Evolution is a fact
Terry S. Collins
Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory.Its a fact.
Darwin finally came up with a theory that held up to explain the fact of
evolution. This theory is called the "theory of NATURAL SELECTION".
There are are also other types of selection that effect evolution.One
of
the most important is sexual selection.
Ron Graham
am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes...
>Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
>thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory. It's a fact.
Hold on here. First let's define terms. When you say "evolution," do
you mean "development of environment-related characteristics within a
given species," or do you mean "process by which advanced life-forms
(e.g. mankind) developed from time, chance, and matter?"
If you choose the first, I applaud you. If you choose the second, I
shall await proof. You can't have a fact without proof. Get going on
it, sport. You made the claim, let's see you back it up.
>Darwin finally came up with a theory that held up to explain the fact of
>evolution. This theory is called the "theory of NATURAL SELECTION".
>There are are also other types of selection that effect evolution. One
>of the most important is sexual selection.
Are we going to be graded on this ;-)?
RG
BUMBLE
am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Terry S. Collins) says:
>
>Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
>thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory.Its a fact.
Wrong. It's a theory, just like gravity is a theory and nearly anything in
the science books is theory (even if it's called a Law). The reason for this
is that facts are indisputable, perfectly and utterly correct. Theories,
however, can never be PROVEN to be fact. They can only be proven wrong. Sure,
mounds of evidence indicate that Evolution occurred, much in the way that we
understand it. I certainly believe it. But no one can prove WITHOUT A DOUBT
that it is true, so it's just a theory.
----------------------------------- 'Hope is epidemic
Larry Rossi | optimism spreads
Internet : LPR100.PSUVM.PSU.EDU | bitterness breeds irritation
Bitnet : LPR100.PSUVM | ignorance breeds imitation'
----------------------------------- -Peart
jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
>
>Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
>thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory.Its a fact.
Ah, someone who is "familiar" with the scientific method - evolution is NOT
a fact and there are still a great many unaswered questions about this THEORY.
What we have is a large number of supporting evidence that points to Darwin's
theory. There are still many other possible explanations for the evidence.
Science has been a continual process of trying to explain what we observe.
And every few generations or so, things get turned around because we suddenly
are able to observe things differently. Thus we go from Copernicus to Newton
to Einstein to Hawkings to ... etc. etc.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are so convinced that "their facts"
are the right ones and will never, ever change. And people call Rush
"narrow-minded."
--
John Switzer | "I'm safe and sound. My family
340 Mathilda #3 | also. Borland's products sell as
Goleta, Ca 93117 | well as usual." - msg from Borland
j...@netcom.com | rep during Soviet coup
nathan engle
>In article <1991Aug31.1...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
> am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes...
>
>>Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
>>thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory. It's a fact.
>
>Hold on here. First let's define terms. When you say "evolution," do
>you mean "development of environment-related characteristics within a
>given species," or do you mean "process by which advanced life-forms
>(e.g. mankind) developed from time, chance, and matter?"
I would say that those are both the same thing.
>If you choose the first, I applaud you. If you choose the second, I
>shall await proof.
What if we choose both? It sounds to me like you're willing to
concede the existance of grains of sand, but you don't want to concede
the existance of a beach.
Life is a beach, son.
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Ron Graham
nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu writes...
Something wrong with our news software - insists on chopping off names %-(.
>In article <31AUG199...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> eca...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov
> (Ron Graham) writes:
>>In article <1991Aug31.1...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>> am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes...
>>>Darwin didn't come up with the "theory of evolution". ....There is no such
>>>thing as the "theory of evolution" because its not a theory. It's a fact.
>>Hold on here. First let's define terms. When you say "evolution," do
>>you mean "development of environment-related characteristics within a
>>given species," or do you mean "process by which advanced life-forms
>>(e.g. mankind) developed from time, chance, and matter?"
> I would say that those are both the same thing.
