ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags snakes

Reply
Old 26th April 2006, 10:03 AM   #161
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves View Post
Oh, I hadn't seen that before, but it's a priceless example of why this otherwise trivial matter is significant. Claus badgers and bullies other posters to answer his contrived questions, and derides any semantic quibbling about what he thinks they meant - but he can't take what he dishes out.

A part of a leg is not a leg. It remains a part of a leg. And "you" (to any definition of "you") most certainly do not "walk on" a severed part of a cooked leg. (Remember the wording of the original question.)

A "member" may be a leg. But of the other hand it may not. It may be an arm. Or something else.

Claus, please provide the name and publication details of the dictionary you were referring to in support of your remark:
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
On the other hand.... Maybe not....
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
A dictionary?



.....whattamaroon...
Come on, Claus, enough with the evasions, you said "all are allowed by the dictionary", I want to know what the entries that you were relying on said, and where they come from.

You did have a dictionary reference, didn't you? I mean, you woudn't have claimed that "all are allowed by the dictionary" without some sort of lexicon support, would you?

And then you can tell us how this illuminates the question of whether the brille of a snake can be classified as eyelids.

Easy questions. You attack other who won't answer the questions you choose to pose. Why are you evading these?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 10:50 AM   #162
NotJesus
Unsaviory
 
NotJesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,629
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Easy questions. You attack other who won't answer the questions you choose to pose. Why are you evading these?
I see three possibilities:

1) Claus really is stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, despite what dictionaries say and despite several posters' attempts to patiently and logically explain why it is not so, in terms which should be clear to a reasonably intelligent eight-year-old (even an eight-year-old whose native language is not English).

2) Claus would rather pretend to be stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, than admit that he was wrong. (Has Claus ever admitted he was wrong about ANYTHING?)

3) Claus is amusing himself with a private joke -- one which is funny only to himself.
NotJesus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 12:39 PM   #163
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,493
Originally Posted by NotJesus View Post
I see three possibilities:

1) Claus really is stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, despite what dictionaries say and despite several posters' attempts to patiently and logically explain why it is not so, in terms which should be clear to a reasonably intelligent eight-year-old (even an eight-year-old whose native language is not English).

2) Claus would rather pretend to be stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, than admit that he was wrong. (Has Claus ever admitted he was wrong about ANYTHING?)

3) Claus is amusing himself with a private joke -- one which is funny only to himself.
Actually, I'm betting option 4) Claus is a crank, and is only interested in preaching his own viewpoint, regardless of the facts. This option also incorporates bits of all of the above, depending on circumstances.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 01:12 PM   #164
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by NotJesus View Post
I see three possibilities:

1) Claus really is stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, despite what dictionaries say and despite several posters' attempts to patiently and logically explain why it is not so, in terms which should be clear to a reasonably intelligent eight-year-old (even an eight-year-old whose native language is not English).

2) Claus would rather pretend to be stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, than admit that he was wrong. (Has Claus ever admitted he was wrong about ANYTHING?)

3) Claus is amusing himself with a private joke -- one which is funny only to himself.
I was thinking the truth was 2, but that Claus was trying rather unsuccessfully to pass it off as 3.

However, luchdog's point is also very persuasive.

Actually, I'm not even sure he's been "wrong" about anything here, as such. He merely posted a virtually meaningless question which seemed to imply that Darat might refer to his legs as drumsticks.

Many electrons died before he finally indicated that this had not been the intent of the question, though rather than admit that the fault was his for wording it poorly, he chose to blame the English language.

We are still left wondering what his point actually was. I still have, like, no idea at all man. Thus I want to know which dictionary he was consulting to support his assertion that "all are allowed by the dictionary", and I want to know the details of the entry or entries he was using to come to that conclusion. I also want to know how he proposed to use any answer he might have received to support his point that the brille of a snake may be classified as eyelids. In order to understand whatever the hell it was he might have meant.

Not difficult questions, but ones he continues to evade.

Note that I do not in fact wholly disagree with Claus on the main issue. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve when he says
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
.... it's a stretch to call the covering of a snake's eyes eyelids.
Yes, it's a stretch. I'm very persuaded by the many references provided earlier in the thread which reject that usage, but I have also found one reputable herpetological text which does use the word eyelid in that context.

It's not the usual way the terms are used, but at a stretch, one might allow it. So what?

