1) How and when did you come across Pharyngula?	
Answer 1: I found the link on Chris Mooney's blog over a year ago.	
 	
Answer 2: followed a link couple years ago	
 	
Answer 3: From a link at Chris Mooney's blog	
 	
Answer 4: Linked from another blog to a story regarding ID	
 	
Answer 5: Through a recommendation from another Blog.	
 	
Answer 6: Via Atrios, about six months ago.	
 	
Answer 7: I purchased my first computer about a year ago and discovered Pharyngula while exploring the world of the " internets".	
 	
Answer 8: About a year ago through a link from Panda's Thumb	
 	
Answer 9: July 2005, Googling for Etzioni. Never read a blog before. Post from Darksyde re the London bombings on July 7th was excellent	
 	
Answer 10: Brian Leiter who blogs at The Leiter Reports was engaged with the ID fanatic Van Dyke and pointed to a post PZ had on that subject -- sometime first quarter of 2004.	
 	
Answer 11: I became aware if Pharyngula about 3 months ago. I think I learned about the site through a link at TalkOrigins.com	
 	
Answer 12: I know Paul from way back on the Internet, so when he started blogging, I just had to go make rude comments.	
 	
Answer 13: through pushfluids.com	
 	
Answer 14: A year ago, following information about an Eric Alterman visit to the UM Morris I found Pharyngula.	
 	
Answer 15: Trackbacked to him via "Bad Astronomy" blog.	
 	
Answer 16: I came across it about six months ago.	
 	
Answer 17: About a year ago my mother sent me a link. I'm a BioChem undergrad and a native of MN so there you go!	
 	
Answer 18: A link from a different blog. Not sure which one.	
 	
Answer 19: As a reference within another "blog". I do not recall which. Within the past year.	
 	
Answer 20: searched for science blogs linked from other blogs (e.g. BitchPhd) and using Google. 2005	
 	
Answer 21: I think I searched for science blogs.	
 	
Answer 22: Can't remember. Probably through a link from another blog.	
 	
Answer 23: I came across Pharyngula several months ago when I was browsing the web for more information concerning Vendobionts, of whom I learned in reading Nick Lane's "OXYGEN".	
 	
Answer 24: Blogging	
 	
Answer 25: Links from ACLU Dover trial blog, probably	
 	
Answer 26: Linked from World Wide rant about evolution vs ID debate. 	
 	
Answer 27: It was linked from the Panda's Thumb, the anti-creationist website. This would have been around two years ago.	
 	
Answer 28: Through political blogs -- Eschaton, American Street. It was a name I often saw blogrolled and occasionally linked to.	
 	
Answer 29: Over a year ago, via link from Fafblog! (http://fafblog.blogspot.com)	
 	
Answer 30: Through both the wonderous Panda's Thumb and bitch.phd.	
 	
Answer 31: Followed a link from somewhere, years ago now...	
 	
Answer 32: Using Google to track down some piratical answer or another, I found Pharrrrrryngula.	
 	
Answer 33: A couple years ago I began reading talkorigins because of my dad's creationistic rantings. Then I started reading sites linked to from talkorigins or from Panda's Thumb. Somewhere along the line I discovered PZ Meyers' site and I got hooked.	
 	
Answer 34: About a year ago, probably linked through the Panda's Thumb, which I think I got to from Talk Origins when searching for some examples of quote mining.	
 	
Answer 35: Reading on PZ Myers' professed specialization	
 	
Answer 36: Link from blog '"The Loom" about 6 months ago.	
 	
Answer 37: Link from somewhere.	
 	
Answer 38: It was linked from Red State Rabble, first added it to my RSS feed about 2 months ago	
 	
Answer 39: Several months ago, by following links form another blog.	
 	
Answer 40: About a year ago, sick of the election, I concentrated on science blogs. I think (not 100% sure) that I discovered Pharyngula via Chris Mooney's blog The Intersection a few months before but did not visit regularly. It took a couple of months to become a 'regular', probably last November about time that Serbian minister of education tried to eliminate evolution from high schools there. I blogged the events daily and PZMyers linked to it. 	
 	
Answer 41: About a year ago, I think via a link from Instapundit.	
 	
Answer 42: For this, as for all blogs, disappears in the mist. I must have first looked at the Panda's Thumb, then followed a link. I am generally interested in biology, evolution, and the resistance of the American religious rightwing to the teaching of evolution.	
 	
Answer 43: I read his posts on usenet on TalkOrigins. So, I was aware of who he was. Later, I was on a list for the Minnesota science standards and his blog was linked by one of the participants. He was helpful in the effort to ensure ID did not get a foothold in the standards.	
 	
Answer 44: From the pandas thumb	
 	
Answer 45: university of Edicara/ID issue in teaching	
 	
Answer 46: Probably a link from Crooked Timber. More than a year ago.	
 	
Answer 47: One month ago	
 	
Answer 48: Don't remember exactly. I probably followed a trackback from another site. I remember seeing his name on Talk.origins previously.	
 	
Answer 49: I think it was a link from Panda's thumb, about a year or so ago.	
 	
Answer 50: Via Panda's Thumb (which I might have found via Philosophy of Biology ...) around January 2005. I do philosophy of science/ethics in science/science tecnology & society kinds of things, and as I was starting a blog for one of my classes, I wanted to see who else was worrying about some of the issues that worry me.	
 	
Answer 51: I believe I did a Google search for scienc blogs.	
 	
Answer 52: google	
 	
Answer 53: followed a link from talk.origins	
 	
Answer 54: I believe I came across Pharyngula about the time of this year's Kansas evolution in schools trial. I can't remember exactly how I found it; possibly a link from the Panda's Thumb.	
 	
Answer 55: I run a 'news wire' site that provides links to current stories on the web--specifically, the Internet Infidels news wire. I believe someone sent me a link to something he'd written, or to something at the Panda's Thumb. I think. It's been a long time.	
 	
Answer 56: I came across Pharyngula via a link from another blog, probably 10,000 Birds; I became a regular reader within the past six months.	
 	
Answer 57: It was linked to through The Panda's Thumb, which I came to through the Talk.origins web site while researching creation/evolution issues.	
 	
Answer 58: A friend sent me the link about April 2005.	
 	
Answer 59: I came across Pharyngua in November, 2004. Dubya's reelection was still weighing heavy on me and this whole ID nonsense was just starting to float to the top of the sewer. I was fairly new to the concept of blogging and had come across one of PZ's web-lectures cross-posted to the American Street. 	
 	
Answer 60: reading Kos and came across some link having to do with something	
 	
Answer 61: I found Pharyngula via Panda's Thumb about six months ago, after some people on ChristianForums.com had linked some great articles to PandasThumb.org	
 	
Answer 62: August 2005; Searching for sites on evo-creo debates.	
 	
Answer 63: Not sure - someone linked to him and there was such a clear knowledge of his domain of expertise that I had to make visits a regular affair.	
 	
Answer 64: Through a link provided on Panda's Thumb	
 	
Answer 65: Sometime in early 2005, I came across Pharyngula while internet surfing. Almost certainly, it was linked to another blog. The chain of connections must have started with 'The Panda's Thumb,' although I actually use stcynic.com as a portal for sevedral blogs, including Dr. Myers'.	
 	
Answer 66: About 1.5 to 2 years ago, via pandasthumb.org, via the talk origins archive which I was reading for discussion of creationist claims.	
 	
Answer 67: Links from both political blogs and physics blogs, mostly about the issue of intelligent deisgn creationism.	
 	
Answer 68: I wish I could remember how, but the when was probably March / April 2005	
 	
Answer 69: I saw it won a prize for bloggers (the Koufax award). I found out about the prize reading Juan Cole, who I was reading regularly. Since then, I have also been reading Pharyngula.	
 	
Answer 70: About a year ago, it having been linked from Pandagon.	
 	
2) Can you explain why you became a regular reader of Pharyngula?	
Answer 1: I would not normally read about the kind of research work Myers does, but he explains it well so interested laymen (my degrees are in sociology) can understand it. And of course for the ID bashing.	
 	
Answer 2: Clear, concise explanations on biology, really cool looks at the inside workings of research, good information on the ID "debate", erudite comments from readers	
 	
Answer 3: When I taught at a small university, I froze when in class someone asked about all of the "recent" evidence supporting creationism. Later I found out how bad things were for middle/high school teachers in the state. While I am out of academia now, I need to do what I can to fight creationism. This blog helps me keep informed.	
 	
Answer 4: Excellent analysis, thorough coverage of a topic I am interested in (ID movement in public education)	
 	
Answer 5: Similarity of viewpoint as well as a variety of discussions concerning topics I'm interested in. Further, the comments from other readers are usually appropriate and concise. The commented blog form is more intimate than the forums I used to participate in, as well as far more polite.	
 	
Answer 6: Science, baby. I likes me the science. Also, I enjoy reading the indignant rants of an open atheist and free thinkers. It's not considered polite here in MN to have strong opinions, a consideration PZ has apparently not... uh, considered. Right. Anyway, he says what he means, and means what he says, and he writes about complex biological mumbo jumbo that leaves me confused and ecstatic.	
 	
Answer 7: Being an admirer of Darwin and the scientific method for decades now I find PZ Myers' informative explanations (about evolutionary biology and other topics) are for the most part clearly written and, depending on the subject, fairly easy to understand. 	
 	
Answer 8: a brilliantly written series of commentaries written by a combative, unapologetic atheist is a rare thing to find	
 	
Answer 9: Like minds; lucid writing; above all (cf other blogs) easy to navigate and understand its organisation	
 	
Answer 10: PZ's consistent and unrelenting takedowns of ID propaganda, his progressive politics, his wit; his positive, enthusiastic, and clear expositions on biology and evolution in particular, his unabashed atheism. He points to other interesting blogs and news. He engages with his readers on post comments. He is sometimes just silly. It's all very refreshing. A great advocate for thinking, reasoning, and intelligent science and politics. He's also good at the technology of blogging (CSS, multimedia, etc).	
 	
Answer 11: Primarily because of the biological postings. Anticreationist postings are more a source of amused irritation (at creationists).	
 	
Answer 12: The rat actually knows what he's talking about. I read him to be sure I don't make a mistake he can correct in public.	
 	
Answer 13: His writing is highly intelligent and comic at the same time, and covers interesting topics (at least to me). It might help that I am an atheist and a physiology student.	
 	
Answer 14: After the initial discovery I found that PZ and I shared time at the U of Oregon in the 80s and we had some off line conversations. I also share most of PZs social and political positions (yes I am a liberal atheist) while enjoying the new science information (I love to learn new things). I have found no other blog that has a community where I feel as comfortable while also being intellectually stimulating.	
 	
Answer 15: PZ has an exceptional ability to engage via his writing style, with humor and information, any reader interested in whatever subject he may be blogging about. He actually made me wish (briefly) that I had tried harder to get into biology. It seems so much more fascinating when he tells it.	
 	
Answer 16: I've always had an interest in both various life sciences, and in politics, This journal does a pretty good job of blending the two. Plus its hilarious quite often.	
 	
Answer 17: I like the way he picks apart ID bullshit and I like the way he re-presents journal articles he finds interesting. He makes it a level of readable that is good for someone who has some education in the feild but isn't an expert. He doesn't dumb it down too much.	
 	
Answer 18: PZ's humour and his righteous anger. It's also good update on the ID stoush, and his posts on biology are interesting when I can understand them. It was also a challenge to see if I could remember the URL. catchy name once you remember it.	
 	
Answer 19: The author is lucid, appears passionate, rejects religion and promotes rationality. The accesible writing style and the interesting content are a bonus. I find it helpful to read the views of those whom I hold as credible, as decided by me - at times my own opinions have changed after review. So far I have not been disappointed by Pharyngula.	
 	
Answer 20: Dover trial along with very good posts for the intelligent laymen on genetics /evolution history. posting regularly means that i know i'll see something new when i visit it.	
 	
Answer 21: Interesting mix of content. I'm a university biology student and I enjoy both the interesting snippets of science and the anti-intelligent design rants (and the other content too!)	
 	
Answer 22: Love his expositions on various biological topics.	
 	
Answer 23: Because of the scientific and intelligent political content. The scientific content is obscure enough to tantalize my nerdiness, and the political content is merely a bonus.	
 	
Answer 24: He makes sense	
 	
Answer 25: The topics covered are those which I find most interesting and important (i.e. biology, evolutionary bio, some politics) , and it's mighty reassuring to be reminded that there are lots of people out there who *don't* think like the Dover school board.	
 	
Answer 26: Wonderfull insite into real biology, discovery channels and hsitory channel on TV now serves as propoganda for religion only.	
 	
Answer 27: What drew me in was the way PZ discussed Evolutionary Psychology, which in the popular media, in pop science books, is often described as the scientific approach, and criticisms of it are unscientific, amounting to creationism. PZ has shown how much criticism of it actually exists within science, and through this is a wonderful explicator of evolutionary theory in the biological sciences beyond the adaptationist confines in which it is often described.	
 	
Answer 28: I followed a politics of evolution link; I stayed for the science. I like a good politics rant or creationist smackdown as much as the next guy, although I tend to gloss over some of them. It's the biology posts where PZ's enthusiasm -- and respect for laypeople -- really grab me.	
 	