That's not what I meant. When I say "development of environment-related
characteristics within a given species," I meant "species" to be narrowly
defined. Am I using the wrong word? I'm talking about pigmentation
development, etc., not metamorphosis from "ape" to "man."
>>If you choose the first, I applaud you. If you choose the second, I
>>shall await proof.
> What if we choose both? It sounds to me like you're willing to
>concede the existance of grains of sand, but you don't want to concede
>the existance of a beach.
That's a good analogy, when you find those few grains of sand on a concrete
sidewalk in the middle of Cleveland, as opposed to "near" a beach, and you
have nothing else to point you to the beach.
> Life is a beach, son.
Not in this sense, pop. Do we need follow-ups to talk.origins, or will
we stay a safe distance from there?
RG
jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
You know, no one has considered the possibility that God may have a sense of
humor and simply put all those neat bones and fossils in the ground just to
confuse us. I can imagine God with Michael and Gabriel up there in heaven
laughing their heads off:
"Oh, wait, they've just found Peking man."
"Oohh, I can't wait to see how they explain him."
"And when they finally find Noah's Ark, hoo boy, I wonder how
they'll explain those laser discs I put there?!"
Makes as much sense to me as some of the other "science" that's come
down the pike over the years.
Terry S. Collins
Mr graham's o called development of environmentaly related adaptations within
a species is a theory of evolution developed by a man named Lemark. This theory
to explain the fact of evolution has been disproven.
The theory goes like this. Say you're a ....professional football player.A
wide receiver.You've discovered that by practicing stepping through tires
that you become more agile. All this agility through stepping in tires makes
you a great receiver.After ten years of workouts, this tire stepping agility
somehow cements itself in your genes through mutation and you pass it on to
your children. Never mind that you were originally terrible at stepping through
tires and had no apparent talent for this act.Your children are born great at
it.
I suggest anyone that is interested in evolution(be they pro or con) read
"THE PANDA"S THUMB" by Stephen Jay Gould. Its in your local library.
Terry S. Collins
So gravity is only a theory?
How do you explain the fact that you aren't floating around the room?
There are only theories to explain gravity,none of the theories have been
proven but none the less...gravity exists.
Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.Calvin is sitting on his bed and
suddenly stars floating around the room.The next day he tells his teacher
he didn't do his homework cause his parents didn't pay the gravity bill!
(stars should read starts)
jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
>
>So gravity is only a theory?
Yes, gravity is only a theory - if it's a fact, please explain the mechanism to
me and prove it. Is it that elusive graviton? Some remnant of the Unified
Theory that I haven't heard of? Or perhaps that other idea on the fringe that
gravity is due solely to the acceleration produced by the continually expansion
of all matter in the universe, including yourself and your computer.
One of the basic rules of science is that if you're going to replace one
theory with another, the new theory must explain and somehow incorporate all
that was explained by the previous theory. Thus Newtonian physics
is incorporated
into quantum physics as a "special case" when the bodies in question are
so large in mass. Therefore, it should be obvious that the future may very
well show that gravity and our beliefs about it are only a special case of
yet another force we don't yet recognize.
Ron Graham
am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Terry S. Collins) writes...
>Mr graham's o called development of environmentaly related adaptations
>within a species is a theory of evolution developed by a man named Lemark.
>This theory to explain the fact of evolution has been disproven.
Possibly. But you still haven't done anything to prove the "fact" of
evolution. Are you going to? Are you even going to define your terms,
as I requested? Or are you already doing it in talk.origins, as I also
requested. Until you do something, yer hot air, mate.
The professional foolball player theory is about, oh, several thousand
generations off the theory I brought up before ;-).
RG
>I suggest anyone that is interested in evolution (be they pro or con) read
>"THE PANDA"S THUMB" by Stephen Jay Gould. It's in your local library.
Maybe I will. But you still have to back up your own claims.
Ron Graham
am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Terry S. Collins) writes...
>So gravity is only a theory?
Not in the same sense as evolution. Gravity is, at least, measurable
and experiments using it are repeatable. Evolution of one species to
another *new* species is neither.
