1. Catholic priests cane YouTube over blasphemous vids

Comment #259143 by geehigh on October 3, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #259128 by SmilingAtheist

The real question is, what's next? Banning The God Delusion videos?

Why not? Once this snowball starts rolling, who knows where it's going to end up?

2. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255726 by geehigh on September 28, 2008 at 4:19 am

For the people who do buy the book, the best I can wish is that it is better written and less depressing than the indy's review.

Ho freaking hum...

3. Art teacher made student pray to Jesus for forgiveness

Comment #251896 by geehigh on September 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

Comment #251797 by clusterdave

I think this teacher should be given a Medal! the parents of this stupid kid should be beaten.

Thou ruttish motley-minded codpiece! I'd tell you to get a clue....but judging by your juvenile, trollish post, I'm afraid you couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a meadow full of clues in heat, not even if you rolled yourself in clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

#251239 by Pilot22A

The word Scum, derives from the word "Scumbag." A scumbag then, as we all know, is a condom filled with ejaculate.

The US edition of the Oxford English Dictionary has the condom definition, but the 'filled with ejaculate' bit is news to them. Send it in, you may get it printed in the next update.

4. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #250260 by geehigh on September 19, 2008 at 7:15 am

After going onto tcwest's blog I read this sentence.

I started watching it and just liked the look and the way it was put together and wasn't taking much notice of what content was being said as they had some great shots and montages of equations and cityscape's

Nuff said I think.

5. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #250100 by geehigh on September 19, 2008 at 1:22 am

Comment #249827 by wahee

Agreed.

I was going to post yet another long contribution here, but I think my position is just about summed up by Edward R Murrow (note: not a scientist). He was not talking about science programmes in particular, but what resonance these words have coming down the years in defence of intelligent television programming!:

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

'Good night, and good luck' indeed.

G :)

6. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249637 by geehigh on September 18, 2008 at 11:41 am

I know what you're saying Steve and agree with it. What pees me off is the constant hi-jacking of threads, and the flagrant disregard for other people's property in order to achieve no other purpose than self-aggrandisement.

This fool is welcome to his paltry belief system, and if he wants to contribute to a debate, then fine. Bring it on.

But if he is going to do nothing but promote himself, then his behaviour is unacceptable.

Anyway I won't post any more on the forums about him. Otherwise I'll be playing his game. The guy needs to see a doctor.

Cheers

G :)

7. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249587 by geehigh on September 18, 2008 at 10:29 am

Re above post

Must this particular 'Dick' drag everything off topic?

This is getting tiresome.

I am sick and tired of threads on this forum being reduced to slanging matches because this character does not have the self-discipline to control his boorish behaviour.

Reported as spam, and I appeal to the moderators of this site directly to consider banning this person.

He is taking up bandwidth and server space (which presumably someone is paying a lot of money for) to duplicate messages to do nothing else but to promote himself. This is not an issue of free speech, it is electronic graffiti and is vandalism pure and simple.

8. Eoin Colfer to write sixth Hitchhiker's Guide book

Comment #249538 by geehigh on September 18, 2008 at 9:00 am

Beeline

And even if it's good, what difference does it make? An impression of Douglas is not Douglas.

Of course you're right, but I'll give it a blast. At best it will be a fun read, and at worst the charity shop may get a couple of quid from it.

G :)

9. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249355 by geehigh on September 18, 2008 at 3:15 am

Good post kaph. Thanks.

Graham :)

10. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249312 by geehigh on September 18, 2008 at 1:17 am

Although it's easy to blame the Islamic government of Turkey for this banning, this nonsense is far more likely to be an example of the quirky Turkish legal system. I'm sure an appeal would overturn this just as easily as it was granted in the first place.

The thing is, is such an appeal warranted? The site is still available via proxies in Turkey as mentioned above. By being banned the issue is getting more attention for Professor Dawkins, his site, and his arguments, and the last thing the Turkish government want right now is too much negative publicity from the international community. They need outside finance (hence the non-fundamentalist yet 'hey we're all Muslims' nature of their administration), so they are unlikely to tolerate bad publicity for the sake of a convicted criminal.

I agree that the current Turkish government is also whacko, but don't worry about that. Once the Turks get bored with them (i.e policies hit trade) out they'll go.

Whilst I am not advocating being passive about this, in all probability this is a situation that could very well blow over in the near future.

