Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by phil rimmer


51. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198801 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Corylus

I had the pleasure of driving back with Ann Cryer from a concert recently. Her stories of the kinds of threatening pressure she was coming under at her office in her constituency were alarming. She's a brave and admirable women.

52. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198783 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

It is directed at every feminist who...


Better

(I really do hate PC. I know some great feminists...)

53. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198770 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Feminism is a lot more liberal sloganeering. It is something for college sophomores to make signs for and march around on campus. No real substance left.


Just for clarification, Al. This is in no way directed at the likes of Ann Cryer MP, right?

54. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198762 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Steve

Sorry. I was kicking a corpse, wasn't it?


We don't like to say it like that. Here we say Persistent Vegetative State.......


He looks so peaceful, doesn't he?

55. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198752 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Steve, leave it!

I know its sad, but there's no one there. Just that horrible neurological twitch. I guess they'll turn the machine off eventually.

56. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198726 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 11:59 am

I made a BIG mistake. I argued that we needed to confront Islam from a purely political angle. That this would "legitimize" the discussion and get it onto the airwaves and passed those too squeamish to condemn a whole religion.

I clearly should have said political and moral. This is monstrous in the EXTREME. The paedophilia is deeply sick, but the callous attitude to the feelings of other human beings (women) leaves me speechless.....

I do so not want to de-humanize these MEN. Thats what you do when you feel the urge to fight them, I'm told. I so do not want to de-humanize them...

But what if they do all the work for you?

(I do understand it may be a small minority of Muslim men. But you others.....be fucking outraged!)

EDIT Fanusi- don't say it OK?

57. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198633 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

God does not hold back individuals from loving


That's nice. God (Yahweh) has certainly been getting nicer and nicer over the last few centuries, at least, here in the UK he has. The Quakers discovered two hundred years ago that they had an "Inner Light" which could tell them what to do, without referring to the Gospels. (This was OK because it was God's Inner Light). Other dissident groups started finding the same thing, i.e. they just KNEW what God wanted because it was inside them somehow.

The niceness just grew and grew for some of the lucky ones, until we ended up in the UK with a God of Love and Niceness who pretty much trusts people to know what the right thing to do is ALL ON THEIR OWN!

But all is not nice in other places. In some places God doesn't trust people at all. In places in America he gets pretty cross with particular individuals and he makes sure EVERYONE WHO LISTENS knows all about how nasty they are and how they should be treated. Another God called ALLAH gets VERY CROSS at EVERYONE who won't be nice to him and that makes the people who do love him very cross as well....

Sorry, what did you say at the top?

Grow up!

Atran wouldn't know evidence if it bit him in the backside.

God licenses hatred in the heart of the religious. An atheists hatred must always stand on its own merit.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198485 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 6:05 am

Brian,

Sorry 'bout the disappearing avatar. I get a little over-enthusiastic at times. Felt I had to rein it in a bit. (Last time it happened [over marmite abuse]Quetz had to call out the men in white coats.)

Boredom and forgetting to take the tablets are the real problem.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198480 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 5:52 am

Jethro

God bless ... no, can't say that... Yes I can.


Of course you can. One kindly wish is as good as any other.

Shame about that post though..:-(

Come back soon.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198326 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Frankus

In a free and open forum such as this anyone should be allowed to post whatever they feel is semi-reasonable.


Of course, you, Quetz and the others are entirely right. Having posted more than my fair share of un-reasonable posts (many of them this evening) it is only fair that I fall on my own troll button.

EDIT Not bloody connected.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198315 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

SharonMcT

*presses thnx button*

Quetz.

Limit the max "troll" count per post.

Re first point...I haven't thought this through, have I? This is a free speech issue. Hmmm.

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198305 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Probably, ignoring them is the best solution.


I think a genuine threat of the loss of posting rights is exactly right for them. They need to be noticed. That is why they come.

They need to be given a three hundred strikes and your trolling days are over. Flag a score by their avatar.

This is all about good co-operative behaviour and being mutually constructive.

Or perhaps a timed ban in the naughty corner?

