 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Lets start with freedom of religion... his religious views were questioned. Why... because the Smithsonian wanted to ensure he attended church regularly? Noooooo... because that no one would dare question Darwinian Evolution unless there was a religious beleif. So, the start digging into his religious views. That, in of itself, is discriminatory and a violation of his civil rights. |
How is it discriminatory? How does it discriminate against him?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
His right to privacy. Who in the hell do these folks think they were digging into this man's past, without his consent, to try to discredit him. |
Which right specifically do you think is being violated by looking up information about people?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
They looked into his off duty conduct and considered his views towards evolution. |
This isn't discrimination and it isn't a violation of his rights.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
The folks at the NMNH, in emails, indicated that he was not going to be considered for re-appointment at the end of his term based on his views (emails by Sues indicates this). It was only after the publication of this report was an offer of renewal exteneded... and we both know why... don't we? So... discrimination towards his activities outside the workplace effecting his job reknewal. |
No, his renewal as an RA (should he decide to renew) may end up denied based on his past displays of poor judgment (ie. this fiasco). His outside affiliations with (as in, some sort of relations with, outside of the professional relationship between author and editor) the author of papers he is editing for publication introduces bias and possibly conflict of interest, as was the case here. That kind of poor judgment combined with the embarassment factor would contribute to whether or not they consider him when he reapplies.
I saw the emails where department heads speculated that he would be unlikely to find a sponsor upon renewal, but nowhere do I see evidence that all potential sponsors were conspiring to deny him, based on his past activities or otherwise.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
OSC investigation revealed in emails by Schotte she was concerned that he was religious... a fundamentalist, and of course... he was an evil republican... Why do they need to know this Ana? What does this have to do with the contents of the Meyer article? Why is it necessary to first determine if a man is a fundamentalist... republican... or otherwise to determine the veracity of an article? |
To see whether he had some sort of relationship with Meyer because such would indicate that he was an improper choice for editing the article due to potential bias and/or conflict of interest.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I thought this was science? So... digging itto his political and religious affiliations... his right to privacy without a warranted search. |
You should be careful which activity you're attributing to whom I think. Schotte supplied info based on casual conversation when asked by his supervisor, who wanted to know out of curiosity and was also concerned about treating Sternberg fairly. Schotte couldn't even remember if she had been asked whether Sternberg was a fundamentalist. The only other person who even mentioned the word 'fundamentalist' - actually, 'fundie' was someone from another institution altogether and only as a comparison tool, not calling anybody one.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
He was publically smeared by the NMNH, in collaboration with the NCSE, |
How? I read that this was to find out whether he'd been wrongly advertising himself as an agent of the Smithsonian, which is rightfully grounds for dismissal. That's not public smearing - that's info search.
What I'd like to find (and I can't seem to) is something where the NCSE put something out which 'smeared' Sternberg. I did find that the Discovery Institute is delighted about what NCSE did write in regards to Sternberg's paper - they are glad for the free publicity. As far as what the NCSE said about Sternberg: they said that he showed bad judgment publishing it in that particular journal, they mentioned his affiliations (which are no state secret),
They said this about Meyer's paper:
| Quote: | | Devoid of original scientific research and laden with errors, omissions, and misrepresentations, Meyer's paper is unlikely ever to be of scientific value. But as grist for the "intelligent design" propaganda mill, it promises to be endlessly fruitful. |
This is supported by Meyer's trumpetting that this is "the first time that proponents of intelligent design have published an argument for the theory in a peer-reviewed scientific publication."
In another article by the NCSE, they quote Sternberg as saying, "some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists." This is true, so it isn't smearing - the only way he could view it as smearing is if he is ashamed of the fact. I can't find any other articles on the subject of Meyer's paper that even mention Sternberg.
If any discrediting of these two happened, it was taking away credit not due them in the first place. Further discredit would only be that they did something they ought not to have done.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
The report indicates that although criticism is is perfectly consistent with science and its methodology, this campaign went way beyond reasonable and fair criticism.... |
How so?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
and using their position and governmental equipment to do this to someone under their charge is actually against the law. |
Did they use their positions? The equipment, I assume, is their office computers for emails, which, as we've seen, are concerned about what to do to salvage their reputation after publishing that embarrassment of a paper and continuing to associate with the culprit on their end.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Which also demonstrates my point that his career was ruined by these folks.... a point that I, and most folks who are not biased towards the NMNH or NCSE, can see plain as day. |
No it actually doesn't demonstrate that his career was ruined. His career wasn't ruined by these folks - if it was ruined at all it was because of his shocking lack of judgment - he knew before he published it that it would be controversial - maybe he should have been more careful then - unless that was never his intention in the first place.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
The Souder Report, on page 6, also indicates that Dr. Small and Burke both would not hire someone at the Smithsonian who is critical of Darwinian Evolution. That... is not only discriminatory.... that is a hue point of creationists.... if you can't even be allowed to participate in this debate... how in the hell do you ever expect that any 'creditable' evidence will ever be published demonstrating your point? |
That's a funny standpoint for people who bar critics of ID from their conferences (RAPID for example) to take.
