> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Johnson [mailto:garyjohn@...]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: vim-dev@...
> Subject: Re: Occult completion
> On 2005-09-19, "Keith W. Roberts" <keithr@...> wrote:
> > > From: Mike Williams [mailto:mike.williams@...]
> > > Aaron Griffin did utter on 14/09/2005 15:57:
> > > > I find nothing wrong with the word "occult", and in fact I
> > > think it's
> > > > great. All the other apps seem to name their completion as
> > > if it was
> > > > a form of intelligence... vim's seems to represent that it's not
> > > > intelligent, but is more like voodoo 8)
> > >
> > > Various school boards may think otherwise.
> > I never saw anything a school board *did* like, unless it
> > was ultra-liberal and revisionist!
> Requiring the teaching of the Biblical version of creation in a
> science class is ultra-liberal?
Actually, in this sense, it is. Not the *desire* to include it, which is
ultra-conservative (read reactionary), and based solely on the desire to
make faith-based belief transcend science, but rather the attempt to so
*broaden* the school curriculum as to include both creationism and evolution
as "scientific" possibilities or theories. That's the most liberal
definition of "science" *I've* ever heard. For one thing, the very
definition of creationism precludes it from being considered a "theory".
Close to half the population seems to think that it would be a good idea to
teach both, so it's no wonder that any particular school board might propose
to do so if the makeup of that board were somewhat skewed. But you notice
it ain't happened, because all the specious arguments that have been brought
to bear have been shot down by the courts, including the "fairness"
argument. Besides, that's what Sunday school and parochial schools are for.