« Some people call me Mao-Rice | Main | Brow-lifter of the day »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.colbycosh.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/119
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 14, 2007 2:04 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Some people call me Mao-Rice.
The next post in this blog is Brow-lifter of the day.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (18)
I *knew* you'd get exposed sooner or later!
Posted by Jason Hickman | September 14, 2007 2:41 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 14:41
Debate tonight at coffeeshops across the land will focus on whether you are an agent of the fourth or fifth international.
Posted by dreid | September 14, 2007 3:30 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 15:30
Well, he's already a member of the Fourth (and possibly the Fifth) Estate(s) — isn't that bad enough? ;-)
Posted by Garth Wood | September 14, 2007 3:41 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 15:41
Isn't it every journalist's dream to offend people of all stripes?
Posted by Half Canadian | September 14, 2007 5:09 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 17:09
Even Kinsella didn't understand your article on the multicult/public education contradiction, which is why he promptly linked your column to his blog as a position in favour of Dalton. I guess he read only the first page. Maybe that's why the offending blogger considered you a liberal since Kinsella linked to you?
Too bad so few people seemed to have understood the importance of what you said, including the Tory war room.
Posted by thor | September 14, 2007 6:10 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 18:10
Waitaminute - you're a Liberal? Aw, hell.
Posted by Mike W | September 14, 2007 6:21 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 18:21
No, Mike, this is good! Could be some hope for the Liberals yet. Or the liberals. I can't tell, since the word appeared at the start of a sentence.
But compared to most Creationists, I imagine he is pretty liberal,
Posted by Ryan Cousineau | September 14, 2007 7:51 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 19:51
That's it, Cosh, you can forget about me voting for your wacky liberal proposal to teach creationism to private kindergarten classes.
Posted by sacamano | September 14, 2007 8:35 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 20:35
That's just the kind of talk I'd expect from a filthy Satan-worshipping secular scientist who gets paid to teach undergraduates that they are rutting, hairless, slobbering monkeys. Vade retro me, Sacamane!
Posted by Colby Cosh | September 14, 2007 8:48 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 20:48
"Creationism is seen as American"?
That's sure to empty the churches in Canada.
Posted by sf | September 14, 2007 10:30 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 22:30
Right, because all Christians are automatically opposed to the idea of Darwinian evolution.
Posted by Colby Cosh | September 14, 2007 10:40 PM
Posted on September 14, 2007 22:40
I would never teach undergraduate students that they are monkeys ... it is quite clear from their lack of tails that they are apes.
Simia quam similis, turpissimus bestia, nobis! -- Cicero
Posted by sacamano | September 15, 2007 5:14 AM
Posted on September 15, 2007 05:14
Sacamano --
Any monophyletic definition of monkey must include the apes. Are you one of those classification heretics who defends paraphyly?
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic | September 15, 2007 1:31 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 13:31
For the first time in a very long while, the blogosphere has forced me to refer to my full OED on CD.
Yoicks.
Posted by Garth Wood | September 15, 2007 4:07 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 16:07
Warmongering Lunatic
I can't think of too many contemporary taxonomists who would even agree that 'monkeys' are a monphyletic group, never mind one that would include apes.
I'll reluctantly agree that if you want to go back far enough you could point to the monophyletic clade Catarrhines, which would lump old world monkeys and apes (but exclude new world monkeys). But if you're going to go that far back, why not go all the way to primates, or mammals, or amniotes, or tetrapods . . .
If we are talking about the smallest monophyletic grouping including my poor students, then I'm afraid monkeys of any stripe don't cut the mustard. Heck, most taxonomists don't even let poor old Pongo in the door these days, never mind the lovely gibbons and siamangs.
Posted by sacamano | September 15, 2007 6:49 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 18:49
BIG WORDS MAKE BABY JESUS CRY
Posted by Colby Cosh | September 15, 2007 6:50 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 18:50
That's 'cause he's just an ape.
Posted by sacamano | September 15, 2007 7:01 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 19:01
Well, if I were seriously trying to define monkeys monophyletically, I'd probably go back to Simiiformes, as the smallest monophyletic group to to include both New World and Old World monkeys. And that would drag all the apes in.
That would be the same sort of logic that would count a penguin as a reptile, of course. The sort of absurdity that would indicate my original comment was the product of either 1) a half-educated devotion to monophyly, or 2) an attempt at a sly dig at those with such a devotion, by comparing them to religious persons denouncing heresy.
(To quote the Simpsons episode "They Saved Lisa's Brain:
LISA: Ha! Only one person in a million would find that funny.
FRINK: Yes, we call that the "Dennis Miller Ratio."
The Warmongering Lunatic ratio is, alas, probably closer to one in six billion.)
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic | September 15, 2007 11:54 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 23:54