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198297 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

My irritation occasionaly stems from the fact that despite repeated markings as 'Troll' by a large number of the community, these posters keep appearing and are not relegated to an 'alternate commment thread'. Pointless, completely pointless.


As the buttons are quite clearly not connect up (cheapskate electricians!) I wonder if they might, at least, be re-labeled something a little more irritation-relieving?

*Hurt* though irritation-relieving is perhaps insufficiently moral for the likes of us.

*poke* could be good for general purpose relief.

*goose* could be reserved for the really irritating cretin.

*crumpet* (as in "taking a crumpet from behind without blubbing") for use in an emergency only (i.e. Wooter).

EDITED for enhanced gratuity

64. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198266 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Steve,

We need to interact with religion where it tries to influence policies


Exactly! But we don't seem to do politics well here. We don't do practical solutions.

Sometimes I get flashbacks from meetings of The Peoples Front of Judea.

"You're right, bruvver. We need to act! This is going to need a whole new proposition...."

We're fantastic debaters about the philosophical errors of theism. But sometimes it seems like just that... one big mass debate....

*cloak*

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198252 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Steve

On the other hand, some of the rebuttals have been a true pleasure to read.


Hell,yes! Lets not forget the pure entertainment these IDiots afford us.

Re: Your approach. I think a bit of strict discipline is exactly whats needed to get them to pay attention in class.

However, I think most of these people will always be remedial cases. I would be happy if we could merely teach them enough social skills in keeping themselves to themselves, to make all our lives a little more bearable.

For me, teaching them how to talk properly to strangers and not assume those others have imaginary friends advising them will suffice for me at present. I am now firmly of the opinion that most peoples beliefs are sustained through habitual behaviours. Break some of those habits and beliefs will start to evaporate quite naturally.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198221 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:49 am

Looking back over the tx posts I get the impression not of one of the abused / exploited but of a would be exploiter.

He will return to those eager, upturned little faces with tales of derring-do in land of the Satan's spawn, God's Truth intact. This Black Knight will do harm to others, despite the fact that he is too stupid to notice his arms and legs have been chopped off.

67. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198211 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

Al

But we encounter another problem, how do we get people to wake the hell up and pay attention to what is going on. I don't know how it is in England, do people ignore the problem?


Politics gets debated plenty in the UK. Religion is STILL too much of a PC no-go area for my liking. Re-framing the debate in purely political terms licenses it for high profile discussion on the news and news magazine programs.

68. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198206 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:24 am

Fanusi

Islam is first and foremost a political project, then a system of spirituality.


But we need to separate the fascistic from the merely fatuous, to establish the essentially political nature of our complaint.

Who gives a stuff about the niceties? As I said before, the truth of the matter will come out in the ensuing debates.

Moderate Muslins who (universally!) claim that their faith is a religion of peace and tolerance (and do nothing) can now be given a clear option to choose against the fascistic politics, whilst being shown that they are not targeted at all (unless....etc.etc.)

Al

I am not one of the squeamish liberals, soiled with moral relativism, so I am happy to help others.

And there's a ton of us. We need to engage as many as possible.

elephant

Excellent definitions of Islamism etc.

The Daily Mail- "The newspaper for people who are scared of the world, and are angry about it."

The Daily Express- "The newspaper for people who are scared of the world, but don't like to make a fuss."

Yep the first one's about right.

69. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198180 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 10:12 am

Al

But I am afraid that the sophistry from Muslims will continue. There will be no intellectual victory anytime soon, meaning Muslims won't ever concede any point, ever.


This is not part of a philosophical debate (it brings no new information), it is a means of better galvanising political action by helping to remove the queasiness people might feel if they thought they were attacking a religion.

70. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198171 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 10:00 am

Al,

It doesn't matter that definitions out there already are ambiguous, so long as we define it clearly in the way that we wish. Hence-

Islamism is the promotion of those aspects of Islam which are political in nature.

Or some such.

By shearing off the political from the spiritual and re-branding it it becomes easier to fend off the stupid attacks, of racism or not respecting other people's mind-murk, or whatever.