Anyways, I read Souder's sources, and while one guy wanted him removed, Sternberg's supervisor wanted to keep him, as did several others. So the guy with the authority used his power to keep him. As for Dr Small, I don't see anything he did other than update the Diversity
and Equal Employment Policy Statement, which does nothing whatsoever against Sternberg, and the Souder report also says that he allowed Sternberg to be demoted. Sternberg far from the only one to get this 'Research Collaborator' title, so it's really not discriminatory at all, and as I've explained already, it's mostly a reflection on his activities as a solo artist.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Lastly... free speech. Why is it that no one can be critical of Darwinian Evolution? |
They can. If they've got something to say, they are welcome to say it using appropriate vehicles.
On the other hand, why weren't some ID critics allowed into RAPID? Free speech indeed.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
If they are, their careers are ruined, they are smeared, and rail roaded... |
Not so with Sternberg, not so with Sternberg, and ... rail roaded? That's new. I looked it up hoping you've used the term appropriately, and lo and behold, by this definition: "to convict with undue haste and by means of false charges or insufficient evidence", he hasn't been, and this one: "to push through hastily or without due consideration" fairly aptly describes the way he handled the publication of the Meyer paper. I assume you don't mean any of the train definitions. 
| Trinity1 wrote: |
So.. to answer your question… his religious views were question, |
Not a crime
| Trinity1 wrote: |
his privacy violated, |
not so
| Trinity1 wrote: |
he career was ruined |
not so
| Trinity1 wrote: |
using taxpayer equipment and time, |
The really funny thing is that the OSC went through an investigation where they had no jurisdiction to do so (so they stopped), and the Souder report reveals that many government resources were used to unearth and make public many private emails of many of Sternberg's coworkers. Yet you don't even blink about that. The hypocrisy is getting really rank, Trinity.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
and the was a plot to deny his further employment. |
not so - there didn't need to be a plot - he embarrassed all of his colleagues with a stupid action he did himself.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
His civil and constitutional rights were trampled on Ana… |
Not that has been demonstrated thus far...
| Trinity1 wrote: |
and your refusal to even acknowledge these is truly amazing. |
I'm looking into this in great detail! I am not seeing evidence to support what you are saying here.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | How is it discriminatory? How does it discriminate against him? |
Ah.. who is sticking their head in the sand now Ana? 1st Amendment... as I explained in the previous post... why does he have to explain his religious views when atheists are not asked the same questions. You are simply playing ignorant here...
| Quote: | | Which right specifically do you think is being violated by looking up information about people? |
Right to privacy. When does a governmental agency gain authority to start investigating your personal life without a warrant Ana? Please don't ignore this... you know the answer... This is a clear violation of his civil rights.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
They looked into his off duty conduct and considered his views towards evolution. |
This isn't discrimination and it isn't a violation of his rights. |
Using governmental equipment, investigating someone's personal life IS discrimination and IS a violation Ana... you know it!
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
OSC investigation revealed in emails by Schotte she was concerned that he was religious... a fundamentalist, and of course... he was an evil republican... Why do they need to know this Ana? What does this have to do with the contents of the Meyer article? Why is it necessary to first determine if a man is a fundamentalist... republican... or otherwise to determine the veracity of an article? |
To see whether he had some sort of relationship with Meyer because such would indicate that he was an improper choice for editing the article due to potential bias and/or conflict of interest. |
An this is standard operating procedure? You don't like an article, so... investigate the editor's relationship with the author... yea... standard practice... happens all the time... everyone does it. Bull SH%^!!!!!!!
