Love the new hair, Aimee!
Gunn ,'Power Play'
Spike's Bitches 44: It's about the rules having changed.
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
Oooh, great new hair, Aimee.
ION, argh. My pajama pants just ripped across the knee. This was my last pair of intact pajama pants.
I was in Chicago a few weeks ago and walked past the hotel we stayed in. Totally thought about you and that awesome weekend.
That was such a good weekend. Thinking about it, I miss everyone all over again. It's been too long since I've seen any of y'all.
Aims, your new hair is awesome. It looks great on you.
I must learn to walk away from stupid blog arguments. I got called anti-science! I so have the urge to write a really long response in technical language, but I know that that would be petty.
You could hit them with Anti-Math: [link]
You could hit them with Anti-Math
Hee! That's actually fairly clever.
It seems I'm anti-science because, in a discussion of a mainstream newspaper article about a talk about a scientific paper that hasn't been published yet, I said that some of the conclusions discussed in the newspaper article don't seem like they could be justified by the data considered in the study. I disputed something that Science Says! (I'm already suspect in this forum because I'm religious, and thus clearly deficient in critical thinking and logic.) (And most of the people arguing against me REALLY do not understand how science works -- they're saying things like "science is our only source of objective truth." ::headdesk::)
I join you in your headdesking, Hil. We really need to start teaching logic in schools much earlier, because it sounds like those folk really don't understand it.
they're saying things like "science is our only source of objective truth." ::headdesk::
The number of laypeople I've run into (on multiple sides of science/religion arguments) who have no freakin' clue what science really is boggles the mind, truly.
The number of laypeople I've run into (on multiple sides of science/religion arguments) who have no freakin' clue what science really is boggles the mind, truly.
Yes. And this one isn't even a science/religion argument. It's a science/bad science argument. (Or, rather, bad science reporting, since we're arguing about a study that hasn't even been published yet.) And once it is published, peer review is not an ultimate designation of truth! Peer review is a designation of "this is not utter crap," and "someone else might be interested in this."