Comment #13117

Posted by Dave Thomas on January 9, 2005 01:11 AM (e) (s)

Verrry interestink!

Thanks Pim!

Cheers, Dave

Comment #13128

Posted by Steve on January 9, 2005 12:21 PM (e) (s)

Given all the dishonest of that crowd, I’m not surprised at all.  I am mildly surprised they even allow comments.

Comment #13129

Posted by Wedgie World on January 9, 2005 01:20 PM (e) (s)

No comments seem to be allowed anymore. Teach the controversy seems to be limited to a one sided exchange.
That’s too bad.

Comment #13145

Posted by Mike Hopkins on January 9, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

No comments seem to be allowed anymore. Teach the controversy seems to be limited to a one sided exchange.
That’s too bad.

Teach the one-sided exchange?!?

Has anyone with a pro-evolution blog tried to use the trackback feature on them yet?  After all, they still seem to be supporting trackbacks since one does appear on the DI blog.  If the trackbacks are deleted we will have more evidence against them since it defeats the whole reason for having such a feature. And the PT has cited/linked to their blog in articles on the same subject which makes a trackback legit. And if trackbacks are not deleted then some their readers will get a chance to read the real story.  Google and other search engines also rank sites, in part, on outside links pointing to them so the very existence of the link the trackback creates might help the PT in the rankings.  Thus it probably best to always use a trackback whenever possible.

—
Anti-spam: replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Comment #13146

Posted by Steve F on January 9, 2005 05:07 PM (e) (s)

It would appear that along with not knowing much about science, the DI also doesn’t know a great deal about the words irony and hypocrisy. 

They are getting more and more like YECs every day.

Comment #13147

Posted by Wedgie World on January 9, 2005 05:17 PM (e) (s)

Trackback seems to be under moderation as far as I can tell. I tried.
Great minds think alike and so do we….

Comment #13148

Posted by a creationist troll, apparently on January 9, 2005 05:32 PM (e) (s)

Bit of a difference between what is essentially a private blog (albeit one to be read in a public sphere, as all blogs are) and a publically-funded TV station. Like who’s paying for it, for example?

Good grief, they don’t really allow you guys to vote, do they?

:-P

Comment #13150

Posted by Wedgie World on January 9, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

I see, it’s okay to whine about censorship on a private blog and censor but it is not okay for a publically (sic) funded TV station to make programming decisions.

I see… I guess we can soon expect other fringe groups to request access or cry censorship…

Comment #13152

Posted by Mike Hopkins on January 9, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)

I see, it’s okay to whine about censorship on a private blog and censor but it is not okay for a publically (sic) funded TV station to make programming decisions.

I see… I guess we can soon expect other fringe groups to request access or cry censorship…

Yep.

I am quite sure that the Ku Klux Klan will be more than happy to get its programming aired.  Air the controversy!  Don’t “censor” their views!

PBS is supposed to be educational.  That means that not every quack idea should be given free airtime on PBS.  Putting together a slick show with scientific sounding facade does not change that.  Nor does it make it cease to be evangelism which is not part of PBS’s mission.

—
Anti-spam: replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Comment #13157

Posted by Wedgie World on January 9, 2005 06:54 PM (e) (s)

Any idea who are the sponsors of the UMOL video? The Illustra media said that the video was developed in partnership with the Discovery Institute but the DI states that they did not provide any funding.

Would be interested to get an insight into Illustra Media, who claims to be ‘deeply involved with the intelligent design movement’

An interesting comment on the Illustra website

In fact, it is encouraging that a prominent secular magazine would devote so much space to the intelligent design movement.

Why the focus on secular?…. As opposed to what I wonder? The religious focus?

Comment #13158

Posted by Wedgie World on January 9, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

Let’s not forget that the Campus Crusade for Christ is in charge of large volume discounts as well as in charge of the online support and billing

Post a Comment

Trackback: Censorship

Posted by Icons of Intelligent Design on January 9, 2005 12:32 AM

In an ironic twist, the Discovery Institute's Center of Science and Culture blogging website has been involved in censoring user comments.