So what is just Claus wanting to pick a fight with Steve, because he sees Steve (the Steve from two years ago) as a woo with whom he has history, and who left the forum leaving unanswered questions behind. He expects everyone to fall in line and agree with him, because this is a sceptics forum, and he is the uber-sceptic, and so the good guy. He must be right, by definition, while Steve, as the woo, must be wrong. Even a trivial typo ("Accipter" for "Accipiter", I think) must be picked up on by Claus and highlighted, because any little failing of Steve's must be noted.

Er, no. It doesn't work like that, Claus.

I've got a history with the old Steve too. But rather than pursue that now, I'm far more interested in meeting the Steve of 2006, who has yet to say anything even remotely woo-ish that I've seen, and who has made numerous interesting (and occasionally amusing) posts. And I'm happy to get to know this Steve on his own terms, and wait until he volunteers anything about his current attitude to matters woo - if indeed he ever chooses to do this.

I don't like Claus muscling into every thread Steve posts in, posting snide remarks which derail the thread (oops, sorry Goshawk, you pointed out it wasn't a derail in your case, it was a hijack) and bumping ancient threads with cryptic comments just because he sees Steve's account is active.

Nevertheless, this is one thread I don't have the slightest qualm about derailing, considering I have some sneaky (and quite unreasonable) ideas about why it was started in the first place.

If Claus has been "wrong" about anything in this thread, it was in the implication in his OP that the inclusion of the remark about the snake opening its eyes was a strong reason for doubting the entire story.

Hell, we take anything printed by the Sun with a good solid pinch of salt. Weren't they "Freddie Starr ate my hamster!"? But beyond that, is it more likely that the woman simply imagined in retrospect that she'd seen the snake open its eyes, or that there was no snake, and no broccoli, and maybe no woman either?

Arguing against the essential veracity of an entire story because of one clearly wrong but probably simply mistaken element can take us right into CT territory.

Rolfe.

PS. From the hijacked thread.
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
The lesson here? You can't run away from the questions.
All I can say is, you're making a damn good try at it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 26th April 2006 at 02:23 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 01:23 PM   #165
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,188
I'd just like to point out that, drumsticks and brilles aside, it's not unheard of for snakes to appear in foods.

Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 02:17 PM   #166
Archangel
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Meffy View Post
I'd just like to point out that, drumsticks and brilles aside, it's not unheard of for snakes to appear in foods.

http://www.freewebtown.com/meffy/stu...orn_snakes.jpg

That's it I'm never getting corn flakes again, just in case I pick them up by mistake.

*shudders* bloody snakes
__________________
A daemonibus docetur,
de daemonibus docet,
et ad daemoneus ducit

Archangel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 02:25 PM   #167
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
That's it I'm never getting corn flakes again, just in case I pick them up by mistake.

*shudders* bloody snakes
Oooh, a friend of mine breeds corn snakes. I think they're way cool. If a tad lacking in the "affectionate pet" department.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 02:56 PM   #168
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,188
Heh, I did that to celebrate the hatching of an online friend's pet's... erm, clutch(?) of eggs. Corn snakes, of course. :-) It was that or sing Zappa's "Baby Snakes" at the top of my lungs, and I've enough respect for the cost of replacement glass to see why that'd be a poor choice.
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 03:04 PM   #169
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Cute.

I'll never forget one afternoon at our SF reading group, when I produced some photographs of Caramel, who was at that time promised to me but as yet unweaned. Example....



My friend took an indulgent glance at the pics, then reached into his pocket and produced a much fatter pack of his own. He grinned evilly, and simply remarked "I see your baby piccies, and raise you my baby piccies."

These were the very pictures, if I remember rightly.

What could I say?

I fold.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 03:07 PM   #170
JLam
Proud Skepkid Parent
 
JLam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,149
Rolfe, your tenacity is to be admired. You'll have to pardon me for laughing out loud at the utter silliness of all this, because despite the topic I believe you're making a very good point. It's just that the subject matter is such that reading all the references to drumsticks and snakes' eyelids and reptilian infested broccoli is just so...so...it's just great comedy.

Keep on keepin' on, though. This is good stuff.
__________________
Help take down Sylvia Browne.

"what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory
JLam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 03:28 PM   #171
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Oh, it's completely bugf*****g nuts. I don't even have much of a clue what point Claus was trying to make, and I'm not sure he does either. It was all about holding Steve to some unspecified claims Claus thinks he made over two years ago, and in the process having a thread to display in which he could use Steve's participation as evidence that he was running away from the old questions.

