faded_Glory

It is great slapstick, and fun to watch the cake-throwing, but what took me by suprise was Douglas Bender's attempt to moderate Langan:

Chris,

Your "drool" comments, and such-like, are obvious attacks upon your "opponents" here - they are uncalled for, even if your opponents were "asking for it". They also could indicate that your emotions are overtaking your objectivity, and even though you might have every reason to be irritated, it's not worth even obliquely "venting", lest you give the impression of being arrogant and emotional. Perhaps this is part of the "agenda" of your "adversaries"?

Not bad from Douglas, and I mean it. It is sad for ARN that none of the Moderators seem to feel the need to post something like this.

fG

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

KC

You should be scared because they have followers that can vote.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

Well, considering that it is Thanksgiving, I am not terribly suprised. But it seems the only Mod on duty (jack foster) has a habit of letting threads that he knows are getting out of hand and then imposing his double standards at the climax. He did this during the Vividbleau fiasco. He did this during the last Chris outburst. He was reading the thread yesterday at around noon (way after he said he was taking off), when Chris/Genie were going strong -- but in the end he did noting. In short, he is no moderator but a provocateur with extra privileges.

Mod 4 is screwed either way. He could choose to do nothing, and ARN will continue to degenerate for all the world to see -- the peevish and arrogant nature of the IDiots, squabbling amongst themselves for bragging rights. Or he could choose to reprimand Chris (which I doubt he has the backbone to do), and risk the wrath of the Superbrains, but in the end giving the critics there a huge boost in image. He has only himself to blame.

Well, ARN was a whole lot more entertaining than the Macy's Parade. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

pz

Boy, is that thread ever a hoot. Now Mike Gene has chimed in with his trademark self-pitying whine.

I think their implosion is complete.

Happy Wonderer

Oh man, it keeps getting better:
HW

(I was going to make a joke about Lenord's assumption that marriage gave you the right to speak for your spouse, but it is really too sad, creepy, & scary when you think about it. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I sure hope no wives out there let their husbands speak for them -- mine sure doesn't and I love her for it! )

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

leonarde

Well, HW, God forbid (excuse the expression!) but
if you are ever in a coma or otherwise incapacitated that is just what WILL happen: your
spouse will speak for you (metaphorically speaking). It's the law.

Cheers!

DrLao

That may well be true, but a person's legal right to make decisions for his or her incapacitated spouse is not particularly relevant here (or there). It is puzzling why you brought it up in the first place.

Happy Wonderer

Er, not in the United States. That is a common misconception. Read up a bit about "living wills" and "power of attorney", they are a really good idea if you have strong opinions about being kept on life support or making your house payment. Joint accounts are a really good idea, too. Stockbrokers and banks won't just automatically defer to the spouse's decisions because the other is in a coma.

Someone can be appointed a guardian by a court, the mere fact of marriage does not make it automatic. (If the guardianship is contested, say by children from a previous marriage... well, you can see why lawyers usually drive nice cars.)

Note that an "emergency situation" is somewhat different, decisions can be made with no formal paperwork although you will find that hospitals are very reluctant to do anything other than full care because of the risk of lawsuit. Selling stock to make the house payment probably wouldn't count as an emergency situation.

HW

<a href="http://www.thomsonrogers.com/library/abrvol3iss2.htm" target="_blank">Here is a reference for ya</a>

leonarde

HW,
If you merely reexamine your re-post of what I wrote you will see that Ireferred to a power of attourney. Without it (either a power of
attourney or a living will) in most jurisdictions
the spouse automatically makes decisions about medical care and the like when the spouse is incapacitated. That was my point. Nothing
"sad, creepy, & scary" about it unless you regard
life itself as such. I myself had a power of attourney for my sister 12 or 13 years ago. And I
became familiar with the concept 25 to 30 years ago. Why the didactic kick on such an obvious point?

Greetings doc! Nice to see you maintaining the high standards here: what is this the 100th thread this year which is a parasite Let's-see-
what-they-are-saying-on-another-message-board thread? VEWWWY Impwessive!!! And the high-falutin'
language employed! For instance in the 2nd post we have: "What a pair of idiots, ....". And that
was by the moderator!!! Yummy! Really food for thought! Makes me REALLY want to go evo!!!!

Cheers!

pz

This is the Evolution/Creation board, where people are free to discuss all issues relevant to that particular debate. The politics of the issue are fair game; ARN is one arm of a political movement trying to corrupt science and the teaching of science in this country with ideological nonsense. It is entirely appropriate that it be treated with well-deserved contempt.

You are free to attempt to defend Intelligent Design here. You are even welcome to try and discuss that gibberish Chris Langan has been peddling on ARN. If you think that anyone here has been unwarrantedly dismissive of the 'ideas' protected by the administration at ARN, we would be very happy to see you try to support them.

However, we'd rather you didn't show up just to whine about the fact that we treat creationist/IDist mythology and its proponents with scorn. Our attitude isn't going to change unless someone on your side of the story can actually show that there is some valid scientific substance to your beliefs. Can you?