>How do you explain the fact that you aren't floating around the room?
>There are only theories to explain gravity,none of the theories have been
>proven but none the less...gravity exists.
>Reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.Calvin is sitting on his bed and
>suddenly stars floating around the room.The next day he tells his teacher
>he didn't do his homework cause his parents didn't pay the gravity bill!
Mocking me doesn't establish yer point. Yer still hot air, mate.
RG
nathan engle
>In article <1991Sep2.1...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>am...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Terry S. Collins) writes:
>>
>>So gravity is only a theory?
>
>Yes, gravity is only a theory - if it's a fact, please explain the mechanism to
>me and prove it.
Well, much against my better judgement, I am going to enter this
discussion with the hopes of guiding the topic of discussion back to the
subject of the guy in the newsgroup name.
Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact. Newton's Law of Universal
Gravitation *is* a theory; Einstein's General Relativity is also a
theory. But gravity is not a theory. Gravity existed before Einstein and
Newton were even born, and it is measurable by reproducable experiments.
If you don't believe me then you can jump off the Tower of Pisa. That'll
show you. Gravity is a fact.
There isn't now and may never be a theory which completely explains
the mechanism that makes gravity work, but if you jump off a tower in
Pisa or anywhere else on this planet then you will achieve a direct and
personal experience of gravity that you will probably find very convincing.
We don't have to be able to explain it to make it a fact. All that's
required is that it's measurable and reproducable.
Now then. Can we please get back to Rush Limbaugh and leave the
scientific arguments in sci.physics?
John Kim
Okay, all of us creationists and pure evolutionists can argue
a LONG time on this, or we can all go read David Brin and still
wonder.
But a different question. Witht he advent of modern civilization,
can mankind still evolve? Obviously those who are more successful
at looking good, making money, or not tripping over the curb
have a better chance at marrying who they want. But I think
that with technology to fix or amend a lot of our genetic
problems, bad genes will keep getting spread around.
My best example is my own eyesight. In a hunter gather
society, I would have died years ago. Of course, in a society
without books, my eyesight might still be 20/20.
Do the increasingly high salaries paid professional athletes
have the effect of improving our species?
-Case
John Kim
>You know, no one has considered the possibility that God may have a sense of
>humor and simply put all those neat bones and fossils in the ground just to
>confuse us. I can imagine God with Michael and Gabriel up there in heaven
>laughing their heads off:
>"Oh, wait, they've just found Peking man."
>"Oohh, I can't wait to see how they explain him."
>"And when they finally find Noah's Ark, hoo boy, I wonder how
>they'll explain those laser discs I put there?!"
>John Switzer | "I'm safe and sound. My family
No! It was the mice! I swear, the integalactic pan-dimensional
mice did it!
-Case
jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
> Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact. Newton's Law of Universal
>Gravitation *is* a theory; Einstein's General Relativity is also a
>theory. But gravity is not a theory. Gravity existed before Einstein and
>Newton were even born, and it is measurable by reproducable experiments.
>If you don't believe me then you can jump off the Tower of Pisa. That'll
>show you. Gravity is a fact.
Sorry, if you can't explain it, it's not a fact - simply because we as humans
have never observed any other conflicting behavior on the macro scale doesn't
mean that what we observe is fact. For all we know, our little corner of the
universe is just one of several different possibilities. Geez, we don't even
know if matter is the same across our own galaxy - we assume it is, but we
have no way of knowing whether the charge of an electron is Alpha Centauri
is the same as what we experience here. We *think* it is, but ...
By your logic, Newtonian physics was fact until it was superceded by
the next couple of generations of physics. Facts are facts and can't be
changed by our perceptions - that's why we have to explain them before
they can be recognized as facts.
And this does have to do with Rush Limbaugh in that Rush encourages his
audience to *think* and not accept blindly everything that he or anyone
else states.