Yes, I don't understand it either, but that's what Claus was claiming. I would point out that it was this post
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Since Steve has no problems engaging me elsewhere, it is evidence that he still runs away from the old questions.
linking to this thread, that actually brought me over here in the first place. Then I started to make some very strange connections.

The original OP was verging on the asinine. Why should a mistaken remark about a snake opening its eyes be such stunning proof that the whole story was doubtful as to merit starting an entire thread about it? I couldn't understand that. But then, snakes are Steve's area of hobby expertise. It was likely he might participate in a thread about snakes. And when he duly did, Claus started to use this as "evidence that he still runs away from the old questions". Duh.

At this point I was getting narked by Claus's unrelenting and overbearing pursuit of Steve, and said so. Then this whole silly nonsense about refusing to provide the details of the dictionary entries that support "all are allowed by the dictionary", or explain what the whole idiotic drumstick stuff was intended to achieve, or answer a list of other questions, got started.

I wouldn't bother with this is if weren't for Claus's continuing to hound other posters with remarks about "evasion noted" and "you can't run away from the questions". And at least this thread was started by Claus, so nobody else is being derailed.

I guess my irony meter is just getting a workout.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 03:42 PM   #172
HarryKeogh
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,319
Interesting Ian asks for help with Microsoft Excel and this is Claus' response...

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=55232

Quote:
Here's how:

Turn off your computer.

Don't turn it on again. Ever.
which makes statements like this meaningless...

Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Feel free to contribute to the discussion with something of substance.

He will also say something like...

Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Do you think that making a joke about her appearance makes people think well of skeptics?
to which I would respond "Do you think acting like a complete pompous ass makes people think well of skeptics".

and then read the original post and Claus' reply in this thread...

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=54161

What the hell kind of response was that??? Talk about trying to pick fights.

My favorite is when he tried to say sodomy laws were still being used in the USA. Even though he was shown the Supreme Court decision that ruled those laws unconstitutional (and thus any sodomy laws void) he insisted sodomy laws still existed because an adult was charged with sodomizing a five-year old girl. Of course, I made the silly assumption that we were talking about consenting adults (this is what the Supreme Court decision deals with) but Claus chose to take this low road to make himself feel correct. So yes, Claus it's illegal to sodomize kids in America. Damn freedom-hating Americans!

That's when I realized he's a complete whack job.

I've considered putting him on ignore but his bizarre behavior is just so damn entertaining that I can't bring myself to do it. I learn nothing from him but he makes me laugh.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Maybe you can answer the questions?
Indeed, Claus...answer Rolfe's questions.
HarryKeogh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 03:56 PM   #173
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
I just caught up with the end of the Split From: Question for Doctors: What is "protocrit"? thread, which became a sort of companion piece to this one. It got even madder after I had to leave it, before Claus seems to have got fed up repeating "Oh I see, a leg is not a leg. Alice in Wonderland." with a sort of knowing grin.

This is just embarrassing. In his own name, with the link to SkepticReport in his sig, and everything. I've lost any respect I ever had for the guy.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 04:00 PM   #174
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,188
Rolfe: I think your kitten's way cuter but to each his own. :-D (If kids1.jpg is any indication, you're not the only one who folds.)

Anyway, beg pardon for the disruption; I'll return to just reading the thread.
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 04:06 PM   #175
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
That's not a fold, that's a.... uh.... pleat?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 04:57 PM   #176
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,188
*snerk*

(sorry)
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 08:22 PM   #177
Archangel
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Oooh, a friend of mine breeds corn snakes. I think they're way cool. If a tad lacking in the "affectionate pet" department.

Rolfe.
I'll take your word on that, it might have something to do with the amount of poisonous snakes we have over here, but all snakes just give me the wiggins.


Meffy, Ill pay for any replacement glass if you promise not to post that again.
__________________
A daemonibus docetur,
de daemonibus docet,
et ad daemoneus ducit

Archangel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 08:27 PM   #178
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,080
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I just caught up with the end of the Split From: Question for Doctors: What is "protocrit"? thread, which became a sort of companion piece to this one. It got even madder after I had to leave it, before Claus seems to have got fed up repeating "Oh I see, a leg is not a leg. Alice in Wonderland." with a sort of knowing grin.

This is just embarrassing. In his own name, with the link to SkepticReport in his sig, and everything. I've lost any respect I ever had for the guy.

