But my point was that when combined with other environmental pressures, the disease doesn't have to kill everyone by itself.
Yes the Black Death wasn't going to wipe out humanity. Yet it could have nearly done so to the human population in Europe if it had occurred at the same time as an environmental disaster that had it occurred alone would have threatened but not destroyed the population. Since we're talking about the K-T extinction, an event of many times greater magnitude than the Black Death, using as a point of initial comparison a disease that wiped out a third of a continent seems like a valid way to say "it could happen".
Uh, the species of rat which carried the Black Death did very nearly go extinct, and it wiped out one third of the population of Europe in just two years, in some areas as much as 60-75%. If that had been combined that with other pressures occurring simultaneously, like extreme changes in the environment, then yes, even two of evolution's greatest generalists could have been brought low.
I can't say I believe it, but I also don't find it inherently implausible.
Why wouldn't this also affect mammals? Is there an implication that dinosaurs had more primitive immune systems? Is any of this more than mere speculation?
Well this is mere speculation, but the implication isn't necessarily that dinosaurs had a more primitive immune system, it could simply be that it was different. Different diseases infect different animals. It makes sense that if a virulent and deadly disease borne by insects arose in one species of dinosaur, it would have an easier time adapting to others than the newly arisen mammals.
Scotch! That's what I was grasping for. I ignorantly picked whiskey because I was groping for something to use, and the only alcoholic beverage I drink that has ice in it is a frozen margarita. So I never drink whiskey with ice, but used it anyway. Also, not a scotch person. Heh.
Now back to the humor, and world-ending climate discussion. I care not for either. Beautiful, beautiful Scotch.
This simply is not so. Have no fear my friend, because the NWP represents enormous value to Canada. Those who want to use it will pay handsomely, and this in turn will pay for Canada's defence of her Northern sovereignty.
Absolutely, but realize that the NWP is of extreme value, and unlike say the Panama Canal or the tip of South America, there are substantially more powers in a position to have a material impact on it (Russia, Japan, Korea easily, other European powers possibly). So while Canada will certainly make hay and stake their claim, it will be a target of strategic political or even military ambitions. I doubt it would actually come to war, but things would become much more interesting for Canada when they find themselves standing on the world stage holding something like the NWP.
The warmest periods on earth supported gigantic creatures and even larger plantlife.
Why is this a bad thing? I love the cold and I really can't see a negative to seeing india and florida flood in exchange for bumper crops across the globe, or giant forests, or what have you.
Dinosaurs would be cool too.
Uh, cus I'm neither gigantic creature or plant? I'm just a homo sapien whose society and thus basic necessities rely on a huge network of interconnecting aspects that can get severely screwed by global climate change, like when fuel supplies get stopped by a hurricane hitting the gulf coast only bigger. I don't fancy starving to death because drought in the midwest has stopped the growth of crops and there's an extra couple hundred million people sharing my space and my food because coastal areas are flooded.
Look, the planet earth, and life itself, are going to survive. We could unleash any catastrophe, like if WWIII had occurred at the height of nuclear stockpiling, and life would go on. Humans might not. Especially not humans like me.
So yeah, I'm not ready to give the dinosaurs another chance at supremacy quite yet.:P
Besides that very relevant fact, the whole idea of this is silly. It's what I like to refer to as the internet-predator-turned-private-investigator. If you were some sick perv and wanted to do a kid, your options are:
1) Find a photo of a random kid on the internet, figure out who the kid is, where he lives, who he/she is with at what time of day each day, where, who is around, when he/she will be alone, and then finally perform the abduction, all in a manner fitting of some crappy movie. or...
2) find a random kid alone and abduct him/her
I hadn't thought of it like that. I think you're absolutely right.
This is why you raise your child with a "whitelist" concept of who is a family friend. That's how my parents did it, and how most people did it when I was growing up.
Indeed, same here. It's the other half of that most basic of messages you give your child on being safe: "Don't talk to strangers". I remember turning away a trusted family friend from the door when I was like four. Of course he wasn't mad, I was a kid who didn't trust strangers like I should. When I was a little older, they also added another level, which was a "pass phrase" I couldn't ever tell anyone, and they'd use if there was some emergency so they had to send someone to pick me up for whatever reason.
I don't trust Google, but give it a rest with the sex offender crap. If your kids fall prey to this, it's your fault, not Google's fault because you should have taught them to only trust "friends of the family" that you introduced them to.
Well like most sexual predator hysteria, this is yet another case where they ignore the most important (though sad and disturbing) fact which is: The vast majority of sexual predators are "friends of the family" if not family themselves, and thus don't need Google or anything else to find their victims.
That could be naive: I'm suggesting it's not california government out to trip you up because you have to follow laws you can't know about so much as california government not being able to put their shoes on before they tie them. I admit I'm prone to believe in government incompetence before government conspiracy.
In this case, I don't think you're off base. See, the government doesn't have to copyright the law to prevent people from knowing it so they get tripped up by it. They only need to pass so many laws that it is impossible for anyone to actually know all of it, such that even full-time legal professionals have to do extensive research to figure out what laws apply to a given situation. This has already been accomplished.
So I agree with you that this is probably just a bone-headed decision by a bureaucrat who for some reason got a stick up their ass about FindLaw having copies of California code online or something.
Aw, don't be mad at me just because I pointed out that your useless fantasy isn't an appropriate reason to question the motives of others. It's not my fault that some people live in reality. *hug*
Ah, just when I thought there wasn't enough grandstanding in slashdot posts, the famous Chris Burke comes along to liven things up!
Wow, that's the most retarded self-righteous douche-bag thing I've heard on/. since "anyone who doesn't advocate my idea -- and only my idea -- doesn't really care about the environment." What this quote even mean, and what the fuck is wrong with you?
-Figure the cost to sink CO2 to acceptable levels and/or repair resulting excess damage, then divide by total CO2 emission.
Using what method? And is all you care about CO2? Because there's a lot more externalities that need to be accounted for that are harder to measure than simple stoichiometry for fuel burning. Focusing only on CO2 makes it much easier to shift the cost to other areas that you aren't considering.
I'm sorry you didn't understand the reason I brought that up. (Next time, maybe divert some of your mind's powers away from thinking up dramatic flourishes and toward understanding someone's argument?) My point there was that as fuel prices go up -- whether because of tax or higher demand -- everyone all the way up the production chain searches for the next-easiest way to cut back, meaning they happen before the end user ("consumer") has to make any conscious decision to cut back.
Wow, so you make the most trivial and banal observation in all of economics. Profit-minded businesses try to reduce costs and increase efficiency. And that solves everything, eh? I am so enlightened. Meanwhile, you completely ignore my point which was the question: How much should gas actually cost? How are you going to internalize the actual environmental cost of the gas? You realize that there's more to fuel oil than CO2, and that the other "externalities" depend on the type of car, ship, plane, power station which is using them, right? How are you going to define this such that it is accurate and fair and free of politics, and thus better than the options? Flourish my ass, you're the one with empty platitudes.
Fasters than doing nothing, sure. Faster than simply internalizing the costs of fossil fuels? Pure assertion on your part.
You mean pure strawman on your part, since I never said that. But your whole premise requires that you assume your "internalization" will produce faster results. How, when people are willing to pay more for status symbols, is image-is-all LA going to get better as fast with your purely economic solution than a California mandate for lower emission vehicles?
Even if I assume that it would be faster just to make you happy, my point was that emission standards worked. So say whatever you want about what is ideal, people advocating standards had a practical solution that resulted in a cleaner environment. And you have the chutzpah, the unrestrained balls to imply they weren't really concerned with the environment?
No, it's entirely reasonable to expect people trying to fix a major problem to determine if... er, what they're doing actually fixes the problem, and the utter failure to transform that ideal solution (basically handed to them by economists) into a practical plan does say something about where their priorities lie.
Whatever. I haven't heard a single thing from you about how this eternal problem of economics is going to be magically solved such that every environmental costs. You aren't discussing at all the practical ramifications and difficulties of your suggestion. You know what real environmentalists care about? Real solutions. Yours is a pipe dream. You might be able to make it into something real, if you really really tried, but in the meantime, questioning the motives of those who propose and implement real solutions, however sub-optimal, is complete bullshit.
Like I said, your idea is great, the optimal solution. It is also difficult to implement, and you ignore both engineering and political obstacles
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
And how exactly is someone who only played a few hours of the game because the DRM fscked their system up so badly they had to uninstall supposed to do that?
To pass it, the alarmist would have to advocate replacing all measures to combat CO2 emissions, with some method of internalization of the environmental costs (possibly with a subsidy to those that remove it from the atmosphere). That means they would advocate:
-No subsidies for specific technologies. -No efficiency mandates. -No banning of products on the grounds that they are "inefficient". -No subsidies for ethanol.
