RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,11:16   

Quote (celdd @ April 27 2008,10:38)
FYI, I tried to go to her links in the "10 Ways" post, and got the following message from my virus protection software:

     
Quote
evangelicaloutpost.com may cause a breach of browser security.

Why were you redirected to this page? When we tested, this site attempted to make unauthorized changes to our test PC by exploiting a browser security vulnerability. This is a serious security threat which could lead to an infection of your PC.

Interesting. What browser were you using? I guess I'm glad I didn't click on those links (for lots of reasons).

Her latest post epitomizes her many-times-removed approach to science. She links to a creationist website where some doofus read an article in Science Daily (and probably thinks he read a peer-reviewed article) so that he can exult in ignorance    
Quote
Does anyone see Darwin in this picture? The article had no use for that hypothesis. These scientists approached the human foot and ankle as if it were engineered, and advanced science accordingly. Ferris is in a Department of Biomedical Engineering. How would one even begin an evolutionary study of the human foot?

No hints that he read the entire original article. No hints that biomedical engineers do actually use evolutionary theory productively in their research, even without quoting a book written 150 years ago. No clue how one could actually use evolutionary approaches to study the human foot. It all boils down to "I don't understand biology, but I sure like to pretend that I do". And of course, such items will be linked from her blog, because that attitude resonates completely with her perspective.

Pathetic.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,13:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,19:11)
Quote
#3 is incoherent whining.  What the hell is "science of the gaps"?


Apparently, that would be: "Science doesn't have an explanation for X right now, but we expect the X will be explained by science at some point in the future."

Which of course is ftk's corollary to "god of the gaps".

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,13:37   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 27 2008,13:12)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,19:11)
 
Quote
#3 is incoherent whining.  What the hell is "science of the gaps"?


Apparently, that would be: "Science doesn't have an explanation for X right now, but we expect the X will be explained by science at some point in the future."

Which of course is ftk's corollary to "god of the gaps".

Most of this stuff seems to be of that nature. I know what you are but what am I, rubber and glue, etc etc. For example:

"That's a straw man argument. Any biologist arguing we all reproduce as much as is possible would be laughed into obscurity. You can't possibly understand evolution if you think that's an ordinary evolutionary prediction."

"Oh yeah... well ... no ... YOU'RE making a straw man argument! And you don't understand INTELLIGENT DESIGN! And ... you say we use god of the gaps arguments? You use SCIENCE OF THE GAPS ARGUMENTS! See, because sometimes you don't know things!"

"... yes, but I know that I don't know. I don't argue I'm right because of lack of knowledge. You're happy to assert that it's unknowable and that God explains it all."

"No ... no I'm not! That's actually what you do, except with science. You're happy to sit around saying natural selection explains it all!"

And on and on. Perhaps the Evil Darwinoid Conspiracy should get together and determine some new argument to use against ID, then track the time it takes it to mutate into a Creationist version. :)

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
celdd



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,13:44   

to Albatrossity2:

I was using Internet Explorer and Mcafee Security Center software.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,21:16   

Firefox No Script is a handy thing.  But, when I temporarily allowed "evangelicaloutpost.com" Kazpersky Antivirus chimed in with an "riskware hidden data sending" message and halted the process.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,22:14   

My wife, Diane, got her master's in biomedical engineering. She came along with me and Troy Britain in 2003 to a debate between Duane Gish of the ICR and Edward Max. Troy and I knew what to expect. But Diane was unprepared for the level and volume of mendacity spewing from Gish in full gallop, and at one point stood up and shouted, "You're lying!"

Yes, Gish was lying. But when one doesn't have the facts on one's side, that is unfortunately where one ends up.

But, anyway, not all biomedical engineers are clueless concerning evolutionary biology.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 27 2008,23:23

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2008,22:30   

Somebody please ask Larry Tardtardman how much money Yoko Ono donated to New York City for maintenance of the "Strawberry Fields" section of Central Park, eh?  Leave out the part that anybody can verify with a click of the Google, the six figures part, OK?

I'd ask FTK but, since Larry seems to be one of the only posters over there who fawns over everything she writes, I don't think she'll give my posting the light of day.

Oh well, they deserve each other. . . . tards of a feather, so to speak.   :)

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,00:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2008,22:14)
My wife, Diane, got her master's in biomedical engineering. She came along with me and Troy Britain in 2003 to a debate between Duane Gish of the ICR and Edward Max. Troy and I knew what to expect. But Diane was unprepared for the level and volume of mendacity spewing from Gish in full gallop, and at one point stood up and shouted, "You're lying!"

Yes, Gish was lying. But when one doesn't have the facts on one's side, that is unfortunately where one ends up.

But, anyway, not all biomedical engineers are clueless concerning evolutionary biology.

