What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

April fools

  • #21
LOL,that's mean
smile_n_32.gif
*Niki*
 
  • #22
Well I did nothing for April Fools day, it was just like a normal day in this household....
 
  • #23
I did not pull any April fools joke this year. I find if you are going to an April fools joke, it is best to do it early in the morning before they have their coffee.
 
  • #24
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh and I really don't understand the horse one.So you said you got a horse and you were leaving permanantly to care for the horse...so???Why is that a joke?Sorry I'm not trying to be mean but I don't get the joke/funny part of it:blues: *Niki*

Well, because I didn't really get a horse and I wasn't really leaving.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I can explain that one. The joke was went she told them that she really wasn't leaving. I bet they were all so bummed out.

No, they were generally happy, but the admin probably was bummed out (refer to post in 28th page of "Another one bites the dust").
 
  • #25
There's only 16 pages in "Another one bites the dust"*Niki*
 
  • #26
...O_O...

Well, apparently the mods did another controlled burn.
 
  • #27
Scientific American pulled a good one:

Okay, We Give Up

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
--------
http://www.sciam.com/article....colID=2
--------
they had me going for a second
confused.gif
 
  • #28
[b said:
Quote[/b] (FlytrapGurl @ April 03 2005,1:14)]...O_O...

Well, apparently the mods did another controlled burn.
Another controlled burn? That post was not touched by mods as far as edditing goes. But I bet it could have something to do with the banning of that member... And his signature was removed once banned. So there is a good chance that all his posts... with his big ole signature... took up attitional pages. Oh, I just eddited like 6 lines out of my sig also... so, that's probably where all those extra pages went. Every post that was made. Is still in that topic. Nothing was ever eddited.
Andrew
 
  • #30
No, Andrew, I first viewed that topic wayyy after Spec got banned.. all his posts were under "Guest" the first time I viewed it, when it was 28 pages long. Well, either way, my post I referred to is still there, in page 16 now.
 
Back
Top