但係呢個問題我都唔識，有冇人救下教授呀？片中話事有蹺蹊的link又唔得....  | ||
 | ||
Down syndrome | ||
原帖由 沙文 於 2008-3-18 16:12 發表 好鬼煩呀你： "In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented." http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm 李察在論壇的親自表白： " Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 ), which is interestingly different from the published version. A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject. In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question). There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing. I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly. Must rush Richard" http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14255&start=0
| ||
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-3-18 09:12 發表  現反其道而行，究竟此處係離教者之家定入教者之家？ 您留言話暫時唔答，係因為同Professor一樣，被偷襲，要考慮下點樣應付都得啫................  | ||
原帖由 沙文 於 2008-3-19 04:18 發表 你咪含血噴人好喎，首先我對唔明白嘅網友，真係會悉心指導。 可惜既係，一啲網友明明係知道都扮唔知，企圖欺騙我既悉心指導、循循善誘、赤子之心、友誼之光、人善人欺天不欺、天生天養、邊走邊唱……而又比我睇得穿，果隻就最煩架喇。 不過，我承認我的幽默感並不強，因為我是亞洲人？  "Asians have no sense of humor. Their idea of comedy is slapstick. Irony doesn't exist in Asian discourse. There are no comedians in Asia." http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=5&art_id=63254&sid=18048776&con_type=1&d_str=20080319&fc=4 | ||
您何止幽默感不強，連指導網友的使命感都偏低。  | ||
 | ||
原帖由 沙文 於 2008-3-19 21:06 發表 唉，咁你又點搵到呢段片呢？無睇過佢既About This Video 咩？個破綻就係：以我認識既沙文，係無理由咁唔小心既。 This video shows 2 popular videos on youtube of Richard Dawkins appearing to be stumped on a question played parallel. It exposes the continuity errors of his expressions during a question which he could have answered easily and has answered before. At least one of the videos is portraying him being stumped when in reality he just discovered they were creationists and was wondering how to best handle the situation. After the video was uploaded, the link at the end stopped working. Due to many requests, I've posted working link of the article below. http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm | ||
Why the usual response is assuming people to be clever? (Did you read all the manual at home? How do you suppose someone read everything around the video?) But a refusal to assume good faith? AKA, assuming people have good intention. (Assume good faith is a principle in Wiki) | ||
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-3-20 05:02 發表  咁您即係人身攻擊啫？我一早declared 宇宙終極真理#2去解釋此情况啦。啲豬朋狗友sent條link俾我囉。常言道「關心則亂」，我一見Professor好似無言以對，不禁5內如焚，加以片中話有個網址跟進，但係其url又唔work，如何是好呢？此時，您宏偉的身影在我腦海中浮現，我想起宣稱熱心幫助網友解决大秦景教問題的您，就將問題貼上來了 | ||
原帖由 dye 於 2008-3-21 08:25 發表 mmmmmmmmm , i think both of them might b just only making the jokes to each other and to the whole board ye know , our 家 離教者之家 's sufferring from a draught of visittors e.t.c. seemingly , so , they ......... cheers ThANKye  [ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-3-22 04:55 編輯 ] | ||
豬朋狗友，係咪指你老婆？  |
