methinks the lady doth protested too much this time

By Margaret -
I normally don't read Tom Palmer's blog unless someone mentions that he's posted another one of his hysterical but hilarious rants, so I was quite amused this morning when I saw that Jeremy Sapienza over at Anti-State.com had not only linked to the latest barrage of drivel but also had quite a lot to say about it. Then I got to the part where Sapienza complains about Palmer censoring Sapienza's rebuttal to mistaken accusations (or outright lies?) Palmer has made about Sapienza. Shame, shame Tom: a good argument consists of two honest players.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:13 AM

    Tom Palmer clearly is insane.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:43 AM

    Tom Palmer is insane and Jeremy Sapienza in his reply looked pretty close, giving into him about North and all of us so pro secession southerners

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:40 PM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:18 PM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:21 AM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more