i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Tyson's day job is at a natural history museum! Have you BEEN to the AMNH in NYC? If not you really should go to that above basically anything else in the city. Coolest place ever.
Anyhoo, there are enough fossils in that place that if you work there and still believe intelligent design has any merit whatsoever, you are a silly silly person who has not even slightly walked around your place of employment. The evidence against ID is pretty much staring you in the face.
I got a private tour of the museum (that lasted beyond closing-- can you say "Night at the Museum?") from another astrophysicist who works there, and if he's normal for museum workers (quite possibly not, heh), they have visited the entire gigantic museum and love and know every inch of it.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Public opinion is moved by sound bites and quips. Not by facts.
And, given the opportunity to do better, you chose to stick to this model.
Again, out of place, but no. My only supposition was that he was coming off as arrogant because of such. That's not sticking to the model -- it's describing it. Just because I describe intelligent design doesn't mean I ascribe to it.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Anyhoo, there are enough fossils in that place that if you work there and still believe intelligent design has any merit whatsoever, you are a silly silly person who has not even slightly walked around your place of employment. The evidence against ID is pretty much staring you in the face.
I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
The cool thing about science is that we'll never have a perfect understanding of it. We know that we'll never really know. To be so matter-of-fact is anathema to responsible scientific method.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
The cool thing about science is that we'll never have a perfect understanding of it. We know that we'll never really know. To be so matter-of-fact is anathema to responsible scientific method.
Did you and I watch the same clip? He's clearly not calling the people who believe in intelligent design stupid. He's calling the design itself stupid. As in, "Wow, that's a really stupid design, someone should've gone back to the drawing board before going into production."
Yes, the clip is titled "Intelligent Design is Stupid." But Tyson didn't write that title, "Colorado Athiest" did. So it seems your beef there is with the YouTube poster, not the subject of the video.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. He doesn't say "that's a really stupid design". He relabels "intelligent design" as "stupid design" and refers to it as such multiple times. You don't think that this is a dig at the intelligence of the theory's adherents?
posted
I think that's a misplaced criticism. The point is not that believers in "intelligent design" are stupid, but rather that what's being called "intelligent design" actually appears to be pretty inefficient, stupid design once you look at it critically. It's a criticism of the designer, not the adherents (except insofar as it tacitly criticizes those adherents for not applying the same basic rigor to their belief.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inasmuch as I start criticizing religion as "stupid religion"? Maybe "idiot religion"? Sure, that's just a critique of the logical inconsistencies of faith itself. Right?
posted
No, we're watching the whole video. He calls it "Stupid Design" and then goes on to talk about all the ways the "design" is inefficient or hostile to life.
Seriously, you're doing the same thing people on this thread have been criticizing you for since the beginning, namely making snap judgements about Tyson based on out-of-context snippets. And in this case, the whole clip is there for you to judge, if you'd just spend 5 minutes watching the rest of it, instead of stopping after the first 15 seconds.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
sane, yes. calm? HURRICANES SHMURRICANES
He was being 'arrogant' in the same way we've defined tyson to be 'arrogant' and he's more physically presentational of it even
quote:I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
You are aware of what Intelligent Design actually is, right? Calling Intelligent Design stupid isn't even sufficient; the movement itself was also fundamentally dishonest.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, you're doing the same thing people on this thread have been criticizing you for since the beginning, namely making snap judgements about Tyson based on out-of-context snippets. And in this case, the whole clip is there for you to judge, if you'd just spend 5 minutes watching the rest of it, instead of stopping after the first 15 seconds.
And you're failing to use your brain. And criticizing me for something I never said. I'm not making a "snap judgement about Tyson". I'm merely saying that he's making mistakes. He's saying stupid things (yes, stupid) that can be construed to make him look like he feels superior to others. As if he is the only one that can decipher the truth. That's arrogance.
Are perception and reality different? Only from an objective perspective.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah tyson has said approximately 0 things that mean "I am the only one that can decipher the truth"
he is making a foundational criticism of a bogus pseudoscientific front that has been pushed to masquerade as science.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point I can't even tell if you actually believe in this shaky limb you've climbed out on, if you're just trolling, or if this is just a vanity-driven avoidance of embarrassment effort over having staked out an absurd position.
The idea that a figure has failed as a representative of something if they say or do something that a hostile party can misconstrue for easily gulled saps-left or right-with clips and sound bites is absurd. Such sound bites exist for everyone representing anything with even a tinge of controversy. It's the 21st century. This is unavoidable.
So the question you have to ask is not 'are there sound bites an ignorant person might fall for' (which, and here's the vanity part, included you initially; now you've modified your position to an opposition to what, Tyson's media profile). Rather the question is, 'who does this person convince?' If they convince fence sitters, they're doing an excellent persuasive job. If they convince the choir, they're mediocre at best. If they drive fence sitters to the opposition, they're doing poorly.
