User talk:Caius/galvestonletter

I'm glad you wrote this; I thought about suggesting it, but I haven't the time to follow through right now. VirileSterileblah, blah, blah 18:09, 12 September 2007 (MDT)


 * Good essay, but I have to question whether such a puerile editorial even deserves a response. I wouldn't think of writing one for some 8 year-old girl writing "my daddy says I ain't no monkey!" which, let's face it, this op ed piece is the intellectual equivalent of. Hell, it basically recounts a well-known fairy tale, then adds a haphazard "and so evolution is bunk" tacked on to the end. But, well, it's not important. But while I have your attention, did Andy ever respond to your message on his intellectualism essay? You descibe it as "ongoing," is that wishful thinking? I suppose we have a minor victory in what I must read as a tacit admittance that Einstein and Pauling are real liberal intellectuals, based on their removal from the list (or are they not liberal, perhaps because, being intellectual, they can't be?). DickTurpis 15:28, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Hello! No, those "ongoing" discussions are wishful thinking. However, I now know that Andy does receive my e-mails, because he posted my "get well" wish to BrianCo, which I had e-mailed to him. So I do think he just doesn't reply to the things he knows he's wrong about. And yes, you're right, the op-ed reply probably wasn't worth my time, but my thinking is twofold. (1) it was fun, and (2) if it gets in, it'll be a press mention that could lead to a Wikipedia entry for RationalWiki. In other news, the author of the op-ed replied to me and said that she forwarded it to the op-ed page manager, so we'll see if I get any traction.-α m ε σ (!) 18:14, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I hope this isn't the final version as it need a bit of copyediting - read the first sentence again. Genghis Khant 16:46, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Frack, I think I corrected it, but I'm sure they will if not. SO DUMB.- 16:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)