(even though we're allowed to not respect mind-murk)

EDIT Lets take control of the language here. In an attack on Islamism, define it right up top, so people can see what you mean. We need this word. Simply being able to say Islam and political in the same breath gets the point across.

71. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198164 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 9:45 am

Ok, I didn't get anything of this


Of course you didn't!

72. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198152 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 9:31 am

Can we label Islamism as essentially political in intention? Yes, I know Islam itself is substantially political, but using this other term creates further distance.

The truth of this will come out in any debate, but perhaps we can use this term as a signifier of our absolute right to challenge any of their inappropriate actions. We are not the Thought Police. Beliefs are beyond our legitimate area of political action. That their actions flow naturally from their beliefs is their problem.

73. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198075 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 6:49 am

Al

It isn't about hanging racists out to dry, it is about showing these societal vandals (Islamists) that all speech is protected.


I completely agree with regards to "our" political strategy. Hanging racists out to dry is purely a personal strategy for individuals who wish to distance themselves from distasteful others. And "hanging them out to dry" means calling them for what they are not stifling them.

Liberals like myself have a lot of squeamishness to overcome.

74. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198065 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 am

Steve,

I would be deeply uncomfortable about tolerating racism.

Nor should you have to. If you make a point of hanging every racist out to dry when you spot one, it becomes increasingly difficult to label you as a racist.

A good track record in these instances is the only defence needed.

EDIT Do you fear the bulk of your fellow travellers may be racist? Does joining battle under the banner of being anti-Islamist add the necessary distance from the racist jibe?

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197996 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

Steve

I think until we actually start ... creating new organisms for general use in the laboratory, then I think the distinction between directed and undirected is problematic.


Won't computer programmes serve the purpose here?

Re: artificial / natural. Does the conceptual distinction not deserve to stand on the merit of being useful? "Unnatural", as far as a quick scan has shown, has not been defined here. If artificial can be said to be part of a subset in the natural camp, (as opposed to unnatural) maybe we just need another word for all things natural that are yet non-artificial to sit along side it?

EDITED to try and turn it into sense...

76. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197965 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #197828 by Cartomancer

Thanks for the corrective. Is there any single reference you could cite that provides a more balanced view of the history of western thinking in the first millennium than the Freeman?

EDIT In fairness I think a better rendering of the case would be that not a total stifling of creative thinking had occurred but rather, perhaps, that its rate of occurrence had fallen below some critical threshold. Below this level the "benign contagion" of creativity survives only in little pockets, but cannot thrive.

77. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197790 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

The utter completeness of that stranglehold on knowledge from the time of Emperor Constantine through until Thomas Aquinas is detailed rather well I thought in-

"The Closing of the Western Mind- The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason"

By Charles Freeman.

EDIT "Utter completeness" is a bad choice here. See Cartomancer below.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197753 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Jethro,

And the people who reason that the onward march of evolution would be served by certain groups' being removed from the gene pool are fine because because they follow the light of reason.

No one here I think. That behaviour would be unreasonable to the point of barking madness.

You argue as if reason will always lead to the same conclusion, that would be true only of totally valid reason on the basis of all relevant information.


It may lead to the same conclusion given the same starting information. That knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete and the logical processes it is put through, NEVER perfectly validated in the novel situation its used for, is irrelevant in deciding the best possible course of action. The most corroborated evidence coupled with the most successful logical processes is the most MORAL place to start in a decision-making process that will affect others.
Rationalism as well as religion has its lunatic fringe.This thread argue that religion will always tend to fall over into authoritarianism and extremism because that is its nature.

But the lunatic fringe in rationality self identify by being irrational. I believe the natural tendency for religious individuals is to become less dogmatic and more open minded as the varieties of evidence and experience mount up. Only those religious societies with politically active priests etc. will move towards stricter dogma. Sadly there is a lot of extremism, "seeking to impose on" differently-religious-others out there for essentially political reasons. We desperately need rational/moderately religious folk to declare STRONGLY against this irrationality and against the use of arguments from Faith as a tolerable basis for imposing upon others (in areas like education, homosexuality, national governance, etc.etc.)

I could argue that atheism will always fall over into callous inhumanity because that is the essential nature of natural selection.


