Creationism in itself does not contain any kind of anti-evolution agenda
BwahahahAHAHAHAHAhahahahaAHAHAHAHahaha!
That's rich...
Evolution cannot be proved or disproven by the scientific method either.
It can and it has. The theory is based on observation: Living things change over time, and have gotten more complex. You look at fossils, you see this. That's a fact. Not an opinion in a book, an observable fact.
Then there is the theory of the how: Through natural selection of random mutations. That is simple and elegant, and has also been confirmed through observation and experimentation. Bacteria evolves to adapt to the chemically hostile environments we create for them. It works at first, killing off most of them, but then the survivors reproduce and you end up with a new strain, better adapted through natural selection.
Evolution is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be verified through use of the scientific method.
That is obviously a lie.
Here's a truth: Creation is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be verified through use of the scientific method.
I've studied creation science (science without evolutionary assumtions) and I'm just wondering how many other/.'ers are skeptical about the determination that the two basins haven't been touched for 500,000 yrs.
How do the scientists determine this in a way using the scientific method?
Someone explain
Well, I see that when studying "creation science" you don't bother much with learning about science. Lets try to compensate for your twisted upbringing and your deficient education.
Here is how scientits do this: They measure how much ice is accumulated, and they measure how long ice takes to accumulate to that height. They assume that you can't touch something that is protected by miles of ice. And they conclude that the thing under the ice has not been touched for the amount of time that it takes to have that much ice accumulate.
If you break in and just rearrange all the furniture you're going to contribute to a general sense of paranoia and it's clear you weren't there to steal something.
Maybe it was just the feng-shui vigilante?
Just think its not the most threatning thing ever, redecorating, you know...
In other news, a New Zealand man, possibly Bruce Simpson, was found dead by neighbours this afternoon.
There was this canadian in the 80's who had this obsession with building a giant cannon to cheaply launch satellites in orbit. It would obviously not do for humans because the initial acceleration would kill them, but for hardware, all you have to do is make sure everything is screwed tight. The economy on launch would be much greater than the extra cost in solidity. The added bonus is that you wouldn't have to launch from the tropics, it could work from as high up as canada, eh.
Well, he had the design, and some funding from the canadian military, he was building it. Then, the united states objected, and told its submissive neighbour to the north to stop it with the revolutionary launch technology: if canada wants to put stuff in orbit, all it has to do is ask and the states will let them hitch a ride from florida.
So the canadian military cut the guy's funding. He then fought like a madman trying to gain back the funds he needed to make his dream come true, but try as he may, nothing was enough. Until a certain wealthy dictator from the middle east agreed to fund his research. So our canadian swallowed his pride (and his ethic, he wanted to launch satellites, not make weapons) and headed off to Iraq to build his giant cannon. And build it he did. he made a couple prototype, one of which was conspicuously pointed in the general direction of Israel. It wasn't working properly yet, when you make this go BOOM with this much force, it tends to take a bit of trial and error before nothing breaks when you do, but it was progressing.
Long story short, the guy was found dead in front of his hotel room, the keys in the lock, the very clean gun next to the body, with a single bullet in the back of the head.
The moral of the story: When the united state's military says you are not to build a giant cannon, you do not build a giant canon, be it by lack of funds or surplus of lead.
almost 3,000 americans died on september 11th, and you're telling me that it's not worth giving the government a little more leeway if it could possibly help stop terrorists???
They knew it was coming, the intelligence community knew Ben Laden wasn't going to stop, they also knew about suspected terrorists in aviation training programs inside the united states.
They had the power already, they did not act, the stood idly by and let it happen. But they don't need more snooping power, that wasn't the part that was lacking, they need to act on the info.
If they didn't waste so much time investigating pot smokers and movie pirates, maybe they could afford to put some ressources on mass murder prevention. But the FBI and CIA weren't being led by people with the security of their country on their mind, they were interrested in furthering their own careers and protecting the buisnesses that could give them interessting career opportunities once their mandate is over.