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
The report indicates that although criticism is perfectly consistent with science and its methodology, this campaign went way beyond reasonable and fair criticism.... |
How so? |
I'm going to repeat it Ana... it is right there in the Souder report.. they used governmental equipment to conspire to deny him office space... governmental time spent conspiring... et. al.... read the report. I'm not making this up... I'm only repeating what a third party disinterested investigative organization found... no... wait a minute... it was two third party disinterested investigative organizations findings.
| Quote: | Anyways, I read Souder's sources, and while one guy wanted him removed, Sternberg's supervisor wanted to keep him, as did several others. So the guy with the authority used his power to keep him. As for Dr Small, I don't see anything he did other than update the Diversity
and Equal Employment Policy Statement, which does nothing whatsoever against Sternberg, and the Souder report also says that he allowed Sternberg to be demoted. Sternberg far from the only one to get this 'Research Collaborator' title, so it's really not discriminatory at all, and as I've explained already, it's mostly a reflection on his activities as a solo artist. |
Odd how you come to different conclusions then these two organizations... by looking only at Sternberg's Supervisors remarks... and ignoring everything else... 
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
Lastly... free speech. Why is it that no one can be critical of Darwinian Evolution? |
They can. If they've got something to say, they are welcome to say it using appropriate vehicles. |
Where and when is this allowed Ana... specifics please... when and where have folks been allowed to be critical of basis of Darwinian Evolution... citations in this case would be really nice to see...
| Quote: | | On the other hand, why weren't some ID critics allowed into RAPID? Free speech indeed. |
Hmmm... one is a private organization... the other is a public one... also... would a private evolutionist organization allow creationists into their conference? Me thinks not Ana...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
So.. to answer your question… his religious views were question, |
Not a crime |
It is if you are official organization Ana questioning one's motives or actions predicated on said religious views. It is indeed illegal.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
his privacy violated, |
not so |
It was too and you know it. You, as an organization, can not simply start investigating people's private lives without a warrant or the individuals permission. That is a fact... it is illegal... it is a breach of their privacy. You know it to be true.. yet stick your head in the sand again. 
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
he career was ruined |
not so |
Yea.. right.. he'll just waltz right into that new Professorship at Crayola Tech proving that he is indeed employable... give me a danking break.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
using taxpayer equipment and time, |
The really funny thing is that the OSC went through an investigation where they had no jurisdiction to do so (so they stopped), and the Souder report reveals that many government resources were used to unearth and make public many private emails of many of Sternberg's coworkers. Yet you don't even blink about that. The hypocrisy is getting really rank, Trinity. |
Once the OSC realized that Sternberg's status... was not associated... sure.. they did stop their investigation. However... they had every right to advise Sternberg of their preliminary findings. As far as the Souder report... Congress provides oversight of these agencies Ana... that is how our system of government works. They had every right under the sun to pull emails off of those computers... every right. The only hypocrisy that stinks is emanating from those trying to hide the 'body' here.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
His civil and constitutional rights were trampled on Ana… |
Not that has been demonstrated thus far... |
Continue to click your heals three times Dorthy... its doesn't make the facts go away... 
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
and your refusal to even acknowledge these is truly amazing. |
I'm looking into this in great detail! I am not seeing evidence to support what you are saying here. |
For the very same reason a criminal can never find a cop... yeah... right. You apparently are having some issues with comprehension...
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Breaking the law is considered ‘feet stamping’ now huh? |
You're confused. I said your rhetoric is 'feet stamping'. I never said you were breaking the law.
Nobody was breaking the law - no crime committed, no trial, no jail time, no fines, no legal action whatsoever. So yeah, when you say stuff like that, it does amount to feet stamping. It's an inflamed exclamation designed to elicit a knee-jerk reaction. It's not going to work on me, though. I'm doing a lot of looking into everything you say. I can only hope that our other readers are not reacting emotionally to your rhetoric either.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Ana... tell me how the Meyer paper is religious. |
How about that first it tries to poke holes in evolutionary theory (standard creationist methodology) and then draws a conclusion that current scientific hypotheses haven't explained stuff, so intelligent design must be the answer. In other words, "science doesn't know this answer, so my religious idea must be the answer". (standard creationist methodology).