Alan Filipski
>But a different question. Witht he advent of modern civilization,
>can mankind still evolve? Obviously those who are more successful
>at looking good, making money, or not tripping over the curb
>have a better chance at marrying who they want. But I think
Thus makes no difference. "Fitness", in the sense of evolutionary
biology, means having many children who survive to reproduce.
Attractiveness is irrelevant in a monogamous society with balanced sex
ratio. Attractive people are not necessarily good breeders.
>that with technology to fix or amend a lot of our genetic
>problems, bad genes will keep getting spread around.
>
>My best example is my own eyesight. In a hunter gather
>society, I would have died years ago. Of course, in a society
>without books, my eyesight might still be 20/20.
>
>Do the increasingly high salaries paid professional athletes
>have the effect of improving our species?
Maybe-- if the high salaries allow them to buy enough cocaine so that
they kill themselves before they reproduce. But seriously,
"improvement" relative to what? who is to say what constitutes
"improvement"?
Like it or not, the "fittest" segment of our U. S. society are the
welfare mothers who have 10 children. People in the Catholic countries
of South America are much more "fit" than people in most of Europe or
China. Childless yuppies are completely unfit, as is (for now) the childless
Rush Limbaugh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Tomko
Anyone who believes gravity is a theory and not a fact has not
taken enough Physics, and Mechanics classes. Any two bodies of
mass exert a force on the other. The Earth is actually gravitationally
attracted to you Ron, but it is nearly unmeasurable.
Jerry Tomko
First of all, stepping through tires for ten years is not going
to "cement itselfiin your genes." Your spacial abilities and
eye had/foot coordination will improve, but that is it.
Second, A child of a gifted athlete will not inherit those traits.
The child will, hover, have a better chance at being a good
veathlete due to the environment he was exposed to. In this
example, stepping through tires, and playing football.
Most genetic mutations tend to appear rather quickly in relation
to the life of a particular species.
Larry Cunningham
Rather poorly stated, Jerry, for someone who I assume has taken Physics and
Mechanics classes.
Actually, the gravitational force between two masses m and M separated by
distance r is porportional to the product of the masses and inversely
porportional to the square of the distance:
m*M
Force = K * ----- , where K is a constant.
r*r
If M is the mass of the earth, and r is the radius of the earth, then this
becomes the familiar equation:
Weight = m*g , where g is the acceleration of gravity,
about 32 ft/sec**2 at sea level.
or, as Newton said of forces in general:
Force = mass * acceleration;
The point here is not the equation for weight or gravitational force, but
that two masses are not attracted to each other by different amounts. As
per Newton's laws, the same force affects both masses.
Fortunately, scientists don't have near the trouble that alt.rush posters
do with the semantics of facts, theories, and laws.
Calling gravity a fact is a misnomer. Gravity is a phenomena, and
we observe that it obeys a physical law. Theorys of gravitation are
something else entirely, which represent ideas about the actual physical
mechanism responsible for gravity.
So I guess we should forgo any discussions about curvature of the time-space
continuum, gravitons, or black holes in this news group. Leave that to the
=evil= scientists Rush is always bitching about the government giving grants
to.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | lcun...@nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham) | _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Jerry Tomko
Yes, I was about to state it in like terms but I did not want to
confuse anyone. But, you have not stated why gravity is not a fact.
Calling gravity a
phenomena does not prove your case.
Anyway, now that gravity is not a fact, we can now say that nearly
any natural or unnatural occurance is not a fact, since nearly every
object reacts to the gravity theory.
David A Andrews
(David E. Thomas) writes:
>I find very little evidence that Rush Limbaugh encourages his audience to
>think for themselves about anything. If he was really interested in this
>he would not present such biased views of the issues, he would have a lot
>more serious opposing viewpoints on his show, and he would refrain from
>a whole lot of the tired 'let me tell you what to think' routines.