So, Herblay. For this latest ridiculous set of assertions to be valid, you would need to show that people are being repelled into the 'ID is science camp' by Tyson's rhetoric. I await with great anticipation your evidence that such a trend even exists in the United States, much less that Tyson drives a significant part of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
sane, yes. calm? HURRICANES SHMURRICANES
He was being 'arrogant' in the same way we've defined tyson to be 'arrogant' and he's more physically presentational of it even
quote:I would not classify intelligent design as anything other than pseudoscience, anymore than I would describe anti-vax as such. That's the view of the mainstream scientific community as well.
There is a problem, however, with his approach of calling it "stupid design": - Some people mistakenly believe that intelligent design refers to evolutionary science that was guided by God, supposing that both theories can exist in parallel. These people will take his comments as an attack on religion. - He's still disparaging a group and calling them stupid because they don't share his beliefs.
You are aware of what Intelligent Design actually is, right? Calling Intelligent Design stupid isn't even sufficient; the movement itself was also fundamentally dishonest.
I read Herblay's post to mean:
quote: ID is psuedoscience, anti-vax is pseudoscience. While many people who argue with the ID folks know creationists who "updated" their textbooks only by changing the words creationism to intelligent design (evidence is on the web of this one), some people think it means God helped evolution as described by Darwin. They're wrong (because the people who write ID textbooks really are writing creationism), but by calling it stupid design, they think Tyson is insulting these borderline people who don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, trust science but believe in god.
But still (haven't watched the video either), there are lots of examples of things that evolved to work, but could not have been designed intelligently (human backs and eyes), because they are badly designed, and people aren't really aware of that.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
right, but in this case it's the issue over tyson calling intelligent design 'stupid design' which he uses as part and parcel evidence that tyson is directly insulting someone who might subscribe to intelligent design as valid science.
i'm saying that tyson could call it stupid AND a bunch of intentional dishonesty strategically used by creationists, and it's still fairly attacking the actual fundamental push for ID as science.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I argue with people on the internet, I try very carefully to be sure that I call ideas and not the people who have them stupid, but many people assume that I have insulted them directly anyway.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
To summarize in a different fashion (without calling anyone an idiot): - I make no claims as to Tyson's fundamental character. I don't know the guy. - I think that some of his statements are inflammatory, and I think that it's at least partially intentional. - He has been selected by popular media to represent the scientific community. - I would argue that his inflammatory comments are detrimental to his ability to represent science with credibility. - Everyone agrees that the media can twist media to fit their agenda. - I further posit that the media's misappropriation of audio, video, and text can be avoided by being more "politically correct". A sensitivity of this fact is required of most leaders and television personalities in the modern age. - By criticizing the study of philosophy, using the term "stupid design", and by being snarky on Twitter, Tyson is developing a specific persona. Either by his own intent or accidentally, I would argue that it allows his character to be painted in a certain critical light. - I feel that Mr. Nye's actions are generally much less inflamatory, but that is based on a limited data sample. I'll accede that my opinions are just that.
I apologize that I sometimes feel the need to react to passive-aggressive or outright aggression in kind. I do not appreciate that my ideas are being taken out of context, but I'll admit that my writing style and reframing of certain statements lend to some ambiguity. I do feel, however, that a spirited, emotional argument leads to a broader discussion of a topic.
To those more familiar with his work: - One possibility is that Mr. Tyson is being so "bold" and providing inflammatory sound-bites in order to garner media attention and become more famous. Do you get this impression? - Or he might just be a tad eccentric himself or uninterested in conforming to a more conservative idea of a media personality. - Does he have anything works that might be worthwhile to read, should I have the time? Or is his television program the best place to observe his ideas?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: right, but in this case it's the issue over tyson calling intelligent design 'stupid design' which he uses as part and parcel evidence that tyson is directly insulting someone who might subscribe to intelligent design as valid science.
i'm saying that tyson could call it stupid AND a bunch of intentional dishonesty strategically used by creationists, and it's still fairly attacking the actual fundamental push for ID as science.
I don't feel that he's directly insulting anyone. Nor that he's intentionally doing it to be aggravating. Merely that there's a consequence to his action, it's rather brash and crude, and that it alters certain people's impression of him.
How many advocates of ID actually understand the science behind it? I'm guessing very few? But he's still calling "stupid" an idea that some people believe in. This could be construed many ways. I'm not painting it a certain color -- I'm just saying that people COULD take offense.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But he's still calling "stupid" an idea that some people believe in.
He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea. (He may think so, but that's not what he was saying.) He's saying that if you look for evidence of design in nature you find a lot of things that an intentional, intelligent, designer would have done differently. So either those things were not designed or the designer was not particularly intelligent. The design is stupid.