Don't give MORE power to the jerks who misused it. They had all the power they needed, what they lacked was the will to use it properly. They still lack that will, its clear because all they are interrested in is to gain more power.
Something to tell the next kid you find singing "ring around the rosey," a nursery rhyme about the Plague.:-)
"...and then the rats came for them. Thousands and thousands of filthy, filthy rats! And these weren't the cuddly kind of rats you get in today's sewers!";-)
Give it a rest. It's a fictional movie about fictional characters
So you're an idiot who'll eat up anything he's fed at the movies. Stop trolling threads meant for critical thinking individuals who demand more. Go watch some wrasslin or something.
I can just see some pimply faced teenager sitting in his mom's basement
Ah, you must feel like a big man now. You do know that the main character of that movie, Peter, was (until a spider event) a pimply faced teenager sitting in his aunt's basement? Do you spend the whole movie shouting "NERD!" at the screen by any chance?
how a character that's got some metalic arms fused to his back would respond after throwing a car through a window at a cafe... leave it to the screenwriters.
Man, no wonder you don't like people to nitpick, you can't even comprehend their objections.
From you own post, you quoted:
Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them. Any normal man would've been killed instantly, and Doc Ock doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would effectively try to kill him.
Can't you even read what you cut and paste? The question is not about how he acts after throwing the car, the question is why is he throwing cars at someone whom he wants to ask questions to?
The "shoot first and ask questions later" school of interrogation? That'll give you awnsers?
The best I could say is that in the short lived Spider-Man 2099 comic book, spinnerettes grew as part of the mutation for that particular Spider-Man.
Yeah, but that was by design. They were actually mucking up genes to purposefully engineer a spider man. Ripping that off (without owning up to it) and taking out the part that made it "believable" is lame. James Cameron's entire career is based on a solid foundation of ripping off good ideas.
Director Sam Raimi answered the protests of comic book fans saying that it was more credible to have Peter shoot web this way than for a high school boy to be able to produce a wonder adhesive in his spare time that 3M could not make.
Its called "dumbing it down" Sam, fess up.
So Peter went from genius to normal high-school boy. And the mutation went from affecting his mind (giving him an instinct for adhesives and webs) to simply physical. Sigh.
A train wreck you say? Well, maybe our hindu friends would solve that with some prayer? Surely Vishwakarma (the Hindu god of machines) will help prevent this train wreck...
Really? Fareignheigt 9/11 is fictional? I could have sworn it was for real. I mean the papers have it listed as playing in numerous theatres, there's even reviews in all major news outlets.
its by a biased obnoxious jerk, who will do anything to get HIS truth out.
But, wait. You said it was fictional...
Message to whoever modded that up: You are an idot. Can we discuss technical inovation in fossil fuel production now without retarded moderators polluting the thread with their political views on off-topic anonymous trolls?
First of all, its really off topic in a thread about tar pits and oil production (which is only economically feasable now that oil prices are so damn high, it won't drive them down, it needs prices to be high to be sustained).
Secondly, the post is just plain stupid. I guess its part of this idiotic "its not a documentary because I disagree with the opinion it promotes" mindset, so obviously the moderator was modding it up for that. Its stupid. Its a documentary because it uses archive footage and interviews. The fact that it is not politically neutral does not make it fiction (not fictional, fiction. But I guess if you don't know what a documentary is, there's no reason why you would know the diference between fiction and fictional).
Because I do find it interresting, the whole "fuel from tar" thing. There are political aspects to it, but Moore-bashing isn't part of it. Politically, the fact that for this to work it needs the other oil producers to willfully restrict oil production, artificially inflating oil prices. But then, they'll loose profit from this new competitor, and all they'll have to do to drive 'em out of buisness is increase productin long enough to shut them down due to lower prices... I don't think this will work. There's too much money riding against it.
Nobody cares about your opinion you common troll.
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
you're really just a leech [...] Deal with the common connoctations
If almost everyone disagrees with you, isn't it slightly more plausible that you might be mistaken, rather than the rest of the world?