G :)

11. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249080 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I really think people are being harsh on the BBC
At prime time it is expected that it will produce programmes that non-particle physcists will want to watch.

Maybe there is a market for TV that is aimed at degree level and higher science graduates but I just can't see the tax payer funding it (There is the Open University but that is at least partially privately funded)

I can't see where you are going with this argument, I am neither a particle physicist nor a science graduate. I fact I am not a scientist at all. History is my subject.

Wanting degree level programmes on prime time TV is not the issue, and to make out that it is obscures the central point. Nobody but an naive fool would expect degree level entertainment on prime time television.

It is very strange that whenever an observation is made that a science show is not good enough, it is automatically assumed that degree level programme is required.

Where is Horizon's audience? It used to be a general science magazine documentary series for a literate audience interested in finding out more about the subject. It used to be exciting and spine tingling, and never ever talked down to its audience. Best of all it never made assumptions of its audience about what it could and could not understand.

Nowadays in a world grossly and unjustifiably cynical about science and scientists, and where any audience has hundreds of other things to look at, a general science programme made to excite and stimulate has never been more needed. What do we get? Constant streams of artfully packaged sensationalist dreck. So I ask again, where is Horizon's audience?

Be honest, how many of us would have bothered to watch this programme at all if Professor Dawkins had not been featured on it?

Of course the BBC can be and is brilliant; again this is not the issue. If you want great science documentaries then they've got them in spades.

The BBCs natural history programmes remain the best broadcast anywhere, so its not as if they can't do it if they want to. The programmes by Iain Stewart are relentlessly stimulating, exciting and good. Why? Because unlike Horizon they do not treat the audience as drooling retards with the attention span of a goldfish.

Horizon doesn't deliver. Period.

12. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249014 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I wouldn't put it past them :)

13. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248867 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 4:57 am

Laurie FRASER!!

You know what's infuriating, geehigh? Being called Laurie "Fisher" :)

Argh! Sorry! What was I thinking??

My head is bowed with shame and dishonour, and I will be sure to iron my hands when I get home ;)

14. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248846 by geehigh on September 17, 2008 at 4:13 am

Laurie Fisher

The Kogarah Kid can be delightful or infuriating.

Agreed, but even when he is infurating James makes you think more deeply about the subject in question, and there's not many interviwers around that can do that.

EDIT: This should have been addressed to Laurie Fraser, but I typed in fisher because I'm an idiot.

Cheers

G :)

15. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248777 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Yep looks like my initial fears were justified; what a shame. It was more of a programme of people reminiscing with a few scary stories thrown in (announced well in advance by the NUKE-KILLER announcer, who quite plainly had no idea of what she was reading off her script).

Not exactly a chip off the old block was it?

The content was more of a history programme than a science one, and not a very good history programme at that. No quantity of eminent scientists added could save it from its editorial nose-dive.

The 'God's Rottweiler' joke was wheeled out again before Professor Dawkins could say a word. 'Pure Science Real Drama' eh? Do me a favour.

Camera work that was nausea inducing, together with sets from someone who thought he/she was remaking 'Gattaca' were the BBC's idea of deep and meaningful.

Science for Blair's Britain personified (I was going to say Brown but he doesn't count).

I don't care if I am regarded as a snob for saying the above. As far as I'm concerned the programme was an utterly wasted opportunity, and the overall experience was that of a 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. In short, a sales executive's wet dream.

Yes I did make it to the end, but I will not be watching any more Horizons. They can stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine in future.

No, I didn't like it very much.

16. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248526 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 11:40 am

Wow! An interview between two of my heroes!

Downloading now!

17. Creationism call divides Royal Society

Comment #248504 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Credit where it is due, Professor Reiss has made a correct and honourable decision.

18. Creationism call divides Royal Society

Comment #248456 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 9:15 am

Thank you Professor Dawkins for your input on this.

I agree with your observations on the perception of Doctor Reiss as 'a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society'. I also think that a witch-hunt (or anything that could be interpreted as one) is distasteful, but as I posted earlier on in another thread I really can't see how his position is tenable.

The back-lash Doctor Reiss is currently experiencing is going to happen again almost every time he says anything at all because of his duel position, and the inherent incompatibility of one with the other.

Perhaps there is an elegant way out of this, but I'm damned if I can see it.