That said, an intelligent communicator could have guessed that the phrase would be misinterpreted in exactly the way you've illustrated here. Throwing the word "stupid" into a conversation in any form is unlikely to end well.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea.
I understand that he is saying that the design is stupid. But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid? And by proxy its adherents? Each assumption is a change of reference, but they are both logical possible conclusions.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's certainly not a deductive conclusion, i.e. - there is no entailment relationship. Maybe there's a reasonable inductive inference to be made, though ideally that would be justified with knowledge about NDT and not what people might mean in general when using the word stupid. Even then, I'm not sure it's entirely warranted.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He's actually not. He's not saying that ID is a stupid idea.
I understand that he is saying that the design is stupid. But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid?
One could so infer, but that does not mean one would be correct. I would even venture to say that one would be assuming facts not in evidence, and assuming these facts because of one's prior assumptions and biases.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
I will grant you that the adjective to the design itself in the line "And so, this is all simply stupid design. And the problem is, if you look for what is intelligent and yeah you can find some things that are just really beautiful."
But he is purposefully twisting the intelligent design concept and referring to it as stupid design in the line "I wanna do just a fast tirade on stupid design."
It is an obvious play on words. You can argue otherwise, but your point is semantics. He either did it on purpose or he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Where is your evidence of religion bashing? You better get your sources lined up. Because nobody will look it up themselves or take your word for it.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
As for Tyson, I don't think I would call him arrogant but I am sick of the constant stream of religion bashing he's been doing recently. Not because I disagree with him, I actually agree completely which is why I don't need to keep hearing it. Just give me the science. That's what I used to watch him for.
Where is your evidence of religion bashing? You better get your sources lined up. Because nobody will look it up themselves or take your word for it.
You've been linked to and also referenced to much larger samples than your cherry picked clips, and flat out refused to give them a listen.
But hey, man, keep on keeping on up on that cross.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For him to be calling the concept stupid he would have to be applying the adjective to the concept, not to the design itself. So I would say no, one cannot (fairly) infer that.
Although as I said earlier, I think the fact that people would infer that could have been anticipated. So it may be that he knew it would happen and chose to use that phrasing anyway. Or it may be that he shares a blind spot with many other highly rational people about the difference between what they say and what people hear.
I will grant you that the adjective to the design itself in the line "And so, this is all simply stupid design. And the problem is, if you look for what is intelligent and yeah you can find some things that are just really beautiful."
But he is purposefully twisting the intelligent design concept and referring to it as stupid design in the line "I wanna do just a fast tirade on stupid design."
It is an obvious play on words. You can argue otherwise, but your point is semantics. He either did it on purpose or he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
You've clearly made up your mind based on preconceived notions, and I doubt any amount of debate will change that. Oh well, you're missing out on a lot of very interesting and entertaining media. Your loss.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: My point was that Tyson could come off as arrogant in some clips. How would other clips, where he's conceivably less arrogant (?), prove anything otherwise? If I get shot by a Colt handgun, might I not have a bullet wound because I'm waiting on a bullet wound from a Remington?
narrativium: Using reason, can you tell me how his "tirade on stupid design" is not a play on words and a direct reference to intelligent design? And I'm not even arguing that he did it with intent. He did, but that's completely beside the point. I'm not arguing that the guy's worthless. I even asked if anyone had anything good they could point me to because I'm interested. <shrug>
My argument is that something can be perceived a certain way. That's it. How the smeg do you logically argue against that? I'm flabbergasted.
I feel like I'm caught in the middle of a "Batman is better than Superman" argument. And I'm only saying that Superman can be powerful. I don't care how cool Batman is. Superman is still powerful.
Batman is cooler than Superman --- your argument is invalid.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Rakeesh: My point was that Tyson could come off as arrogant in some clips.
It was?
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: He's the only person with a halfway sane perspective getting media coverage. He has a schtick, yes, but think of this -- he's normal. Everybody ELSE is crazy.
Wow.
And he's a lot more humble than Neil deGrasse Tyson. That guy....
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
posted
That was a few revisions of statement (without saying they were revisions) ago. Now it seems to be a purely pragmatic political/persuasive opposition to a few specific sound bites, and a dogged determination to criticize someone on the basis of the harshest possible interpretation of a tiny fraction of their work.
I would restate my observation of the irony of the initial label of arrogance, but I fear I would be a 'problem of Hatrack'...not that causes any 'care' or anything! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument is that something can be perceived a certain way. That's it. How the smeg do you logically argue against that? I'm flabbergasted.
If that had been your argument from the beginning, nobody would have been calling you out on it.
But it wasn't your argument, and the argument you were providing had a heck of a lot more particulars than 'something can be perceived a certain way'
like this:
quote:But he refers to "intelligent design" by the moniker "stupid design" at least once. Can one not infer, then, that he's calling the entire concept stupid? And by proxy its adherents?
