301. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237402 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Cheers, Smith. Most of the time I post too quickly on this site :) The only things I feel particularly strongly about are physics and, er, well, ok just physics. Because I know something about it. Everything else is just sort of vague opinion.

I have to run off now, but I shall peruse the comments after a nice dose of Miss Marple.

302. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237398 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Comment #237393 by thewhitepearl

cute

303. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237394 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

\begin{offtopic}
Yeah, this comments thing is a bit odd. For me, after I have submitted a comment it appears at the bottom of my screen so that I can update and modify it, and it also appears on the main body of the screen. But if, as often happens, it gets posted onto the next page of comments, I have to do a full "no cache" refresh with Ctrl F5 to get the next page's link to appear. And I have to do this, too, just to get another fresh text box to appear so that I can post again.
\end{offtopic}

304. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237390 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Smith,

Sorry, one more comment. I've re-read your comment 80 a few times, just to be sure I've got what you were saying, and I do think you have a point. Which is rather annoying. But in that case, if Myers knows that David Campbell is a theist, why would the answer be described as chicken-hearted in the first place? How can an answer be cowardly or scaredey-cat-like without being attributed some of the emotions of the person whose answer it was?

305. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237383 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Hi Smith.

I always seem to wade in with my big size 12s where I shouldn't, but I did wade in so...

If someone, let's say it's me, says something that is stupid, and I am told: "That answer was stupid", well you have taken the approach that I was advised in one of my awful "Managing Expectations" courses at work: attack the ideas and not the person. If someone feels very strongly about something then, as we see daily with the religious, attacking the idea is tantamount to attacking the person. Which is not to say that one should not attack the ideas (or the person) but I really do think that there is no real distinction between using an emotion-laden word or phrase to describe a person's idea, and being essentially saying the same about the person.

I don't feel very strongly about my idea, to be honest. I happen to think it is right, at the moment.

My comment was originally intended more as a comment on the way that I also really do think that hairs are being split quite regularly on many posts on this site. Many of us (including me) find it very annoying when someone, e.g. quotes person X as saying that god is blue and how absurd this is, only to be told that person X said god was red, so you haven't refuted his argument at all. This sort of thing goes on quite often, I feel.

306. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237374 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm

IANAA (I am not an anthropologist) but the discomfort that I think almost everyone would feel towards the deliberate dismemberment of a corpse for fun or to make a point is, I think, a good reason for its being regarded as unethical. I know that this is appealing to the "icks" factor, but there is a strong contribution of ick in our ethics. It's all very debatable, of course, and I am not entirely sure of my own (shifting) position on this, but I don't think we should discount deep-seated feelings on what is right and wrong entirely when it comes to morals.

Of course, making the distinction between "heart" and "head" for a moment, when I think about it in what I suppose is the rational way, I cannot really see what is wrong with playing football with a corpse's head, for example, if the person has been long long long dead and, as someone mentioned earlier, there is no one alive today who has the slightest memory of him/her.

307. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237365 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 11:47 am

IQ tests are regarded by the clever as accurate, the mediocre as depressing, and by the stupid as false.

308. The heretic

Comment #237252 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 8:55 am

Sounds like a bit of a big-mouth, but he clearly had a clear-mind as well.

309. The heretic

Comment #237248 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 8:53 am

Hi huzonfirst,

I know you were joking, but I would think that no one in the Western world has done it, if only because of the rather strict laws about animal experimentation.

You also need the human eggs to try it with. The reason I said human eggs and chimp sperm rather than vice versa was that chimp sperm would be easier to get than chimp eggs, I think, again because of the aforementioned laws.

(I am, of course, just guessing and opining about all that stuff)

Of course, fertilising (or trying to fertilise) the egg is not the good bit; doing it under controlled conditions to see what happens in micro detail would be the good bit.

A shame I did not do any biology post-GCSE. I have no idea if different numbers of chromosomes are a barrier to reproduction. I suppose that people with various chromosomal trisomies can reproduce with "normal" people.

310. The heretic

Comment #237217 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 8:12 am

Cartomancer,

Reading your comment, I was suddenly struck by how the anti-stem cell movement is carrying on those wonderful 16th century traditions!