And yet, it turns... Read up about a guy called Gallileo Gallilei someday.
So sticking your litter on the wall wasn't an artistic statement, no matter how you chose to see it. It was sticking your litter on the wall, so someone else would have had to tidy up after you.
Read my posts again. I state, repeatedly, that it wasn't my trash, it was trash that was lying around near the trash can, I took it, peeled off the foil, I threw away the rest in the damn barbage and carefully made an artistic statement (which you have demonstrated is beyond the scope of your meager understanding) with the foil. I was the one picking up after others.
your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin), had no place there.
Had you truly been a sensitive artist, you would have understood this. It's not about The Man trying to Crush your Expression and Artistic Freedom, it's about their stuff and the way they want their stuff. Leave them be.
*sighs* Its about possessive domination behaviour allright. Had you not been a pedantic bastard you would have known that I knew that;-)
The statement went like this: The thing is ignored when its lying aound, but its different when its on the wall. The statement worked great for the 30 second it stayed up. Getting it noticed was the point.
And BTW, that security guard was always like that about everything: Her nightstick was itching for some "expression". And they had an actual graffitti problem, including a "go ahead" wall to try to solve it. She was lashing out blindly because she was powerless and that's the worst feeling in the world to a power mad bitch like her. She was not making a statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment, that was the excuse to use her power. You weren't there, you don't know her. I was, I did, she was that kind of person.
your art [...] had no place there.
Man, you completely missed my point. My point was that it had its place there: There is where I took the material from! The fact that an artist transformed it and displayed it was the part that changed it from garbage to art, the placement was part of the statement (garbage turned to art, taken from besides the trashcan and moved to above the trashcan). And the fact that all of the sudden it stood out and got noticed was the point: to bypass the "somebody else's problem" field that surrounds every piece of garbage lying around everywhere. Plus, art on the wall of and art college? Not the place for it? Really?
your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin)
Oh, I know. It wasn't obvious, but I didn't need the people to see it to understand it, all they needed was to see it. Because they didn't see it (the garbage) when it was just lying around.
P.S. Again: You, the guard, all the sheep walking past that piece of garbage, you have no problem with the garbage lying around (I see your trolling did not say anything about garbage beyond falsely stating that I was responsible for the presence of garbage), but when someone makes you notice the garbage, you get mad at the person who made you look, not the one who abandoned its garbage.
P.P.S. That's not the only garbage art statement I made in college, the others I did in a more conventional way.
calling his artwork "pure vandalism" when it is in fact done by the process of CLEANING DIRTY @#@$% WALLS IN THE FIRST PLACE... thats just lame.
I once applied the metallic foiled I had just peeled off a discarded cigarette pack to an outside wall at college. One of the security guards came and started giving me the vandalism speech about how I would have to pay a fine and clean up the walls. I camly peeled it off (it was barely sticking to the dirty wall) and offered it to her, then seeing the horrified attitude that generated, I threw it away in the trashcan. She tried giving me the "its still vandalism, you'll have to pay the fine!" speech, so I asked her to show me the part of the school proprety I had damaged or defaced... she "let me off" with a warning.
There's no logic with these people, you know. You take one piece of trash, reshape it, and place it a few feet from where you found it, and its "vandalism" to them, even when they looked as you removed it and placed it in the trashcan!
Clearly they have WAY too much time and power, and they're trying to pass one by abusing the other.
P.S. I was studying fine art at the time, and I was actually making an artistic statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment (I applied it right over a trash can after having mediculously peeled it off intact from a discarded empty cigarette pack that was abandoned on a table. I placed it very nice and straight, all shiny on a dull, dirty gray exterior wall), but calm logic was a more efficient way of getting rid of that power-mad bitch than explaning my motives and the validity of my art to her (though I did try, but she wasn't smart enough to understand any of it), then a string of equally dense bureaucrats. I was pretty disapointed to be forced to censor my art though.
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through....
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much: From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
It would be hypocritical only if he was himself guilty of libel, instead of being guilty of showing people in their worst light.