Rolfe.
What bothers me is that Randi trusts the guy...considers him a good skeptic...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 08:33 PM   #179
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Claus is like skepticism's crazy but lovable uncle.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 08:41 PM   #180
Terry
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
What could I say?
Baaayyyybeeee.... baby snaaaakes </zappa>
Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2006, 11:09 PM   #181
trvlr2
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 832
CFLarsen 1. Will never admit he is wrong; 2. will never admit he is wrong.
trvlr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 12:53 AM   #182
JLam
Proud Skepkid Parent
 
JLam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,149
OK, I've just had an idea. My brain hurts a bit now, so bear with me if it's stupid.

Some folks are arguing that the chicken's leg only becomes a drumstick after the chicken has died. Claus seems to think that a chicken's leg can rightfully be referred to as a drumstick even before the chicken has died. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Claus, but that's the impression I've gotten by reading the thread.)

By Claus' reasoning, "live chicken leg=drumstick". OK. But by the same reasoning, one could say "live human body=corpse". Right? Because if an attached live leg is also a drumstick, that would mean that a live human body can accurately be described as a corpse. Am I off base here?

But of course, that's ridiculous. A live human body is obviously not a corpse. In the same way, Claus, a live attached chicken leg is not a drumstick.

And I'll save you some keystrokes by saying: I get it. A leg is not a leg. (and a corpse is not a corpse either!)
__________________
Help take down Sylvia Browne.

"what's dicksing? my dicksionary have no word for that" - Pillory
JLam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 08:58 AM   #183
strathmeyer
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,380
This is totally unfair. If you're going to debunk Claus, you should make another thread so that everybody who got sick of reading this one can read it.
strathmeyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 12:22 PM   #184
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,493
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Oooh, a friend of mine breeds corn snakes. I think they're way cool. If a tad lacking in the "affectionate pet" department.
My red-tail boa is a fairly affectionate sort, for a reptile. And very heavy. Of course, it may just be that I'm really warm.

Green Iguanas can be as affectionate and cuddly as cats; which, if you've ever cuddled an iggy, you'd know is not necessarily a good thing. Like cuddling rough sandpaper.

Quote:
If Claus has been "wrong" about anything in this thread, it was in the implication in his OP that the inclusion of the remark about the snake opening its eyes was a strong reason for doubting the entire story.
That seems to be his schtick in most cases -- responding with vague, nonsensical, tangential, or otherwise irrelevant comments or out-of-context passages to attempt to dismiss, rather than actually refute, a point or argument. He's particularly fond of ridiculous semantic games with English; which makes me believe that he either has nowhere near as good a grasp of the language as he likes to claim, or that he has a very good grasp, and is intellectually dishonest.

As for not being "wrong" about things; maybe not in the strictest sense here; but there have been other threads where his claims violate not only basic logic and common sense (as they do here); but the known principles of physics and medical science; to the point of denying the existence of documented medical evidence (or simply pretending it doesn't exist and refusing to address it). See some of the older firearm threads for examples.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 01:08 PM   #185
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
Oh and Claus, given that you haven't answered Rolfes' questions:

Do we have to start a Larsen list for you?

I mean you wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite in your badgering of Steve would you?
Now, there's an idea.

I mean, this was all about Claus trumpeting his "evidence" that Steve "still runs away from the old questions". Of course I and probably everybody else have completely forgotten what these questions (from two years ago) were, and Claus has not seen fit to remind us.

How much easier it is to have a single summary of the outstanding matters, at least those that seem most important, to which attention can be drawn as the occasion arises! For example, further demands that posters answer some question or other. Of course, Claus would never want to be seen as running away from questions himself, I'm sure.

So, here are the main questions from the many that have arisen during the thread, in a handy list format.
  1. Claus posted:
    Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
    Originally Posted by Darat View Post
    No it is you that is playing semantics. Given the definition of an eye lid it is incorrect to state that snakes have "fused eyelids". Snakes have a different structure that protects their eyes, some creatures have eyelids, some have brills.
    What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
    Claus, please give the name and publication details of the dictionary you were using to support the statement "all are allowed by the dictionary". Please also quote in full the entry or entries you were relying on.
  2. Please explain how any answer to that question could have been used to illuminate the matter of whether or not the brille of a snake may be classified as eyelids.
  3. Do we (that is us human beings, for the avoidance of doubt) refer to our eyelids as brille? If not, why not?
  4. Why were you so adamant that Wikipedia was a reliable reference for the use of the word "eyelid" in connection to the brille, rather than (for example) Webster's Dictionary? Especially in view of the numerous other occasions you have derided other posters for relying on Wikipedia as a source, while you have previously recommended Webster's as reliable? (See Mahatma Kane Jeeves' language award nominated post presenting the evidence for this is excruciating detail.)
All right, I think that's enough.