Also reminded me of the conversation with Richard Leakey in the Darwin programme (whose 3 parts I finally managed to watch back-to-back last night - and it was fab) when he mentions that humans and chimpanzees might be able to, you know... And I suddenly thought to myself: Yeah! Now that would be a brilliant experiment to try. Get some eggs from a human, get some sperm from a chimp (just stand in front of one at the zoo long enough with a cup in front of you should do the trick), mix'em up in a tube, and Bob's your uncle. Great stuff. Then I started thinking about why it is that I really, honestly, do not have any problem at all with that kind of experiment, and yet so many other people would.

Odd, huh?

311. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237211 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 8:01 am

Hair splitting seems to be quite a pastime here. You can say that I am missing the point entirely, but there does not seem to be any real, substantive difference between saying, for example, "your views are silly" and "you are silly".

(EDIT: Other than the way in which the point may be taken)

So, I am agreeing with beeline here. In saying that what someone has said is cowardly, then you are, by implication, whether you like it or not, or whether you even intended it, saying that that person is cowardly. If this is not true, then we may as well say that no one is ever actually saying anything about a person but is always saying it about the way that person behaves.

So, I'm not an idiot, I'm just "behaving idiotically". I'm not violent per se I am just "being violent".

312. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237190 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 7:12 am

I do wonder, though, what the laws actually are that govern what happens to one's body after death. Do I own it? I still own my property, in some sense, seeing as I am allowed to specify to whom it is given.

Lots of fiction has been written around peculiar stipulations in wills, but I wonder how much legal weight is actually applied to these. Can I, for whatever reason, actually legally require, for example, that a person is allowed to inherit my vast sums of cash only if they wear a blue hat and sing Waltzing Matilda in Brent Cross shopping centre every July 24th?

313. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237187 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 7:10 am

I'm with carbonman on this one. Every now and then I'll find myself musing on the topic of funerals and their arrangements - for example, my landlady was redoing her will not too long ago and she was talking about what music she would like at her funeral. And, because the topic has come up, I find myself starting to think: hmm, yeah, what songs would I like? Hmm, let me think...

... and then I'll snap out of it and realise that I am thinking utter bollocks. I really don't give a stuff what happens to me after I'm dead. People can do whatever the hell they want. For all I care (and for all I will ever know, of course) they could dress me up in a tutu, paint my face orange and have a great big sing-a-long about what a devout Christian I was, while reading out my "favourite" passages of the Old Testament.

I find it very very hard (nigh on impossible) to even care mildly about what people do to or for me after I am dead. I must have a bit of my brain missing.

314. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235438 by Sargeist on August 23, 2008 at 4:04 am

D'Arcy,

His intention is to lead us into a land of confusion.

315. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235435 by Sargeist on August 23, 2008 at 4:01 am

Mitchell,

I don't see the distinction! But never mind. I am now thinking that maybe I would have done better in life if I had had teachers who had encouraged more thought. But the onus should probably have been on me.

316. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235429 by Sargeist on August 23, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #235424 by Mitchell Gilks

It can't be just me, because there were loads of other people in my classes (unless I imagined them, brain-vat-like), but I really do remember my schooling as being told things are are true, and having to learn them.

But this may come down to what you mean by "how to think for themselves". Does being told something is true, not quite understanding it, and going off to read textbooks until I do understand it count as "thinking for myself"? It seems to me that that is actually more like "becoming convinced that the teacher was right in the first place".

317. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235215 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Most educated Christians (in Europe at least) choose to reinterpret the Bible where it contradicts science, rather than to reject science

Who was it said "necessity is the mother of invention"?

318. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235169 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Poe's Law strikes again.

319. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235157 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:32 pm

teapot: No, of course gay men do not have sex. What on earth are you thinking of? If gay men were to have sex it would be an abomination and the world would have ended by now.

Oh shi-

320. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235138 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:12 pm

debacles, I know that it took a long time for people to get convinced by it, but I actually think that evolution by natural selection is really easy to get the basics of. And it all comes down, for me, to my opinion that it essentially "works itself" and, as I have said elsewhere, cannot "not work".