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I mean… lets really apply some logic here. |
Really? You promise?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Current theory can not account for biological complexity… mutational changes and natural selection do not account for the goo-to-you scenario.. period. |
Oh, I though you said we were going to be logical. Appeal to personal incredulity isn't logic.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Meyer offers a logical, cogent, and yes, scientific justification for this. |
Not so. I've perused the Meyer paper for myself, and so far I see no mention of experiments, but I did see him say, "neo-Darwinism," which is not a scientific phrase in the least. The paper has no abstract, no methods, no materials, no results, no findings whatsoever. He doesn't even put forth a hypothesis to be tested. So no, there's nothing scientific about it.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Current theory makes just as many inferences… steps outside of empirical science… just as often.. if not more than Meyer does… and theirs is counted as science and his is counted as religious. This is simply the truth of the matter.. we both know this. |
Please start a new thread that gives examples of this. It really shouldn't bog down this thread.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
This a brief description of the article:
| Quote: | | Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. |
If no materialistic theory is able to account of the existence of this information, and someone draws a line towords an obvious conclusion... is that religious, or (using extant data) is that science? |
It's religious to assume that your own religious view is the obvious conclusion. It's faulty logic to say "no current answer - insert my religion here."
| Trinity1 wrote: |
The problem is (for you) is that Meyer is indeed correct... his article demonstrates as much. The article did indeed go through the peer review process... withstood the scrutiny… and now... you simply can't stand it. Period. |
That's what Sternberg claims, but this claim is unsubstantiated. It's nice to see you calling me out for taking people on their word though, when the only reason you have to say the article was peer-reviewed is because Sternberg said so.
Besides, being peer-reviewed is necessary but not sufficient for something to be verified.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | What does questioning someone's religious beliefs have to do with discrimination? |
What does it have to with science Ana? This is the point. |
As I've mentioned, it has to do with outside affiliation between editor and author, and also it sure answers the question of why he would allow such a black sheep of a paper be published the way it was.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
If I asked those who are supportive of Darwinian Evolution if they are atheists... do you think that they would have a problem with that? |
Should they? Besides, this isn't really a parallel because 'being supportive of evolution' isn't the same kind of thing as 'publishing an unscientific, religion-pushing paper in a science journal'.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Well, when you refuse to pay any attention to the sources I provide you... direct quotes from these investigations... yeah... the remaining responses are more or less going to be rhetorical... |
How does me scrutinizing every last thing you post including the sources of your sources constitute me refusing to pay attention to your sources? I think the cheese is slipping off your cracker there. I'd appreciate you not mis-characterizing my responses to you.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I am citing directly from the conclusions of the investigations Ana. |
...And I'm citing directly from their sources, Trinity.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Disinterested parties conducted these investigations and constructed these reports... their conclusions were that Sternberg's claims to discrimination and his personal attacks were founded and they were... yes... documented. If you are going to ignore the conclusions of these investigations… my posts are going to indeed appear rhetorical. |
Here, just so you don't think I'm ignoring these conclusions, I will state that I don't agree with their conclusions. I draw different conclusions than they do. I am sharing these conclusions with you. Clear?
I need to go now, but I will get to the rest of your post.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I am citing directly from the conclusions of the investigations Ana. |
...And I'm citing directly from their sources, Trinity. |
Look... I simply don't have the time to cite directly from the conclusions of the investigators... and then have you ignore them... by somehow implying that your interpretation of a few emails somehow refutes their findings... and and at the same time have you somehow try to infer you were correct.
One thing I haven't seen you do is refute their findings... you haven't even tried... yet... you seem to think they are wrong. Why don't you try refuting their findings instead of playing with a few comments from emails Ana? Try that... and I'll play... but the rest of this completely ignoring facts and logic has gotten old... I demonstrated laws have been broken... the man's civil rights were violated... and all you can do is state... no... without a logical or factual answer containing some type of evidence supproting it. That is not how this works Ana... and I've grown tired of citing only to have you ignore the citations.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I am citing directly from the conclusions of the investigations Ana. |
...And I'm citing directly from their sources, Trinity. |
Look... I simply don't have the time to cite directly from the conclusions of the investigators... and then have you ignore them... by somehow implying that your interpretation of a few emails somehow refutes their findings... and and at the same time have you somehow try to infer you were correct.