The fellow who is quoted by the person who FTK is quoting isn't clueless either, I don't think. I did a lazy/fast literature search and some of his stuff seems to show a background awareness of comparative biology. Peripherally, I might note that I think biomedical engineers are crazy for taking such a hard degree. Impressive, sure, but very hard!

Jeffox: I've already got a post on the stove over thar panning old Fafafa for his crack about the memorial garden. I didn't even get into Ono's donation. We'll see if the post gets through FtK, though.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,01:08   

From Annyday:

Quote

Jeffox: I've already got a post on the stove over thar panning old Fafafa for his crack about the memorial garden. I didn't even get into Ono's donation. We'll see if the post gets through FtK, though.


Best of luck to you, there.  FTK gots a crink up her butt, imo.   :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,20:53   

YO, FTK - about those geese and ducks of yours. . .


IT WASN'T ME!!!!!!!


:)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,21:05   

Quote (jeffox @ April 28 2008,20:53)
YO, FTK - about those geese and ducks of yours. . .


IT WASN'T ME!!!!!!!


:)

Yeah, you gotta wonder how a giant noisy trashy bird like a Canada Goose (which wouldn't be nesting anywhere near Topeka if it wasn't for the influence of people and golf courses) gets FtK and hubby worked up enough that they contemplate violence against a cuddly native mammal like a red fox. Compared to a goose, I'd rather have a fox in my neighborhood any day.

Go figure.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,23:06   

Albatrossity2 wrote:
Quote

Compared to a goose, I'd rather have a fox in my neighborhood any day.

Yeah, same here.  They shit a lot less.  Don't ask me how I know that. . . .   :)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,06:53   

The Cleveland Museum of Art has a beautiful lagoon on its property that is plagued by Canadian geese. The walkways around the lagoon are often slippery with goose shit.

One recent measure was the installation of several extremely lifelike (deathlike?) models of dead geese anchored in the lagoon, heads down and feet up.

I've always wondered if that worked. I would have thought that avian intraspecies recognition would depend upon much more than visual verisimilitude (e.g. behavioral, auditory and olfactory cues).

Ftk?  (The bird is dead).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,06:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 29 2008,06:53)
The Cleveland Museum of Art has a beautiful lagoon on its property that is plagued by Canadian geese. The walkways around the lagoon are often slippery with goose shit.

One recent measure was the installation of several extremely lifelike (deathlike?) models of dead geese anchored in the lagoon, heads down and feet up.

I've always wondered if that worked. I would have thought that avian intraspecies recognition would depend upon much more than visual verisimilitude (e.g. behavioral, auditory and olfactory cues).

Ftk?  (The bird is dead).

It wouldn't work for FTK. Just look at the way that Creo Fundies are drawn to a dead duck like ID.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,07:08   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 29 2008,06:53)
The Cleveland Museum of Art has a beautiful lagoon on its property that is plagued by Canadian geese. The walkways around the lagoon are often slippery with goose shit.

One recent measure was the installation of several extremely lifelike (deathlike?) models of dead geese anchored in the lagoon, heads down and feet up.

I've always wondered if that worked. I would have thought that avian intraspecies recognition would depend upon much more than visual verisimilitude (e.g. behavioral, auditory and olfactory cues).

Ftk?  (The bird is dead).

Well, not olfactory. Most birds (with the exception of some vultures and seabirds) have very poor olfactory abilities. And visual cues must be important to a very large degree, or stationary duck decoys wouldn't be as effective as they seem to be.

I was working with a group of sandhill crane researchers once, and we were rocket-netting cranes in Nebraska. In order to lure cranes to the place where the rocket net would capture them, they used a decoy spread that was quite extensive and complicated. Some decoys were heads up, some head down as if feeding, most were arranged in the traditional groups of three (two parents, one young bird from last year's hatch). According to the researchers (who certainly knew a lot more about cranes than I did), the arrangement and number of the decoys was critical; cranes can spot an unrealistic spread and will never get close to it. No auditory or behavioral cues were involved; these decoys never moved and they didn't make noises.  We were one for two that day, catching 16 cranes in one net and zero with the other one, because no cranes got close enough to the net.

So visual cues might be the most important ones with birds. I'd be interested to hear if that dead goose display worked!

Back on topic, FtK's latest comment is pure gold. When other commenters pointed out to her that her island/bridge setup is basically an invitation for predators to get the birds she has attracted there, she blames darwinists for reality again.  
Quote
Um...wow...

...just kinda wanted to see some little ducklings and goslings on the pond this spring.

You Darwinists are mean, mean, mean to me!!

