Quote from: Name LipsWhy is a Spambot linking directly to Google?

Quote from: BOZi think we need to use babelfish on it a few more times for that message to really make sense.

QuoteHeh..
Where it is here a network gallery on creators of installation place?
I am a necessity he.

P. EJ., as here - I am Google, saw it really here.

Much opportunity!

Quote from: KnightcrawlerHmmm...must need a tougher registration process or we'll get flooded with these guys.

Quote from: KnightcrawlerHmmm...must need a tougher registration process or we'll get flooded with these guys.

QuoteThe nub of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves—particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view,  preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being
that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relent-lessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model.

Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old-fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.

Question 1:
The author's primary purpose in the passage is to:
(A) examine the similarities and differences among models for environmental philosophies
(B) formulate a new philosophical model of the relationship between humans and their environment
(C) critique a modern-day environmental philosophy
(D) argue that one particular environmental philosophy is more workable than competing approaches
(E) demonstrate the limited usefulness of models as the basis for environmental philosophies

Question 2:
The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists
(A) are not critical enough of those who have plundered the natural world
(B) base their ideas on an unhealthy dualism
(C) have the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream
(D) have been unfairly criticized by restorationists
(E) have been faithful to the principles upon which their ideas are based

Question 3:
Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?
(A) to establish the parameters of an ensuing debate
(B) to identify problem areas within a school of thought, which are then explored in greater detail
(C) to discuss secondary issues as a prelude to a more detailed examination of a primary issue
(D) to provide an historical backdrop for a discussion of modern-day issues
(E) to introduce opposing viewpoints, which are then evaluated

Question 4:
In asserting that the organic model might be "more serviceable to the restorationists," the author implies that
(A) the descriptions by Turner and Jordan of the restorationists' program conform more closely to the organic model than to the community participation model
(B) the organic model is more consistent than the community participation model with the principle of restoration
(C) the organic model is more consistent with the restorationists' agenda than with the preservationists' program
(D) holistic models are more useful than the dualist model to the restorationists
(E) the organic model, unlike the community participation model, represents nature as a system of interconnected parts

Question 5:
Which of the following models would the author most likely agree is least like the other models listed below?
(A) domination model
(B) holistic model
(C) community participation model
(D) dualist model
(E) organic model

Question 6:
Which of the following best expresses the author's primary criticism of the restorationists?
(A) They fail to recognize any limits as to the scope of legitimate human manipulation of nature.
(B) They assign to humans a controlling role in the world.
(C) They reject the most workable model for the relationship between humans and nature.
(D) Their critique of preservationism is not well supported.
(E) Their program does not coincide with their principles.

Quote from: Teflon BillyOk, maybe I'm just immune to spam or soemthing, but what exactly is this guy selling? :confused:

Quote from: KnightcrawlerI'm loving the filters.