Points:
a) There is more than enough "serious opposing viewpoints" coming over the
airwaves these days. Inviting them on to the show would only decrease the
amount of "conservative" (read "correct" :-) ) view point available on the
airwaves. And there is precious little of it these days (name me one other
radio-talk show host that gets to as many people as Rush does, or even half
as many).
b) Rush never says "'let me tell you what to think'". He says "this is what I
think, and why." And he (almost) always gives some damn good reasons -- which
is a lot more than some of the other liberal-media mamby-pambies can say for
themselves. Also, he wouldn't be growing at the rate he is if he told people
what to think. His is the "thinking man's talk show," hands down.
(Obviously, it help if you come from the same side he does, but I understand he
has made a lot of "converts" through his sound reasoning and level-headed
thinking. More power to him!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Andrews and...@ecn.purdue.edu
Graduate Student Purdue University
nathan engle
>(John Switzer)) says:
>>
>>And this does have to do with Rush Limbaugh in that Rush encourages his
>>audience to *think* and not accept blindly everything that he or anyone
>>else states.
[some stuff deleted]
>The best you can say about Rush is that he wants to make you laugh at
>the liberals. He certainly doesn't want you to think unless you think
>just like he does.
I don't suppose anybody caught what may have been the best and last
appearance of "Bill the PETA Wacko" on Rush's show today? Bill was in
rare form today, yelling into the phone and trying to shout down Rush.
Eventually Rush just cut him off and issued a point-by-point rebuttal.
That's a thing I believe Rush claims that he never does, however in
this case it was obvious that Rush wasn't going to get his say as long
as Bill was on the line. So Rush cut him off and called him an SOB
(honestly, folks, I could barely believe it myself).
One of Rush's comments was that it was "no fun" talking with Bill
anymore since he had just gotten too outrageous and overbearing. And,
of course, since only Rush is allowed to be outrageous and overbearing
on his show I think that may be the last we hear from Bill.
Too bad really. You don't get that many real, raving loonies that
are willing to call a show like Rush's. Heaven knows I'm not interested.
David E. Thomas
>audience to *think* and not accept blindly everything that he or anyone
>else states.
>
think for themselves about anything. If he was really interested in this
he would not present such biased views of the issues, he would have a lot
more serious opposing viewpoints on his show, and he would refrain from
a whole lot of the tired 'let me tell you what to think' routines.
The best you can say about Rush is that he wants to make you laugh at
the liberals. He certainly doesn't want you to think unless you think
just like he does.
David E. Thomas
University of Illinois at Chicago
David E. Thomas
>have never observed any other conflicting behavior on the macro scale doesn't
>mean that what we observe is fact. For all we know, our little corner of the
>universe is just one of several different possibilities. Geez, we don't even
>know if matter is the same across our own galaxy - we assume it is, but we
>have no way of knowing whether the charge of an electron is Alpha Centauri
>is the same as what we experience here. We *think* it is, but ...
>
>By your logic, Newtonian physics was fact until it was superceded by
>the next couple of generations of physics. Facts are facts and can't be
>changed by our perceptions - that's why we have to explain them before
>they can be recognized as facts.
>
exception of Descartes' 'I think therefore I am'. Nothing else can
be proven in any way without some assumptions regarding frame of
reference.
'Facts' are NOT facts isolated from our perceptions. The underlying
realities may not change, but once we use words to express them we
are unalterably bound by our perceptions.
At some point we must establish some criteria by which we will call
something 'true' and something else 'false'. We should never delude
ourselves by thinking it is the TRUTH, but merely our best attempt
at it. The most we can hope for is consistency and some level of
predictability. We can also hope to remain openminded enough to
alter our perceptions when that becomes necessary. Even so, at
some point, we must start to act as if our assumptions are 'facts'
or we will never be able to do anything.
By all relevant reasonable criteria, evolution is a fact.
Larry Cunningham
Huh?
Never mind.
Alan Filipski
Gravity is neither a theory or a fact, but a force. If you measure the
attraction between two bodies, the data point you get is a fact. If
you extrapolate this phenomenon to the entire Universe, as Einstein and
Newton did, and set up a model describing it, you get a theory.
