1001. The Group Delusion

Comment #112331 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 9:13 pm

208. Comment #112326 by DasSquid on January 16, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Guys. Just calm down.

This is precisely what we shouldn't be doing, both a.) Veering wildly off topic of the forum, and b.) Fighting amongst ourselves and throwing abuse all over the place.

Normally I welcome the abuse slinging and whatnot, but this is the only area in my life where I'm serious about things, so let's keep it serious. Except of course for Diacanu as he's serious about the subject AND aptly able to use abuse in his retorts.

1002. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112327 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 8:50 pm

I believe that in the spirit of this common bond, sympathy and encouragement should not be extended only to those who believe as I do. This is exactly what Jesus taught.


I have never had sex... It is a simple matter of self-control.

1003. The Group Delusion

Comment #112320 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 8:20 pm

195. Comment #112280 by wooter on January 16, 2008 at 5:29 pm

a memo to mesomodel

Too shameful for atheists, you would turn Darwin in his grave. But we have got a rule, bad words and bad acts belong to the mouth it pops up. So what is in your mind reflects to your mouth. Thank you for describing your private life with others. I am telling you mesomodel, you are not a good model for the atheits.

1004. The Group Delusion

Comment #112301 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 7:42 pm

You would be hard pressed to find your own arse without the assistance of both hands, a flashlight, a highly trained arse sniffing dog and a team of dedicated spelunkers.

1005. The Group Delusion

Comment #112284 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 6:11 pm

195. Comment #112280 by wooter on January 16, 2008 at 5:29 pm

a memo to mesomodel

Too shameful for atheists, you would turn Darwin in his grave. But we have got a rule, bad words and bad acts belong to the mouth it pops up. So what is in your mind reflects to your mouth. Thank you for describing your private life with others. I am telling you mesomodel, you are not a good model for the atheits.

1006. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112283 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Just because I can't right now see any situation in which I would consider those things you mention acceptable does not mean there is some independent standard separate from humanity. I am not sure what "100% Wrong" actually means, any more than I know what "100% smelly" means.

1007. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112246 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Oh dear.

When a report from an institute of the calibre of the National Academy of Science endorses the untenable notion of NOMA, something is desperately wrong.

BAEOZ put his finger on it unerringly, before erringly involving himself in an evolutionary debate continuing still!

The otherwise magnificent Eugenie Scott falls into this trap as well, and in both the NAS and Scott's case there seems to be a reluctance, in their attempts to educate, to upset theists whatsoever.

It surely cannot be stressed enough that pandering to superstitious supernaturalism is a relinquishing of the scientific method.

How many more will simply ignore Dawkins' notion that a universe with a god is scientifically a very different universe from one without?

The god question is, beyond all attempts by theologians and the faithful to deny it, a scientific question.

How sadly and shamefully the NAS has reduced its import by this cowardly article.

Best,
Styrer

1008. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112190 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Paula: Nothing specific. Just that it's a point to keep up our sleeves for the next time someone tries to tell you that to be atheist is to be unAmerican, since America and Christianity go hand in hand and that was the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

1009. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112150 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm

All very interesting, but can anyone hazard a guess of the actual probabilities of such a change coming to pass.....

1010. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112143 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm

90. Comment #112111 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Perhaps we can salvage one lone ray of hope from this otherwise dismal story: at least this is confirmation from a conservative Christian that the American Constitution, as it currently stands, is NOT, after all, based on Christian values! Isn't this what we have been saying all along?! Surely such a concession could prove useful to us, if we use it properly?

1011. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111943 by Styrer- on January 16, 2008 at 3:40 am

I actually think this is great.

He's finally, unequivocally spelled out the deal we all knew anyway was his and his kind's real agenda. He's just handed us a ticket permitting us to denounce his terrifying ambitions even more robustly and assertively. Hope the media coverage is huge on this one.

Hopefully even the religious 'mods' will be shocked by this - if there's anything I've noticed Americans holding as dearly as their 'faith', it's their beloved Constitution (and rightly so).

Nice one.

Best,
Styrer

1012. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111523 by Styrer- on January 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Wishing you a successful operation, Mr. Scales.

Congratulations on your Croix de Guerre and all respect to you for helping RDFRS in its vital work.