Whoa! See, that there's a lot more particular. If he's calling the entire intelligent design concept stupid is he calling its adherents stupid by proxy?
The answer is a resounding "no" and before that there was
quote:he's shooting himself in the foot with his snarky comments.
and this one is easily challenged on whether or not he is having his impact as a science spokesperson meaningfully harmed by his snark among any crowd not already predisposed against him (not really)
posted
I used to think it was possible to have an opinion. Now, three pages later, I'm not so certain.
I still haven't seen a clip, been referred to a talk, or heard a dang thing to make me believe that Tyson isn't a swaggering, belligerent, arrogant blowhard. Every time I've asked, nobody can come up with anything worthwhile to give me. Matter of fact, they ignore the question and lambast me for their version of something they think I said. Maybe I could just come to the conclusion that the same adjectives could be applied to his fanboys.
Or maybe that would be too big of a logical implication for some people to follow.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was arguing fact, but I mentioned my opinion. Obviously this confused some of you. Every time I tried to steer the discussion back, I just had my opinion (which I still hold) thrown back in my face. Why does my opinion matter?
I'd feel better about it if this conversation had produced anything worthwhile. But it's been more like taunting monkeys in a cage.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, Herblay, you're right! We *are* the problem with Hatrack! What with all the personal attacks, unnecessary insults, deliberate ignoring of direct statements...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now we're back to 'my opinion is that he's an arrogant blowhard' based on a tiny selection of cherry picked statements. Rather than 'my opinion is that some people will perceive him as, and it's not a good way to evaluate people, but that's the world we live in, where people do that'.
Do you flip a coin for each post to determine which of these stances you'll adopt each time? You do realize memories go back further than just a few minutes, and even if they didn't, people can just go look, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So now we're back to 'my opinion is that he's an arrogant blowhard' based on a tiny selection of cherry picked statements. Rather than 'my opinion is that some people will perceive him as, and it's not a good way to evaluate people, but that's the world we live in, where people do that'.
Do you flip a coin for each post to determine which of these stances you'll adopt each time? You do realize memories go back further than just a few minutes, and even if they didn't, people can just go look, right?
Again -- two statements here: - My opinion is that he's arrogant. - The fact is that some of his statements can be construed as such.
I kept my opinion out of the discussion because you can't seem to be able to parse the two statements. I apologize if you can't understand the difference. I'll be sure to note your handicap in our next discussion. I want to say so much more than this. I'm just trying for patience in the face of ... I guess you have seen the thread's title.
Is there a hidden camera? Are you being ridiculous on purpose?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you've been trying to keep your opinion out of this, goodness knows what it looks like when you don't. Shrieking profanities? Who knows?
Anyway, your opinion is quite simply stupid. Not because it's right or wrong, but because of the method by which you believe it. It is, frankly, laughable that you would insist someone is a bad scientific spokesperson because they refuse to embrace some uncertainty, considering your opinion-making methods. You don't say 'man, he sounds like an arrogant blowhard, but I don't know/will wait to form a more solid opinion based on more genuine evidence'.
Nope. Instead, you saw some clips once, formed an opinion-the opinion intended by the creator of those clips, no doibt, there's a good little sheep-and then insist your opinion is worthy of respect.
This isn't a fanboy thing, though I suspect you'll pivot back to that as well. The initial defense was in part because I dig the guy, sure. But as much and even more as time has passed by 'what a ridiculous, lazy way to form an opinion, by accepting wholesale sound-bite hatchet-jobs by opponents and sensationalists'. In the various shifts in your stance, sometimes you've moved away from that, but now you're right back.
As for your (false, and at this point it is simply a lie) claim that no one has offered contrary evidence, I'll say it again: go listen to the *entirety* of the interviews and discussions these clips are referencing. Don't claim you don't have time-clearly you do. Either that, or simply admit what is obvious: that you've formed your opinion and you have no interest in determining whether or not it might be valid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
herblay if everyone else here trying to talk to you about this is trying to point out that it's you who is missing something, does this ... have any significant chance of bringing out a re-evaluation of your stance, or are you just gonna keep saying other people are being ridiculous on purpose, or
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
osc's latest column reminds me that Garrison Keillor is also one of those people who turns out to be a tremendous ass in person
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any juicy stories, or someone who just gets sick of being harassed and isn't bubbly in real life?
I do know two people who went to school with Tyson, at least one of them hangs out with him when he's in town (and when I met Tyson at a book signing about 5 years ago and said where I was a student, Tyson asked after him)-- the only story I have is that Tyson predicted that he would be recognized three times in the course of a, say, 0.5 mile walk the two took, and he was exactly right.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