I am probably naive, but I just think that if people were asked whether they accept that some organisms will have more offspring than others, that this is likely to be affected by how easily they are snacked on by predators, for example, and so on and so on, then it just seems that it is obvious that it is all true. And really, for the life of me, I can't see what the problem is with macroevolution.

321. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235135 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm

"Atheists like Richard Dawkins are promoting homosexuality in our classrooms and supermarkets, seemingly oblivious to the harm that their strident demands are wreaking on our children. Where would be without God? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, and spare a thought for poor Cartomancer will you?"

322. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235122 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm

biscuit: It must just have been my college then!

Steve:
Those damned gay men having all the sex, and not leaving any for anyone else, it's not fair!

323. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235103 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Comment #235079 by D'Arcy

Would that be the programme with Ching-He Huang? Whether to change channels - Damn, that'd be a hard choice to make.

EDIT: I realise that I shouldn't simply make lascivious comments. So, does anyone else here wonder if, just maybe, the question asked by one of the pupils at the start of episode 1 - (paraphrasing): "Why should we learn about evolution?" - was fed by the programme makers?

I only ask because it just didn't seem like the sort of thing a student would ask. I mean, when I was learning about the parts of speech in English or about integration by parts in maths, it never occurred to me to say "Hey, why should we learn this stuff?"

324. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235054 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 11:45 am

I am baffled by the use of the word "promote". My understanding of the connotations is that it means that something is being presented not merely as "acceptable" but as something that is actively encouraged and argued as "the right way".

It is as if no one is able to say "I think X" without people somehow hearing this as "X is the only normal way to behave". Simply look at the way that talking about homosexual rights suddenly becomes "promoting homosexuality". The word is full of crazies.

325. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #235028 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 11:19 am

Quetz, from what I can tell, the Atheist's Handbook is currently available only in "on the side of a cricket bat" format.

EDIT: I see Paula has found it on another thread.

326. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #235022 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 11:14 am

Now this is news to me, and I don't (honestly) mean that in a sarcastic way. The Catholic church in Uganda has a policy of encouraging condom use? I know that we shouldn't all jump up and down when silly people finally get the right idea, but isn't this ABC thing, at least a Good Thing?

I have often said that I have never knowingly met a sensible Catholic, but can't we acknowledge a bit of sense when we see it? (Assuming it is true)

327. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234910 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 7:12 am

I love Jonathan Miller. His Rough History of Disbelief program was superb: "This is not going to be 'Walking with Atheists'" - genius!

My favourite quote? Well, there are so many good bits in it but describing Israel as "the largest outdoor lunatic asylum in the world" was definitely very funny.

328. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234906 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 7:08 am

I get left behind because all you others seem to have huge amounts of time to post here :'(

Er.. Paula, sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick earlier: I went back and re-read what you had actually said about Robertson's book and, yes, it is true that you didn't say that his book was actually any good. But I still would like to stick to my previous point that advertising likes to make the best of everything.

Others: Annoyingly, I still have not watched any of the Dawkins' Darwin epsiodes. I keep wanting to sit down and watch them with my beloved, but she is not all that interested. Damn. I *did* though, watch the Dawkins at Berkeley talk last night - the one with the Marcus Brigstock bit, and with the "all aged 4" bit. I enjoyed it immensely...

... and I should probably be writing this on the relevant thread. Damn. Anyway, ploughing valiantly on, I found the "all aged 4" part and the spoofs of the journal articles about dinosaurs to be particularly effective. Something entirely new that I had not seen Richard doing before, and I could detect a faint note of "grr, bloody religion really pisses me off", which I liked a lot from him. He is often so damned polite, don't you think?

329. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234860 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 5:51 am

Back to the article for a mo: does anyone else here wish they could be Prime Minister just so they could tell Rowan Williams that there is no one home?

330. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234830 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 5:00 am

This reminds me of: "From the moment I picked up your book to the moment I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."

Does Robertson's book fill a much-needed gap?

331. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234828 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 4:56 am

Or try ... God ... Oh, hang on

332. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234821 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 4:41 am

Quetz, how about:

More ... for ... DR's ... evil, deranged ... atrocities

333. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234814 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 4:26 am

Paula,

I don't think I would mind too much about quotes being taken out of context and used to advertise books - this is what publishers do all the time. It is not specific to the flea case.

