? Sorry; I didn't mean to say (or even imply) NCSE was slimy. Looking at
their website, they were, um, a bit riled at the Discovery Institute's
response to the PBS Evolution series. This piece just looked like an
"Onion"-esque takeoff of the NCSE bulletins.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> After trying unsuccessfully to identify the agenda of the bit of sarcasm
> posted by Allen Roy, I wrote:
> >> I hesitate to admit it, but I have no idea what the point of this bit of
> >> tongue-in-cheek text is about. Please enlighten me.
> Joel Peter Anderson <email@example.com> replied:
> > Have you visited the NCSE web site? Seems like this release would fit
> > right into the this list with nary a ripple...
> > 10/15/2001 - Gee Decries Discovery Institute's Misuse of Quotes
> > 10/14/2001 - Kauffman Rejects Intelligent Design
> > 10/12/2001 - Gilbert Rebukes Discovery Institute for Use of Quote
> > 10/3/2001 - Moore Corrects Discovery Institute's Poor History
> > 10/3/2001 - Discovery Institute "0 for 3" vs. Miller
> > 10/1/2001 - Coyne Exposes Discovery Institute's "old tricks"
> > 9/27/2001 - Congregational Study Guide for Evolution Series Now Available
> > 9/26/2001 - Discovery Institute Quotes Clark Out of Context
> > 9/25/2001 - Miller: A "Dying Theory" Fails Again
> > 9/17/2001 - Hanken, Pace give lesson to Wells, Behe
> HVT: So, led to expect some really slimy stuff, I visited the NCSE website
joel anderson * firstname.lastname@example.org 612-625-7389
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 17 2001 - 12:20:18 EDT