Yeah, that sounds fantastic, except for the whole "internalizing externalities" thing. How exactly are you going to determine what the environmental impact of everything is, convert that into a "cost", and force everyone to pay it every time they do something with such a cost such that economics automatically gives incentives to lower environmental impact?
And remember, you have to do it in such a way that the definition of environmental cost can't be manipulated and skewed to the benefit of some at the expense of others, or it's no better than the techniques you disdain.
Wal-Mart and Tide are becoming more efficient because of the rising price of fuel, and the price of fuel has very little if anything to do with the environmental impact of fossil fuels. If it did, the price would be even higher. But how much higher? Do you know? Does anyone? What should the price of gas be in order to fully internalize the environmental impact so as to make your vision a reality?
While you're figuring that out, over the last 20+ years efficiency and emissions mandates have made a real impact -- ask anyone who lived in LA in the 80s. And subsidies for 'green' energy have caused the amount of energy produced in the U.S. through clean methods to increase much faster than it would have otherwise. I'd argue that those subsidies at least for wind power are no longer necessary, but I also can't deny their effects. On the other hand ethanol in this country is nothing but a cynical gift to the already fat and bloated corn lobby that will hurt more than it helps.
So in theory I agree with you 110%. The ultimate solution is to internalize environmental costs. But until you can turn the buzzword into a practical plan, don't go around saying that anyone who is proposing some other specific method of helping the environment doesn't really care about the environment and is only after power. Some are bad -- ethanol is purely a power/money grab, and carbon credits are a silly idea. Others aren't -- emissions and efficiency standards have a real impact, and subsidies for clean energy help replace dirty energy when it's otherwise not economical to do so. Perfect? No. Practical? Can be. Real? Yes, which is more than I can say for the ideal solution, as great as it is in theory.
I've always prefered multiple windows instead of tabs, I already have a 'tab' thingy, its called the taskbar in Windows.
Except I don't want my browser tab area cluttering/being cluttered by every other application I'm running. I don't want to have my taskbar cluttered by all my browser windows when I'm not using my browser; I don't want my desktop cluttered by multiple browser windows I have to manage individually, and I want to easily be able to manipulate my browser tabs separately or as a group, again without considering other application windows.
I have a lot of respect for Stallman and GNU. My take on the GNU/Linux thing has always been this: It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, and something I'm simply not going to do. "Linux" is the name I use for the system, it's short and convenient, and I'm not going to complicate it just for the sake of accuracy any more than I'm going to say "facial tissue" instead of kleenex. Linux is just a noun to me.
I'm almost not sure I want to know... I mean, machines this old, of such ridiculous complexity and with as many quirks and hacks as we are already aware of? I'm afraid I might faint at the point where it says "And now for the most important step, Chief Engineer Jim applies a fresh square of duct tape to the fuel line regulator control to keep it from jostling which could cause it to fail and the shuttle to explode. Applying a new piece of duct tape is a new procedure mandated after the Columbia disaster."
Joking of course, I do want to know, but I'd bet you anything there are some pretty scary hacks going on behind the scenes.:)
No he's not. Actually you are backing he up, but you start by saying he's wrong. He says he doesn't want creationism taught in science then you say they are trying to use ID to teach creationism in science.
Please understand the full context of the conversation. He was originally disagreeing with the person who said that Palin wanting creationism taught in schools -- in the context of science class as an alternative to evolution -- was a bad thing, and unconstitutional. He continued arguing this point until he realized that this was in the context of science class, where he made the bolded statement.
So I wasn't saying that the bolded statement was him talking about something else. It was every other post he made, where he was arguing in favor of creationism in history class. Which is a completely different debate than what everyone else on either side is talking about when we're talking about teaching creationism in school. Thus, "you're talking about something different than what other people are talking about".
Slashdot Mirror
Roll on an RP server.
I'm not joking.
It's amazing what getting rid of all the people who think there's a "cool" and "dorky" MMO server to play on does for the quality of the game.
But my point was that when combined with other environmental pressures, the disease doesn't have to kill everyone by itself.
Yes the Black Death wasn't going to wipe out humanity. Yet it could have nearly done so to the human population in Europe if it had occurred at the same time as an environmental disaster that had it occurred alone would have threatened but not destroyed the population. Since we're talking about the K-T extinction, an event of many times greater magnitude than the Black Death, using as a point of initial comparison a disease that wiped out a third of a continent seems like a valid way to say "it could happen".