As an example, I really love Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, but some of them have not been as good as others. However, in a very large number of the Discworld hardbacks I own there is a quote on the inside cover from the Guardian saying "a sequence of unalloyed delight". Hmm, but this is the same quote that has been used for about 10 or more books now. Is the sequence *still* an unalloyed delight? Isn't it dishonest to take a quote about, maybe, the first 8 books and continue to use it after, maybe, 25 of them?

But, you know, hey ho, it's advertising. And you really *did* mean that it was the best of a bad bunch, didn't you?

334. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234810 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 4:18 am

Lazarus,

It would be so easy for god or gods to let us puny humans know how they wanted us to behave, and your suggestion there is one idea that I have often thought would be the way to semi-convince me. Surely a god would know that we poor feeble primates have a tendency to forget things, so It would reason that we'd need one prophet for each major land-mass, taking into account the ease with which that prophet's story could be transmitted among the world's population, and this would have to be a regular occurrence, say once every 30 years or so. and it is always happened on the same date, or in line with a particular astronomical event, then it would be reproducible, verifiable, there would be records going back centuries. People who didn't believe really could be told, "well, he's due again in 2017 days, so just wait and see."

When I was learning a little about Islam, I was told that the Qu'ran is god's final word to humans. The basic idea seems to be that the Jews and the Christians and, presumably, all those other people around the world, had got god's message all garbled and mixed up over the centuries and so god had finally got fed up and decided to set the record straight once and for all.

So, why did the message get all garbled up? Well, it seems to be because people - you know, we fallible and not very clever humans - listened, heard wrong, wrote down wrong in a language that didn't have any bloody vowel symbols for goodness' sake, read wrong, and basically got it all arse about face.

So, what does god do this time around to sort everything out and make sure it doesn't get garbled? He gives his message to someone who speaks a language that doesn't have any bloody vowel symbols, who doesn't know how to read or write, who has to speak his message to people who had to write it down and copy it by hand etc etc.

Not the brightest bulb in the box our god, is he?

335. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234795 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 3:14 am

Sorry, Lazarus. I was picking holes with no real justification. But it is something about religion that has bothered me. I think that it raises the interesting question of what "equality" really means, though. Men and women are different, so treating them equally in all matters would not be sensible. Depending on what you mean by "equal" of course.

My hypothesis about religious rules is that people think to themselves (ok, maybe unconsciously): "hmm, having to be nice to people? What, nice to everyone? Not being jealous? Not losing my temper? Oh dear, oh dear. This is not goo-, oh, look, wear a funny thing on my head, don't eat certain things, avoid doing work on particular days of the week... Yeah, now that's a bunch of things I can really obey! Woo, god'll love me!"

God really does seem to be preoccupied with what we do with the parts of our body that have the most hair.

336. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234788 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 3:05 am

"People of all races, religions and genders are equal in the eyes of God. That includes full equality of men and women"

337. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234775 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 2:15 am

The Pope should be arrested because he deviously manipulated poor innocent Anakin into a psychopathic heavy breather.

338. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234771 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 2:10 am

Thanks for the replies. I thought it sounded a bit silly, but I wanted to ask those with a classical background.

I rather like the idea that there are gods up there that are just like people, but "with the volume turned up". In fact, it seems so clear to me that all the stories of the supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing god of the Big 3 religions are just badly formed mish-mashes of these old, human-like deities.

Miracles, for example, are just so bloody boring. I often bang on about this, but the only miracle in the bible (that comes readily to mind, that is) that I think is particularly worthy of the name is the case of the manna from heaven. There you go, food from nothing; not "liquid from another liquid", or "fruit from a tree", or "food from more food", but actual something out of nothing.

Of course, would've been better if god had made it just so the Israelites didn't require food at all during those 40 years. Maybe make them photosynthesise or something.

EDIT: I am alluding, tangentially, to the classic: "Of course it's brought forth juniper berries! It's a fucking juniper bush!"

339. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234760 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:53 am

While mildly on the topic of ancient Gods, I have sometimes seen it proposed that "Ancient Peoples"^TM didn't actually believe in them as real beings, but sort of "knew" that the stories were all metaphorical.