By the way, the Earth is attracted to Ron by a force exactly equal to
his weight, (but oppositely directed)-- far from unmeasurable.
David E. Thomas
and...@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (David A Andrews) says:
>
>a) There is more than enough "serious opposing viewpoints" coming over the
>airwaves these days. Inviting them on to the show would only decrease the
>amount of "conservative" (read "correct" :-) ) view point available on the
>airwaves. And there is precious little of it these days (name me one other
>radio-talk show host that gets to as many people as Rush does, or even half
>as many).
>
he wants. But given the massive balance toward conservative content you
normally hear on the show and the routine lampooning of liberal viewpoint
one can hardly support the assertion that he is interested in having his
listeners think for themselves.
>b) Rush never says "'let me tell you what to think'". He says "this is what I
>think, and why." And he (almost) always gives some damn good reasons -- which
>is a lot more than some of the other liberal-media mamby-pambies can say for
>themselves. Also, he wouldn't be growing at the rate he is if he told people
>what to think. His is the "thinking man's talk show," hands down.
>
I don't know what show you listen to. He says it all the time. Of course
the net.ditto-heads will be quick to point out that it is all in jest.
Perhaps. But if he were indeed interested in having us think for ourselves
he would not push this routine as far as he does. In any event, whether
he intends it as humor or not, he must be aware that many of the ditto
heads take him seriously on it. If he wanted us to think he would be
appalled by that.
I truly fail to understand how you can think that a growing popularity
makes him the 'thinking man's talk show'. It really does not follow.
If anything, popularity would seem to indicate a lack of 'thinking'
content. Time and time again the American public has showed that as
a whole they are really not interested in 'thinking for themselves'.
If Rush put really difficult thought provoking questions before them
they'd turn him off in a minute. (Most of them would at any rate).
David A Andrews
(Alex S. Crain) writes:
>If you belive that you can get accurate news from a sound bite, then Rush
>sounds great: crisp, clean ideas wraped for easy digestion. If you believe
>that you should devine your perceptions from a variety of sources and
>absorbing different points of view, then Rush is only going to provide a
>small piece of what you take in. The best dittohead is one who always agrees
>with the host (isn't "ditto" an abbreviated way to say "we love your rush"?),
>hardly constructive thought.
Ok, ok. I was taking things a bit far in being a "ditto-head". I guess I'm
overwhelmed at a little bit of fresh air sometimes. I do try to get balanced
opinions on each issue, etc. However, you should take a walk in an
"conservative's" shoes sometime. These days there seems to be nothing but
liberal trash - on TV, on the Radio, etc, etc. All the major evening news
programs, all the major news magazines, all the radio talk shows (except for
one notable exception!), everything I see and hear over major media broadcasts
seems to be shot through-and-through with liberal opinion. Just imagine how
infuriated you'd be if Rush was a news anchor on one of the major networks --
that's me when I listen to Brokaw (?), Rather & Co. -- well, that's a bit of an
exaggeration, but *not* that much! And then there's those damn "entertainment"
shows that are so full of the liberal agenda, that I've come to call them
Sitcoms (for Situation Communists!)
It has become so bad that we've turned off the boob-tube, don't subscribe to
any newspaper, and I only get "Newsweek" to keep me on my toes, keep abreast of
the competition, as it were.
So you see that there is a reason we "ditto-heads" act like complete
nincompoops sometimes. It's 'cause we don't feel alone (as I so often do these
days -- especially on a college campus!), 'cause we feel there is someone out
there who feels the way we do and is trying to do something about it (and,
believe me, I don't mean Mr. "Read-my-lips" Bush, et al -- I was betrayed!).
Ah, you must be saying now, there IS a sight. A call for compassion from a
right-wing, ultra-conservative "ditto-head"! Well, we conservatives are really
full of compassion, and need it just like the rest of y'all! And since we find
no solace in the media, in the government, etc., Rush really helps us through
the day. Yes, he's opinionated. Yes, he's bull-headed. But, by God, he's
right (and proud of it) and he's ours!