All good wishes,
Sean Tyrer
Dublin

1013. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110403 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 5:53 am

There must be something about this religion that creates alot of atheists. You're raised to "debunk" every other religion out there, and when you finally realize your religion is as baseless as the others, you're finally free.

1014. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110392 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 5:20 am

I am astonished how many ridicule Hitchens because they disagree with one or two of his views. It is an "if you disagree with me you must be insane or stupid" attitude that is shameful.

1015. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110386 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 5:01 am

Let's get this straight, Melisande

Garp

Hitchens is a university frat-boy wannabe with his frat-boy childish jokes.
Unfortunately his misogyny has become quite evident in his last few talks and written commentaries.

+1 to Garp

such a snide little bombast

I'm reticent to watch this because of Hitchens' presence.

1016. The Group Delusion

Comment #110320 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 1:42 am

Dawkins is nearly there. It surely has to be:

'Son of a...God Delusion'

Maybe more for our American cousins.

I'll stop now.

Best,
Styrer

1017. The Group Delusion

Comment #110308 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 1:01 am

Unfortunately much of the content of this site is negative in tone, focussing on the debunking of religion, rather than positively exploring that which is real.

1018. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110302 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 12:18 am

Steve Zara and Styrer: we have to agree to differ then.

1019. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110295 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Garp and Melisande

What a lot you really are missing out on.

I am sure that I am doing the right thing by replying to such snivelling little toads as yourselves, but I suspect other members here may take me to task on engaging with you at all, and if not on that, then on the manner in which I am about to do so.

And I almost want to disagree with him on religion just because he's such a snide little bombast

1020. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110270 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 7:58 pm

SMART

Thanks for the nod.

But I must express linguistic concern over your two capitalised possessive adjectives and your capitalised subject pronoun.

Having trouble shrugging it off completely?

I shall reluctantly let 'Witnesses' and 'God' go through on this occasion...

Best,
Styrer

1021. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110265 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Homo economicus (fabulous name, BTW)

Thanks for the referral to your history. Clearly Douglas Adams' influence looms large here, and understandably so, given the genius and sheer wonderful 'humanness' (absent so often and so conspicuously in the faithful) this much-missed man showed in his writings and in his all too few screen appearances.

May your story be added with your permission to DCogswell's imminent compilation! It would be an important addition.

Finally, and perhaps pedantically, may I ask you to explain the distinction between personal freedom and individual liberty in your statement: 'Secularism is about protecting personal freedom and individual liberty.'

If it is simply enthusiastic repetition, no problem, but I wondered if you intended something I haven't quite grasped.

Best,
Styrer

1022. The Group Delusion

Comment #110257 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Of course, this also be an attempt to further confuse Mary Midgley...

1023. The Group Delusion

Comment #110249 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Whenever I again start to feel sorry for the Professor faced with distortion upon misinterpretation upon downright falsehood from the faithful's reaction to his work on religion, I'll re-visit this thread, I think.

Witnessing his devastating retorts to duplicitous fellow scientists, I see he is more than equal to the task of taking on the duplicitous faithheads. I shall henceforward reserve my pity for those, unlike this site's inspiring escapee Strigoia, still trapped horribly by the force religion exerts.

the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter-truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie.

1024. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110200 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 4:00 pm

DCogswell

Well said. Hopefully such a collection would prove more than simply 'inspiring'.

It is suggestions like this that I am very anxious to see put in train.

The vast majority of us will unfortunately never be able to engage with large numbers of people a la Dawkins et al, and so it is by smaller, but no less significant, efforts like this that considerable advancements may be made.

So DCogswell - what are you doing still reading this post? Get busy!

Best,
Styrer

1025. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110051 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 11:55 am

I could not disagree more. You don't persuade people that they are wrong by making them feel ridiculed and stupid. That makes people angry and defensive. You persuade people they are wrong by careful persuasion in various forms.

1026. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110048 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 11:46 am

Strigoia

What a stirring, inspirational story - thank you so much for taking the time to share it.

As Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, Dawkins is repeatedly on record stating his concern that faith is fundamentally and unavoidably in conflict with science and reason, such that proper education can be compromised. How horribly real and pressing this concern is made by those nauseating words of your friend's father: 'I can't imagine what you can learn in school that will help you more than devoting this time to the ministry.' Your testimony could be a useful addition to the Professor's arsenal of examples of the pernicious effects of religion on education. Should be right up his 'Public Understanding' street!