One thing I haven't seen you do is refute their findings... you haven't even tried... yet... you seem to think they are wrong. Why don't you try refuting their findings instead of playing with a few comments from emails Ana? Try that... and I'll play... but the rest of this completely ignoring facts and logic has gotten old... I demonstrated laws have been broken... the man's civil rights were violated... and all you can do is state... no... without a logical or factual answer containing some type of evidence supproting it. That is not how this works Ana... and I've grown tired of citing only to have you ignore the citations. |
This whole post is so full of lies that I'm not even going to bother wasting any more time on you. I've been through all the sources you've cited, all the sources I've cited, and all of those sources' sources, plus more that neither of us have mentioned. I've ignored nothing you've said. You've now said I haven't given logical or factual answers to your questions when there are several pages of posts that show otherwise, you've sworn at me, you've misrepresented what I and some of your sources have said, and shown to everyone that you're every bit as dishonest and hypocritical as some of the people you're defending, all the while slowly devolving to tantrum tactics. It's now boiling down to me having to repeat myself to someone who is behaving with increasingly poor demeanor. I'm sure you'll find it somewhere in your Christian heart to forgive me for not wallowing in the mud with you, so until you calm yourself down and return to some semblance of civility, I'm going to step away from this conversation.
TTFN.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | This whole post is so full of lies... |
Really? Name 1... only one.
| Quote: | | I've ignored nothing you've said. You've now said I haven't given logical or factual answers to your questions when there are several pages of posts that show otherwise,.... |
Wrong Ana.. I demonstrated that Sternberg's civil and constitutional rights were violated (by citing the conclusions of the investigations and spelling it out for you so we know exactly what they meant) your only retorts were 'they were playing office politics... he somehow deserved it.... they were only protecting themselves' etc... that is not providing factual answers... that is promulgating an opinion.... not refuting with fact. So the fact is… yes… you did ignore the conclusions of the investigations… I did not write the conclusions… the folks who wrote them were disinterested third party governmental agencies Ana… not me… your posts did nothing but try to muddy the waters of what occurred. Sternberg was targeted and forced out of SI… period. It demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along… and when evolutionists are caught red handed… we get nothing but these devoid of practical logic excuses you provided… you did ignore the facts and that is not my fault.
| Quote: | | you've misrepresented what I and some of your sources have said |
When I provide you a direct quote from the source stating that Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated, that a hostile work environment was created... you refused to even address it... I misrepresented nothing... you chose to ignore the conclusions of the investigations and focus on red herrings... and then have the gull to tell me I’m… well here is what you wrote:
| Quote: | | and shown to everyone that you're every bit as dishonest and hypocritical as some of the people you're defending, |
Biased perhaps... yea... I'd admit that. Hypocritical and dishonest... Yeah... whatever Ana... whatever... I misrepresented nothing.. I qouted directly from the source… you ignored the quotes… I paraphrased for you… and that you wouldn’t accept. If that is dishonest/hypocritical… you are beyond help in defining the scope of these two words.
| Quote: | | It's now boiling down to me having to repeat myself to someone who is behaving with increasingly poor demeanor. |
I'm sorry... would you like me to go through the exchanges here where I was forced to repeat myself because your excuses.. um... answers were devoid of logic… that made absolutely no sense when properly applied… and avoided the facts as presented by the investigators. Chief among those was you deriding Sternberg for not divulging who he conferred with on the article… that is not expected of other editors… but to you… this is a standard you demand he follow.. even though it doesn’t apply to anyone else… and the justification you provide is he embarrassed his journal.. Kettle this is Black... this answer was devoid of any logical application.
| Quote: | | I'm sure you'll find it somewhere in your Christian heart to forgive me for not wallowing in the mud with you, so until you calm yourself down and return to some semblance of civility, I'm going to step away from this conversation. |
Sure... when I finally demand you start addressing the conclusions of the investigations you call me a lying hypocrite and feign some type of indignation... well gee gollars... that is a new one on me... makes me feel like we are over at CT.
If you don’t like the conclusions of the investigation… that is not my fault… I wrote them verbatim from the provided links. To call me dishonest and hypocritical for citing them is one of many of the frustrations Sternberg had to face when going through his ordeal. Reminds my of Dennis Rodman getting called for a foul after nearly taking a guys head off… and turning to the ref and giving one of those ‘what.. who me?’ looks. We know that the Smithsonian, or any other organization of their stature, would never do anything like this… and then.. when two separate investigative bodies conclude the did… we resort to telling those who point it out they are throwing a tantrum… they are lying and being hypocritical.
Real good response Ana… real good.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The bottom line is, if there were anything to your claims that something illegal were going on with the Sternberg case, it would be a court case, and don't regurgitate your sentiment that 'it wouldn't be very Christian', because something like 83% of Americans are Christians, and yours has got to be the most sue-happy country on Earth, which means... get ready for it... plenty of Christians take legal action when illegal things happen. I'm sure nobody would disapprove if he had a legitimate claim and went through the appropriate channels to protect against the same thing happening to others.