Answer 29: I have a background in science and biomedical engineering, and a blog that addressed current scientific events was extremely interesting to me. The writing is crisp, to the point, interesting, and witty, and is often updated, giving me much to read over a week. Finally, his breadth of topics and many links to external pages is an excellent aggregator of science issues that I don't have time to seek out on my own. 	
 	
Answer 30: I am an anthropology student. I found his wide range of subjects interesting. 	
 	
Answer 31: He offers very clear explanations of cool evolutionary biology research, and trenchant sociopolitical critique from a perspective I appreciate. And he does it all with a keen sense of humor.	
 	
Answer 32: It's smart and funny, panders to my leftward inclinations, and is contemptuous of idiocy (ID and otherwise).	
 	
Answer 33: He posts frequently, he writes well, he covers both evolution/creation issues as well as general science, he exposes me to many wonderful web resources that I'd otherwise never hear of.	
 	
Answer 34: PZ's got a great style of writing, that gives me a lot of information quickly in a way I (not a sciency person) can understand. He's also extremely good at helping me understand how to argue with those who deny evolution. Pharyngula's also got an extremely nice layout. Everything's very clear to navigate around, and it's easy to get where I want.	
 	
Answer 35: A PZ Myers lecture is worth a hundred popular science articles.	
 	
Answer 36: Biology was an old interest, US ID ideas far out, lively traffic, intelligent posts and comments, both short and long posts, current and different subjects, many references to photos/videos (I'm a visual person) and other blogs or discussions.	
 	
Answer 37: I am also a biologist.	
 	
Answer 38: I'm a grad student, and it's nice to see that getting that degree doesn't make you any less pissed off at idiots	
 	
Answer 39: I found the content to be inciteful, thoughtprovoking, and with an uncommon depth of knowledge. Dr. Myers also seems genuinely enthusiastic about his subjects and partakes freely in the discussions.	
 	
Answer 40: It just happened. I was sick of politics and wanted a good science blog. Beating on Creationists is a plus. PZ is funny, has great (some say wicked) mastery of the language and, what was probably most important for me at the time (and still is) he attracts an amazing group of educated commenters.	
 	
Answer 41: I've long been interested in the creationism-evolution dispute, and spent some effort studying it 20 years ago. But I'd become way out of date and was impressed by Professor Myers' clear style, provocative stance and comprehensive approach. Then, when I discovered that, despite the 'science content only' disclaimer, he opened up on politics, and that some of it (not all) was wildly misinformed, I was hooked. Besides, I'd quit posting at brothersjudd.com because the host was tampering with my posts and needed some new target to bedevil. After 3 years of ripping the right, I thought it would be refreshing to rip the left.	
 	
Answer 42: The explanations, diagrams, and expositions are wonderful, and Dr. Myers uses liberal linking to further information. He is also reasonably directly accessible through comments and email. Frankly, I can't imagine where he finds the time, but I am glad that he is so generous with it.	
 	
Answer 43: He disposes of creationists in such an entertaining manner. That got me hooked. He has some good science on the blog. I learn some really interesting things I don't see in the press.	
 	
Answer 44: interesting content about biology and general and evolution, subjects I am interested in as a hobbiest and from a political /current events standpoint.	
 	
Answer 45: yes--the issues discussed are ones that matter to me; and the discussion is intelligent, issue based, rather than ad hominen.	
 	
Answer 46: Watching P. Z. assault creationists is the most entertaining thing on the internet. It's the sweet science for those of us enamoured with plain ol' science: he flies like a drosophila and stings like a professor. Also, I wish I were better at biology, and I love that he occassionally breaks down actual papers for semi-lay readers. It's leagues better than the NYT's Science Times coverage.	
 	
Answer 47: It coves a range of topics that I'm interested in, specifically the Inteliigent Design issue and evolution. Plus there's an assortment of "oddball" links that I find interesting/funny....	
 	
Answer 48: Mainly, I enjoy the commentary, although it's nice to see what's happening in biology occasionally.	
 	
Answer 49: Fascinating variety of topics, lucid explanation of complex ideas, and wonderfully irascible smackdown of clueless idiots on a regular basis. Dr. Myers is a tireless champion of the truth, in all its messy glory, and he revels in laying it out for us to marvel at.	
 	
Answer 50: The level of discourse is astoundingly good. Rather than dumbing things down, PZ explains them in loving detail. And, he's not afraid to call 'em like he sees 'em.	
 	
Answer 51: I am very interested in evolution and the political controversies surrounding it (I am a science teacher). Also, I find that PZ's general outlook on life, and sense of humor, is much like mine. I like to read blogs from other points of view, but it's nice to also read things from a kindred spirit.	
 	
Answer 52: I can get a dose of science, politics and philosophy without having to be in a classroom	
 	
Answer 53: I like the science articles	
 	
Answer 54: Well written posts on topics I'm interested in: biology topics and teaching standards in science. It probably helps that I generally agree with P.Z.'s politics (although not on religion in general).	
 	
Answer 55: General interest in evolutionary biology, interest in the hostility of obscurantist religious groups (creationists, so-called 'intelligent design' advocates) toward the insights it offers.	
 	
Answer 56: PZ Myers has a unique voice that stands out among the rest of the blogosphere. I greatly enjoy his acerbic smackdowns of creationists and other charlatans. His hard science posts are always informative, and fill some of the gaps in my education.	
 	
Answer 57: I like PZ's combination of good hard science made clear to a layman, biting and vitriolic ant-Right invective, and good old-fashioned cephalopod porn.	
 	
Answer 58: He is interesting, articulate, and post very interesting pieces. Plus there is pirate mode and an RSS feed.	
 	
Answer 59: Pharyngula provides a broad array of interesting and topical posts that run the gambit from bleeding edge science to political humor. PZ never holds back, whether he is lambasting a Republican crony or explaining the banal minutia behind the lymbic system of planarians. Further, there are always more than enough links to permit one to "catch up" on the background of the topic at hand. Few bloggers provide this kind of reference to their nominally single-minded rants.	
 	
Answer 60: my inner child is a bio-geek, i enjoy the content and the context of the conversation	
 	
Answer 61: PZ is insightful, funny, and thourough. I can count on learning something new about topics I'd never thought of, or learning new subtleties and perspectives on subjects I had given a lot of thought to. Not many places can be counted on for such consistently high quality posts	
 	
Answer 62: The articles are interesting and usually lead to other interesting places via the use of links to reference material, other blogs, etc.	
 	
Answer 63: See above. Wonderful, occasionally, off-the-wall observations on biology.	
 	
Answer 64: Interesting articles, good humour	
 	
Answer 65: I have a long standing intrest in science in general and have had a great fear of creationism's effect on society since high school in the late 70s. I have a BSc in Physics, have been a fan of TalkOrigins for years and find that Pharyngula is a great way to get a smattering of interesting biology. 	
 	
Answer 66: The interesting science articles, plus the not infrequent discussion of some of the forms of psuedo-science.	
 	
Answer 67: As a physicist, I have a longstanding interest in the sciences, but my biology background is weak. Pharyngula is a great way to keep up on recent developments in biology without requiring formal training in the field. The political/social discussions also help, since the integrity of science in general is important, and this is one aspect toward this goal.	
 	
Answer 68: I think the quality of writing is very good. PZ Myers can take what is a difficult topic and write in a clear and accessible manner without trivialising the issues. He also has a good line in useful and relevant analogies. Read this http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_proper_reverence_due_those_who_have_gone_before/	
 	
Answer 69: It's an attention-grabbing site. (I think the first time I saw it, it was the pirate version. Since then I've turned off the pirate version.) I like science, and I like the comments about ID.	
 	
Answer 70: Because science is awesome! Especially biosci.	
 	
3) Briefly describe your background. In the sciences? In academia?	
Answer 1: Graduate degreees in sociology. Now teach statistics in a BSc nursing program and conduct research on health systems.	
 	
Answer 2: post-Viet Nam studies in various majors, including biology and archeology, eventually getting a BA in Education	
 	
Answer 3: PhD in Botany/Ecology. Currently, I am now full time research but I did teach at a small university (see 2)	
 	
Answer 4: Analytical biochemist working for the federal government	
 	
Answer 5: Automotive Engineer, deeply interested in science. USAF Veteran, Assoc. in Robotics, BS in Electrical Engineering, working on MBA. Member AAAS, NYAS, Michigan Democratic Party Precinct Delegate.	
 	
Answer 6: I'm a college dropout, but I *did* go to a university for six years in the natural sciences. Just kept changing majors and had no real interest in that diploma. My experiences with academia are more or less over, regrettably. Though I do read one to two books a week, so maybe I'm some sort of self-contained academic. Nope, just looked up 'academic' and I'm pretty sure I don't qualify. Anyhow...	
 	
Answer 7: I'm a semi retired musician with a high school education. I enjoy reading and learning.	
 	
Answer 8: little to no formal training in the sciences, simply a lay person's knowledge of science in general	
 	
Answer 9: Academia - social sciences - politics - political theory/philosophy	
 	
Answer 10: BS in CS/philosophy. MS in CS at Michigan. Graduate teaching assistant. Lead engineer and mid-level manager in software in Silicon Valley.	
 	
Answer 11: I have a Ph.D. in Ecological Entomology. I have taught at the University and Colllege level, and have also been a research scientist.	
 	
Answer 12: Philosopher of biology. Computer geek. Postdoc at present. Aged 50, I might add...	
 	
Answer 13: I'm a physiology major, in the hopes of either 1) attending medical school or 2) getting an advanced degree of some sort in microscopy/miscroscopic arts.	
 	
Answer 14: I have worked as a public school teacher, although only briefly in science, and managed IT at a public university. My prior source of interesting science commentary was Gould. As I first said to him when I met PZ; Pharyngula is the closest thing I have found to the intelligent yet accessible science articles and collections that Gould wrote.	
 	
Answer 15: I have been a musician, a teacher, and an actor. But, while I specialize in the arts, I am fascinated by science, astronomy, and technology. Presently I am a screenwriter, and much of my research is about new technology and scientific discovery.	
 	
Answer 16: I'm a high school senior who's taken several college level science and history courses.	
 	
Answer 17: I am a third year undergrad studing BioChemistry.	
 	
Answer 18: I studied engineering and I'm currently studying energy studies. I have no experience practicing science or in academia.	
 	
Answer 19: I "dropped out" of University in the early 1980's. I therefore have no academic or scientific background. I consider myself an autodidact. I was born in November, 1960, in Madrid, Spain. I am an Australian citizen, residing in Springton, South Australia.	
 	
Answer 20: ba in mathematics and elec. engineering . took college physics/chem i work at a university in IT.	
 	
Answer 21: I'm a second-year undergraduate studying biological natural sciences at Cambridge University in the UK.	
 	
Answer 22: College student, physics major.	
 	
Answer 23: I am a sophmore of the Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology program at the University of Michigan. As such, I am surrounded my as much biological information as I could presently want.	
 	
Answer 24: I took geology 101 and physics 1xx as well as chemistry 1xx.	
 	
Answer 25: B. Sci in Entomology (with honors), PhD candidate at Berkeley	
 	
Answer 26: I am a BSc in Computer Science from Africa that has immigrated to the USA.	
 	
Answer 27: British graduate with a degree that straddles the humanities/natural sciences: B.Sc. Anthropology. I also have Masters degrees, one in ethnographic filmmaking (Visual Anthropology) and also one on palaeoanthropology (Biological Anthropology), one from Oxford University and one from Cambridge.	
 	
Answer 28: My academic background is music/humanities. I currently work as a technical writer (engineering software documentation).	
 	
Answer 29: Bachelor's in biomedical engineering and biology, minor in math; Master's in Biomedical Engineering, focused on nonsurgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; former researcher for the US Olympic Committee in athlete kinematics, former researcher for the FDA in in vitro material interfaces, former scientist with GE Medical in nuclear imaging; published in numerous peer-reviewed journals; holder of several patents; currently in neurostimulation start-up company	
 	
Answer 30: See above. 	
 	
Answer 31: I am finishing my dissertation in philosophy this year, and one of my main research interests is philosophy of biology. As an undergraduate, I was a double-major in philosophy and physics. So basically, I'm a philosophy geek with a scientific bent - or maybe a science geek with a philosophical bent.	
 	
Answer 32: High school biology, college drop-out, computer programmer.	
 	
Answer 33: I was a physics major for a while in the 60's, before switching to anthropology / social science in which I have a bachelor's degree. After graduation I've worked as a computer programmer. I love to read about science, Isaac Asimov's books were instrumental there.	
 	
Answer 34: I have just finished my honours degree in History (one step above bachelors, one below masters), though I intend to go on to masters level at least. I have so far had little to do with the sciences, but partly because of PZ's blog I've been encouraged to spend some time getting more familiar with them, and perhaps move onto the history of science.	
 	
Answer 35: Biology read at introductory tertiary level as part of a music degree	
 	
Answer 36: Civil engineering in tecnical physics. PhD in physics on thin film processing. Worked with integrated electronics. Currently signal analysis and application software.	
 	
Answer 37: Academic biologist, with major interests in neurobiology and developmental biology.	
 	
Answer 38: Physics grad student	
 	
Answer 39: I am a catalog librarian for an art school.	
 	
Answer 40: PhD ABD in chronobiology. I wanted to do evo-devo but that did not happen.	
 	
Answer 41: None. Never completed a formal course at any level in any science, except mathematics. 	
 	