Your numerous admirable activities post-theism yet again demolish the perverse notion of the theists that there can be no morality or genuinely good deeds without belief in a deity. Until the next time their 'idee fixe' makes an appearance, of course.

Again, thank you - your story illustrates precisely the issues this site, as I see it, seeks to confront. I look forward to reading your take on many future topics on these threads.

All good wishes,
Styrer

1027. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #109946 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 6:12 am

That is a sad history, Strigoia

Do you mind if I ask how your de-conversion came about? Were there any significant events, realisations, texts etc. that influenced it particularly?

Once an atheist, was it uniformly easy to take confidence in your new position? Did you have any lingering doubts at all?

The testimony of individuals such as yourself is genuinely fascinating and educative, and so I hope you are not offended or bothered by my questions in any way.

Best,
Styrer

1028. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109944 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 5:58 am

I think it is fantastic that the Professor appears on programmes like this. A remorseless 'drip technique' of such appearances is a vital part of the fight between reason and supernatural superstition.

We all owe the Professor an immense debt of gratitude for engaging in this way with the media and spreading the message, especially when the programmes involved are, er, perhaps not exactly of the type we associate with an Oxford Professor!

Marvellous.

Best,
Styrer

1029. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109391 by Styrer- on January 9, 2008 at 1:30 am

This article confused me (where did the non-sequitur and ridiculous requirement for 'appropriate respect' spring from, especially in a so-called 'irreverent' organ?) until I understood the lamentable probable 'reasoning' behind it.

Absolutely not more 'respectful' towards religion than Dawkins' own, Hitchens' language often dances around the religious issues in (entertainingly) rather self-consciously erudite manner and lofty style, whereas the Professor's own use of language is devastatingly and unwaveringly precise and direct, mostly forgoing the sweepingly majestic, entertaining but perhaps not wholly necessary digressions typical of Hitchens.

When sheer precision of language is ignorantly confused with 'lack of respect' and with 'vitriolic diatribe' by shoddy critiques like this one, simply because of the content to which such precise language is applied, public commentary is in a sorry state indeed.

And applying the term 'misanthrope' to the man whose writings have done more than anyone else's to make me reflect on the wonder of humankind and of the world surely exempts this particular commentator from making any further public statements on the issue.

Best,
Styrer

1030. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107127 by Styrer- on January 4, 2008 at 6:40 am

82abhilash

I'm grateful for your courtesy in responding more or less directly to the points I made earlier, and for seeking some common ground we can share.

That said, I am in profound disagreement with what I see as the key points of your post – the nature of dogmatism, of ant-theism, and of the transcendental.

I disagree with your idea that there is a very fine line between dogma and passionate support for an idea. The difference between them is fundamental and vitally important in all attempts to support what most here seek to achieve – the primacy of reason over superstitious supernaturalism. The 'passion' for one is in no way whatsoever of the same kind as the other, and the effects of both types are equally distinct.

Dogmatism is fundamentally impervious to reason, and hence to change or modification. Anti-theism, by contrast, is a reasoned, robust and passionate rebuttal to the unreasonable, dogmatic, inflexible claims of theism. To continue to attach a quality of 'insanity' to it, as you do, or of 'dogmatism' is to absolutely misrepresent or misunderstand its import.

Anti-theism does not only cover the idea of opposition to theism but also the idea of anti-religion, and the Hitch's own falls into both camps, I think. If we accept atheism as meaning simply an absence of belief in deities, then every time someone on this site makes a post condemning, despairing at, or simply stating their incomprehension at the latest pernicious, unfair manifestations of the theists, that poster goes beyond atheism and takes up an anti-theistic stance to the theists, often in all but clear use of the name. If you agree with the sense I am giving to these terms, I wonder how it is possible that you can continue to insist on anti-theism being 'potentially toxic', 'insane' etc. To me, anti-theism is the clearest, most intellectually honest form of opposition to the irrational claims made by the faithful. In no way is it 'a crude backlash ideology', or indeed an 'ideology' of any type whatsoever.

The transcendent, or the numinous, as Hitch refers to it (and which he is on record as saying that he regrets not emphasising enough in his encounters with the faithful) has no need whatsoever of the divine. It is actually rendered less potent and less worthy when in fact dependent on the divine, I think. This is where Harris is right on the money in his (often misunderstood) appeals to explore our 'spiritual' side. If he is simply saying that by adjusting or training our attention to experience more fully the full force of our own humanity, then his appeals strike me as appeals to the transcendental without recourse to superstitious supernaturalism whatsoever. Thus, I disagree completely with your assertion with reference to anti-theism that 'the most obvious [weakness is] that you deny yourself the chance to find natural explanations for the 'transcendent experiences' which the religious claim to have monopoly on'. Is it not, in fact, precisely the opposite? Is it not the case that a full-blown, intellectually honest anti-theistic stance is a more worthy precursor of finding 'natural explanations' for our transcendent experiences, and of what you term the 'emerging' study of religion as a natural phenomenon?

Your insistence on the 'dogmatic', 'insane' nature as you see it of anti-theism is really in danger of handing, wrongly, far too much to the theistic camp, to which your criticisms can be far more justly applied.

Best,
Styrer

1031. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105599 by Styrer- on January 1, 2008 at 7:27 am

Absolutely fascinating. A nice way to start the year.

It could be an even nicer year all round if the superstitious supernaturalists have the courage to take a leaf from the Professor's book.

Best for 2008 to y'all,
Styrer

1032. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105497 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Hello Plum

The word is 'numinous' - relating to the transcendental.

Best,
Styrer

1033. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105269 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 3:36 am

Incredulous

Would you like me to treat you as a 3D or a 2D guy in any replies I make to you?

Genuine question.

Best,
Styrer

1034. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105264 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 3:10 am

92. Comment #105261 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 3:02 am

Suggest you enrol yourself some in some anger management classes, Styrer.

Wipe the spittle off your screen before you go.

[Edit - occurs to me that you might have been joking above - please say if you were!]

1035. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105262 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 3:05 am

Styrer

Whats this?


When I read crap like this, I wonder if, in fact, you are nothing more than a clever web-based search engine result, whose designer is using semi-appropriate words to support some esoteric desire to be here.



Dr Benway is one of the funniest posters on here with a very sharp, intelligent mind and who, in my humble opinion, I have a lot of respect for. I think you are very wrong to call her vacuous and I suggest you apologise or its custard pies all round!

Philip

1036. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105260 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 2:56 am

Speaking of gender stereotypes I thought it was women that were meant to be oversensitive and prone to flying off the handle emotionally?

Also, in relation to the careful use of language, I think a reduction of the amount of times some posters use the word 'fuck' might be a good thing.

Nothing against it in the abstract - it can be a amazingly useful word at times. I very occasionally use it myself. This is because it can cut through bullshit like a sword.

However, when swords are overused they get blunt.

1037. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105234 by Styrer- on December 31, 2007 at 12:35 am

Styrer, let's understand where you're coming from. First, just answer this: Stereotyping, although ethically questionable, had an advantage somewhere along line of our evolution as a social species. Furthermore, in some ways it may still benefit us as individuals attempting to navigate modern society. Do you agree with these statements or disagree? Why or why not?

1038. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105225 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 11:32 pm

It's possible. And we all no doubt do that. Hopefully, there's room too in a rational mind to alter our ideas when evidence points against them.

1039. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105220 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 11:15 pm

And that is the rub. You can't see it. You probably don't get it. No offence. But one man's cuppa is another man's poison.
I thought Dr. B's post that you quoted was too generous to the average person. I don't reckon I (assuming I'm average) could give a good description of 200 separate people with whom I'm acquainted in any unique sense. I'd say Bob was a wanker, like Jim. Not taking into account Bob's unique take on onanism. Thus a stereotype, however ill fitting like a hand is to a .... is used.
We use schemata to group people based on similar characteristics to compensate for our lack of brain power. Hence stereotypes and cliches. They're heuristics that allow us to get by pretty well, most of the time. Not that rational or perfect, but good enough.....

Good enough for a creature that evolved in small groups that is. Which explains a bit of the common outgroup hostility that we see. Which is not to say that cultural evolution can't smooth a few of the sharper edges...

1040. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105216 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 10:58 pm

And that is the rub. You can't see it. You probably don't get it. No offence. But one man's cuppa is another man's poison.
I thought Dr. B's post that you quoted was too generous to the average person. I don't reckon I (assuming I'm average) could give a good description of 200 separate people with whom I'm acquainted in any unique sense. I'd say Bob was a wanker, like Jim. Not taking into account Bob's unique take on onanism. Thus a stereotype, however ill fitting like a hand is to a .... is used.
We use schemata to group people based on similar characteristics to compensate for our lack of brain power. Hence stereotypes and cliches. They're heuristics that allow us to get by pretty well, most of the time. Not that rational or perfect, but good enough.....