Best wishes

Graham :)

19. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248056 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I didn't know that Yorker. That's interesting. Messing with the script and the soundtrack eh? The little devils!

whitepearl: Horizon sometimes does co-productions with WGBH Boston. That probably doesn't help because I don't know if that situation even applies here.

I think that the point of the show is an introduction to general science or current controversy in science using the presidential candidates as a narrative to glue it all together. I could be totally wrong here though. I'll find out on Tuesday :)

20. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #247985 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 11:58 am

Yeah, be a nice change for him to report on something that actually happened ;)

21. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #247982 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

Yep. Professor Reiss of course can cherish his own personal ideas, but when he goes public with the added cache of his Royal Society job, it looks like his words carry the full approval of the RS.

The prof has made a big boo-boo here and I can't see how his position is tenable.

22. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247969 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 11:37 am

Hi whitepearl

PBS usually carries BBC science stuff.

I can't speak for the nominees, but if you personally want to watch the programme, please drop me a PM. If you have a TV and a DVD player capable of playing PAL standard discs, I might be able to assist.

Best regards

G :)

23. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247931 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

Yorker

In its heyday it gave us The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, in my opinion the best science TV program ever

Agreed, a tremendous effort.

My personal fave though was Richard Feynman - No Ordinary Genius

Also special Shouts for:

The 3 Hubble Telescope programmes
Fermat's Last Theorem;
New Type of Carbon
Red Star in Orbit
Voyager 1 and 2

Yep I actually care about this show and its audience.

All the best

G :)

24. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247889 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 8:39 am

Hourglassmemory

For Dawkins and Watson to contribute to it, it doesn't mean it's going to be super dumb and depressive, because it's for the american people. Those comments are really unnecessary.

Get a grip people. As if Horizon has to be this tremendously academic lecture-series.

Again, nobody has said that. Horizon has been on British screens since 1968, and was in its time the finest science series on the air. Anywhere. All I am saying is that the programme has been dumbed down so much recently that it is a ghost of it's former self and I wish the backsliding would stop. That's all.

Where does anyone get the idea that it is going to be dumbed down 'because it's for American people'? What? It's a BBC show made for a UK audience. They're having some fun with the US elections. It probably won't even get sold to the United States.

I really resent the idea that any critcism of a TV SERIES (NOT ONE PROGRAMME THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN YET) means criticism of American people. That has not been said or inferred.

Also, just because I said a series of programmes has been not much use lately does not mean that I want it to be 'tremendously academic'. Where did that conflation come from? Fit for purpose will suit me just fine. I'll be delighted if it happens.

Horizon hasn't provided anything like that for at least the last 5 years though due to screwed up demographics, hence I voiced a concern with a couple of other people, and suddenly we're Hitler's aunties :)

All clear now? Sheesh!

25. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247834 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 7:06 am

Tell us, snobs, what else do you provide a world-view after reading ONE paragraph?

That I've got better much better things to do with my time than to waste it feeding trolls.

Have a nice day :)

26. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247778 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 4:36 am

The point is to 'inform and entertain' the audience, nothing more. If a candidate for whatever reason actually saw the programme it would make absolutely no difference to them or their policies. It may help some of their voters come to grips with current scientific issues if the programme is any good, and if it gets shown in the USA of course.

I'd hesitate to say that any American leaders have unfailing ignorance; they just do what just about every other leader in the world does. They go for power and finance. Of course the methodology involved in achieving the above varies from place to place...

27. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #247730 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 1:28 am

Agree with you gcdavis.

I'll watch the programme if for no other reason than to see if "Pure Science, Sheer Drama" Horizon has managed to pull itself out of the intellectual free-fall it's been indulging itself in for the last few years.

Irrelevant 'arty' camera-work, and a narrator patronisingly repeating points made 20 seconds after a speaker has said the very same thing seem to be the way things are done there now.

I live in hope, although I fear the worst.

Best wishes

Graham :)

28. Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Comment #246733 by geehigh on September 13, 2008 at 12:52 am

flying goose

'I have yet to meet a teacher that says 'sit down Jones' or its equivalent to anyone. This is a false fear.'

its no false fear, it happened to me quite alot.

I'm not saying it didn't.

What I am trying to say is to conflate the idea of the inappropriateness of teaching creationism as a topic in a science class, with the fear of encouraging teachers not to countenance questions from students at all is both tenuous and unhelpful.

29. Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Comment #246501 by geehigh on September 12, 2008 at 11:46 am

Hi Bonzai,

I have yet to meet a teacher that says 'sit down Jones' or its equivalent to anyone. This is a false fear.