[damn these tears...*reaches for the whole freakin' box of Kleenexes*]


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,07:14   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 29 2008,08:08)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 29 2008,06:53)
The Cleveland Museum of Art has a beautiful lagoon on its property that is plagued by Canadian geese. The walkways around the lagoon are often slippery with goose shit.

One recent measure was the installation of several extremely lifelike (deathlike?) models of dead geese anchored in the lagoon, heads down and feet up.

I've always wondered if that worked. I would have thought that avian intraspecies recognition would depend upon much more than visual verisimilitude (e.g. behavioral, auditory and olfactory cues).

Ftk?  (The bird is dead).

Well, not olfactory. Most birds (with the exception of some vultures and seabirds) have very poor olfactory abilities. And visual cues must be important to a very large degree, or stationary duck decoys wouldn't be as effective as they seem to be.

I was working with a group of sandhill crane researchers once, and we were rocket-netting cranes in Nebraska. In order to lure cranes to the place where the rocket net would capture them, they used a decoy spread that was quite extensive and complicated. Some decoys were heads up, some head down as if feeding, most were arranged in the traditional groups of three (two parents, one young bird from last year's hatch). According to the researchers (who certainly knew a lot more about cranes than I did), the arrangement and number of the decoys was critical; cranes can spot an unrealistic spread and will never get close to it. No auditory or behavioral cues were involved; these decoys never moved and they didn't make noises.  We were one for two that day, catching 16 cranes in one net and zero with the other one, because no cranes got close enough to the net.

So visual cues might be the most important ones with birds. I'd be interested to hear if that dead goose display worked!

Back on topic, FtK's latest comment is pure gold. When other commenters pointed out to her that her island/bridge setup is basically an invitation for predators to get the birds she has attracted there, she blames darwinists for reality again.    
Quote
Um...wow...

...just kinda wanted to see some little ducklings and goslings on the pond this spring.

You Darwinists are mean, mean, mean to me!!

[damn these tears...*reaches for the whole freakin' box of Kleenexes*]

Very interesting. I'll inquire about the effectiveness of the strategy.

Ftk, take note:

There is no substitute for actually knowing what you are talking about.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,08:58   

RB she doesn't even care about what she talks about.  she is just a dishonest person, even with herself.  

FtK hon you can get help.  Tard-Anon.  they will defundie you in a heartbeat and you will be free to wear a penis gourd in the deepest darkest crevice of PNG W KE

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,18:28   

Quote (Amadan @ April 29 2008,07:58)
It wouldn't work for FTK. Just look at the way that Creo Fundies are drawn to a dead duck like ID.

just damn.  :)

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,19:25   

Quote
That's right, Ftk, accuse me of not being able to carry on a conversation.  Even though I have added new thoughts to every comment I have submitted.  Even though I have explained the reasoning of my comments as I go along.  Even though starwind and dave miller seem to be able to take my thoughts and provide new information of their own in each of their comments.

That's okay.  You don't understand what a conversation is and feel th need to hamper the three of us as we're having one.

Go open dialogue.  I know that's the clarion call of the I movement.  I'll cross post this to AtBC just so everyone knows that it is you who are closing down conversation and not anyone else.

The next comment will explain my thoughts about starwind's reasoning.  I'm sure that you will disagree with it.  I am equally sure that BECAUSE OF THIS DISAGREEMENT WILL YOU THINK THAT THE REASONING IS BAD.  Take a logic course.



On one of the more interesting Ridiculous Kansans theads.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2008,19:49   

Same thread.
Quote
starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation...</i>

In general, the only people who use the phrase "materialist explanation" are people who want to overthrow ToE and insert creationist explanations into science class.  The phrase is hard to interpret in any other way.  If it isn't a materialist explanation that means he must be arguing for an "immaterial" or supernatural explanation.

That is sufficient for me to assume that starwind thinks the Theory of Evolution is wrong and should perhaps not be taught anymore.  I asked him to tell me if I was wrong; I may be.  All he has to do is state that I am and explain.  This is what we've been doing on this thread.  Try not to screw it up.

Now, why do I think that starwind's dislike for ToE stems from Nazis mis-applying it?

starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation for why one species is fittest and will ultimately survive over other species, and that also applies to humans, as per evolution theory.</i>

This is not exactly right.  ToE does not state that a species is "fittest"--only "more fit".  And even more importantly, it does not state that a species will survive "instead" of another species as this paragraph implies--only that members of a species with certain traits will survive over members of the same species without the same adaption.  This is the misapplication that leads to eugenics.

starwind: <i>Hitler merely applied that tenet to his own race, and went the extra step of substituting his own selection of the fittest instead of allowing evolution to take its natural course.</i>

Hilter applies <b>A</b> tenet--an incorrect one.  He then compounded this mistake by "substituting his own selection"--something that is not Darwinian in the least.  By creating his own criteria he short circuits ToE and breaks any link to anything other than Nazi Breeding Programs--something that had been possible and known for thousands of years.

starwind: <i>the issue is Nazi eugenics relied upon Darwinism</i>

No it did not.  As seen above, Nazi eugenics relied merely upon Hitler's worldview, something that was not particularly Darwinian, nor was it in any way a representation of ToE.

If starwind's argument is that Darwin and Nazis are mentioned in the same sentences, sure I'll agree.  That is trivial.  If it is his point that people <b>THINK</b> that Darwin's theory leads to eugenics, I'll agree.  But, then I must ask again, "What is the point?"

If, however, it is his point that Darwin's theory is to BLAME for eugnics, then I disagree for all the reasons above.


--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2008,06:11   

Quote (blipey @ April 29 2008,19:49)
Same thread.
   
Quote
starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation...</i>

starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation for why one species is fittest and will ultimately survive over other species, and that also applies to humans, as per evolution theory.</i>

This is not exactly right.  ToE does not state that a species is "fittest"--only "more fit".  And even more importantly, it does not state that a species will survive "instead" of another species as this paragraph implies--only that members of a species with certain traits will survive over members of the same species without the same adaption.  This is the misapplication that leads to eugenics.


Why bother with eugenics, if  evolution and "survival of the fittest" takes care of it?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2008,06:40   

Quote (Quack @ April 30 2008,07:11)
     
Quote (blipey @ April 29 2008,19:49)
Same thread.
         
Quote
starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation...</i>

starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation for why one species is fittest and will ultimately survive over other species, and that also applies to humans, as per evolution theory.</i>

This is not exactly right.  ToE does not state that a species is "fittest"--only "more fit".  And even more importantly, it does not state that a species will survive "instead" of another species as this paragraph implies--only that members of a species with certain traits will survive over members of the same species without the same adaption.  This is the misapplication that leads to eugenics.


Why bother with eugenics, if  evolution and "survival of the fittest" takes care of it?

DaveScot, of all people, stated an insurmountable objection to the argument that Eugenics reflects an application Darwin's insight to human reproduction. Simply put, artificial selection had been known to animal husbandry and agriculture for centuries prior to Darwin. Eugenics is the extension of artificial selection to human beings, and depends in no way upon Darwin's crucial, additional insight, which was that selection among individuals also occurs in nature and accounts for evolutionary change.

(Stephen Jay Gould, particularly in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, did argue that limited forms of selection occurs at levels higher than individual organism, including the level of species, although he simultaneously asserted that selection among individuals is required to drive the emergence of new adaptive structures.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
William Wallace



Posts: 67
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,03:30   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2007,23:38)
"For the kids" is not honest enough to allow comments that make her or her position look foolish go through, so this thread is for cross-posting.

Could you create a similar thread for my comments that are filtered at Panda's Thumb?

Thanks.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,03:38   

Quote (William Wallace @ May 03 2008,03:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2007,23:38)
"For the kids" is not honest enough to allow comments that make her or her position look foolish go through, so this thread is for cross-posting.

Could you create a similar thread for my comments that are filtered at Panda's Thumb?

Thanks.

Create it yourself. Unlike other boards that I could mention you have that option.

Oh, I'll do it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,03:40   

Here you go
Thread for William

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,08:10   

Quote

Create it yourself. Unlike other boards that I could mention you have that option.


Seemingly endless quantities of porn-and-drug spam put an end to that last year. New users can reply to existing posts, but they don't have topic creation privileges. That stopped the spam in its tracks.

New users who have established a reputation for responsible posting can request topic creation and edit privileges. Somewhere around 50 comments entered should be sufficient to judge that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,12:01   

Discussion of moderation here can be taken up by PM.  Whining about The Thumb's moderation can be taken up with the respective post authors.



 
Quote
Riunione, io cago e voi pisciate!, by LORENZO CROCE


Edited for clarification.

Edited by Lou FCD on May 03 2008,13:02

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,12:02   

Edit: Addressed by Lou, so deleted.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,12:12   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 03 2008,13:02)
Edit: Addressed by Lou, so deleted.

Actually I was going to leave that, Bill, for it's information content.

Nevertheless, the board rules can be found here.

ETA: FYI that link can be found at the bottom of every single page here.

Edited by Lou FCD on May 03 2008,13:14

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2008,21:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 03 2008,09:10)
New users who have established a reputation for responsible posting can request topic creation and edit privileges. Somewhere around 50 comments entered should be sufficient to judge that.

i need to post more drivel?  

like i don't post mostly drivel now.

sigh.

  
  10202 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 236 237 238 239 240 [241] 242 243 244 245 246 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]