But, happily, the very fact of Richard Dawkins and the many other deeply moral people like him prevent you, don't they?

PS Hi, by the way :-)

79. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197723 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Marshall1

As for all the comments imploring me to prove my God. I don't feel like I need to.


I am an atheist happy for you not to prove the existence of your God. But I really would like an answer to the three questions posed in 204 above. Thanks.

80. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197517 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 9:25 am

Very Many Happy Returns to Ian McEwan.

I have been a great fan of his since his earliest short story days. I was astonished by "On Chesil Beach." I know of no other writer of such calm, clear compassion.

He more than any knows the value of what we have built for ourselves.

81. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197448 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 4:21 am

marshall1

Does your faith require you to seek to change society in anyway? If you do feel obliged to interfere, do I deserve any explanation in terms that I can understand (i.e. reasoned arguments based on corroborated evidence)?

If your answers are yes and no respectively, is there any reason why I should not regard you with the utmost hostility?

82. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197404 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 1:39 am

Faithhead

On this points should the article not read, new discovery proves 'sterile gene' exists. Not as catchy though :)


You are entirely right that there is much else to complain about. Genes "wanting" to do things makes me squirm.

The skill in writing accessible science articles without introducing too many unknown terms for the lay person is not gifted to many journalists. You would have thought that Phys Org could field a better journo than this, though.

83. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197307 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

This little item irritated me at first. I thought the writer either hadn't got RD's original use of selfish or had thrown in a second use.

I now think he has understood it, but a looseness of phrasing scuppers other people's possible understanding.

In studying genomes, the word 'selfish' does not refer to the human-describing adjective of self-centered behavior but rather to the blind tendency of genes wanting to continue their existence into the next generation. Ironically, this 'selfish' tendency can appear anything but selfish when the gene does move ahead for selfless and even self-sacrificing reasons.


would be better as something like...

In studying genomes, the word 'selfish' does not refer to the human-describing adjective of self-centered behavior but rather to the blind tendency of ALL genes wanting to continue their existence into the next generation. Ironically, this 'selfish' tendency can manifest itself as anything but selfish when the gene precipitates behaviour in its host which we would describe as selfless or even self-sacrificing.


Also...

Because the 'selfish' gene controlling worker sterility has never been isolated by scientists, the understanding of how reproductive altruism can evolve has been entirely theoretical, until now.


Is improved a little as...

The understanding of how this reproductive "altruism" can evolve has been entirely theoretical, until now. The particular gene controlling worker sterility has just been isolated by scientists, revealing for the first time an example of a gene producing altruistic behaviour in its host.


Or some such.

84. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197072 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 am

Comment #197063 by Steve Zara

Would love to stay and develop this but I have to go and watch my daughter in a football match...

I would be intrigued by Richard's view on this.

85. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197057 by phil rimmer on June 21, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #197047 by Steve Zara

In the best Martial Arts tradition it is always easier to topple an opponent by using their momentum and going with it.

"If you want open debate in the classroom, we'll give you open debate", looks a very viable way forward. Critical thinking skills are obviously needed to judge a "strengths and weaknesses" classroom debate.

If teaching at this age is to take this NEW step of adding "make your own mind up" material it is only fair that the thinking tools are provided.

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196187 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Quine, I realise I'm not getting the drift of your earlier brief post-

The glossed over step is the idea that if something were found to be irreducibly complex then it could not have come from something else.

This is a definition of irreducible complexity isn't it, not a necessary logical step from it (it having been defined somehow else)?

Sorry, I missed the earlier discussion.

EDIT Thanks for the last post I believe I get your intention now.

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196168 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 11:53 am

Quine

Note that I wrote "that did not descend from some other" not "for which we have not found an ancestor."


Hence, panspermia. Equally, alien spaceship pet, life started twice, GELF etc. Even given the impossible certainty of the first phrase above, its not a knockout to evolution.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196140 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 10:53 am

Galactor

Nah! We're with the good guys. Hang on! I AM soon parted from my money.

Damn.

