices publicly?

I know, because this is Usenet....

Please try to keep this sort of thing out of s.a.a. in the future.

Now of course I'll get flamed from both sides...

-sdg

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 January 14th 04 10:49 PM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 PM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM
Are Saddam's Sons Alive? Madam Vinyl Space Shuttle 17 August 5th 03 09:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.