Uh, the species of rat which carried the Black Death did very nearly go extinct, and it wiped out one third of the population of Europe in just two years, in some areas as much as 60-75%. If that had been combined that with other pressures occurring simultaneously, like extreme changes in the environment, then yes, even two of evolution's greatest generalists could have been brought low.
I can't say I believe it, but I also don't find it inherently implausible.
Why wouldn't this also affect mammals? Is there an implication that dinosaurs had more primitive immune systems? Is any of this more than mere speculation?
Well this is mere speculation, but the implication isn't necessarily that dinosaurs had a more primitive immune system, it could simply be that it was different. Different diseases infect different animals. It makes sense that if a virulent and deadly disease borne by insects arose in one species of dinosaur, it would have an easier time adapting to others than the newly arisen mammals.
They did back then, so you can probably imagine why they were a threat to dinosaurs.
Scotch! That's what I was grasping for. I ignorantly picked whiskey because I was groping for something to use, and the only alcoholic beverage I drink that has ice in it is a frozen margarita. So I never drink whiskey with ice, but used it anyway. Also, not a scotch person. Heh.
Now back to the humor, and world-ending climate discussion. I care not for either. Beautiful, beautiful Scotch.
Nice. :)
Pfft... There's no money in a rock that prevents Godzilla from attacking.
Now a rock that causes Godzilla to attack, that would be where the big bucks are.
This simply is not so. Have no fear my friend, because the NWP represents enormous value to Canada. Those who want to use it will pay handsomely, and this in turn will pay for Canada's defence of her Northern sovereignty.
Absolutely, but realize that the NWP is of extreme value, and unlike say the Panama Canal or the tip of South America, there are substantially more powers in a position to have a material impact on it (Russia, Japan, Korea easily, other European powers possibly). So while Canada will certainly make hay and stake their claim, it will be a target of strategic political or even military ambitions. I doubt it would actually come to war, but things would become much more interesting for Canada when they find themselves standing on the world stage holding something like the NWP.
The warmest periods on earth supported gigantic creatures and even larger plantlife.
Why is this a bad thing? I love the cold and I really can't see a negative to seeing india and florida flood in exchange for bumper crops across the globe, or giant forests, or what have you.
Dinosaurs would be cool too.
Uh, cus I'm neither gigantic creature or plant? I'm just a homo sapien whose society and thus basic necessities rely on a huge network of interconnecting aspects that can get severely screwed by global climate change, like when fuel supplies get stopped by a hurricane hitting the gulf coast only bigger. I don't fancy starving to death because drought in the midwest has stopped the growth of crops and there's an extra couple hundred million people sharing my space and my food because coastal areas are flooded.
Look, the planet earth, and life itself, are going to survive. We could unleash any catastrophe, like if WWIII had occurred at the height of nuclear stockpiling, and life would go on. Humans might not. Especially not humans like me.
So yeah, I'm not ready to give the dinosaurs another chance at supremacy quite yet. :P
And that means it is indicative of, or news because... ???
It's faster and more extensive than ever before, and faster than expected.
That's pretty much it.
An ice cube?
Look, it was one thing when I could never find any ice in the trays in my freezer. But now a whole ice shelf?
I know whiskey on the rocks is a tasty drink, but seriously this is getting out of hand. It's time for an intervention.
Besides that very relevant fact, the whole idea of this is silly. It's what I like to refer to as the internet-predator-turned-private-investigator. If you were some sick perv and wanted to do a kid, your options are:
1) Find a photo of a random kid on the internet, figure out who the kid is, where he lives, who he/she is with at what time of day each day, where, who is around, when he/she will be alone, and then finally perform the abduction, all in a manner fitting of some crappy movie. or...
2) find a random kid alone and abduct him/her
I hadn't thought of it like that. I think you're absolutely right.
This is why you raise your child with a "whitelist" concept of who is a family friend. That's how my parents did it, and how most people did it when I was growing up.
Indeed, same here. It's the other half of that most basic of messages you give your child on being safe: "Don't talk to strangers". I remember turning away a trusted family friend from the door when I was like four. Of course he wasn't mad, I was a kid who didn't trust strangers like I should. When I was a little older, they also added another level, which was a "pass phrase" I couldn't ever tell anyone, and they'd use if there was some emergency so they had to send someone to pick me up for whatever reason.
I don't trust Google, but give it a rest with the sex offender crap. If your kids fall prey to this, it's your fault, not Google's fault because you should have taught them to only trust "friends of the family" that you introduced them to.
Well like most sexual predator hysteria, this is yet another case where they ignore the most important (though sad and disturbing) fact which is: The vast majority of sexual predators are "friends of the family" if not family themselves, and thus don't need Google or anything else to find their victims.
That could be naive: I'm suggesting it's not california government out to trip you up because you have to follow laws you can't know about so much as california government not being able to put their shoes on before they tie them. I admit I'm prone to believe in government incompetence before government conspiracy.
In this case, I don't think you're off base. See, the government doesn't have to copyright the law to prevent people from knowing it so they get tripped up by it. They only need to pass so many laws that it is impossible for anyone to actually know all of it, such that even full-time legal professionals have to do extensive research to figure out what laws apply to a given situation. This has already been accomplished.
So I agree with you that this is probably just a bone-headed decision by a bureaucrat who for some reason got a stick up their ass about FindLaw having copies of California code online or something.
Aw, don't be mad at me just because I pointed out that your useless fantasy isn't an appropriate reason to question the motives of others. It's not my fault that some people live in reality. *hug*
Ah, just when I thought there wasn't enough grandstanding in slashdot posts, the famous Chris Burke comes along to liven things up!
Wow, that's the most retarded self-righteous douche-bag thing I've heard on /. since "anyone who doesn't advocate my idea -- and only my idea -- doesn't really care about the environment." What this quote even mean, and what the fuck is wrong with you?
-Figure the cost to sink CO2 to acceptable levels and/or repair resulting excess damage, then divide by total CO2 emission.
Using what method? And is all you care about CO2? Because there's a lot more externalities that need to be accounted for that are harder to measure than simple stoichiometry for fuel burning. Focusing only on CO2 makes it much easier to shift the cost to other areas that you aren't considering.
I'm sorry you didn't understand the reason I brought that up. (Next time, maybe divert some of your mind's powers away from thinking up dramatic flourishes and toward understanding someone's argument?) My point there was that as fuel prices go up -- whether because of tax or higher demand -- everyone all the way up the production chain searches for the next-easiest way to cut back, meaning they happen before the end user ("consumer") has to make any conscious decision to cut back.
Wow, so you make the most trivial and banal observation in all of economics. Profit-minded businesses try to reduce costs and increase efficiency. And that solves everything, eh? I am so enlightened. Meanwhile, you completely ignore my point which was the question: How much should gas actually cost? How are you going to internalize the actual environmental cost of the gas? You realize that there's more to fuel oil than CO2, and that the other "externalities" depend on the type of car, ship, plane, power station which is using them, right? How are you going to define this such that it is accurate and fair and free of politics, and thus better than the options? Flourish my ass, you're the one with empty platitudes.
Fasters than doing nothing, sure. Faster than simply internalizing the costs of fossil fuels? Pure assertion on your part.
You mean pure strawman on your part, since I never said that. But your whole premise requires that you assume your "internalization" will produce faster results. How, when people are willing to pay more for status symbols, is image-is-all LA going to get better as fast with your purely economic solution than a California mandate for lower emission vehicles?
Even if I assume that it would be faster just to make you happy, my point was that emission standards worked. So say whatever you want about what is ideal, people advocating standards had a practical solution that resulted in a cleaner environment. And you have the chutzpah, the unrestrained balls to imply they weren't really concerned with the environment?
No, it's entirely reasonable to expect people trying to fix a major problem to determine if ... er, what they're doing actually fixes the problem, and the utter failure to transform that ideal solution (basically handed to them by economists) into a practical plan does say something about where their priorities lie.
Whatever. I haven't heard a single thing from you about how this eternal problem of economics is going to be magically solved such that every environmental costs. You aren't discussing at all the practical ramifications and difficulties of your suggestion. You know what real environmentalists care about? Real solutions. Yours is a pipe dream. You might be able to make it into something real, if you really really tried, but in the meantime, questioning the motives of those who propose and implement real solutions, however sub-optimal, is complete bullshit.
Like I said, your idea is great, the optimal solution. It is also difficult to implement, and you ignore both engineering and political obstacles
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
And how exactly is someone who only played a few hours of the game because the DRM fscked their system up so badly they had to uninstall supposed to do that?