Claus may see this as trivial. However, he must realise that it's not the petty semantics that are the issue, but the matter of someone who chooses to hound and badger other posters for allegedly running away from questions they may not want to answer, running away himself and giving grounds for accusations of hypocrisy. The questions may be trivial, but they are not difficult.

Oh, and Claus, be advised that "I see. A leg is not a leg. Alice in Wonderland" and variations thereof is not an adequate response, and every repetition of such will be seen as adding further to the impression of evasion and hypocrisy.

Rolfe.

PS. Any poster at all has complete permission to link to this post any time Claus attacks them with a "Larsen List", or demands an answer to one or more contrived and baited questions, or accuses them of "running away from the questions". Feel free.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 27th April 2006 at 01:11 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 01:12 PM   #186
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,108
Can I just point out that my contributions to this thread have nothing to do about who was posting anything, whether that be Claus, Steve or Rolfe, I was interested in demonstrating why the description of a snake's eye protection (brille) as "fused eyelids" is either inaccurate and/or wrong.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 01:26 PM   #187
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Can I just point out that my contributions to this thread have nothing to do about who was posting anything, whether that be Claus, Steve or Rolfe, I was interested in demonstrating why the description of a snake's eye protection (brille) as "fused eyelids" is either inaccurate and/or wrong.
Anyone who has seen a snake's shed skin will know that the covering over the eye is not a fused eyelid. It is also called an eyecap or a spectacle but not a lid or an eyelid. It is a transparent circular scale that goes over the eye, known as a brille (origin of term given previously above).
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 02:39 PM   #188
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
 
TheBoyPaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,640
Great, laugh-out-loud thread. Thanks.
__________________
Paj sits down and sings about gold.
TheBoyPaj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 06:26 PM   #189
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
How much easier it is to have a single summary of the outstanding matters, at least those that seem most important, to which attention can be drawn as the occasion arises! For example, further demands that posters answer some question or other. Of course, Claus would never want to be seen as running away from questions himself, I'm sure.
Well, if you have any luck, you can add the ones in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ight=democracy

The initial post (quoted) and response leading to the list of questions is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=20

or here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=34

or here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=39

here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=54

While the list of questions that were completely ignored can be found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=74

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4&postcount=78

with a few extras here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4&postcount=80

The 17 questions listed above were posted on December 7, 2005 (a date that will live in infamy), and (along with the additional few) were bumped (by me) on Dec 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, (X-mas break), Jan 3 , 4, 8, and 16. Well over a month, a time of active posting for the gentleman in question, without even an attempted response.

Good luck, Rolfe.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 07:54 PM   #190
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Then there's the gam. Which is a bunch of whales or a leg. Which looks like a drumsick in some cases. In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg. Or two. About 10 kilotons.
But now for something completely different.
http://tcruiseko.ymnd.com/

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 27th April 2006 at 08:09 PM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 08:37 PM   #191
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
Then there's the gam. Which is a bunch of whales or a leg. Which looks like a drumsick in some cases. In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg. Or two. About 10 kilotons.
. . . aaaand Mornington Crescent.


Well played, all.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 08:41 PM   #192
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
To see a shed snake skin with the brille intact, visit:

go to photo 113 and click on enlarge

http://www.snakepictures.co.uk/snake_shedding_skin.htm


SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2006, 08:41 PM   #193
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Scroll down toward end of page:

http://www.hiltonpond.org/ThisWeek020808.html


I hope these actual photographs at the urls cited provide sufficient visual evidence as to why the structure covering snake's eyes are not eyelids.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 27th April 2006 at 08:49 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 04:24 AM   #194
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
I'm not sure it's quite so clear-cut. As you said before, "it would be a bit of a stretch". I think that's closer to the truth. You've presented a good number of references that clearly state that "snakes do not have eyelids", and I think we all understand what that means. However, depending on how one regards the semantics, I can see that different usages may be allowable.

It's beyond doubt that the nictitating membrane and the haw are frequently described as "the third eyelid", so clearly the word eyelid doesn't only refer to the two opposing lids we usually mean by the term. Thus we have some precedent for the usage of the word as an "umbrella term", encompassing more than one specific type of eyelid. Nevertheless, these structures are also movable (except in species where they are vestigial), and this doesn't necessarily prove that the term can be extended to cover the spectacle as well, which, being immovable, has much less claim to the term "lid".