Free speech is not a free ticket to tell all the lies you want. That is why the libel suits exist. There are limits to free speech, and they aren't "disagreeing with the Leader when the Leader has declared war", they are: telling outright lies about people, hate speech, stuff like that.
"Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker."
See, he didn't sue, he said he didn't expect people who agree with him to be so critical of him. Maybe he expected people who agree with his message to give him a break on the quality of the format his message was in. I'm pretty glad that fellow did his job and called it like he saw it.
if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler?
If? Its called "ABC News", from 2001 to 2003.
What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries.
Again, watch the war time coverage from Fox News and CNN, and pay attention this time! Seriously, be amazed as you see U.S. soldiers looting conquered palaces as a commentator refers to them "taking souvenirs"! Marvel at the positive spin "to keep up morale" on everything the "good guys" do!
Slashdot Mirror
I am sure you have seen a bat right? Its a rat with Wings. There are very few other animals like it that fly. Did the rat randomly develop wings?
I have, in fact, seen bats.
You, however, have obviously never heard of flying squirrels.
Creationism in itself does not contain any kind of anti-evolution agenda
BwahahahAHAHAHAHAhahahahaAHAHAHAHahaha!
That's rich...
Evolution cannot be proved or disproven by the scientific method either.
It can and it has.
The theory is based on observation: Living things change over time, and have gotten more complex. You look at fossils, you see this.
That's a fact. Not an opinion in a book, an observable fact.
Then there is the theory of the how: Through natural selection of random mutations. That is simple and elegant, and has also been confirmed through observation and experimentation. Bacteria evolves to adapt to the chemically hostile environments we create for them. It works at first, killing off most of them, but then the survivors reproduce and you end up with a new strain, better adapted through natural selection.
Evolution is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be verified through use of the scientific method.
That is obviously a lie.
Here's a truth:
Creation is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be verified through use of the scientific method.
I don't see a good way of explaining why God decided that amphibians shouldn't be on oceanic islands.
That's easy: Mysterious ways.
See, whenever you notice somthing like that, its mysterious ways. Don't even bother trying to investigate it, its divinely mysterious.
Why would god need a spaceship, or an ark? Mysterious, don't bother...
I've studied creation science (science without evolutionary assumtions) and I'm just wondering how many other /.'ers are skeptical about the determination that the two basins haven't been touched for 500,000 yrs.
How do the scientists determine this in a way using the scientific method?
Someone explain
Well, I see that when studying "creation science" you don't bother much with learning about science.
Lets try to compensate for your twisted upbringing and your deficient education.
Here is how scientits do this: They measure how much ice is accumulated, and they measure how long ice takes to accumulate to that height. They assume that you can't touch something that is protected by miles of ice. And they conclude that the thing under the ice has not been touched for the amount of time that it takes to have that much ice accumulate.
Then you drill and take a peek...
Like baseball, I've always assumed that the length of a cricket match was one of the beloved features to its devotees.
Well, for baseball, it gives you time to get good and drunk and then sober up...
For cricket, I believe that the lenght is so everyone has time to figure out what the HELL is going on. Takes about 3 days per match...
I am greatly troubled by the idea that political speeches could get even shorter.
It'd be great!
Bush: Terrorists! 9/11! God!
Kerry: I'm not Bush!
See, all of their points, neatly summerised. Saves everyone time. : )
If you break in and just rearrange all the furniture you're going to contribute to a general sense of paranoia and it's clear you weren't there to steal something.
Maybe it was just the feng-shui vigilante?
Just think its not the most threatning thing ever, redecorating, you know...
The moral is: when you build a giant cannon, don't point it at Isreal.
Yeah, gotta admit, the mossad is more probable than the CIA in this case. Saddam was friendly to the former in the 80's...
Government assasinations are actualy illegal in the US, and there was no real risk to us.
Well it was outside the U.S., and, it wouldn't be the first illegal thing a government did... but I agree: Mossad.