I know this is Slashdot, the realm of the overly pedantic
I believe the more correct term would be "excessively". ;)
To pass it, the alarmist would have to advocate replacing all measures to combat CO2 emissions, with some method of internalization of the environmental costs (possibly with a subsidy to those that remove it from the atmosphere). That means they would advocate:
-No subsidies for specific technologies.
-No efficiency mandates.
-No banning of products on the grounds that they are "inefficient".
-No subsidies for ethanol.
Yeah, that sounds fantastic, except for the whole "internalizing externalities" thing. How exactly are you going to determine what the environmental impact of everything is, convert that into a "cost", and force everyone to pay it every time they do something with such a cost such that economics automatically gives incentives to lower environmental impact?
And remember, you have to do it in such a way that the definition of environmental cost can't be manipulated and skewed to the benefit of some at the expense of others, or it's no better than the techniques you disdain.
Wal-Mart and Tide are becoming more efficient because of the rising price of fuel, and the price of fuel has very little if anything to do with the environmental impact of fossil fuels. If it did, the price would be even higher. But how much higher? Do you know? Does anyone? What should the price of gas be in order to fully internalize the environmental impact so as to make your vision a reality?
While you're figuring that out, over the last 20+ years efficiency and emissions mandates have made a real impact -- ask anyone who lived in LA in the 80s. And subsidies for 'green' energy have caused the amount of energy produced in the U.S. through clean methods to increase much faster than it would have otherwise. I'd argue that those subsidies at least for wind power are no longer necessary, but I also can't deny their effects. On the other hand ethanol in this country is nothing but a cynical gift to the already fat and bloated corn lobby that will hurt more than it helps.
So in theory I agree with you 110%. The ultimate solution is to internalize environmental costs. But until you can turn the buzzword into a practical plan, don't go around saying that anyone who is proposing some other specific method of helping the environment doesn't really care about the environment and is only after power. Some are bad -- ethanol is purely a power/money grab, and carbon credits are a silly idea. Others aren't -- emissions and efficiency standards have a real impact, and subsidies for clean energy help replace dirty energy when it's otherwise not economical to do so. Perfect? No. Practical? Can be. Real? Yes, which is more than I can say for the ideal solution, as great as it is in theory.
I've always prefered multiple windows instead of tabs, I already have a 'tab' thingy, its called the taskbar in Windows.
Except I don't want my browser tab area cluttering/being cluttered by every other application I'm running. I don't want to have my taskbar cluttered by all my browser windows when I'm not using my browser; I don't want my desktop cluttered by multiple browser windows I have to manage individually, and I want to easily be able to manipulate my browser tabs separately or as a group, again without considering other application windows.
Tabs are better.
I have a lot of respect for Stallman and GNU. My take on the GNU/Linux thing has always been this: It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, and something I'm simply not going to do. "Linux" is the name I use for the system, it's short and convenient, and I'm not going to complicate it just for the sake of accuracy any more than I'm going to say "facial tissue" instead of kleenex. Linux is just a noun to me.
I'm almost not sure I want to know... I mean, machines this old, of such ridiculous complexity and with as many quirks and hacks as we are already aware of? I'm afraid I might faint at the point where it says "And now for the most important step, Chief Engineer Jim applies a fresh square of duct tape to the fuel line regulator control to keep it from jostling which could cause it to fail and the shuttle to explode. Applying a new piece of duct tape is a new procedure mandated after the Columbia disaster."
Joking of course, I do want to know, but I'd bet you anything there are some pretty scary hacks going on behind the scenes. :)
No he's not. Actually you are backing he up, but you start by saying he's wrong. He says he doesn't want creationism taught in science then you say they are trying to use ID to teach creationism in science.
Please understand the full context of the conversation. He was originally disagreeing with the person who said that Palin wanting creationism taught in schools -- in the context of science class as an alternative to evolution -- was a bad thing, and unconstitutional. He continued arguing this point until he realized that this was in the context of science class, where he made the bolded statement.
So I wasn't saying that the bolded statement was him talking about something else. It was every other post he made, where he was arguing in favor of creationism in history class. Which is a completely different debate than what everyone else on either side is talking about when we're talking about teaching creationism in school. Thus, "you're talking about something different than what other people are talking about".
Get it now?
It was a pretty retarded joke to begin with, but you're welcome. :)
I guess that all depends on what "I'd tap her" means...
I'd tap that ass... to be my running mate.