My most common places for years have on usenet as in soc.history.ancient sci.archaeology and soc.history.what-if where this is a secondary issue when believers come to save us from the facts particularly in the first two. It is unlikely but now that I see the issue I will be able to address it should it come up.

That said, down here where the snow beavers migrate during the winter we have a policy of rounding on the idiot who appoints an idiot rather than on the idiot himself. In other words, why is this not an issue which reflects upon your PM instead of this fool? Why go after the minion instead of the idiot-in-chief?

Let me try it this way. One appointee with the greatest charge against him is a politicly safe statement. To make an issue of it you first have to explain why it is incorrect to an audience that worked hard to get a D in science in high school. If Harper reponds he can claim he did not know, replace the nerfbrain and claim to be responsive to the concerns of the public and a promoter of science.

Of you can add to the complaints about Harper that he appointed a creationist without having to explain a thing nor back up the claim. I presume you are in the vast majority which wants to get rid of Harper. Not many people like Bush's Brain. That is because he methods were effective.

If you are only after this guy and what you posted is the best you have I don't see you should be doing much of anything but waiting for him to say something useful. What I read was a mis-statement that he may or may not know is a mis-statement. If biology is not his field me may not.

As I said, trying to make use of it first requires you to explain why it is wrong and then why it makes a difference how it is said to a voters who don't know, don't care and half of which likely think creationism is correct.

The path to success down this way has been connecting these people to some religious creationist movement. In the Beginning by Michael Lienesch decribes its start in the US. The Religious Fundamentals movement, therefore Fundamentalists. Anyway, those trying to sell religion have been the only ones and revealing that association has been what has carried the day.

You do not appear to have that. If you can find it I presume it would work even better in Canada for its Brit connections.

I wish you luck but I don't see anything to work with that has a chance of succeeding. Not because it is wrong but because it is so slim and the education time required just to get voters to see why it is wrong.

You have a political issue in a political arena. You do not have a scientific issue before a scientific audience. I see no way to win the politics against an appointee.

In the words of that random Asian Rebel pilot, "There's... too many of them!"

I'll try to help out.

Oh. And... Holy fuck!

Darth Wong. From Stardestroyer.net. He's there, too.

Man, that guy's an asshole. But at least he's our asshole in this case, I guess...

Lol. The seal hunt is supported by science. The only objections to it are emotional. If there is no hunt, the seals overpopulate, fish vanishes, people starve.

Peta proves its uselessness once again.