I notice you didn't argue with the fact that I pointed out you swore at me. QFT:
| Trinity1 wrote: | | See above answer... are you #$%^ing kidding me... would you? |
| Trinity1 wrote: | | happens all the time... everyone does it. Bull SH%^!!!!!!! |
and your lies:
| Quote: | | and then have you ignore them |
| Quote: | | One thing I haven't seen you do is refute their findings... you haven't even tried |
| Quote: |
I demonstrated laws have been broken... the man's civil rights were violated. |
| Quote: | | without a logical or factual answer containing some type of evidence supproting it |
| Quote: | | citing only to have you ignore the citations |
I've spent some time looking into any civil rights regarding privacy, and I'm drawing a blank, and despite my asking, you haven't told me specifically which right you're talking about. Remember, I'm not an American, but I can and do read and research quite a few things. You point me toward the right that you're talking about, and I'll read up on what the right says, whether any similar precedent has been set, and decide whether I agree with what you're saying. So far though, I can't even find anybody on either side of the fence that is saying the same thing as you other than that the Souder report says so (and Souder's sources disagree).
Speaking of the Souder report,
1. Souder is on record as an ID advocate, so you can stop saying he's a disinterested party.
2. "The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it being officially accepted into the Congressional Record." (link)
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | The bottom line is, if there were anything to your claims that something illegal |
Ana... is it illegal for a governmental agency to investigate a citizen's personal life without their permission or warrant. This is a simple yes or no question... then.. once you arrive at your obvious answer... ask yourself... is the SI a governmental agency. Once you have arrived at those to logical answers... tell me how in tarnation this does not apply.
| Quote: | I notice you didn't argue with the fact that I pointed out you swore at me. QFT:
| Trinity1 wrote: | | See above answer... are you #$%^ing kidding me... would you? |
| Trinity1 wrote: | | happens all the time... everyone does it. Bull SH%^!!!!!!! |
|
You're right... my apologies. I should not have written that... I could have expressed my disgust differently and I'm sorry for not putting forth the effort to do so.
| Quote: | and your lies:
| Quote: | | and then have you ignore them |
|
You were ignoring the direct citations from the OSC Report... do you want me to go back and cut and paste what I wrote and your lack of responses?
| Quote: | | One thing I haven't seen you do is refute their findings... you haven't even tried |
Telling me that investigating someone's personal background is standard procedure... is NOT refuting the findings Ana... it is making excuses for illegal behavior...
| Quote: | | I demonstrated laws have been broken... the man's civil rights were violated. |
I did... you chose to ignore them. That is not my fault.. and it does not make me a liar if you can't recognize that fact.
| Quote: | | without a logical or factual answer containing some type of evidence supporting it |
Right... um... asking a scientist to divulge who they collaborate with on the peer review process is logically answering a question when no one else has to do it... only Sternberg.... but your reply was factual and most certainly logical...
| Quote: | | citing only to have you ignore the citations |
Did you address the OSC's findings? Nooooo you didn't.
| Quote: | Speaking of the Souder report,
1. Souder is on record as an ID advocate, so you can stop saying he's a disinterested party. |
Yeah.... and just because many congressman are also lawyers that means they can't provide oversight to the American Bar or such either… their opinions would naturally be clouded. Sorry Ana… this seems to be another one of your illogical attempts to minimize the veracity of the findings without actually addressing the facts in this case.
| Quote: | | 2. "The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it being officially accepted into the Congressional Record." (link) |
OK... and this happens all the time on Capital Hill.. what is your point? Are you again trying to deflect attention away from the substance of the report without actually addressing the facts surrounding it?
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
You're right... my apologies. I should not have written that... I could have expressed my disgust differently and I'm sorry for not putting forth the effort to do so. |
Thank you for apologizing. Now let's play!
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | The bottom line is, if there were anything to your claims that something illegal |
Ana... is it illegal for a governmental agency to investigate a citizen's personal life without their permission or warrant. This is a simple yes or no question... then.. once you arrive at your obvious answer... ask yourself... is the SI a governmental agency. Once you have arrived at those to logical answers... tell me how in tarnation this does not apply. |
Did the SI in any way act on any of this information? Was it SI action that anyone looked Sternberg up on google or whatever? Or was it the action of a few individuals? And did they do anything at all based on this knowledge? This is important. On whose behalf were these individuals acting?