Good idea mentioning Bull, but a really, really bad description of his life.
It was from memory, obviously vague since I couldn't remember his name.
I counted on someone to helpfully reply with the details and corrections : )
His family reported that several times, he had his apartment broken into, and furniture randomly rearranged as a warning.
Details like that.
Waitaminute, they redecorated his appartment as a warning? Man, these guys are subtle...
In other news, a New Zealand man, possibly Bruce Simpson, was found dead by neighbours this afternoon.
There was this canadian in the 80's who had this obsession with building a giant cannon to cheaply launch satellites in orbit. It would obviously not do for humans because the initial acceleration would kill them, but for hardware, all you have to do is make sure everything is screwed tight. The economy on launch would be much greater than the extra cost in solidity. The added bonus is that you wouldn't have to launch from the tropics, it could work from as high up as canada, eh.
Well, he had the design, and some funding from the canadian military, he was building it. Then, the united states objected, and told its submissive neighbour to the north to stop it with the revolutionary launch technology: if canada wants to put stuff in orbit, all it has to do is ask and the states will let them hitch a ride from florida.
So the canadian military cut the guy's funding. He then fought like a madman trying to gain back the funds he needed to make his dream come true, but try as he may, nothing was enough. Until a certain wealthy dictator from the middle east agreed to fund his research. So our canadian swallowed his pride (and his ethic, he wanted to launch satellites, not make weapons) and headed off to Iraq to build his giant cannon. And build it he did.
he made a couple prototype, one of which was conspicuously pointed in the general direction of Israel. It wasn't working properly yet, when you make this go BOOM with this much force, it tends to take a bit of trial and error before nothing breaks when you do, but it was progressing.
Long story short, the guy was found dead in front of his hotel room, the keys in the lock, the very clean gun next to the body, with a single bullet in the back of the head.
The moral of the story: When the united state's military says you are not to build a giant cannon, you do not build a giant canon, be it by lack of funds or surplus of lead.
The end.
almost 3,000 americans died on september 11th, and you're telling me that it's not worth giving the government a little more leeway if it could possibly help stop terrorists???
They knew it was coming, the intelligence community knew Ben Laden wasn't going to stop, they also knew about suspected terrorists in aviation training programs inside the united states.
They had the power already, they did not act, the stood idly by and let it happen. But they don't need more snooping power, that wasn't the part that was lacking, they need to act on the info.
If they didn't waste so much time investigating pot smokers and movie pirates, maybe they could afford to put some ressources on mass murder prevention. But the FBI and CIA weren't being led by people with the security of their country on their mind, they were interrested in furthering their own careers and protecting the buisnesses that could give them interessting career opportunities once their mandate is over.
Don't give MORE power to the jerks who misused it. They had all the power they needed, what they lacked was the will to use it properly.
They still lack that will, its clear because all they are interrested in is to gain more power.
And comments not modded up get modded "overrated"!
Bizarro world is so strange!
Bad bye...
Oh my god, now goatse links are getting +informative mods!
Black is white, up is down! Remind me to avoid zebra crossings for a while...
Something to tell the next kid you find singing "ring around the rosey," a nursery rhyme about the Plague. :-)
;-)
"...and then the rats came for them. Thousands and thousands of filthy, filthy rats! And these weren't the cuddly kind of rats you get in today's sewers!"
So you're an idiot who'll eat up anything he's fed at the movies. Stop trolling threads meant for critical thinking individuals who demand more. Go watch some wrasslin or something.
I can just see some pimply faced teenager sitting in his mom's basement
Ah, you must feel like a big man now.
You do know that the main character of that movie, Peter, was (until a spider event) a pimply faced teenager sitting in his aunt's basement? Do you spend the whole movie shouting "NERD!" at the screen by any chance?
how a character that's got some metalic arms fused to his back would respond after throwing a car through a window at a cafe
Man, no wonder you don't like people to nitpick, you can't even comprehend their objections.
