R
Redoubtable
Guest
It doesn't matter to me whether or not you're black. I was simply mocking the fact that you have "dawg" in your name and yet you were disparaging Flores for improper grammar. I mean, there is a rather well known correllation among black people, the slang "dawg," and extremely poor grammar. That was the point of the insult.
I'm sorry for it, but I was livid when i saw that you had corrected Flores' grammar. I do that too sometiems, but habitually I save it for people who offend me.
I just added the bit about your statements being "clear and true" since I preferred your views over Flores'.
I'm sorry that I called you a Jack-Ass too.
There was nothing said about "refuting science," comrade. It was "manipulating" science. I'm sure you can discern my reasoning when I write that money manipulates science. I mean, without monetary support, research and experimentation disappears. Any given area of science depends on funds.
Of course, if it seems profitable to move science in a certain direction, all the funding will flow in that direction, and all science in less profitable areas will die for lack of patronage.
Science only goes where the money is, so does that not make science the subordinate of money, of financial gain, of men's greed?
I'm sorry for it, but I was livid when i saw that you had corrected Flores' grammar. I do that too sometiems, but habitually I save it for people who offend me.
I just added the bit about your statements being "clear and true" since I preferred your views over Flores'.
I'm sorry that I called you a Jack-Ass too.
Originally posted by JDawg
Since when does that refute science? Without funding, the practice of science cannot continue on a large level. But there is no evidence that money has--or ever will--alter the findings.
JD
There was nothing said about "refuting science," comrade. It was "manipulating" science. I'm sure you can discern my reasoning when I write that money manipulates science. I mean, without monetary support, research and experimentation disappears. Any given area of science depends on funds.
Of course, if it seems profitable to move science in a certain direction, all the funding will flow in that direction, and all science in less profitable areas will die for lack of patronage.
Science only goes where the money is, so does that not make science the subordinate of money, of financial gain, of men's greed?
Last edited by a moderator: