AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 3 weeks 3 days ago
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Zachriel
Quote kairosfocus: So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to empirically warrant their claims.
Kairosfocus has been going on about the avian lung for some time now. As with most IDers, they confuse their ignorance or inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist. There is ample evidence of the evolution of birds, and of evolution generally, yet there will always be mysteries concerning the exact sequence of events.
In this case, all it takes is a valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Take a look at this highly simplified schematic:
Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system. In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical.
As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds).
As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds.
Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008.
Quote kairosfocus: So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to empirically warrant their claims.
Kairosfocus has been going on about the avian lung for some time now. As with most IDers, they confuse their ignorance or inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist. There is ample evidence of the evolution of birds, and of evolution generally, yet there will always be mysteries concerning the exact sequence of events.
In this case, all it takes is a valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Take a look at this highly simplified schematic:
Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system. In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical.
As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds).
As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds.
Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008.
Categories: AE Public BB
Board Mechanics
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
I'm having a connectivity issue from my home network to AtBC and other sites on the server. If you have experienced a problem connecting from certain networks in the past week, please send me a description of the problem that you have seen. I'm having difficulty convincing my ISP that this is serious.
Email to w e l s b e r r at g m a i l dot c o m (remove spaces, convert to symbols as indicated). The problem is affecting my normal email, too.
I'm having a connectivity issue from my home network to AtBC and other sites on the server. If you have experienced a problem connecting from certain networks in the past week, please send me a description of the problem that you have seen. I'm having difficulty convincing my ISP that this is serious.
Email to w e l s b e r r at g m a i l dot c o m (remove spaces, convert to symbols as indicated). The problem is affecting my normal email, too.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Reciprocating Bill
Gordon drives a 2" nail into his own forehead:
Quote Perhaps, Hawthorne explains best:
Quote Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’.
Liz takes note:
Quote That is logical nonsense. First I am to assume that “one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”. Then, based on this “assumption”, I am supposed to conclude – that I can’t infer an ought from what is.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more blatant case of assuming your consequent.
This is UD. I'd have to think about that. But it's up there.
Gordon drives a 2" nail into his own forehead:
Quote Perhaps, Hawthorne explains best:
Quote Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’.
Liz takes note:
Quote That is logical nonsense. First I am to assume that “one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”. Then, based on this “assumption”, I am supposed to conclude – that I can’t infer an ought from what is.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more blatant case of assuming your consequent.
This is UD. I'd have to think about that. But it's up there.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Kattarina98
kf's triggerfinger is itching: Quote Dr Liddle,
Pardon, but you have now knowingly crossed a serious line. ...
If you insist on spreading poisonous falsehoods while refusing to seriously address the long since objectively established inherent amorality of the evolutionary materialism you have chosen to embrace, I can do but little about that. ... This is a sad day, to have to now draw a line with you, but you know what you will need to do to unweave the rhetorical spell you have now cast.
Of course, he can't ban mildmannered Dr Liddle, but wouldn't he love to ...
kf's triggerfinger is itching: Quote Dr Liddle,
Pardon, but you have now knowingly crossed a serious line. ...
If you insist on spreading poisonous falsehoods while refusing to seriously address the long since objectively established inherent amorality of the evolutionary materialism you have chosen to embrace, I can do but little about that. ... This is a sad day, to have to now draw a line with you, but you know what you will need to do to unweave the rhetorical spell you have now cast.
Of course, he can't ban mildmannered Dr Liddle, but wouldn't he love to ...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 14 2012,05:20) Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus. I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 14 2012,05:20) Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus. I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
KF responds with this gem: Quote Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism
which EL spots:
Quote kairosfocus!!!!!!!
First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).
I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.
I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.
You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
Categories: AE Public BB
Feminism
Post by Verbena
Forgot to add
... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!
Forgot to add
... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!
Categories: AE Public BB
Feminism
Post by Verbena
Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X
Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data. I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..
Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X
Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data. I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Kattarina98
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head. Quote I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.
I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.
I had, and I apologise.
And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
Categories: AE Public BB
Book club
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
My favorite is "Nightwatch". Maybe this might explain why I enjoyed "Snuff" so much. I am really attached to Sam Vimes, and to a lesser extent, Willikins (Jingo FTW!).
I think Sir Pterry has become more complex in his plots and character developments. I guess I've adapted to it...
My favorite is "Nightwatch". Maybe this might explain why I enjoyed "Snuff" so much. I am really attached to Sam Vimes, and to a lesser extent, Willikins (Jingo FTW!).
I think Sir Pterry has become more complex in his plots and character developments. I guess I've adapted to it...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by sledgehammer
And don't forget the side of smoked red herring!
And don't forget the side of smoked red herring!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Seversky
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
"Incendiary"?
Are they barbecuing strawmen over there again? I like mine sauteed in oil of ad hominem and served with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
"Incendiary"?
Are they barbecuing strawmen over there again? I like mine sauteed in oil of ad hominem and served with fava beans and a nice chianti.
Categories: AE Public BB
Book club
Post by Dr.GH
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,06:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I have read it twice now. The second reading was better. I think Pratchett was cramming too much happening at too many locations. I did not like the more assertive
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,06:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I have read it twice now. The second reading was better. I think Pratchett was cramming too much happening at too many locations. I did not like the more assertive
Categories: AE Public BB
Book club
Post by Amadan
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 13 2012,17:03) Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,15:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I did, and I loved it. Really enjoyed the growing relationship between Vimes and Willikins.
I thought Pratchett may have lost it a bit with Unseen Academicals (too messy for me, close to the first books) but with Snuff, I really felt he got a hand on his material.
And Goblins? Yeah!!!
I got if for Hogwatch (tee hee!) and was very disappointed. Laboured humour, what looked like desperate attempts to include familiar tropes, and a general lack of the don't-blink-now scene switching that was so much part of the fun in the earlier books.
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 13 2012,17:03) Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,15:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I did, and I loved it. Really enjoyed the growing relationship between Vimes and Willikins.
I thought Pratchett may have lost it a bit with Unseen Academicals (too messy for me, close to the first books) but with Snuff, I really felt he got a hand on his material.
And Goblins? Yeah!!!
I got if for Hogwatch (tee hee!) and was very disappointed. Laboured humour, what looked like desperate attempts to include familiar tropes, and a general lack of the don't-blink-now scene switching that was so much part of the fun in the earlier books.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Patrick
Apparently kairosfocus' reading comprehension issues include not only find offense where none is present, but in missing it where it is. GCUGreyArea writes:
Quote KF, I’ve seen, in my view, you slandering misrepresenting and in some cases just plain lying about plenty of others on this forum, yet I ain’t never seen you apologize for nothing.
To which kairosfocus replies:
Quote You are very close to calling me a liar
No, I think he actually called you a liar there, dude.
Apparently kairosfocus' reading comprehension issues include not only find offense where none is present, but in missing it where it is. GCUGreyArea writes:
Quote KF, I’ve seen, in my view, you slandering misrepresenting and in some cases just plain lying about plenty of others on this forum, yet I ain’t never seen you apologize for nothing.
To which kairosfocus replies:
Quote You are very close to calling me a liar
No, I think he actually called you a liar there, dude.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,17:42) Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.
Apologize for what, exactly? I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.
Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Standard KF tactic, when you get uncomfortably close to being proven wrong, have a hissy fit about something else and demand apologies before continuing.
Which, funnily enough is exactly what he is doing with EL right now, as already posted: Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,17:42) Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.
Apologize for what, exactly? I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.
Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Standard KF tactic, when you get uncomfortably close to being proven wrong, have a hissy fit about something else and demand apologies before continuing.
Which, funnily enough is exactly what he is doing with EL right now, as already posted: Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote Dr Liddle:
I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.
You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.
KF
Link. What happens next I wonder?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,11:42) Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Seconded!
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,11:42) Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Seconded!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Patrick
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.
Apologize for what, exactly? I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.
Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.
Apologize for what, exactly? I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.
Quote Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.
For which I thank you as well.
Categories: AE Public BB
Book club
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,15:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I did, and I loved it. Really enjoyed the growing relationship between Vimes and Willikins.
I thought Pratchett may have lost it a bit with Unseen Academicals (too messy for me, close to the first books) but with Snuff, I really felt he got a hand on his material.
And Goblins? Yeah!!!
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 13 2012,15:53)Anyone read Snuff?
What did you think?
I did, and I loved it. Really enjoyed the growing relationship between Vimes and Willikins.
I thought Pratchett may have lost it a bit with Unseen Academicals (too messy for me, close to the first books) but with Snuff, I really felt he got a hand on his material.
And Goblins? Yeah!!!
Categories: AE Public BB