Good enough for a creature that evolved in small groups that is. Which explains a bit of the common outgroup hostility that we see. Which is not to say that cultural evolution can't smooth a few of the sharper edges...

1041. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105213 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 10:48 pm

AtheistJon

You do not understand my hostility?

Can you not read?

Which words did you not understand?

Did you actually read my post?

I understand your own obnoxious, bullying, non-sensical words rather too well.

You fail to engage on points of concern; you embellish, ferociously, areas not introduced between us; and you distortedly present, shamelessly, ideas you deem important which have no bearing on our current discussion.

The letter of your word seems to me to be 'railroad'.

Fuck off.

Styrer

1042. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105203 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm

At any given point in time, I think humans can do a fair job holding in mind a reasonably sophisticated representation of about 200 unique individuals. Beyond that, the sketches get thin.

1043. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105199 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Styrer, please enlighten me with why this is a hole? I'm not religious about any particular presentation style... do you think you can get away with a presentation style where you just stand in front of an audience, hands in pockets, and read verbatim off a prompter and expect to have an impression on anybody? Or better yet, just have a voice synthesizer do your presentation for you, and stay home? Or do you have a better method in mind?

How is what I was taught in presentation training, wrong? How is this a deepening hole?

1044. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105193 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Sexual stereotypes annoy be because they so often don't fit real people very well, yet they do capture something familiar. Example: boys like to play rough-and-tumble games outdoors; girls wear pink and prefer to play in doors with baby dolls.

Each time I fit someone to a stereotype, I know I'm shrinking a 3D person to a 2D caricature. But could I live without these oversimplified, crude typecasts? Sadly, no.

1045. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105187 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 8:44 pm

I think you misunderstood this. What the training was saying is that when you are trying to get a message through to another person only 7% of the message will be transmitted with the words alone. Not that the words were only 7% important.

1046. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105180 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Styrer. I wasn't saying that this presentation style is the way humans should communicate. Merely the way we do communicate. Perhaps it's the animal in us that doesn't live solely on bit streams of information... humans aren't computers... we have all these other trains of thoughts going through our mind, like, this guy's an idiot. This guy's gay. I'd like to fuck her (sorry women) ;-) -- They say that people think about sex at least once every minute or something outrageously high on that order (witness all the comments on this blog so far talking about sex), so you wonder how people can concentrate on their Bloggings.

1047. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105171 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm

AtheistJon

I hope neither you nor Steve, to whom your post was addressed, mind that I venture to suggest to you: what a load of shite.

I note that you, as a 'presentation trainee', were among the group so pre-occupied with visual presentation (poor saps - it is, after all, your job) that only 7% of you recognise 'content of words' as important with other humans!

What a magnificent triumph of style over substance! You must be very proud.

No, sir. Words have become even more self-evidently important because of the internet. Example? I read what you write. I think. I conclude: Bollocks. And I submit my refutation to you, with words doing everything they have ever been required to do.

I do not doubt the affectatious effects of your profession, nor the importance of the occasional hand-gesture to support a well-made point; but it is through words, and words only, that real understanding is ever made.

Best,
Styrer

1048. Monkey, Business

Comment #105160 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Ignoramus that I am on this, I need to hear the expert on this important topic. Alone, I'm lost.

Professor Dawkins, you are required here.

Pray communicate.

Best,
Styrer

1049. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105152 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Comment #105149 by Steve Zara on December 30, 2007 at 6:17 pm

In what way do they save you time?


I have given up attempting to derive meaning from the posts of the respected (and I mean that in all honesty) Dr Benway. I have been told I have no sense of humour, but I am learning that I also have no sense of irony. Others have said I have have no sense. So I am increasingly finding that the only posts on this site I am really confident of the meaning of are trolls.

When I was a University lecturer, I was given advice about how to talk to people. A talk should be in three stages:

1. Say what you are going to say.
2. Say it, clearly.
3. Summarise what you have said.

On the internet, (1) and (3) are redundant. The problem is that just about everybody also misses (2).

1050. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105147 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.