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196139 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 10:51 am

Quine

if a example could be found of a species that did not descend from some other, his theory would fall


Given an arbitrary number of missing links this is trivial. Discovering a unique silicon based lifeform, that is "pre-fossilised" as it were, would be interesting. But whilst some would be dreaming up carbon to silicon transition processess (!) one could as easily propose panspermia as the real mechanism in this one instance. It dropped out of the sky. Problem solved.

90. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196133 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 10:37 am

Galactor

My mother, thinking I needed taking down a peg or two, always used to counter with

"Fools seldom differ".

Hey, I think we've just characterized the Science / Religion divide. :-)

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196123 by phil rimmer on June 19, 2008 at 10:25 am

tris

what will the consequences of an irreducibly complex structure imply for science as a whole?


Gotta find one first. And you will know you've found one because....?

Essentially, the problem is that you have to eliminate, as viable, an indefinite number of routes to making the structure, before you can say its irreducibly complex. Because the routes are unknown, you can never know for sure that you have eliminated them all. Throw in the fact that any number of intermediary elements, that once contributed to viable intermediary states, may have evolved out of existence, making "route discernment" essentially impossible, and you can see, you can never know if something is irreducibly complex.

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195712 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm

RtG

I don't know much more to say. May be this is not logical reasoning to you or we may have a different definition of what constitutes logic and reason.


And suddenly this touching admission takes away the sport.

RtG, I hope there is a long and fascinating road ahead of you to learn a lot more to say in future. There are genuinely good teachers here if only you'll trust them. Goodnight.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195704 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 5:28 pm

I think all plants and animals are designed because they all work so perfectly. X

Bugger this. I'm off to bed..

EDIT What's this? An answer! He's actually been reading his conservapedia.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195700 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Styrer! Shh!

Let him concentrate.

I think all plants and animals are designed because designers often design living things. X

I think...

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195684 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm

RtG

Don't be distracted. Concentrate.

I'll start you off.

I think all plants and animals are designed because........

(Hint: "...because they look designed", won't cut it.)

96. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195654 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Styrer, I'm with you on this. I think we are clearly offering a useful public service keeping this apparent Creationist off the streets and out of the pulpit for as long as possible.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195634 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Are crop circles designed or just a design of nature?


Goddidit!

This is bloody brilliant. Its so easy.

I wonder who RtG's Designer is?

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195626 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Brian
Its the bit immediately after your quote that cracks me up-

That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design,


My God, this new "science" is a doddle. No training. No qualifications. Just enough ability to lift your arm and point and form the words "Goddidit!"

99. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195597 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm

clearthinker

why were you angry with Collins? He is a scientist. He believes in evolution and he thinks the evidence points to God. And so you were angry. Is this because he challenges your presuppositions and belief system?

A man who clearly knows how to assess and present evidence in the lab, woefully fails to present any in this case. This is frustrating. I want to know why three quarters of the world is afflicted with creeping, world-wounding mind-murk. Is it really just that people are lazy and credulous and they are easy prey for the priestly parasites with their crass stories?

Collins isn't prey to the crappest of it, Creationism and the like. Thats why he held promise. You recommended him, so I presumed you also thought this was good honest intellectual stuff. You do find Creationism crap, don't you?

Intelligent people know there is no God. If someone believes in God they cannot be intelligent


You will notice on the Colbert thread I have praised Ken Miller very highly. I often speak in praise of my Roman Catholic friend who is the brightest person I know. Its dawning on me that you haven't the faintest idea how we think. Its truly, truly alien isn't it? We actually just don't care about non-existent entities. We care about how people behave in public. Your behaviour has been a consistent disgrace.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195585 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Sorry about this. Its just been buzzing around my head and I need it to go away now.

Designoid is nice but there is no necessary function implied . Design is as much if not more about aesthetics as about function in its popular use.

But...

Organise: To arrange into an organ.

Organ.: An instrument so arranged as to perform a few particular functions.

Hence Organoid: The general form of "an entity arranged in a manner such that it performs a few particular functions".

This was offered by Carto in his list of possibilities.

Hm???

I do not propose the Irish term Organoise as the verb.

PS Organisers are lowlier (less human?) than Designers. At least they're not paid as much....

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next