Answer 42: Ph.D. Chemistry, post-doc at national lab, now industrial scientist.	
 	
Answer 43: I got my undergrad at a liberal arts institution. I was required to take science but not much. I took chemistry, biology, anthropology, and geology. I started running across creationists and have been studying them for more than two decades. That spurred an interest in biology and I read a lot of books and magazines related to it.	
 	
Answer 44: BA in biology from Harvard. Studied paleontology. Went on several digs in college. Now employed as a computer scientist.	
 	
Answer 45: Almost dissertation in physical geography--focus on biogeography and the tertiary. Student teaching assistent. 	
 	
Answer 46: Recently graduated with BS in Computer Science. Introductory coursework at the AP or college level in Biology and Physics; vaguely scared of Chemistry. Hopefully returning to persue a PhD in CS in the near future.	
 	
Answer 47: Graduate Student in Evolutionary Economics, Canada	
 	
Answer 48: BSEE, BS Control Systems Engineering. 	
 	
Answer 49: Medicine, non-academic.	
 	
Answer 50: Used to be a chemist (no really, Ph.D. and everything). Got another Ph.D. so I could be a philosopher of science. Toiling away (year 4) in a tenure track job as an assistant professor of philosophy at an underfunded state university in California.	
 	
Answer 51: I have a BS in chemistry, BA in linguistics and Masters in Teaching. I teach high school chemistry and general science.	
 	
Answer 52: biotech, biology BS	
 	
Answer 53: I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics. I teach mathematics to students entering university.	
 	
Answer 54: I have a PhD in biology (emphasis on embryology) but I'm out of academia. 	
 	
Answer 55: One B.Sc. in biology from ten years ago. More recent university courses taken outside degree programs include an introductory course in astronomy, grad course in algorithm analysis and design, former for curiosity, latter related to career.	
 	
Answer 56: I had great science instruction in high school but very little since then because I took a different direction. However I do have an amateur interest in the natural world because I am a birder. In the academic world, I am a grad student in the humanities.	
 	
Answer 57: I was an English and Art major in college, so I have no formal training at all. I stopped with my Bachelor's Degree, but have had a lifelong interest in science and have continued to read mass-audience publications dealing with scientific issues like Scientific American, Discover, and others .	
 	
Answer 58: MA in Mathematics and work for a University.	
 	
Answer 59: I am currently a graduate student at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ. While I am currently studying Geographic Information Systems (GIS), I have a BS degree in Anthropology from Texas Tech University where I studied paleoanthropology and physical anthropology (human osteology). Prior to my current academic reincarnation, I have been employed as a field and research archeologist in Texas and the Southwest. In this regard I have worked in both academia and the private sector, with clients ranging from state and federal governments to evil empire corporations like Williams Communication.	
 	
Answer 60: Psych BA, currently doing tech support for WebMD	
 	
Answer 61: I have a BSc is Computer Science but work in industry. I am a dilettante in biology, an interested observer.	
 	
Answer 62: Degree in Science: Biochemistry (BS); Practiced analytical chemistry for 5 years; Consultant to the pharma industry for 3 years; Currently at a BIG pharmaceutical company.	
 	
Answer 63: PhD in Math. Now working, after some time in academia, in hte computer industry.	
 	
Answer 64: MA in English Literature, now working as a translator. My interest in C/E is strictly a hobby	
 	
Answer 65: Oops. Started on that above. I have a BSc in Physics from NCSU, with a minor in Math. I was a late bloomer and put myself through college graduating in '92. I've never been a proffesional scientist, and since graduation have worked in the computer industry. I'm currently a marketing engineer in wireless security.	
 	
Answer 66: B.A. in Physics and Religious Studies from Franklin and Marshall College. Currently pursuing a teaching certificate for High School Physics and Math.	
 	
Answer 67: I am an astrophysics post-doctoral fellow, at a major research university.	
 	
Answer 68: I have an interest in ancient sciences and am writing up my thesis on ancient cosmology.	
 	
Answer 69: BA, JD. I was not a science major, but I like to read about it.	
 	
Answer 70: 2nd year biochemistry undergraduate at the Ohio State University.	
 	
4) What leads you to trust and rely on PZ Myers more or less than on other bloggers /columnists writing about these issues? What makes Pharyngula different from (or similar to) other blogs?	
Answer 1: When Myers discuss issues I understand and know well I find that he is knowledgeable and insightful. That leads me to believe that I trust his knowledge and insight in areas I know less well. Myers is also a good writer with a sense of humour.	
 	
Answer 2: Cross posting by other knowledgeable academics and commentary from other smart people. I could be tricked by bullshit on another site but know my back is covered by the other readers of his blog. PZ will run rants against idiocy in all its forms, post some funny stuff, and also pass along examples of what real scientists do during their work day; I know I will be entertained and enlightened whenever I click on his blog.	
 	
Answer 3: I don't "trust" PZ because I can evaluate the science myself, when he is writing about science. Most science blogs tend to be very boring. PZ has a great mix of personal items, liberal politics, news, and humor, so I feel that he has become a friend and I look forward to seeing him on a regular basis.	
 	
Answer 4: It offers informed commentary on ID from a scientific viewpoint; offers a thorough reference to other resources on the topic	
 	
Answer 5: PZ Myers presents information clearly without being dogmatic. A similarity to my own progressive worldview is probably also a factor. Further, the comment section often amplifies and sometimes questions the information PZ Myers presents, leading to a feeling of more reliable information.	
 	
Answer 6: I trust PZ for three reasons: 1.) He's brutally honest about his opinions, even when those opinions are guaranteed to alienate and enrage 80% of the people who wander over to his site. 2.) He's consistent. 3.) He backs his words up. If he says, "Actually, Dembski is a delusional bible thumper who clearly doesn't understand this subject," he actually points out WHY Dembski is wrong. Not with flowery prose or long-winded exposition, but with pretty pictures and authoritative-sounding sciency words. That came out wrong. But you get the picture. *chuckle*	
 	
Answer 7: The fact that PZ Myers has a Phd. and writes with such clarity and logic on a variety of subjects, plus his views on religion and the ID debacle inspires trust. PZ Myers knows what he is talking/writing about. Other bloggers do too but Myers humorous personality shines through.	
 	
Answer 8: 	
 	
Answer 9: Different because it's just so well done and easy to use. I don't read other science blogs because it's not my primary interest, but having said that I do read most of PZ's science posts with interest. My guess is that it's different simply because it does what it does so well. And it's unashamedly intelligent.	
 	
Answer 10: Many attempt to write with confidence and authority. Unlike others, PZ backs up his words with references to the scientific literature, a deep understanding, and personal engagement in the comments of his posts.	
 	
Answer 11: I trust Myers on issues of developmental biology because he is trained in this field. "Trust" is a word that I would not use regarding the anticreationist postings; they are simply correct (not my training: I can assess these postings on my own). Pharyngula is different from other similar sites in that it has a very personal touch, and a sense of humor/outrage.	
 	
Answer 12: Clear exposition, references and an obvious familiarity with the topics.	
 	
Answer 13: I usually don't take what one person says as immediate fact, and what PZ Myers does is provide the spark for me to turn into flame. I enjoy almost all of the topics he writes about.	
 	
Answer 14: PZ makes himself accessible in a way that assures me he is not just putting on a show. Since I have actually met him and some of his friends and colleagues in Morris I have been able to personally verify that he is who he appears to be.	
 	
Answer 15: He is quite prolific, and he makes the information easy to access, and helps to simplify complicated advanced ideas in a way that doesn't make you feel like an idiot, yet is still clear.	
 	
Answer 16: He's really good about citing his sources, nothing seems completely outrageous, I generally agree with his writings, and I like that it has comments. Those blogs that don't are fake.	
 	
Answer 17: Covers some MN issues, and has a good mix of anti-ID stuff with "oh lookit this cool science!" stuff.	
 	
Answer 18: I trust what he has to say because of the humour and passion he writes with. He is also honest about what he doesn't know, and discusses logically the things he does know about. His tone is usually fairly neutral as well, unless he's laying into someone he thinks deserves it. When he does lay into someone, he's very very funny. Also, he doesn't attack them as much as their ideas. I don't see pharyngula as being very different from other blogs. It's a good meta-blog, but it's more than a collection of lists.	
 	
Answer 19: Salient factors in his credibilty include: I do not believe he misrepresents himself - a cursory internet investigation satisfies me of this. He is a fellow rationalist and irreligious; indicates when he opines and when he "knows" something. He is often alluded to by other authors whom I respect. He updates the blog . Often. On the occasions I have "drilled in" on one of his more technical entries, I have been rewarded by an ever-expanding bounty of information - this, unfortunately, is the exception and not the norm. I have noted no instances of unscrupulous, out-of-context or misattributed quoting or paraphrasing of others by him.	
 	
Answer 20: most of PZ myers' posts are verifiable from other sources. if they do not include links then they mention the author of the paper if not the citation. I've occasionally read the papers (not to determine PZ Myers' trustworthiness, but for more details). as said before, PZ Myers is very successful in regularly posting very detailed but accessible descriptions of current genetics research...and the Dover trial	
 	
Answer 21: He knows what he is talking about much more than many columnists. For example, there is some terrible science from columnists in our newspapers over here (check out www.badscience.net for some examples). I wouldn't say I have particularly more or less trust in PZ Myers than in others similar blogs etc, for example, Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog. 	
 	
Answer 22: I trust PZ Myers more on scientific issues because he is a qualified scientist.	
 	
Answer 23: As for trust, there's a rapport to be found with his political ideology, but beyond that, there is nothing. For all I know he could be a self-deluded hermit with broadband who drinks his own urine, but nonetheless, he is a hermit with very unusual and interesting science articles. As for differences, it's the science being presented in an accessible and frank way, kind of like a hot dog.	
 	
Answer 24: PZ is smart enough to phrase things in a way us eedjits can comprehend. He pummels the ID charlatans.	
 	
Answer 25: The man has a PhD and tenure, surely that's worth something. Good writing, too. I'm new to the world of academic blogs, so this is still the only one I read. 	
 	
Answer 26: He is a professor at a real university. There are others that critique what he says that are also real scientists.	
 	
Answer 27: The standard of the writing is higher, and the level of knowledge is deeper. The closest writer on similar science subjects in popular blogging is Carl Zimmer's site. However, the level of specialist knowledge PZ can apply to a piece is much richer and detailed. Any analysis of the two writers' styles will reveal this.	
 	
Answer 28: He strikes me as much less of a political junkie than, e.g., Atrios or The Poor Man. Rather, he's someone who's passionate about science and the life of the mind, and his political involvement is in response to that. He seems to wade into the political fray reluctantly. And he loves cephalopods. 	
 	
Answer 29: Meyers credentials to speak on these issues are impeccable and verifiable. He rarely strays from issues on whcih he is a demonstrable expert, and when he does he is clear on his lack of knowledge and that he is merely giving his uninformed opinion. I can trust him the way that I can trust any worthwihle peer-reviewed journal: he knows his stuff, can back it up, and welcomes criticism. 	
 	
Answer 30: His format/layout is clear. He does a "real" blog, which to me has a focus, but also ties in the focus to other subjects, and also makes personal life / political view entries as well. I like blogs that have an eclectic feel to them. 	
 	
Answer 31: I know a lot about some of the issues PZ addresses, which allows me to judge his very reliable and insightful about those topics - so I tend to trust his judgment when he talks about other topics I don't know so much about. One thing that makes Pharyngula different from other blogs is PIRATE MODE! :-)	
 	
Answer 32: PZ often links to a variety of other sources, encourages his readers to "go and find" rather than "read and believe", throws a mix of content into his blog, and updates on a frequent basis - which keeps me coming back.	
 	
Answer 33: He writes in a manner I can understand, it's not too complex but with enough info to keep me coming back. His writing is entertaining. He writes in a way that leads me to truest him - providing references for his statements, being willing to acknowledge that sometimes science doesn't have an answer to a question. He strikes me as someone who'd be a good teacher. And he doesn't rant as much as some others. He writes in a reasonably respectful tone about most people. And when he goes after someone, it's for substantive reasons rather than simply baloney.	
 	
Answer 34: Knowing that he's a professor of biology probably helps (which he's given enough evidence for to prove he's not really a 38-year-old Welsh trucker). He's consistent, clearly interested in teaching about and exploring the world. He's also given me a great resource for the debate with creationists, which I've been able to use a number of times. I don't read that many other biology/evolution blogs, but I have found the others I've seen a little harder to get into, and at times aimed at a higher level than I'm competant to read, so it's not really that I trust them less, but I do find PZ very reliable.	
 	
Answer 35: The science content is the outstanding magnet for me. While there are many fine science amateurs writing blogs, a gifted pedagogue like PZ is rare. I have less interest in the particular political issues that PZ canvasses, although he writes entertainingly on these at times. I eschew the blog community references, rather skimming most of that because I don't have the time to become knowledgable about it.	
 	
Answer 36: Trust: writes on subject he knows, writes balanced and fairly levelheaded. Distrust: often complaining about US politics (where I don't know too much...) Similar but livelier than "Cosmic Variance", which is managed by a group!	
 	
Answer 37: PZ is obviously a professional biologist. Pharyngula is the only "biology blog" that I read. The rest of my biology information comes mainly from scientific journals.	
 	
Answer 38: Same political bent as me, which isn't unusual for scientific bloggers. He updates very regularly, though, so if I'm looking for a 30-second distraction I can refresh for a new post	
 	
Answer 39: He cites his sources very thouroughly, always choosing athoratative and reliable sources from which to pull information.	
 	
Answer 40: The 'pure science' posts are my main food at Pharyngula. It is hard enough to keep up with the literature in one's own field. It is nice to have someone choose and digest important recent papers in evo-devo and evol-gen. First couple of times I actually read the papers and the references and saw that PZ got the gist of the papers just right. I don't bother 'checking' any more. We agree on practically every issue in biology (e.g., like or dislike same people in the field) so I trust his judgement on stuff I don't bother to read myself.	
 	
Answer 41: I rely on his science exposition because he provides links, he writes clearly and puts his essays on other researchers' findings in a context that is helpful. I'm modestly well-read in the life sciences for an amateur and believe I can spot the cranks. On politics, he's a kneejerk liberal who often falls for hoaxes and I don't trust or rely on him at all. I don't read a lot of other blogs, but the few I do avoid flame wars, are polite -- in other words, everything an AOL chatroom is not. The thing I most appreciate about pharyngula is the depth.	
 	
Answer 42: 1. Expertise and credentials- Dr. Myers is an expert about what he writes about. 2. Willingness to enter the fray- his pugnacious pro-science attitude is backed up by a willingness to expose and expound on data and theory. 	
 	
Answer 43: His blog has helped me in efforts to deal with a creationist outbreak in a small rural town. I found that he provided solid information in a thoughtful manner. It was very useful. 	
 	
Answer 44: Interesting and engaging and updates frequently.	
 	
Answer 45: Much of what is addressed and discussed is consonant with my past experience with creationism and the general dumbing down of science. The informality but precision make it easy for me to come up to speed on issues.	
 	
Answer 46: I honestly don't get out much. Dr. Myers is the only biologist I read regularly. When I do read others -- Zimmer, on occassion -- I'd say that I trust them about as much as PZ. I trust most of these guys about as much as I trusted professors in school. 	
 	
Answer 47: The author focuses on using his expertise in biology to comment on subjects. Seeing as I have little experience in that field I find it useful to read his arguments.	
 	
Answer 48: I haven't really noticed any others in the same genre.	
 	
Answer 49: He is no more or less reliable than a number of well-informed people writing in this area. I read him because I have come to enjoy his style, and his voice.	
 	
Answer 50: PZ does not pontificate -- he engages. He stays on the relevant issues (especially in the evolution vs. ID wars) and he uses them to bring out how science works in a way that is accessible to non-scientists but doesn't do violence to the scientific details. He seems to have unlimited energy for the issues he takes on, and he's funny as hell.	
 	
Answer 51: I like the stories he picks to cover. Also his site has a nice interface, as opposed to all those blogs with the spartan holoscan comment area.	
 	
Answer 52: much better writer	
 	
Answer 53: I mostly read Pharyngula for the science articles: since PZ Myers is an acknowledged expert, his opinions in this field matter, and can be taken to be reliable.	
 	
Answer 54: The articles are well written and clearly PZ is an authority on the biological sciences. It's also a plus that PZ is passionate on the issue of biology teaching standards.	
 	
Answer 55: In some things, it's less a matter of trust than of comprehensiveness. Myers tends to cover things in glorious detail. Love his regular, detailed posts on developmental biology. In terms of coverage of attempts by religious groups to frustrate the teaching of evolutionary biology, or to disrupt public understanding of the science, Myers is of particular value because he is far more likely than most sources to deal properly with the substance (such as it is) of the claims made by the various zealous liars out there stumping for their various benighted superstitions. In contrast to media outlets which frequently resort to 'he said/she said' point and counterpoint coverage tending to imply their claims have some validity, Myers' treatments are far more likely to carve up the bullshit, make the perpetrators of such frauds pay for it, as much as is possible given the lectern he's got.	
 	
Answer 56: PZ Myers clearly knows what he is talking about when it comes to biology, as he teaches it to college students several times a week. In comparison to other natural science blogs that I read, he seems more inclined to present detailed expositions of biological issues. (Others do this too, but not as frequently.)	
 	
Answer 57: What makes me trust Dr. Meyers is the coin of the blogosphere -- what he writes makes sense to me. He defends his assertions with linked research, his arguments are logical and reasonable, and his writing is a pleasure to read. And of course, comments help a great deal. The fact that PZ allows comments and is not in the habit of deleting contrary views is critical.	
 	
Answer 58: He documents everything. His opinions are backed up by data. He is a person with a PhD and is working in biology. So I trust he knows his subject matter. His arguments are well reasoned, and he is consitent. What makes him different is that he can get cranky and really lay it on good. Plus, he has an excellent array of commenters.	
 	
Answer 59: Fundementally, I apprieciate PZ's ability to communicate incredibily complex concepts without resorting to oversimplification or patronization. He is a champion of logic and the peer revue system and does and excellent job of dispelling the alleged mystery from modern science. The fact that PZ never backs away from contentious issues surrounding religion and atheism is the real barb in the hook for me personally. Dr Myers is not a pussy.	
 	
Answer 60: he is my primary resource for beat-downs on boobery	
 	
Answer 61: He seems more educated, reasonable and rational than most of the other sources that I have found to date.	
 	
Answer 62: I rely on PZ to present interesting science-related news. I find PZ's view of the issues insightful, witty and entertaining. I enjoy reading his staunchly atheistic viewpoint. Pharyngula is a good blog because it is thoroughly researched and referenced/linked, it is updated often (has a high re-visit value), and he freely allows unedited commenting.	
 	
Answer 63: Hmmm - this is tricky. I trust him on science (the web makes it easy for someone to be discredited). I am not sympathetic to his politics - he writes even more glibly on that subject and it is the weakest part of his blogging.	
 	
Answer 64: Nothing in particular, I just like the style. PZ provides sharp analysis of issues.	
 	
Answer 65: Trust and reliance come out of the total 'ecosystem' his blog exists in. Its tied into other bogs I find useful/interesting. That 'ecosystem' includes liberal politcs, atheism, skepticism, and especially defense of evolution. Evolution defence sites tend to provide a good overview of biology (for the science geek with no formal biology training), mixed with great lessons in philosophy of science, formal logic and related subjects. 	
 	
Answer 66: Because Myers is an active academic and researcher in developmental biology, he is one of the better bloggers to describe what the current state of the litereature is.	
 	
Answer 67: For bio, I find his arguments very clear, and the discussions in the comments threads typically clarify any points I wasn't sure about. I'm not looking to mindlessly repeat things, so I appreciate a well-reasoned debate between the various commentators. AS for what separates this from other blogs, I'd say the presentation; many blogs have good content, but I need to be able to understand it for it to be of personal use.	
 	
Answer 68: He refers back to articles so you can usually see where he's drawing the information from. I'll admit I rarely follow these up, but if I ever want to find the facts on cephalopod porn I can be confident he's pointing i the right direction.	
 	
Answer 69: He writes about the issues in more depth than general-interest sites. I haven't read many other science blogs, and none have caught my attention as worth visiting regularly.	
 	
Answer 70: Dr. Myers makes his credentials readily available, cites sources, and frequently talks about research in the field, referring directly to the papers published, generally with their figures and explanations. He also has an amusing writing voice. It's fun writing and fun science *at the same time.* Party central!	
 	
5) What are your other major destinations (online or off) for news/analysis/commentary on biology and evolutionary science issues? And how would you say Pharyngula fits into that collection of resources?	
Answer 1: I regularly read Carl Zimmer and Chris Mooney and usually look at Panda's Thumb (more often when someone provides a link). Myers is a practising scientist unlike Mooney and Zimmer (who have strengths as journalists, they Myers lacks).	
 	
Answer 2: Skeptico, Evolutionblog, ScienceandPolitics Pharyngula is bookmarked for daily reading, the others on a blog manager tool (Kinja) pop up when updated.	
 	
Answer 3: Chris Mooney, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Evolutionblog, Thoughts from Kansas. There is more gee whiz science and the love of biology coming through in PZ blog.	
 	
Answer 4: academic journals, Panda's Thumb; Pharyngula is my first stop in examining the news in the ID movement, and a reference to scientific works for further reading	
 	
Answer 5: Science Magazine, both the on-line and print editions. Natural History magazine, print edition. Book recommendations from Pharyngula, the Skeptic's Dictionary, and The New Yorker.	
 	
Answer 6: Panda's Thumb, Aetiology, and anything that freak Darksyde writes for the blogs. For the standard, MSM type I usually let news.google.com do the walking for me. Pharyngula fits in somewhere in the deep space to the left of everything else. Seriously, no one else so effectively combines personal opinion and cold, moist, slightly spongy facts.	
 	
Answer 7: I read The Panda's Thumb and New Scientist Mag on line plus the Philosophy of Biology blog and a few others. I glean all my news from the internet not owning a TV. I've almost broken myself of the newspaper reading habit and I enjoy reading Free Inquiry magazine. 	
 	
Answer 8: Mike the Mad Biologist, News From Kansas, Panda's Thumb	
 	
Answer 9: P. is my main source on these issues (see above). But I now have more of an interest when I spot these subjects in the (UK) press.	
 	
Answer 10: I read the popular literature (Gould, Dawkins, Dennet, Pinker), science news (e.g. NYT), JPL's website, blogs like Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe and Cosmic Variance, Panda's Thumb, The Leiter Reports. PZ stands out as the professional evo-devo guy. The frequency of his posts is also remarkable.	
 	
Answer 11: TalkOrigins. The Panda's Thumb.	
 	
Answer 12: Carl Zimmer's Loom, of course, but there's precious little on the actual biology apart form him and Paul.	
 	
Answer 13: talkorigins, classes at school	
 	
Answer 14: I have limited time for blog participation and a desire to cover other subjects so I have made Pharyngula my primary participatory blog. I have visited other science sites from time to time, but always return to relying on the Pharyngula community. 	
 	
Answer 15: Bad Astronomy, JREF, skeptico, Panda's Thumb, Tangled Bank Pharyngula is near or at the top of my blog list for these subjects, and is always complete in his evolutionary science analysis.	
 	
Answer 16: Pharyngula is pretty high there. I also look at the Nature website, and read/subscribe to Scientific American. Nature gets a little bit technical for my understanding and SciAm is not always the most current, Pharyngula is probably my first look for science issues, along with Carl Zimmer's the Loom.	
 	
Answer 17: Mostly my Profs and peers here at college. I have read "Blind Watchmakeer" and some others, but my time for leasuire reading is limited.	
 	
Answer 18: New Scientist, occasionally Scientific American - but that's not for only biology/evolutionary science Pharyngula would be the only site I come to specifically for news on biology or evolutionary science.	
 	
Answer 19: This question appears to presuppose I have an interest beyond the ordinary in "biology and evolutionary science issues". In my case, this presupposition would be false. I do regularly read a number of science-related sites.	
 	
Answer 20: he is one of the science blogs i read. besides a livejournal for personal friends, i read slashdot and political blogs daily. science blogs are supplemental, but read, about every other day. regulars: bitchphd, talkingpointsmemo, matthew yglesias, 	
 	
Answer 21: Well, I obviously have a whole load of textbooks, lectures, practicals, tutorials etc. as sources for biology/evolutionary science, plus discussions with other students. I also keep up with some of the major journals (e.g. via the Nature podcast) and other sources like New Scientist magazine. I'm not sure how Pharyngula fits into that. I click the link in my Bloglines reader every day and I never know what I will find - something teaching me something about developmental biology or a rant about someone being stupid. The posts are generally fairly short, so I like being able to quickly read one or two maybe on a break from working and find something interesting.	
 	
Answer 22: Carl Zimmer's The Loom. The Loom is what I imagine Pharyngula would be like without all the personal, political and religious bits. They are pretty similar in terms of the kind of popular expositions they offer on research topics in biology.	
 	
Answer 23: Scientific American magazine, the various campus science libraries, BBC, Alternet, Union of Concerned Scientists, the Ann Arbor Public Library. Pharyngula is like a knowledgeable aunt whom I could go to with questions concerning knitting whenever I need, although PZ has yet to answer my questions about antagonistic pleiotropy.	
 	
Answer 24: He rules, the others drool.	
 	
Answer 25: ncseweb.org; 3quarksdaily.blogs.com; journals (Systematic Biology, Nature & Science, etc etc); other folks in my department	
 	
Answer 26: New Scientist for trends. Nature. They differe greatly but all are good.	
 	
Answer 27: Pharyngula is the main site I look to for this, although I also visit Evolving Thoughts, Philosophy of Biology and John Hawk's Anthropology blog.	
 	
Answer 28: Panda's Thumb, The Loom. Pharyngula is currently my only daily science read.	
 	
Answer 29: The Panda's Thumb, Evolving Thoughts, Realclimate; Pharyngula is the only one I check daily.	
 	
Answer 30: Panda's Thumb, Anthroplogy in the News (tamu.edu) , Archaeology magazine, various books. It fits into being an update on evolutionary issues and how they relate to other seemingly unconnected issues. Also, since my level of biology literacy is pretty low, sometimes something creeps into my mind and I actually learn something new in a field I don't really follow. That's a good thing! 	
 	
Answer 31: Online, I read Panda's Thumb, Carl Zimmer's The Loom, the Philosophy of Biology blog, and The New York Times science section most Tuesdays. In print, I read New Scientist every week - and whatever literature in biology and philosophy of biology is relevant to my current research.	
 	
Answer 32: Pharyngula is my major destination. I idly read newspapers as I come across them (I subscribe to none); I listen to NPR, Air America, and sports radio ... none of which highlight biology or evolution issues. Pharyngula is written in a way that amuses and informs me, the ignorant layman.	
 	
Answer 33: Talkorigins, Panda's Thumb, Internet Infidels Forum on Evolution/Creation, Chris Mooney, The Loom. Pharyngula is the first or second site I visit when I want to read the latest interesting stuff.	
 	
Answer 34: Talk Origins, Panda's Thumb, and discussions with my science teacher father. Pharyngula would be the most visited source. The occasional piece in Time or the NYT usually turns up on PZ's site anyway, and usually not with highly favourable commentary, so when I then read them myself, it tends to be fairly sceptically.	
 	
Answer 35: Scientific American. Nature abc.net.au/science birds australia The Loom New Scientist Orac 	
 	
Answer 36: "The Loom", which mainly features equal length posts at a much lower rate. 	
 	
Answer 37: I read the "News and Views" sections of Nature (usually offline) and less regularly of other journals. In part this reading is work, whereas Pharyngula is not. I read books on evolution as an occasional hobby (going so far as to read Structure of Evolutionary Theory).	
 	
Answer 38: Red State Rabble, Pandagon. I read them all regularly	
 	
Answer 39: crookedtimber.org, various science relate dblogs, the works of Stephen J. Gould	
 	
Answer 40: PZ is #1. I follow his links. I regularly read a number of other science blogs, including The Loom, Intersection, Mike the Mad Biologist, Thoughts From Kansas, Evolutionblog, Keat's Telescope, Respectful Insolence, etc. and PZ's links keep introducing me to others.	
 	
Answer 41: I'm an almost daily reader of pharyngula now and have steered some of my friends to it. Otherwise, I read books, and I have a network of scientific advisers across the country that I call and ask to explain things to me.	
 	
Answer 42: Nature, Science magazine. Various popular science magazines. Popular works by Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Churchill. LiveScience, NewScientist, TalkOrigins blogs and websites. Pharyngula is more personal, and more in-depth when PZ starts to really riff on a subject.	
 	
Answer 43: I subscribe to several popular science magazines such as Natural History, National Geographic and Scientific American. On the web I regularly read NCSE, Panda's Thumb, The Loom, TalkOrigins, and No Answers in Genesis. Pharyngula is local. I find out about things that the local nuts are doing. I also get someone that focuses on effort to push religion in public school science classrooms.	
 	
Answer 44: pharyngula is my main resource other than general blogs such as metafilter and boingboing.	
 	
Answer 45: I have not found any yet--my exploration of the net in this matter is just underway.	
 	
Answer 46: I enjoy reading Gould and Dawkins, and I have really appreciated the comparative discussions of the two on Pharyngula. It is my goal to get my hands on some of the books on PZ's reading list, as soon as I get my graduate school applications in. 	
 	
Answer 47: This is my main source for biology and evolutionary science issues.	
 	
Answer 48: Pharyngula is probably most often visited. I used to read talk.origins regularly, but less so now.	
 	
Answer 49: Panda's Thumb, Chris Mooney, among others. PZ is at the top, though. The other guys almost never have pirate pictures.	
 	
Answer 50: Pharyngula is my first stop, followed by Panda's Thumb. I also read (*gasp*) Nature and Science and the odd article PubMed has delivered in a search. PZ is top of the heap.	
 	
Answer 51: Right now, due to time limitations, Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb are my main source of such information, aside from the literature on science teaching. Pharyngula consistently points me to good resources, saving me time.	
 	
Answer 52: science news. gives me an upto date resource that published stuff cant	
 	
Answer 53: the bbc science web pages, scientific American, the talk.origins newsgroup, Carl Zimmer's blog	
 	
Answer 54: Other blogs: The Panda's Thumb, Science and Politics, Red State Rabble, Evolutionblog, The Loom, Chet Raymo's Science Musings (and Blog), Cognitive Daily News: Biology News, feeds from The Scientist, Science, news@nature.com Pharngula is great for the latest analysis of issues in the fight against the introduction of creationism into school science classes, and for the occasional essay on biology topics. It's not the place for all the latest news in the biological sciences.	
 	
Answer 55: I read Nature more or less weekly, tend to browse the major papers with online sites a great deal as a side-effect of the volunteer work I do.	
 	
Answer 56: I tend to pick stories up from the NY Times, via some Google News searches, and a few sites that present press releases on scientific discoveries. 	
 	
Answer 57: "The Panda's Thumb", Carl Zimmer's "The Loom", Ed Brayton's "Dispatches From the Culture Wars", Alan Boyle's MSNBC "Cosmic Log", the Talk.origins e-mail list, and Orac's "Respectful Insolence" are all excellent sources for general evolutionary/creationist discussions. Pharyngula is top of the list but I check them all daily. I read Discover every month, but when and where I can find the time.	
 	
Answer 58: I visit "Pharyngula" first. But I visit, "The Loom", "Cosmic Variance", "Bad Astronomy Blog", "Panda's Thumb", and a few others. PZ posts fairly regularly and consistently, and his blog greatly reflects his personality. I rarely disagree with him, and I would trust his word about certain issues above all other resources. The issue I feel that he is an expert in, biology.	
 	
Answer 59: Pharyngula certain sits at the top of my list of resources. Below this site comes Panda's Thumb blog, Culture Wars blog, and a host of biological/ anthropological list-servers that feature banal information that only myself and maybe a hundred other culture-nerds finds interesting. 	
 	
Answer 60: panda's thumb obviously, i enjoy james Randi too, not quite on topic but he's good	
 	
Answer 61: Sceptico, Evolutionblog, Panda's Thumb, and TalkOrigins. I think that Pharyngula has the most diverse posts, and I especially enjoy the longer discussions about issues of interest to PZ which may have only passing current event interest. The rundown of news is certainly good, but in this respect, PZ is "merely" a very good blogger rather than an outstanding one.	
 	
Answer 62: Along with The Panda's Thumb, PZ's site is one of the only blogs I visit regularly . These two sites are indispensable sources of news and information regarding evolution and the bebunking of creationism.	
 	
Answer 63: Have read endlessly on evolution. No other blogs.	
 	
Answer 64: TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula (not in that order). Now that I've read most feedback and articles in TO, Pharyngula is my most regular destination.	
 	
Answer 65: Pharyngula fits right in with my top destinations: TalkOrigins, panda's thumb, StCynic, Red state Rabble. 	
 	
Answer 66: Panda's Thumb and several of the blogs to which PT links. Pharyngula tends to have more frequent updates, more varied content, and a comfortable level of snark.	
 	
Answer 67: Panda's thumb, plus whatever appears in other formats. Bio is quite popular as a link topic on both physics and politics blogs. Pharyngula is definitely one of the go-to blogs for bio, though, along with Panda's thumb and a few others.	
 	
Answer 68: When I want to check the sanity of some evolutionary ideas I talk to the geologists and, when I can find them, the biologists in dept. I also read books on the subject by sane authors, but my interest in biology and evolution tends to be more an interest than a calling.	
 	
Answer 69: I subscribe to scientific american.	
 	
Answer 70: My classes, and other blogs I read when they look at biology from generally political viewpoints. Pharyngula generally provides the clearest, most factually based presentation of biology and related issues, though.	
 	
6) Can you describe the essential difference, if any, between reading about these issues in Pharyngula and reading about them in newspapers or magazines.	
Answer 1: The personal touch of Myers.	
 	
Answer 2: PZ doesn't waste time with he said/she said but gets to the meat immediately. He acts as my "knowledgeable friend" to help screen the bullshit that might trick or distract me and gives me insights otherwise lacking in "general news".	
 	
Answer 3: more timely, Science will come out with an editorial every now and then about the ID junk, and will have a paragraph about some new development such as the giant squid. I don't get Science News. This blog has become one of 	
 	
Answer 4: Focus of content, timliness, convenience	
 	
Answer 5: The Science Magazine article section and Pharnygula present a similar level of writing and analysis of scientific papers reported in the journals. If a paper sounds particularly interesting, I can read the original. Natural History provides a broader view, but in it's attempt to reach a broad audience and survey a greater number of reports often prevents them from providing the level of detail that Science Magazine and Pharnygula can. The New Yorker can be relied upon to review a book fairly, but it can rarely be as critical as Science Magazine or Pharnygula, or cover a topic as broadly as Natural History	
 	
Answer 6: On Pharyngula, if I don't understand something I can ask the author and he (or someone in the community) will respond. On Pharyngula science issues are written in a simple, approachable manner. On Pharyngula I *know* the person who writes the articles, and I know where he stands.	
 	
Answer 7: The essential difference for me is the easy accessibility to Pharyngula. Also I think that a writer/academic has a lot more freedom to express themselves in a blog instead of a paper or magazine. Little or no editorial interference in a blog. 	
 	
Answer 8: the difference is dramatic as Pharyngula and other science-related blogs draw upon the resources of academia to present well-reasoned commentary in depth where newspapers or magazines of general circulation devote very little space and far less expertise	
 	
Answer 9: The idea that you could respond if you wanted to; the way it opens up other discussions that can go in surprising directions. The humour.	
 	
Answer 10: Focus and personal engagement. Read his blog for a couple of months and you begin to know PZ the man, his kids, his town, his sense of humor, his thing for pirates, etc.	
 	
Answer 11: Pharyngula is in-depth and scientifically informed. Papers and magazines are superficial and written by journalists whose training in sciences ranges from subadequate to imaginary.	
 	
Answer 12: Detail. Actual exposition. Lack of gee-whiz infotainment.	
 	
Answer 13: Pharyngula offers more of a personal slant, although highly reasonable	
 	
Answer 14: The essential difference is timeliness, participation and a clear point of view expressed by the host and most other members of the community.	
 	
Answer 15: Especially now, most newspapers and mags shy away from deep analysis of any particular topic, and they also seem to be afraid of alienating any of their religious readers with the hard facts and truths revealed by new evo science developments. PZ pulls no punches. And he's free to be obnoxious, which is often hilarious.	
 	
Answer 16: Its usually more recent in Pharyngula than in SciAm, but it seems to be along the same lines as far as writing goes. 	
 	
Answer 17: He has an oppinion that is backed up by a serious knowledge of the subject.	
 	
Answer 18: this is PZ's opinion. there is no claim to objectivity, he has a definite editorial line he's pushing.	
 	
Answer 19: Yes, but not succintly or pithily. Sorry.	
 	
Answer 20: links provide ready access to deeper information more quickly--this 'zoomability' does not exist in print. science columns/news in newspapers, etc. rarely include citations to follow up. newspapers and magazines are more convenient for the airplane, train, bus or while eating, but not during work, or even at home, when i'm doing other things online	
 	
Answer 21: It's a much more personal way of communicating things, and PZ Myers can be a lot ruder about people he doesn't agree with.	
 	
Answer 22: 	
 	
Answer 23: Pharyngula has a consistent quality of writing. Newspapers and magazines do not follow a story thread, they often have poor writing, and the facts are not satisfactorily explained. That's not to say that Pharyngula is much better, although I must say that it does follow some story threads with merciless versmilitude.	
 	
Answer 24: He knows what he is writing about. Reporters and editors have much to answer for.	
 	
Answer 25: Same as with any blog-- this forum is more freewheeling, interactive, much much funnier, and of course more up-to-date on current events. 	
 	
Answer 26: In Pharyngula it is real not simplified for the lowest common denominator or just to sell a paper.	
 	
Answer 27: There really is very little similarity at all between PZ's writing and the way journalists describe a science report. In PZ, a paper will be plucked, seemingly at random, but which will be described and explicated so that the inner workings of the way in which this is understood. Journalists, on the other hand, take stories which fall within either a pre-existing area of wonder, or some sort of new discovery. So it all falls into a cosy narrative structure of science about boffins and their big glamourous discoveries. There simply is no comparison, which is journalism's sad loss.	
 	
Answer 28: Newspapers or magazines assume that a) I'm not naturally inclined to find this material interesting, so they try to convince me, and b) that either I'm stupid or the material is too difficult. PZ starts with the assumption that this information is both exciting and accessible.	
 	
Answer 29: More science, less bullshit. Less need to give equal time to opinions unburdened by research or intellectual weight.	
 	
Answer 30: A newspaper journalist has to follow basic guidelines from his newspaper and such, and will probably not give a personal angle. 	
 	
Answer 31: PZ explains research from the science journals in a way that isn't as oversimplified as newspaper/magazine coverage, but isn't as technically difficult and lengthy as the actual source material. I find this very useful and fascinating, as it allows me to read about some fairly sophisticated information that I'd otherwise miss.	
 	
Answer 32: Humor, particularly sarcastic and biting humor.	
 	
Answer 33: Newspapers too often go for a 'he said / she said' balance that ignores whether one side is spouting nonsense. Pharyngula doesn't do that. I do enjoy the NY Times Science section every Tuesday. Magazines are better.	
 	
Answer 34: Probably the matter of audience. PZ knows he has a (comparatively) small audience, and he doesn't have to worry about enraging advertisers or lobby groups (except those he wants to enrage). I think this gives him a bit more freedom to write what and when he likes, whereas a newsmagazine has certain constraints (although also more resources, generally).	
 	
Answer 35: There is never enough detail in magazines on particular evolutionary topics. And newspapers don't do science reporting in any form that I recognise these days. In contrast, PZ Myers always serves up a proper meal, with all the food groups of thought and information in great balance. And he does great diagrams.	
 	
Answer 36: Captures current events while they are still alive.	
 	
Answer 37: Pharyngula is much more informal, and more opinionated. Myers is an outright atheist (which I appreciate), something no magazine will admit to.	
 	
Answer 38: blogs are like NPR, you get way more detail on news topics you wouldn't think to search for in great detail on your own. Detail broadens your horizons.	
 	
Answer 39: Most newspapers and magazines have abandoned the genuine persuit of the truth in favor of some poorly executed attempt to show ballance by giving equal time to idiots, kranks, charlatans and fools. Dr. Myers does not.	
 	
Answer 40: PZ actually knows what he's talking about. Science journalism is abysmal in this country. Also, his snarky tone is appealing.	
 	
Answer 41: More depth at pharyngula. More humor. I used to read Skeptical Inquirer on this issue, but over the years it has gotten shallower and more repetitive. 	
 	
Answer 42: Feedback and discussion are nearly nonexistent in traditional sources. They are a defining feature of Pharyngula.	
 	
Answer 43: I get the straight dope with PZ. When I read the newspaper, I get he-said she-said 'journalism'. The kind that will provide the 'balance' a crank science quote from the Discovery Institute with a quote from NCSE and think that they have covered the story.	
 	
Answer 44: constantly updating content, engaging and personal presentation, avalible to goof off with at work!	
 	
Answer 45: Never see it in the general media.	
 	
Answer 46: Pharyngula is written by a professional scientist, and it shows. His analysis is consistently very well informed, as is evidenced by the immense list of references behind his claims. 	
 	
Answer 47: PZ doesn't hold back. I appreciate calling a spade a spade... Rarely do I find that PZ's arguments are faulty or confusing, and he excels at pointing out fallacies.	
 	
Answer 48: Newspapers generally don't have the same type of commentary -- they try to hard to appease all readers (I do like Mike Argento's column in the York Daily though!) Magazines are published too rarely.	
 	
Answer 49: More real-time than a magazine. Reading Pharyngula informs my reading of what's in the newspapers, eg, Wilgoren's recent embarrassments in the NYT.	
 	
Answer 50: The newspapers seem to feel that they are bound to present every issue as if it has two sides WITH EQUAL WEIGHT -- regardless of whether the scientific community feels the two sides have equal scientific credibility. So, newspaper coverage of thei "beat" is only good for laughs or to angry up the blood. Peer reviewed scientific journals, obviously, are better in this regard, but are seldom as much fun to read as Pharyngula.	
 	
Answer 51: It's the interactivity and the honest, open bias. He doesn't have to pretend not to have an opinion, and he expresses it plainly. Also, the mainstream media rarely give voice to an atheist viewpoint, unless it's to demonize it.	
 	
Answer 52: dont have to read the balance crap!	
 	
Answer 53: Pharyngula is *much* more detailed and far more fun to read	
 	
Answer 54: There is almost no comparison. Pharyngula doesn't dumb down the science or mince words like the "mainstream" news media. PZ doesn't feel the need to get a "balanced" (arghhh!) story, by taking the creationists statements at value. It also has more up to the minute news - my local paper only publishes the occasional article on issues like the Dover trial, for example.	
 	
Answer 55: See also my answer to (4) -- again, a principal difference is Myers' willingness to confront and debunk claims made by the apologists for ignorance. I also find his regular exposition of topics in developmental biology at once accessible and comprehensive.	
 	
Answer 56: Pharyngula is more likely than the other sources I read - especially mainstream media - to avoid the "he said, she said" manner of presentation and to write for a more sophisticated audience. I prefer the Pharyngula approach in that regard. Newspaper and magazine articles are also frequently written by non-experts who bungle ideas or present them confusingly.	
 	
Answer 57: Unlike newspaper articles, blogs excel because we can read many of them in a very short period, and we can track consistency over a great deal of time. This makes it easier to figure out whose voice resonates with you, and who is more or less trustworthy. The ability to link directly to source materials is also key, as you can check on how the author has "spun" the acutal data. Finally, the ability for real-time commenting is huge. Seeing what criticisms or flaws other people find helps me in my own thinking. In a way, blogs allow the layperson a chance to engage in the kind of give-and-take and defense that scientists have always had in the course of the peer-review process, only done in real time and out in the open.	
 	
Answer 58: The RSS feed makes all the difference. I can determine if he has posted something new very quickly. It is almost immediate gratification. Print media comes out in a schedule and must be carried. I may have 10 minutes here or there to spend, and my groups of RSS fed links are at my finger tips. I don't have to look for a printed item and I have a list of items right there. It is like perusing headlines.	
 	
Answer 59: PZ does a hell of a better job explaining intricate biological and evo-devo concepts that any newpaper or magazine reporter because HE IS A GODDAMNED BIOLOGIST! If you are looking for science answers in the NYTimes you are doomed. I just wish that he had more time to spare beyond his own students and research. Maybe we should have him cloned?	
 	
Answer 60: he says dirty words occasionally	
 	
Answer 61: I appreciate the way Pharyngula does not attempt to make concessions to make all readers feel warm and fuzzy. He tells the truth the way he sees it, and does not let people get away with irrationality or wish fulfillment.	
 	
Answer 62: 1) Links to other material 2) Comments and responding to comments from others	
 	
Answer 63: I am always concerned that the writers in newspapers and magazines don't know what they are talking about.	
 	
Answer 64: Shorter, easier to access	
 	
Answer 65: The articles are both meatier but more condensed. Newspaper and magazine articles or often obviously written by people with inadequate science backgrounds, indadequate grasp of the history, and inadequate ability to filter the BS of the ant-rationalist crowd. 	
 	
Answer 66: As mentioned above, Pharyngula has more snark, but it also presents the issues from someone who deals with these issues regularly. Only the more technical of the traditional media sources (ie Scientific American, Science, etc) use this type of writing.	
 	
Answer 67: Timeliness, convenience, and the chance to ask a question to an informed group of people. I can do this all while sitting at my computer, rather than having to go to the library.	
 	
Answer 68: Apart from the references? There's less of an emphasis on gimmicky hooks. The biology articles are usually there because they're interesting rather than timely. The writing is much richer because detail isn't sacrificed for a specific word limit.	
 	
Answer 69: 	
 	
Answer 70: Dr. Myers knows actual science, and is unwilling to call bullshit pseudoscience anything other than what it is.	
 	
7) How would you describe the balance between hard science and opinion on Pharyngula?	
Answer 1: First, Myers makes it clear which is which. The balance changes as the issues change (and I suspect as Myers' interest varies from day to day). Today - the day after an election - most of the entries are opinion as is appropriate - other days there is more good science.	
 	
Answer 2: It is always clear from PZ which is which, his commentors sometimes bring hidden agenda that are most often exposed by other readers (heh).	
 	
Answer 3: great, 	
 	
Answer 4: About 50/50--appropriate	
 	
Answer 5: Fine. I enjoy both the science and opinion. There seems to be an average of between 2-3 in-depth science articles every week, enough to chew on, but so many as to cause trouble digesting. There are several short science articles per week, enjoyable, but like a bon bon, not filling. Finally the opinion pieces, as I stated above, are very close to my own opinions, so all they do is provide more evidence to argue with my co-workers.	
 	
Answer 6: Some days there is none, to be honest. But over the long run (like two to three days time) PZ tends to balance them out nicely.	
 	
Answer 7: There seems to be many different links to other peer reviewed articles concerning evolution, science and biology in Pharyngula. Hard science 75% opinion 25%.	
 	
Answer 8: as a non-scientist I find the mix of opinon to hard science to be weighted toward opinion which is fine by me	
 	
Answer 9: It suits me, as I'm basically more interested in politics than science. I have learned a great deal about current US political issues from the discussions on Pharyngula. 	
 	
Answer 10: The preponderance of hard science is what makes his opinions credible. 	
 	
Answer 11: about 50-50	
 	
Answer 12: Very much to the hard science side. Even his political rants - most of which I share - have a hard science backing.	
 	
Answer 13: I haven't read too much of the hard science, and perhaps there's not a lot of hard science at all compared to other things, but I enjoy whatever he puts up.	
 	
Answer 14: It is just like I like it.	
 	
Answer 15: I would say that PZ's opinion is often crafted by hard science. The balance is pretty even, but given the present debate about the validity of "ID", his opinion has come forth more frequently... but again, his knowledge of hard science is what motivates that opinion.	
 	
Answer 16: It's fairly well balanced. I like that its opinionated though, because it does sometimes reveal information that one could not get from simply reading the facts.	
 	
Answer 17: Very nice.	
 	
Answer 18: Fine. a lot of the time, I find the hard science very difficult to understand or not within my sphere of interest. that's all right.	
 	
Answer 19: On considering this question, I have come to the conclusion that it is ideal. I base this on the supposition that the author himself decides, and he knows what the best balance is better than I do.	
 	
Answer 20: fine. recently, he seems a little more intent in flaunting his aetheism, but maybe that's always been there, and i'm new to the party	
 	
Answer 21: Maybe more towards opinion, but the opinion is backed up by hard science. I wouldn't want to read it much if it was just a chunk of textbook material every day - I have enough of that as it is. It's a different perspective and it's refreshing.	
 	
Answer 22: 	
 	
Answer 23: Mostly opinion with the occasional juicy hard science tidbit.	
 	
Answer 24: Sweet!	
 	
Answer 25: Pretty decent; there's always some opinion, but it never seems to actively counter the science content (as opposed to a number of anti-intellectual voices of the conservative blogosphere)	
 	
Answer 26: Good or I would not be a regular	
 	
Answer 27: It isn't "forced", so it doesn't respond to those who consider this to be a discussion where hard science and opinion must be framed in some sort of balance. Instead, it comes across as the intelligent thoughts of a man who has both expertise and strong opinions.	
 	
Answer 28: I think this is a loaded question (and quite possibly a conservative canard). There's no conflict between hard science and opinion. What was Stephen Jay Gould's phrase about science and religion -- "separate domains"? Hard science and opinion are separate domains.	
 	
Answer 29: 60/40. 	
 	
Answer 30: I would say it's about 40% hard science, and 60% opinion, which is fine by me, because as I've mentioned, my biological knowledge is a little lagging behind his by about 40 college courses!! 	
 	
Answer 31: I can't say what the right balance is, but I read Pharyngula pretty much every day and I never feel that there's too much opinion or too much hard science.	
 	
Answer 32: There's plenty of both since he updates many times a day on various topics. Where else can I find in one spot one man's opinions on Supreme Court nominees and articles on the evolution of the vagina? It's eclectic and entertaining.	
 	
Answer 33: There's more opinion on Pharyngula and less hard science, I'd say. I mainly read it for entertainment rather than hard learning so it fits my needs right now.	
 	
Answer 34: PZ's opinion is very clearly expressed through the site, but that does not really effect the science. If anything, it's the other way around. PZ has repeatedly said that if ID'ers can provide hard scientific evidence of intelligent design, he'll be happy to back them, once appropriate repetition of the experiments has been conducted. The 'pure' science pieces, as on cephalapods and such, do back up his worldview, but since his worldview is that evolution is so much cooler and more interesting than creation, I'm inclined to agree.	
 	
Answer 35: Getting too opinion-ey of late. I understand that this is because the political need is there for a larger creationism focus right now.	
 	
Answer 36: Nice; I would be pressed for time with more science. The darn articles are always interesting, mainly because they describe new stuff (for me) in a comprehensible format.	
 	
Answer 37: Intelligent Design/Creationism is not an issue in Europe, where I live, so I sometimes skip over the articles on this subject.	
 	
Answer 38: He manages to keep them separate, I think. I'd like to see a little more about PZ's papers and the paper-writing process, personally. 	
 	
Answer 39: I'd say about 80/20 in favor of science, however, Dr. Myers usually backs up his opinions with logic and facts.	
 	
Answer 40: I'd personally prefer more hard science and less IDC-bashing, religion-bashing, Wingnut-bashing (many other blogs are good at these, too), but I understand that much of his audience keeps coming to see the latest artistic skewering of a Creationist nutcase-of-the-day (and frankly, those are entertaining) and often finds hard science difficult to understand, as much as PZ waters it down and explains it clearly.	
 	
Answer 41: What balance?	
 	
Answer 42: Quite a bit of political musing, but it never gets in the way of the science. Similarly for cultural commentary.	
 	
Answer 43: I like it. The mix is quirky and fun. I get a view into his world. I don't always agree with him, but I know where he is coming from. I have enjoyed more than a few belly laughs reading his blog.	
 	
Answer 44: I'd say it is 1/3rd hard science, 1/3rd quirky science factoids, and 1/3rd public policy.	
 	
Answer 45: What is hard science? Nothing I have seen is daunting from my POV, but the science discussed appear to be about 40% to 60% opinion. I see addressing creationism as a scientific endeavor, not an opinion issue per se.	
 	
Answer 46: That's a tricky question. As I said, I feel like Dr. Myers does an excellent job of documenting the evidence behind his arguments. And some of his best posts are purely scientific -- those which describe interesting articles, as well as those which feature pictures of strange critters.	
 	
Answer 47: 50/50	
 	
Answer 48: I tend to read the site more for the opinions, with an occasional hard science bonus thrown in. I'm not as interested in the biological sciences, so mainly just skim the more technical articles.	
 	
Answer 49: He's unafraid to express a well-informed opinion, founded (usually) on hard science. Like any intellectual adult, he's unafraid to acknowledge ignorance of specific areas, and reserve judgment there.	
 	
Answer 50: I'd say it's an even split -- although the Pharyngula opinion is presented with FACTS to back it up and with the apparent assumption that RATIONAL ARGUMENT rather than empty rhetoric is the way to go. It's a beautiful thing! (I'm tearing up as I type this!)	
 	
Answer 51: I'd say it's half and half. He links to original sources, so the unvarnished version is always available.	
 	
Answer 52: 33% hard science, 33% policy, politics, 33% opinion	
 	
Answer 53: The balance is pretty solid	
 	
Answer 54: It seems to me that Pharyngula leans more towards opinion than hard science (but that opinion is BASED ON hard science).	
 	
Answer 55: Counting only the posts that are specifically about science and ancillary political issues, Pharyngula is hard science in some posts, opinion clearly directly informed by hard science in many others. Couldn't tell you what the balance is between those two.	
 	
Answer 56: I think the majority of the posts are a opinion pieces but the hard science posts are more significant. The anti-creationism posts kind of fit into both categories so an accurate proportion would be hard to establish. I like the balance as it is.	
 	
Answer 57: I like the mix. There's just enough wild-eyed ranting at idiocy to balance out the interesting (but brain-bending) technical stuff. 	
 	
Answer 58: He has an excellent ballance. Some of the hard science can be way over my head, but he brings some of it down to novice level. Only occassionally will he delve into areas that are not his pervue.	
 	
Answer 59: Like balancing the cap- stone of a pyramid. Wherever opinions do arise, they are always well founded and supported by a solid body of evidence and/or research that, as I mentioned above, is copiously cross-linked within the body of the text. Pharyngula is not a place for spurious conjecture.	
 	
Answer 60: good balance, since hard science forms his opinions	
 	
Answer 61: Hard science is difficult and time consuming and I value it whenever PZ can find the time to write about it. I also enjoy the analysis and opinion as he is able to shed light on events that I may not have been aware of. It is also good to see new perspectives (and to accumulate amunition :) )	
 	
Answer 62: Pharyngula is the transmission between the engine of society and the long road of hard science. Now if only someone were at the wheel...	
 	
Answer 63: 70% science, 30% the rest. I don't know what you mean by hard science.	
 	
Answer 64: Good, although most articles I read are opinion pieces.	
 	
Answer 65: Excellent. Pharyngula has a definate point of view. An honest point of view, combined with respect for the facts actually makes for more interesting reading. Blogs are like opinion columns; part of the entertainment is a strong point of view. I read this because what interests PZ interests me, and I'm not particular if it's a politcs or science day.	
 	
Answer 66: Like most good academics, Myers is able to present the current prevailing scientific consensus and his take on the consensus without the two being intermingled. On non-science articles, it is obvious that Myers is presenting his opinion. If the question is about percentage of content instead, then I find the two to be well balanced.	
 	
Answer 67: A nearly equal mix between the two, just as it should be.	
 	
Answer 68: That's probably not a good question. If there wasn't the hard science then the opinion would be worthless. It's not either/or you need data and interpretation.	
 	
Answer 69: I like two-dimensional blogs. I.e., blogs that provide both information and opinion.	
 	
Answer 70: Pretty good - it is almost always clear what is opinion and what is backed up by evidence.	
 	
8) Do you have any comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the format of Pharyngula (or blogs in general).	
Answer 1: The greatest difference is between a blog like Myers which is more like a personal diary - some things are more interesting than others and some seem more carefully crafted than others - and one like Zimmer's, where each entry is more crafted and more journalistic. (Doesn't make one better than the other, just different.)	
 	
Answer 2: no but it looks like very hard work	
 	
Answer 3: 	
 	
Answer 4: I wish he would eliminate the pagination in the comments and have everything on one long page.	
 	
Answer 5: The recent change with Pharyngula putting the majority of the longer articles beneath the fold is a good one. I would prefer that clicking on the article in question would not take you to the next paragraph, but show the article from the beginning. Blogs in general seem to suffer from blogroll bloat. I usually don't want to visit 100 blogs in a day, and most blogs are too short to be really worthwhile aside from entertainment. I regularly zip through the blogs in the Skeptics Circle or the Grand Rounds and find that most entries are less than a page. This is not a problem per se, but I would rather read articles with a little more meat on them. Which is one of the reasons I go to Pharyngula. Finally, the announcements of the various blog summaries, be they circles, banks, rings, etc. detract from the regular flow of blogs. I would prefer if they were on a sidebar, near the top, with a brief desription, the last updated link, and the next host with the submission deadlines. I often don't read these articles until I have some time, but I then have to go looking for the latest link in the scrolling part of the blog. Just a link to the latest version is no good because it doesn't tell me when it was last updated, so I may have already read it. It seems like a simple thing to do, the host should be able to fill in some boilerplate which any blogs promoting the circle should be able to copy.	
 	
Answer 6: Nope, I think I've covered it above.	
 	
Answer 7: No	
 	
Answer 8: no	
 	
Answer 9: P. seems to have a particularly good format	
 	
Answer 10: Strengths: frequent postings, often serveral per day; use of pictures and graphics; allows comments and responds to comments; real science in addition to opinion; mixes in funny and non-science posts; no advertising. Weaknesses: sometimes opinion turns to over-the-top rants but my guess is this is a strength to many of his readers; point size of the font is too small.	
 	
Answer 11: Pharyngula is easy to read and makes it easy to join the discussion.	
 	
Answer 12: He doesn't discuss chocolate enough.	
 	
Answer 13: 	
 	
Answer 14: I think Pharyngula does an excellent job of expoiting the blog format. The subject matter presented by the host is built upon by regulars and visitors to make for an intellectually stimulating environment.	
 	
Answer 15: One of Pharyngula's strengths - his focus on the topic of biology and reasoned discovery - is in contrast to a major weakness in many other blogs I've read. They tend to wander, and random opinion takes over in place of useful information. The strongest blogs, the ones I frequent, not only have an engaging, fun style or "voice", but they also supply information about breaking news that gets to the heart of the matter quicker than general-issue news programs.	
 	
Answer 16: Not really.	
 	
Answer 17: This is more about blogs in general, I like when more of the space on the page is text, the bars on both sides are distracting.	
 	
Answer 18: The format is good for what it is - an opinion of one person amongst many others. It's ephemeral, but it's not the bloggers job to make sure everyone is up to date with everything if they haven't checked for 3 weeks.	
 	
Answer 19: None that I suspect will make a difference.	
 	
Answer 20: at least some posts need a way of integrating with each other to form a more structured set of information (like a text book) rather than just floating as past posts.	
 	
Answer 21: Sometimes things could be written with more of an international audience in mind. For example, if a politician is mentioned, their job might be obvious to most educated people in the US, but those of us in other countries would appreciate a quick reminder.	
 	
Answer 22: 	
 	
Answer 23: Too lemony.	
 	
Answer 24: Not really. Blogs are generally written by people who know their subject. However, there are obvious exceptions.	
 	
Answer 25: Pharyngula's format is fine. 	
 	
Answer 26: 	
 	
Answer 27: 	
 	
Answer 28: I like comments links at the bottom of the post rather than the top. And I don't like his multi-page format for long comment threads. 	
 	
Answer 29: The code is, for some reason, cumbersome on Firefox. Generally speaking, though, no.	
 	
Answer 30: Even though I like the layout, it seems slightly crowded on the right sidebar. 	
 	
Answer 31: Pharyngula is one of the more graphically simple, attractive and readable blogs around.	
 	
Answer 32: No.	
 	
Answer 33: The format of most blogs is fine. They're all pretty similar.	
 	
Answer 34: I think there is something to this idea of the 'self-correcting' world of blogs, as long as open commenting and trackbacking is observed. PZ in particular has a great crowd of commenters, who are ready to argue a point, make suggestions, or tell him if they think he is plain wrong. PZ gets involved in the comments sections, and sometimes makes extra posts dealing with the issues that arise there.	
 	
Answer 35: Blogs in general are too diffuse for my needs. They appear to be a community with very regular commenters and a lot of interaction between blogs. I imagine that this community functions much the same as any other, with all the variety of signalling and posing that any group of people indulge in. I don't want to say anything more about something I have so little understanding of. 	
 	
Answer 36: 	
 	
Answer 37: 	
 	
Answer 38: I love the transparent Monty Python background. Subtle, yet beautiful.	
 	
Answer 39: Often times, important topics slide off the main page into the archives too quickly , requiring that the same material be repeated to keep everyone current.	
 	
Answer 40: Not really. It's a conversation and a network (speaking of formats, Pharyngula is amazingly visually appealing considering how much junk he has on the sidebars - every other blog with so many bells and whistles would be a no-no for me).	
 	
Answer 41: Format works well for me, with one exception. The email alerts of followup comments are a good idea (and one I've not encountered elsewhere), but about 90% of the time I try to use the link to return to the thread, I end up either at that day's current posting, or just the top posting of that day. 	
 	
Answer 42: It is what it is, I suppose. I am just so glad to see it that I don't worry too much about format. As technology improves, I'll like it more, I suppose.	
 	
Answer 43: PZ does a great job of explaining why an understanding of science is necessary in our world. He does not suffer fools glady. Instead, he gladly shows their foolishness in the most entertaining way.	
 	
Answer 44: pirate mode good.	
 	
Answer 45: Support for having several windows open at the same time would be nice.	
 	
Answer 46: Not enough people listen to PZ. 	
 	
Answer 47: I find many blogs serve one purpose... to massage the author's ego. While they have a right to do whatever they want, I have a hard time reading them.... I appreciate Pharyngula because there is analytical substance in the posts, it doesn't seem over-rhetorical.... and PZ doesn't go overboard with the "I'm the god of my blog" thing	
 	
Answer 48: It seems to work pretty well for what it is. It's hard to find older articles, but if you treat it as a news source, the older articles are less important anyway.	
 	
Answer 49: 	
 	
Answer 50: If only Pharyngula could find my computer when the DSL is down! Seriously: I like seeing the most current postings right at the top, but sometimes have trouble remembering the post from a few weeks ago that is no longer on the front page. (I need something like an index or table of contents...)	
 	
Answer 51: The weaker blogs don't allow comments. Weaker than that are blogs (like freerepublic.com) that delete any unwanted viewpoint. Pharyngula allows comment, and the discussion is usually lively and frank, which are its strengths. I suppose it can always be improved, but I can think of no glaring weaknesses there.	
 	
Answer 52: very current:good can be too much 1 persons opinion: bad spend way, way too much time doing it	
 	
Answer 53: I enjoy it as it is	
 	
Answer 54: Blogs are an awesome way to get information on the latest topics. It allows anyone to put their opinion online - and the beauty is that people with expertise like PZ Myers are willing to share their writing with us. Honestly, without blogs I would know very little about the Dover trial and the issues around the attempted introduction of creationism into the schools. The science articles are like icing on the cake. Very important: RSS (or atom) feeds. There is no way I would go to all the individual web sites of the blogs I'm interested in - with a feed I can read the headlines and focus on the articles I am interested in.	
 	
Answer 55: The particular strength of the blog is that it allows rapid response and reaction even to relatively sophisticated attempts to deceive audiences about issues in the subject matter--provided there are people present well-enough informed and mentally agile enough to do so. At Pharyngula, this is the case. Myers recently commented that there are very few creationist trolls in his comment database, and I think this is a measure of this reality: they know they'll get caught at his site, and called on it. As to weaknesses, the things I've occasionally heard cited as weaknesses for the format--lack of editors, review chain, et al--theoretically might apply--but again I find Myers unusual among bloggers in that he seems generally to do his homework. Sits down, thinks about stuff, provides the footnotes. All of which tends to make his material vastly more worth reading than so much else of what is out there. Myers, apparently, needs reviewers and editors far less than do most.	
 	
Answer 56: Blogs in general clearly have limitations - the topics are only what the blogger wants to discuss, older posts can sometimes be hard to find, and posts are limited in how much detail can be presented. But the advantages are the possibility of a two-way interaction between blogger and readership through the comments and the ability for experts to communicate their ideas directly to people outside their fields without the filter of newspaper and magazine publications. One strength of the Pharyngula design is having random sets of older posts in the sidebar.	
 	
Answer 57: Strengths: Comments, hyperlinking directly to source materials, rapid updating (it's a bummer having to wait a whole month between issues of a magazine). Weaknesses: PZ does not yet have a "Smite" button. I feel if he were able to Smite anyone who needed Smiting, we'd all be a lot better off. 	
 	
Answer 58: The RSS feeds of blogs allow the "blogosphere" to become a newspaper. You get "columns" of individuals that you trust on items that you may have interest in. You can look at the headlines and see which articles to read. It is a very flexible format and can be adapted to numerous topics and interests.	
 	