Phew! Enough already! Who wants the soapbox next? :-)
And, if this did make you puke, well, you're probably better off without that
extra candy bar you had at lunch today!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Andrews and...@ecn.purdue.edu
---------------- Purdue University
Graduate Student School of Industrial Engineering
nathan engle
>
>b) Rush never says "'let me tell you what to think'". He says "this is what I
>think, and why."
Rush also says "The opinions expressed by the host on this show are
right, which makes everybody who disagrees with them wrong."
You're right that he doesn't tell people what to think. He just
tells them that they're wrong unless they believe X, Y, and Z. And then
he tells people that they shouldn't hang onto ideas if they're wrong, so
by implication, why not just go along with good old Rush (He's just a
harmless little fuzzball, after all)?
> And he (almost) always gives some damn good reasons -- which
>is a lot more than some of the other liberal-media mamby-pambies
>can say for themselves. Also, he wouldn't be growing at the rate he
>is if he told people what to think. His is the "thinking man's talk
>show," hands down.
Come on, guys, you can't have it both ways. Rush's show is growing
because it's entertaining, not because of any lofty intellectual
content. Why does your "thinking-man"'s talk-radio host report on
teenagers who steal hundreds of pairs of panties? Why did he spend so
long telling Peewee Herman jokes? Why does he play weighty and serious
songs like "The Phylanderer" and "Bomb, Bomb, Iraq"? Is it to promote
intellectual discussion? Not on your life.
>(Obviously, it help if you come from the same side he does, but I understand he
>has made a lot of "converts" through his sound reasoning and level-headed
>thinking. More power to him!)
He has also turned a lot of people who just mildly disagreed with him
into all-out opponents. Rush's show was the primary reason I registered
to vote this year. Guess who I'm voting for (hint: not any Republicans).
Will Bralick
|
| It has become so bad that we've turned off the boob-tube, don't subscribe to
| any newspaper, and I only get "Newsweek" to keep me on my toes, keep abreast
| of the competition, as it were.
So we're not the only ones to have contemptuously rejected the major media.
We keep our tee-vee (rhymes with pee-wee and is the pseudo-intellectual
analogue of pee-wee's latest adventure...) in the closet and wheel it
out for `family movie day' once (or twice) each month. We watch
classics (e.g. King Lear) or the great family films which used to be
produced, e.g. Sound of Music.
For news, I listen to BBC or VOA on shortwave -- it seems that these two
tend to have better journalistic balance than the commercial media.
Perhaps because they are operated by democratically elected governments
they tend to be more scrupulous about their balance.
| ... It's 'cause we don't feel alone (as I so often do these
| days -- especially on a college campus!), 'cause we feel there is someone out
| there who feels the way we do and is trying to do something about it
Well, the left has seized most of the institutions in this country
because conservatives (the middle-of-the-road in America is further
right than the media will ever want you to know) have not been paying
attention -- we took our eyes off the ball and the leftoids smoked
a couple past us.
The problem now is that conservatives are having a difficult time
getting organized ... As Jefferson said in the Declaration of
Independence, "...all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
Regards,
--
Will bra...@cs.psu.edu with disclaimer;
use disclaimer;
Not to seem aposiopetic, but
Alex S. Crain
>And there is precious little of it these days (name me one other
>radio-talk show host that gets to as many people as Rush does, or even half
>as many).
Name me one other performer group that sold as many records as
Michel Jackson. Can't? Does that imply the Michel Jackson speaks the gospal
truth? Rush is good at his job (entertainment), that doesn't make him right.
>b) Rush never says "'let me tell you what to think'". He says "this is what I
>think, and why." And he (almost) always gives some damn good reasons --
Which are (almost) always incomplete. If you belive that you can get
accurate news from a sound bite, then Rush sounds great: crisp, clean ideas
wraped for easy digestion. If you believe that yo