Oh yes, and remember that thing that you didn't respond to about you pointing me to the right you're talking about and me looking for set precedents? Well, I think this will prove interesting: Google search by employer not illegal, say judges
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | and your lies:
| Quote: | | and then have you ignore them |
|
You were ignoring the direct citations from the OSC Report... do you want me to go back and cut and paste what I wrote and your lack of responses? |
You mean this post?
| Trinity wrote: |
| Quote: | | One thing I haven't seen you do is refute their findings... you haven't even tried |
Telling me that investigating someone's personal background is standard procedure... is NOT refuting the findings Ana... it is making excuses for illegal behavior... |
Is that what I said? Really? Are you sure? You wouldn't be misrepresenting what I said, would you? 
I think what I said in regards to their findings is that I looked at their findings and came to different conclusions than they did, and then I went into some detail about what I found and cited the relevant pages of that appendix (aka the primary source).
| Trinity wrote: |
| Quote: | | I demonstrated laws have been broken... the man's civil rights were violated. |
I did... you chose to ignore them. That is not my fault.. and it does not make me a liar if you can't recognize that fact. |
I asked you very specifically which precise laws have been broken, which specific rights were violated. You said 'his right to privacy' which, near as I can tell, spans 3 amendments, none of which apply.
| Trinity wrote: |
| Quote: | | without a logical or factual answer containing some type of evidence supporting it |
Right... um... asking a scientist to divulge who they collaborate with on the peer review process is logically answering a question when no one else has to do it... only Sternberg.... but your reply was factual and most certainly logical... |
You said: Freedom of religion
He was free to be a Christian - where did anyone say otherwise? They wondered what his religion was - how is that discriminatory?
You said: His right to privacy
I asked you which specific right was being violated by looking info up on him? (This wasn't even like PI stuff - it was google and water-cooler talk for Pete's sake)
As far as renewing his position, on Nov 15 2006 he renewed for another 3 year term, so there's still no discrimination going on. (that's from wikipedia and sternberg's biography).
| Trinity wrote: |
| Quote: | | citing only to have you ignore the citations |
Did you address the OSC's findings? Nooooo you didn't. |
No matter how many vowels you put in, you're still wrong. See this post again.
| Trinity wrote: |
| Quote: | Speaking of the Souder report,
1. Souder is on record as an ID advocate, so you can stop saying he's a disinterested party. |
Yeah.... and just because many congressman are also lawyers that means they can't provide oversight to the American Bar or such either… their opinions would naturally be clouded. Sorry Ana… this seems to be another one of your illogical attempts to minimize the veracity of the findings without actually addressing the facts in this case. |
How does one 'minimize veracity'? Something is either true or it isn't. In your example, congressmen may use their expertise in law to provide oversight to matters pertaining to law. In Souder's case, is he using his expertise in ID? Because the point is that he shouldn't be using his bias toward ID to act impartial. This was my reason for bringing up this point.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | 2. "The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it being officially accepted into the Congressional Record." (link) |
OK... and this happens all the time on Capital Hill.. what is your point? Are you again trying to deflect attention away from the substance of the report without actually addressing the facts surrounding it? |
Not at all. I'm pointing out a little tidbit of irony in that Souder acted alone to defend Sternberg, who also acted alone, and neither publication was legit. How different everything would be if Sternberg and his peer reviewers and his associate editor came together and proudly presented this Meyer paper. But alas, 't wasn't so.
And from where I left off before:
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Disinterested parties conducted these investigations and constructed these reports... |
I've now shown Souder is hardly 'disinterested'.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
In other words.. they will simply not address the findings of Meyer... and will NOT let the science stand or fall on its merits. You are simply dead dog wrong Ana with that assertion. |
I said they'd let Sternberg's science stand or fall on its own. Meyer is not their colleague. He is not even a biologist (he does have a PhD but it's in history/philosophy of science, which is a whole different animal), which is the field his paper broadly spans, among other things. Meyer's paper, appropriately, has fallen on its own.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
No.. my point dealt with the fact that everyone is all exercised about Stein’s movie exposing this and no one (from the same scientific circles) said a word when the Souder report was published exposing it. |
I call baloney? You've been bringing it up for years, and you were hardly alone even then.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
My contention was that no one spoke out against Souder as he, being a congressman, holds the purse strings or at least has influence where research money and grants are given... |
Well, on a grassroots level they did: http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/12/laffaire-de-sternberg-part-eighty.html
It is also important to note that the general feeling at the NMNH is to do the opposite of creating a stir. Of course they didn't - they said 'you know what? Okay. We agree that we ought to make our discrimination notes more clear, and while we're at it, we're going to make sure all of our policies are more clear and more noticeable throughout our institution.'