From you own post, you quoted: Can't you even read what you cut and paste? The question is not about how he acts after throwing the car, the question is why is he throwing cars at someone whom he wants to ask questions to?
The "shoot first and ask questions later" school of interrogation? That'll give you awnsers?
The best I could say is that in the short lived Spider-Man 2099 comic book, spinnerettes grew as part of the mutation for that particular Spider-Man.
Yeah, but that was by design. They were actually mucking up genes to purposefully engineer a spider man. Ripping that off (without owning up to it) and taking out the part that made it "believable" is lame. James Cameron's entire career is based on a solid foundation of ripping off good ideas.
Director Sam Raimi answered the protests of comic book fans saying that it was more credible to have Peter shoot web this way than for a high school boy to be able to produce a wonder adhesive in his spare time that 3M could not make.
Its called "dumbing it down" Sam, fess up.
So Peter went from genius to normal high-school boy. And the mutation went from affecting his mind (giving him an instinct for adhesives and webs) to simply physical.
Sigh.
Unless those people get bitten by RADIOACTIVE spiders.
Not by a radioactive spider, a genetically modified spider.
Pay attention.
A train wreck you say? Well, maybe our hindu friends would solve that with some prayer?
Surely Vishwakarma (the Hindu god of machines) will help prevent this train wreck...
a FICTIONAL movie
Really? Fareignheigt 9/11 is fictional? I could have sworn it was for real. I mean the papers have it listed as playing in numerous theatres, there's even reviews in all major news outlets.
its by a biased obnoxious jerk, who will do anything to get HIS truth out.
But, wait. You said it was fictional...
Message to whoever modded that up: You are an idot.
Can we discuss technical inovation in fossil fuel production now without retarded moderators polluting the thread with their political views on off-topic anonymous trolls?
First of all, its really off topic in a thread about tar pits and oil production (which is only economically feasable now that oil prices are so damn high, it won't drive them down, it needs prices to be high to be sustained).
Secondly, the post is just plain stupid.
I guess its part of this idiotic "its not a documentary because I disagree with the opinion it promotes" mindset, so obviously the moderator was modding it up for that.
Its stupid. Its a documentary because it uses archive footage and interviews. The fact that it is not politically neutral does not make it fiction (not fictional, fiction. But I guess if you don't know what a documentary is, there's no reason why you would know the diference between fiction and fictional).
Because I do find it interresting, the whole "fuel from tar" thing. There are political aspects to it, but Moore-bashing isn't part of it. Politically, the fact that for this to work it needs the other oil producers to willfully restrict oil production, artificially inflating oil prices. But then, they'll loose profit from this new competitor, and all they'll have to do to drive 'em out of buisness is increase productin long enough to shut them down due to lower prices...
I don't think this will work. There's too much money riding against it.
you're really just a leech [...] Deal with the common connoctations
That's not even a word.
If almost everyone disagrees with you, isn't it slightly more plausible that you might be mistaken, rather than the rest of the world?
And yet, it turns...
Read up about a guy called Gallileo Gallilei someday.
So sticking your litter on the wall wasn't an artistic statement, no matter how you chose to see it. It was sticking your litter on the wall, so someone else would have had to tidy up after you.
Read my posts again. I state, repeatedly, that it wasn't my trash, it was trash that was lying around near the trash can, I took it, peeled off the foil, I threw away the rest in the damn barbage and carefully made an artistic statement (which you have demonstrated is beyond the scope of your meager understanding) with the foil. I was the one picking up after others.
your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin), had no place there.
;-)
Had you truly been a sensitive artist, you would have understood this. It's not about The Man trying to Crush your Expression and Artistic Freedom, it's about their stuff and the way they want their stuff. Leave them be.
*sighs*
Its about possessive domination behaviour allright.
Had you not been a pedantic bastard you would have known that I knew that
The statement went like this: The thing is ignored when its lying aound, but its different when its on the wall.
The statement worked great for the 30 second it stayed up. Getting it noticed was the point.