I'm not particularly convinced by this, having read some Plato and being aware of the reasons why Socrates was killed; not to mention Aristophanes' "The Clouds" which seems to make it quite clear that, yes, Zeus really is up there making it rain. But, anyway, I was just wondering if any knowledgeable classicists out there could ramble on about this for a bit?

340. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234759 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:49 am

I have loved the C ever since I saw Grover in Monsterpiece Theatre.

341. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234756 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:41 am

Poseidon? How dare ye call my master Neptune by that heretical name!

342. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234741 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 1:07 am

Comment #234739 by Steve Zara

Hmmmmmmmm. I shall have to mull this over a bit. I am not convinced, though (still). It may be that I am just thinking of your meaning in a way in which it is not intended.

I do agree with your final comment about Ganesha, but I also think that there could be the following example: a believer finds some of the rules the religion lays down are a little odd and difficult to follow, but wants to store up points in the afterlife and so goes along with them. One day, Richard Dawkins' arguments finally (I hope) get through to them and they realise that their religion is bunkum. Suddenly, they realise that they had better start having a good time now rather than accepting the pain for a big prize after death.

Could this not be "inspiring"?

I may well have just argued your point for you, of course. Damn. I am not sure. Given that there are two opinions here on opposite sides, we surely ought to say that both of them are right....

343. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234738 by Sargeist on August 22, 2008 at 12:57 am

I don't agree that atheism cannot inspire people. Do many of "us" (atheists, that is) not express the hope that without religion more of the world's people will start trying to live for today, and to make this life a better one for as many people as possible? Do we not hope this because we surmise that the absence of belief in a glorious apres-vie paradise will help to focus minds on the here and now?

344. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #234537 by Sargeist on August 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm

HAVNB: I agree. It's something about the noise they make on the wet glass that always gets me.

*shudder*

345. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234528 by Sargeist on August 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm

We usually, I think, feel that person X's atheism is not more likely to make them into a maniacal killer because atheism does not have dogmas that incite murderous hatred. Whereas almost every religion's god does encourage the active opposition, if not murder, of the outgroup.

So, while there can be stupid, annoying, insane and psychopathic atheists, it is only religion that seems to make otherwise normal people into idiotic, life-hating retards.

346. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234508 by Sargeist on August 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

The trouble is, I think, that an openly atheist prime minister would end up having to contend with too many criticisms that he or she was deliberately prejudiced against religious people. Meetings with, say, Saudi fighter plane buyers could be slightly awkward if the atheism of the Prime Minister were a talking point.

Not that I would mind, particularly. I think it would be best, for instance, if we told the "government" of these absurd countries to fuck off and keep their billions of pounds, and we just find other jobs for fighter plane builders to do. Hence why I am unlikely ever to become a political animal.

347. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234426 by Sargeist on August 21, 2008 at 10:41 am

Christians, as a group, really do make me sick. It's always, "oh, look how lovely we are for saying that we still love you, even though you're a hell-bound sinner." Christians believe they are supposed to be good because their god wants them to be, but they seem to simultaneously shout about how lovely they are while being the most awful gits.

The rest of us can just go on being actually good without having to make a song and dance about it.

348. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234215 by Sargeist on August 21, 2008 at 2:22 am

Wait... O-neg is rare? I'm walking around with 8 pints of rareness in me, and no one ever bothered to tell me how special I am?

Well, that's just annoying! Just a shame that I'm not allowed to donate blood. Damn.

349. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233754 by Sargeist on August 20, 2008 at 11:29 am

Because I find myself unable to do otherwise, I will say what I have said on another thread: if people are not responsible for their actions, due to there being no free will, then we will not have the free will to believe other than our current attitude that people should be punished for behaving badly.

Hence, I do not see a problem for morals.

350. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #233558 by Sargeist on August 20, 2008 at 3:31 am

I have been browsing the papers a little, though I have not read them fully, yet. My feeling is that we should look at this from the other side of the argument. It makes more sense to me to view the papers as actually saying: We don't have the free will to choose what to measure; we are somehow constrained by the universe to only choose to measure those attributes of the particle that lead to consistency with the 1-0-1 rule.

But I shall try hard to read the papers closely before making more comments! (on this topic, at least)