Answer 59: I, personally, find the blog format to be uniquely suited to this kind of discussion. The greatest weakness (or strength if you are the moderator) is that it is generally difficult to propose new threads as one would on a discussion board. Of course, if you don't like it, start your own blog and get your own readership. This is Dr.Myer's show after all.	
 	
Answer 60: fantabulous. more invertabrate porn would be welcomed	
 	
Answer 61: No.	
 	
Answer 62: No.	
 	
Answer 63: Nope.	
 	
Answer 64: The archive system is somewhat clumsy, with several pages that need to be clicked through	
 	
Answer 65: 	
 	
Answer 66: Strengths: I greatly prefer the lack of "he said she said" writing of blogs. I find blogs to mostly be a substitute for the opinion columnist/pundit, and a greatly improved substitute at that.	
 	
Answer 67: I very much like the comments, since that is where some of the interesting stuff gets written. I think more pirate days would be great. Yarrr....	
 	
Answer 68: I find the search difficult, though not so difficult that I can actually be bothered to make the effort to mention it on site. A great strength is the quality of the comments. There are some intelligent people reading Pharyngula, and they're adding to the site by commenting and pointing out other opinions or useful links. RSS lets me know when something new is up. And yer pirate mode be indispensible. Aaarrr!!!	
 	
Answer 69: 	
 	
Answer 70: 	
 	
9) Please mention any individuals whose blog you read regularly.	
Answer 1: Chris Mooney, Carl Zimmer, Duncan Black, John Aravosis	
 	
Answer 2: Echidne of the Snakes, RudePundit, firedoglake, Bitch PhD, Orac knows, BadAstronomy, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Rox Populi, Pooflinger	
 	
Answer 3: atrios, kos, Juan Cole, Jesus' General and many others less frequently	
 	
Answer 4: John Cole, Sadly, No!, Panda's Thumb, Crooks and Liars, World O' Crap	
 	
Answer 5: Daily: Pharyngula, and Orac Regularly: The Bad Astronomer, Thoughts from Kansas, Skeptico, Michagan Citizens for Science.	
 	
Answer 6: Belgraviadispatch and Pharyngula are my regulars.	
 	
Answer 7: I am most fortunate that I have a lot of time to read as many blogs as I like. I prefer not giving any names.	
 	
Answer 8: 	
 	
Answer 9: No others, I'm afraid.	
 	
Answer 10: Juan Cole, Brian Leiter, Sean Carroll (now with a group blog), Josh Marshall, Mathew Yglesias, Digby at Hullabaloo, Andrew Sullivan, Wonkette. dKOS.	
 	
Answer 11: 	
 	
Answer 12: Reed Cartwright: http://www.dererumnatura.us/ RPM: http://evolgen.blogspot.com/ Jason: http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/ and Philosophy of Biology: http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/ also sometimes Sarkar Lab Blog: http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/sarkarlab/	
 	
Answer 13: dooce.com pushfluids.com http://oracknows.blogspot.com/ http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/ http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/ http://www.medeasin.com/jindex.htm http://www.caterina.net/ http://www.biologynews.net/	
 	
Answer 14: Brad DeLong, Nic McPhee, James Wolcott, Jim Kunstler, Eric Alterman. I am only an occasional commenter on most of these sites, but find the host's postings to be interesting and eclectic.	
 	
Answer 15: Normal Bob Smith, Joe Rogan, Phil Plait, James Randi, God is 4 Suckers, PZ meyers, maddox, skeptico, internet infidels	
 	
Answer 16: Carl Zimmer, Kos, Atrios, Brent Rasmussen/DarkSyde, Deep Sea News, Pandagon	
 	
Answer 17: Norwegianity, MNObserver, Ateles, Auntie Pinko (not really a blogger but whatever.)	
 	
Answer 18: John Quiggan, Larvateus Prodeo(Mark Bahnisch, etc), Tim Lambert, Troppoarmadillo (Nick Gruen, Ken Parish etc)	
 	
Answer 19: I'll mention the blog names, as I can't necessarily name individuals. Bad Astronomy Blog Cosmic Variance Current Chaos Manor mail Gravity Lens Weblog Normblog Not Even Wrong Pharyngula The View from Number 80 - Skeptical Review Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. Orac Knows) 	
 	
Answer 20: mentioned above	
 	
Answer 21: Ben Goldacre - Bad Science (www.badscience.net) http://spaces.msn.com/members/shortbusqueen/ http://randomreality.blogware.com/blog http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/potd/	
 	
Answer 22: Will Wilkinson (The Fly Bottle) Tyler Cowen/Alex Tabarrok (Marginal Revolution) Cosmic Variance Chad Orzel (Uncertain Principles)	
 	
Answer 23: Only those of myself and a few friends who are too lazy to use real HTML and use Xanga instead.	
 	
Answer 24: 435 is too many to mention individually.	
 	
Answer 25: I have been reading the Bleat (at lileks.com) for something like 6 years now. (I hate to admit this, since the guy's turned into a fairly blatant neocon, but his writing is still entertaining)	
 	
Answer 26: Evangelical Atheist	
 	
Answer 27: I read group blogs such as Crooked Timber and Savage Minds, as well as the blogs of interesting intellectual people such as Brian Leiter and Daniel Davies.	
 	
Answer 28: Heavy hitters: Eschaton, Fafblog, The Poorman, Pharyngula, etc. I also travel the big pop culture blogs: PCL LinkDump, Bibi's Box, The Crime in Your Coffee, and so on. Then there's highly specialized blogs like Datajunkie, Groovy Age of Horror, or Planet Xtabay. 	
 	
Answer 29: Kos, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Ed Kilgore, Wonkette, Fafnir, Amanda Marcotte, Bitch, PhD, General JC Christian, et al	
 	
Answer 30: I read : my Livejournal friendslist almost everyday. I also read : bitch. phd. ; marian's blog, BCCY, slacktivist ( right now I am going through the Left Behind archive...) and a few other personal blogs. 	
 	
Answer 31: Ophelia Benson's Notes & Comments section at butterfliesandwheels.com, Carl Zimmer's The Loom, Chris C. Mooney's The Intersection, Massimo Pigliucci's Rationally Speaking.	
 	
Answer 32: This one's it.	
 	
Answer 33: 	
 	
Answer 34: Michael Berube, Atrios (Duncan Black), Pandagon (Amanda Marcotte et al), Slactivist (Fred Clarke), TBogg, World O' Crap (SZ), Kung Fu Monkey (John Rogers). Also personal blogs of some friends.	
 	
Answer 35: Mr Zimmer's, the Loom. In the ABC,(Australian public broadcasters) site, there is a science conversation group, "Self Service Science" where a loose community has the benefit of working scientists who drop in regularly to talk and answer questions. 	
 	
Answer 36: 	
 	
Answer 37: about a dozen political blogs (Juan Cole, Atrios, Kos, Digby, Steve Gilliard, Kevin Drum, J-Bradford DeLong, etc.)	
 	
Answer 38: Kevin Drum, Cosmic Variance, Red State Rabble, Uncertain Principles, Pandagon, The Carpetbagger Report	
 	
Answer 39: Pandagon Boing Boing Atrios Making Light Tom Tomorrow	
 	
Answer 40: Apart from science blogs I mentioned above, I read (again) a number of political blogs (e.g,. Legal Fiction, Shakespeare's Sister, Pandagon, Majikthise and many others), blogs about blogging (e.g., Apophenia, Jay Rosen...), local blogs (e.g., EdCone.com, Pratie Place, Pam's House Blend, Anonymoses, ...) and well-written blogs (e.g., Lance Mannion, Neddie Jingo...).	
 	
Answer 41: Lileks. Romenesko (if that's a blog.) Instapundit (if that's a blog.) 	
 	
Answer 42: 	
 	
Answer 43: Mark Gisleson (Norwegianity), Robin Marty (the Power Liberal), Eva Young (Lloydletta & Dump Bachmann), Moses (Yowling at the Fencepost), Politex (Bushwatch), Panda's Thumb, NCSE both regular site and Kitzmiller.	
 	
Answer 44: http://defectiveyeti.com/ http://slacktivist.typepad.com/ 	
 	
Answer 45: Active on DU, read Daily Kos, Josh Marshall, the Mystery Pollster.	
 	
Answer 46: My RSS aggregator picks up The Poor Man, Obsidian Wings, and the Decemberist, but the only two I read more than once a week are Pharyngula and Crooked Timber. It's essential to read fafblog now and again, and when he isn't too busy the stuff at bryanadamsblog.com is pretty good. Also, there are a few of my friends Adrianne (mismatchedparentheses.net), Adam (tweebiscuit.net), and Tongue but no Door (tonguebutnodoor.net). 	
 	
Answer 47: Not many blogs... mostly information technology websites (The Register, Ars Technica...)	
 	
Answer 48: I like A Gentleman's C (http://gentlemansc.blogspot.com/) , The Two Percent Co. (http://www.twopercentco.com/), and Baghdad Burning (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/). I also like reading James Randi's website, though it's not really a blog.	
 	
Answer 49: 	
 	
Answer 50: Besides Pharyngula: "No Fancy Name" (JC Meloni) "Learning Curves" (Rudbiecka Hirta) "Science and Politics" (Bora Zivkovic) "Bitch Ph.D." "The World of BotanicalGirl" "YoungFemaleScientist" "Geeky Mom" "Panda's Thumb" Brian Leiter's blog Faflog! I also try to read my own blog before the finger hits "Post"	
 	
Answer 51: Just PZ Meyers, Kos, and Atrios regularly. I also read others, but not regularly.	
 	
Answer 52: 	
 	
Answer 53: PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer, Orac Knows, Skeptico, James Randi's site, Farrell Till's errancy discussion group	
 	
Answer 54: In addition to the science blogs I listed above: MetaFilter, BoingBoing, J-Walk Blog, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, The Rachel Maddow Show, DefCon Blog, BuzzMachine, Making Light, Copyfight, Clublife, WaiterRant, Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter, LAist, LAVoice, The Unofficial Apple Weblog. (note that by "read regularly" I mean look through the headlines on my newsreader a couple of times a day).	
 	
Answer 55: Bob Harris' site (http://www.bobharris.com/), Ophelia Benson's Butterflies and Wheels (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/), Fafnir's Fafblog (http://fafblog.blogspot.com/), Elizabeth Kessick's Life With An Accent (http://ekessick.blogspot.com/), Holly Messinger's The Literary Assassin (http://theliteraryassassin.blogspot.com), Tom Tomorrow's/Dan Perkins' This Modern World (http://www.thismodernworld.com/)	
 	
Answer 56: I have a very long blogroll, and I read or scan most of them on at least a weekly basis and some on a daily basis. Some of my favorites are: Balls, Sticks, and Stuff; Mike's Baseball Rants; Daily Kos; Pandagon; Shakespeare's Sister; 10,000 Birds; Bird TLC; bootstrap analysis; City Birder; Dharma Bums; Living the Scientific Life; milkriverblog; Respectful Insolence (Orac); Science and Sarcasm; Thomasburg Walks; and the War Room and Broadsheet blogs at Salon.com. That is a fair sampling - most of the others I read are variants on the same. 	
 	
Answer 57: http://www.dailykos.com/ http://atrios.blogspot.com/ http://www.mydd.com/ http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ http://stcynic.com/blog/ http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/ http://oracknows.blogspot.com/	
 	
Answer 58: Phil Plait, Carl Zimmerman, John Hawkes, Chris Mooney, Brent Rasmussen, Dave Barry, Adam Felber, Dwayne MacInnes, Anthony Bodensteiner, Shane Nackerud	
 	
Answer 59: see block five	
 	
Answer 60: Kos, Bull Moose, Rude Pundit, Slacktivist, Huffington	
 	
Answer 61: See question 5. Also: Respectful Indolence, The Loom and Bad Astronomy. I have many other blogs that I read which are unrelated to science.	
 	
Answer 62: 	
 	
Answer 63: Dozens - too many to list	
 	
Answer 64: The only other Blog I visit regularly is a Dutch one, bartvandergriendt.nl	
 	
Answer 65: stcynic, daily Kos, panda's thumb, red state rabble, Pharyngula, Oliver Willis, huffington post 	
 	
Answer 66: Dailykos, atrios, americablog, digby, brad delong, Tapped, Orac.	
 	
Answer 67: Cosmic Variance (group physics blog featuring former writers of Orange Quark (Mark Trodden) and Preposterous Universe (Sean Carroll)) Dynamics of Cats (Steinn Sigurdsson) Americablog (John Aravoisis) Eschaton, a.k.a. Atrios (Duncan Black) Daily Kos (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga) Brad DeLong Informed Comment (Juan Cole) Political Animal (Kevin Drum) Talking Points Memo (Joshua Micah Marshall) TPM Cafe (Matt Yglesias, Ivo Daalder, etc.) 	
 	
Answer 68: Orac / Respectful Insolence Sharon Howard / Early Modern Notes Athena / Rites of Passage 64b Baker Street / Changes the title of her blog regularly Natalie Bennett / Philobiblion Aydin Цrstan / Snail's Tales There are plenty of other via rss.	
 	
Answer 69: 	
 	
Answer 70: Duncan Black (Atrios) Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon) First Draft (Allison Hantschel and other contributors) Cosmic Variance (5 physicists whose names I don't all remember) Joshua Marshall (Talking Points Memo) Juan Cole (Informed Comment) Fafblog! (The Whole Worlds Only Source For Fafblog)