And BTW, that security guard was always like that about everything: Her nightstick was itching for some "expression". And they had an actual graffitti problem, including a "go ahead" wall to try to solve it. She was lashing out blindly because she was powerless and that's the worst feeling in the world to a power mad bitch like her.
She was not making a statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment, that was the excuse to use her power. You weren't there, you don't know her. I was, I did, she was that kind of person.
your art [...] had no place there.
Man, you completely missed my point.
My point was that it had its place there: There is where I took the material from!
The fact that an artist transformed it and displayed it was the part that changed it from garbage to art, the placement was part of the statement (garbage turned to art, taken from besides the trashcan and moved to above the trashcan). And the fact that all of the sudden it stood out and got noticed was the point: to bypass the "somebody else's problem" field that surrounds every piece of garbage lying around everywhere. Plus, art on the wall of and art college? Not the place for it? Really?
your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin)
Oh, I know. It wasn't obvious, but I didn't need the people to see it to understand it, all they needed was to see it. Because they didn't see it (the garbage) when it was just lying around.
P.S. Again: You, the guard, all the sheep walking past that piece of garbage, you have no problem with the garbage lying around (I see your trolling did not say anything about garbage beyond falsely stating that I was responsible for the presence of garbage), but when someone makes you notice the garbage, you get mad at the person who made you look, not the one who abandoned its garbage.
P.P.S. That's not the only garbage art statement I made in college, the others I did in a more conventional way.
calling his artwork "pure vandalism" when it is in fact done by the process of CLEANING DIRTY @#@$% WALLS IN THE FIRST PLACE ... thats just lame.
I once applied the metallic foiled I had just peeled off a discarded cigarette pack to an outside wall at college.
One of the security guards came and started giving me the vandalism speech about how I would have to pay a fine and clean up the walls. I camly peeled it off (it was barely sticking to the dirty wall) and offered it to her, then seeing the horrified attitude that generated, I threw it away in the trashcan.
She tried giving me the "its still vandalism, you'll have to pay the fine!" speech, so I asked her to show me the part of the school proprety I had damaged or defaced... she "let me off" with a warning.
There's no logic with these people, you know.
You take one piece of trash, reshape it, and place it a few feet from where you found it, and its "vandalism" to them, even when they looked as you removed it and placed it in the trashcan!
Clearly they have WAY too much time and power, and they're trying to pass one by abusing the other.
P.S. I was studying fine art at the time, and I was actually making an artistic statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment (I applied it right over a trash can after having mediculously peeled it off intact from a discarded empty cigarette pack that was abandoned on a table. I placed it very nice and straight, all shiny on a dull, dirty gray exterior wall), but calm logic was a more efficient way of getting rid of that power-mad bitch than explaning my motives and the validity of my art to her (though I did try, but she wasn't smart enough to understand any of it), then a string of equally dense bureaucrats. I was pretty disapointed to be forced to censor my art though.
However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much: From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
It would be hypocritical only if he was himself guilty of libel, instead of being guilty of showing people in their worst light.
Free speech is not a free ticket to tell all the lies you want. That is why the libel suits exist. There are limits to free speech, and they aren't "disagreeing with the Leader when the Leader has declared war", they are: telling outright lies about people, hate speech, stuff like that.
"Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker."
See, he didn't sue, he said he didn't expect people who agree with him to be so critical of him.
Maybe he expected people who agree with his message to give him a break on the quality of the format his message was in. I'm pretty glad that fellow did his job and called it like he saw it.
if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler?
If? Its called "ABC News", from 2001 to 2003.
What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries.
Again, watch the war time coverage from Fox News and CNN, and pay attention this time!
Seriously, be amazed as you see U.S. soldiers looting conquered palaces as a commentator refers to them "taking souvenirs"! Marvel at the positive spin "to keep up morale" on everything the "good guys" do!
Can't believe you need to be told all this...
space shutles could make a trip to Mars.
;-)
The ocean is diferent. I can go down to 15 feet with no equptment at all. Just a pair of shorts.
Pffft! I can do it whithout shorts!