I checked one reference, a CD-rom called A Guide to Snakes, published in 2000 by the Royal Veterinary College as an educational resource for veterinary surgeons, and authored by Michael Walters, BVSc, MSc, MRCVS, Professor Peneel Zwart, DVM, PhD and Professor Frederic L. Frye, BSc, DVM, MSc, CBiol, FIBiol, FRSM. In the anatomy section I found the following paragraph.
Quote:
Spectacle
The embryonically fused eyelids (hence no palpebral fissure) form a transparent covering of the eye called the spectacle (also known as the brille or eyecap).
So these authors seem not to have a problem with the use of "eyelid" as an umbrella term which may include the spectacle in the same way as it includes the nictitating membrane.

As I see it, common usage states that "snakes do not have eyelids" as a simple way to begin the explanation of the true situation, that instead they have something quite unlike what we would normally refer to as eyelids. In this usage "eyelid" is being used as a specific term to describe a pair of eyelids such as those human beings have. Nevertheless I don't think this necessarily excludes the possibility that "eyelid" may also serve as an umbrella term to include not only "ordinary" eyelids, but also nictitating membranes, haws, and (certainly according to the CD-rom) brille(n) (is that the correct plural?).

There's no doubt that everyone in this conversation is entirely clear on what it is that snakes do have, and the argument is purely semantic. I don't think, in fact, that anyone is indisputably wrong here.

My beef in this thread has never been with the possible acceptability of the umbrella usage, but with Claus's ambiguous, evasive and frankly hypocritical approach to the debate.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 28th April 2006 at 04:28 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 04:47 AM   #195
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
Well, if you have any luck, you can add the ones in this thread:....

While the list of questions that were completely ignored can be found here:....

The 17 questions listed above were posted on December 7, 2005 (a date that will live in infamy), and (along with the additional few) were bumped (by me) on Dec 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, (X-mas break), Jan 3 , 4, 8, and 16. Well over a month, a time of active posting for the gentleman in question, without even an attempted response.

Good luck, Rolfe.
Claus began all this by declaring that Steve's decision not to post in threads where Claus believed he had challenged him was "evidence that he still runs away from the old questions".

I think we can all see the obvious conclusion here.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 06:25 AM   #196
Meffy
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,188
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
In others it looks like Little Boy, a smaller thermoneuclear device than Big Boy. Which looked like a large leg.
[pedantic] Fat Man, not Big Boy. [/pedantic]

Fat Man looked rather like a large EGG, not a leg. Nor a drumstick. Surely you're not implying that humans lay eggs, then beat them with drumsticks?!?!

O_:-}
Meffy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 07:13 AM   #197
voidx
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,479
Originally Posted by NotJesus View Post
I see three possibilities:

1) Claus really is stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, despite what dictionaries say and despite several posters' attempts to patiently and logically explain why it is not so, in terms which should be clear to a reasonably intelligent eight-year-old (even an eight-year-old whose native language is not English).

2) Claus would rather pretend to be stupid enough to believe drumstick = leg, than admit that he was wrong. (Has Claus ever admitted he was wrong about ANYTHING?)

3) Claus is amusing himself with a private joke -- one which is funny only to himself.
I would hazard a guess that Claus may have retracted his statement or changed his mind after some brow beating. But in this case, the first definitive rebuttal of his claim came from Steve Grenard. Knowing their history it seems entirely likely that Claus would rather burn in hell than retract a statement based on a concise rebuttal from Steve.

In my opinion this is the problem with voracious, fire and brimstone like tenacity in dealing with people whose beliefs are contrary to our own. It leaves you in a position where anytime you might have to admit to being wrong, that it feels like swallowing razor blades.

The semantics game is being played by Claus. It seems clear that the technical term for the protective structure of a snakes eye is brille. Whether or not it is justified to also call that structure an eyelid is almost irrelevant. Snakes have brilles. Period.
__________________
V O I D X ' S S I G N A T U R E
voidx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 08:20 AM   #198
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
Originally Posted by voidx View Post
I would hazard a guess that Claus may have retracted his statement or changed his mind after some brow beating.
Point of information. Is anyone aware of any occasion where Claus has ever retracted any statement, in the "I was mistaken" sense?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 09:07 AM   #199
LW
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Point of information. Is anyone aware of any occasion where Claus has ever retracted any statement, in the "I was mistaken" sense?
There have been a couple of times. Once he misidentified an Estonian text as Finnish and he accepted the correction. I don't remember the details of the other few cases.
LW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2006, 09:38 AM   #200
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,315
A link to an example would be interesting, if anyone has one.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.