But 'it's not on the syllabus' is unfortunately an option. This is quite simply because there is no time to do anything else, which is why education is in its current state. To blame teachers alone for this is seriously attacking the wrong target.

Target? Ah, yes there's the word...

We do not exist in a world where knowledge is taught for the pure joy of it. Turning out uncritical knowledgeable cabbages only capable of buying the latest shiny toy is what the government wants, and the system has been put in place to make sure they get it. Welcome to the reality of the British classroom. Not pretty eh?

Hi Frankuss!

Actually my wife does encourage questions regarding the incompatibility between evolution and creationism, but they hardly ever come. Doublethink rules. Sometimes she is approached after class, by a student fascinated that anyone could dare not believe in a creator. Truly it is a joy to watch when it happens.

30. Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Comment #246485 by geehigh on September 12, 2008 at 11:16 am

My wife is a Biology teacher here in the Midlands in a predominantly Muslim area, and if this nonsense ever gets any credibility (as it just might, one never knows. Anything to make a teacher's job harder, what?), then she will find herself out of a job.

Reason? Because she will point blank refuse to teach creationism in any form. She has already informed her boss of this.

Should she ever lose her job because of this creationist excrement, both the members of the education authority and the good Reverend Professor Reverend Person Michael Reiss will have to relearn how to sit, because we'll both sue their idiotic arses clean off.

There can be no compromise here. Creationist hoods do not play by the same rules.

Let it be yelled from very responsible rooftop regardless of whoever it irritates: CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE AND NEVER WILL BE, AND MUST NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM!!!

Philosophy or 'Theory of Knowledge' classes maybe. But science classes? Never ever EVER!

Point made?

Good.

Best wishes

Graham.

31. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241656 by geehigh on September 3, 2008 at 12:55 am

Many things can (and have) been said about Obama, but Communist? Er...

Support who you like Quant old chap, but please tone down the Ann Coulter-esque rhetoric. You do your cause no good.

32. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #231751 by geehigh on August 17, 2008 at 2:07 am

To Justaminute or anyone else who gives credibility to the argument from design.

It is far too tedious to constantly repeat the same old arguments against your viewpoints on this forum.

Instead, I would respectfully recommended that you watch RD's 'Growing Up in the Universe' lectures (specifically lectures 3 and 5), and Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos - Episode 2: One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue'.

Not only will you find your position challenged and refuted, but you find that it is done so through practical examples.

33. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204570 by geehigh on July 5, 2008 at 9:16 am

"formerly called 'Babble'"!?

34. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #164277 by geehigh on April 20, 2008 at 12:47 am

Thanks for posting this up. Great stuff!

35. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #148461 by geehigh on March 23, 2008 at 6:21 am

I notice the BBC seem intent upon endlesly suggesting Clarke was a child abuser (the above release and the news reports on the day - at least the above states the charges were false, but fails to give the full story and then makes an even more suggestive remark about Clarke's lifestyle 'raising a few eyebrows'). No other release or news channel hammered the incident home or to such disgusting extent.

In fairness BBC Radio 4 did a much better job, but agreed, this sensationalist (dare I say voyeuristic?) nonsense shouldn't have been given houseroom at all.

Still why let facts get in the way of a good story, eh? That seems to be the problem that all of us have to confront sooner or later, I suppose.

36. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148106 by geehigh on March 22, 2008 at 5:10 am

I wonder if PZ got his admission fee back?

I also wonder if any of us will be debarred from parting with our cash when this 'thing' becomes available for hire or purchase on DVD?

37. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #147241 by geehigh on March 20, 2008 at 4:17 am

Thought someone else might mention the 1998 rumor's of pedophilia. Yes, unproven, but... no smoke without fire?

From the Sunday Mirror? Are you kidding?? If they ran a story that we were all living on Planet Earth, I would have to go out and check...

38. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #147233 by geehigh on March 20, 2008 at 4:01 am

I first encountered Arthur C Clarke after reading an abridged story of his in a children's magazine called 'Speed and Power' (anybody remember that?). I have been a big fan ever since, and reading him got me 'into' the classic sci-fi of Clarke, Heinlein, Niven, Pournelle, and Asimov. I supposed (quite irrationally) that Mr. Clarke was always going to be around.

Goodbye Mr. Clarke, and thank you.