| Trinity1 wrote: |
it had nothing... absolutely nothing to do with scientists lining their own pockets. Lets not take my statements out of context here please. |
I'm not saying either of us thought that it was about lining scientists' pockets - that's what's happening to Ben Stein's pockets.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Ah.. who is sticking their head in the sand now Ana? 1st Amendment... |
What establishment of religion are you saying is the case here?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
as I explained in the previous post... why does he have to explain his religious views when atheists are not asked the same questions. |
They specifically said to each other they weren't going to do anything based on his religion. Sheesh. Also, think about what you're saying. You're saying they ask him what his religion is but they don't ask atheists what their religion is. Don't you think they'd already have to know whether or not they're atheists if they're going to discriminate by asking only the non-atheists? Once they've identified that criterion for discrimination, they wouldn't have to ask the atheists their religion since they'd already know. And to what end would they do this rather circuitous process, anyways?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Right to privacy. When does a governmental agency gain authority to start investigating your personal life without a warrant Ana? Please don't ignore this... you know the answer... This is a clear violation of his civil rights. |
I believe I've now addressed this above. In whose capacity were these bandit googlers acting?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Using governmental equipment, investigating someone's personal life IS discrimination and IS a violation Ana... you know it! |
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Discrimination entails treating someone differently than others, with the dividing line being something other than individual merit. Did they do something differently with regards to how they treat him, and if so, what was their basis?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
An this is standard operating procedure? You don't like an article, so... investigate the editor's relationship with the author... yea... standard practice... happens all the time... everyone does it. |
Actually, yes.
Link 1 (pdf)
Link 2
Link 3
I wonder why you think it isn't okay for people to seek for themselves the legitimacy of information they're receiving. It's a standard part of critical thinking to check incoming information sources, especially if something doesn't jive.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I'm going to repeat it Ana... it is right there in the Souder report.. they used governmental equipment to conspire to deny him office space... governmental time spent conspiring... et. al.... read the report. |
You're right that it wasn't appropriate for them to be doing non-science on the clock, but considering it was about their work lives, it seems at least somewhat reasonable. They did not conspire to deny him office space, although they did wonder why he should get a personal office when others of his position weren't and indeed, actual employees were not. They were wondering why he was afforded special privileges and whether or not he should continue to. In Schotte's letter, she notes that he retained access to his office space, equivalent to what other RAs get.
In other words, he was at no time denied office space. They did at one time propose to move him and someone named Mary into a corner office during some reorganizing, but that was before the Meyer paper was even published, and is in any case not a denial of office space and not discrimination either.
Also, I have read the Souder report. I've also read the entire 74-page appendix of his sources.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Odd how you come to different conclusions then these two organizations... by looking only at Sternberg's Supervisors remarks... and ignoring everything else... |
No, I read all of the appendix. And yes, I suppose it is odd that I came to a different conclusion than Souder, poster child for ID. I looked through the appendix for support for his and your claims, but I found the opposite instead. I kept thinking, 'surely this isn't what he was referring to'.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Where and when is this allowed Ana... specifics please... when and where have folks been allowed to be critical of basis of Darwinian Evolution... citations in this case would be really nice to see... |
www.discovery.org, radio shows, church groups, personal barbecues, message boards, publications, RAPID, expelled: the movie, the list goes on and on and on. But you can't publish just anything in just any journal - if Sternberg had published Gramma Jean's chocolate chip cookie recipe in there, the reaction would be much the same, except that his colleagues may have thought he was joking and googled to see if he had ties to a chocolate chip producer.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Hmmm... one is a private organization... the other is a public one... |
That doesn't mean that just anything can be published in that journal.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
It is if you are official organization Ana questioning one's motives or actions predicated on said religious views. It is indeed illegal. |
No it isn't - that would render the first amendment unenforceable.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
It was too and you know it. You, as an organization, can not simply start investigating people's private lives without a warrant or the individuals permission. |
Anything that google can find on you is permissible. See the article I link earlier that says organizations can google employees - that should give you a clue.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Yea.. right.. he'll just waltz right into that new Professorship at Crayola Tech proving that he is indeed employable... |
He's still at the NMNH, so... try again?
Oops, time to go again. More later.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5159
Location: Missouri
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
