RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Glen Davidson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:32   

<quote author="Liar for atheism, RU">But the idea that religious beliefs — of any kind — were necessary to discover that the earth orbits the sun is 100% pure apologetic bullcrap.</quote>

Btw, dumbass, this is one of the places where your dishonesty shows in all of its disgusting awfulness.  
I didn't even suggest that religion was necessary to know that the earth orbits the sun, but then again, I doubt that you're intelligent enough to know that.

The thing is that you're too incompetent even to properly read something that goes against the prejudices of your tiny little mind.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Popper's Ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:32   

<quote>The issue is how to stop sounding like an ass.</quote>

You could stop posting.

Glen Davidson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:32   

<quote author="Liar for atheism, RU">But the idea that religious beliefs — of any kind — were necessary to discover that the earth orbits the sun is 100% pure apologetic bullcrap.

Glen probably is aware of this but the gasbag is so intent on his pointy-headed attempt to get on PZ’s case that he forgot.

By the way, Glen, up above you called me a liar and I asked you to tell me what you were referring to. You got real quiet all of a sudden. What’s the problem? Were you projecting, perhaps?</quote>

Well, that was another lie, dumbass.  I haven't been "real quiet", and what if I had been?

Your whole post wreaks of a lack of education beyond, say, high school (if you have gone to college, you learned almost nothing there).  You're too stupid to do anything but write abuse.  By rights, PZ ought to ban you for doing what Lenny did on this thread.  Beyond that, any intelligent comments are wasted on anyone as loathsomely stupid and dishonest as yourself.

I know your type, for I've dealt with AfDave, who also knows too little even to learn from others.  

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Popper's Ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:32   

<quote>You don’t ban others who add no content, like Popper’s ghost.</quote>

And you're not banned for being a liar or writing incoherent run-on sentences, but at least you're not intentionally trying to derail a discussion, as Lenny was.

Popper's Ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:33   

<quote>Weird. In all honesty, I didn’t see any of that. I thought he was making a pretty reasonable point in fairly clear way</quote>

So are you saying that you are <i>blind</i> to statements like

<quote>Well, PZ, maybe you can hunt me down and drag me before the Inquisition, or whatever the evangelical atheist version of the Inquisition is.
...
you will not win anything WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THOSE TWO-THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON YOUR SIDE THAT ARE THEISTS.

If you want to beat the ID/fundies, you need the help of those non-ID theists.

Like it or not.

So, shooting people that (1) are on your side and (2) whose support you need, is … well … kind of stupid.</quote>

etc. ad nauseam?   You think that PZ is "aggressive" but Lenny's

<quote>in fact, it’s REALLY REALLY stupid.

Which part of that do you find difficult to understand?</quote>

isn't?  That's just the very beginning of this thread; it went on and on.  Try going back and actually <i>reading</i> Lenny's posts, instead of doing an Evelyn Wood scan and then responding to your own projected impression.

Registered User

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:53   

Glen

Still can't point to why you called me a liar upthread, Glen? I'm not suprised.

<i>Your whole post wreaks of a lack of education beyond</i>

No, it reaks of someone who has zero tolerance for pointy-headed pontificating gasbags.  Oh, and blogwhoring.

Stephen Elliott

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:53   

<quote>
Posted by Registered User on June 29, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Glen...

Oh, and<b> blogwhoring.</b></quote>

What does that mean?

Popper's Ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:53   

<quote>Now what was the serious discussion? What did “kevin from nyc” contribute?</quote>

I'm sorry, but that is so effing stupid that it's almost beyond my conprehension how your mind works.  Are you saying that any thread of over 700 posts doesn't contain any serious discussion because some troll is posting there?  Neither PZ nor I were referring to kevin's posts, you git.  Kevin hasn't posted here since the 25th, two days before PZ posted his comment about the discussion having <b>taken</b> a major upswing in seriousness.  How do you bear being such an intellectually dishonest scumbag?

<quote>In the second comment on this thread, PZ’s opening sentence is “Lenny is part of the problem”.</quote>

In response to B. Spitzer's comment about "‘Sides, Lenny’s going to show up any minute to shrug at everybody".  Indeed, Lenny's anti-intellectualism and bad faith tactics <i>are</i> part of the problem, as is your irrelevant garbage here about "kevin from nyc".

Now go ahead, say something else incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest.

Glen Davidson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,05:54   

<quote author="Clouser">I strongly protest such action and will not participate in any such thread. No matter how frequently and strongly he and I disagree, to the point that he uses vile and insulting language, banning him is not in the spirit of free inquiry upon which science is based nor upon the spirit of tolerance upon which atheism claims to be based (in contrast to religion, they say). It is based on the spirit of exclusion of undesireable ideas upon which fanaticism is based. And I am surprised folks here are not speaking out loudly against this.</quote>

We're not speaking out because we know that PZ couldn't utilize the "spirit of inquiry" while Lenny was "ignoring" him by constantly claiming that he was ignoring his "dick-waving".  

I didn't agree with PZ's initial blog in which I believe he mischaracterized Lenny's comments, and I said so on this thread.  I wasn't banned, but I also made reasoned arguments instead of mere retorts and hyperbolic accusations.

The one thing I'd add is that I'd be happier if this and other PZ threads would be open to a more reasoned Lenny, perhaps using screened posts.  In principle, I don't like someone being accused without his having recourse to defend himself, as so often seen on UD.  So while I can see why PZ banned Lenny (I once wrote that Lenny didn't do anything deserving banning, but then I looked again at his lack of substance and continual abuse), I do hope that it is not an irrevocable ban.

PZ has banned people before (at least at Pharyngula), notably DaveScot and JAD.  I think that most of us who have attempted reasonable conversation with both of those can understand why.  In this particular instance I can also understand why he decided he'd tolerated Lenny long enough, however I believe that Lenny can and may do better than those two in other threads.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Registered User

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:04   

We already know what Lenny would say to all this:

"shrugs"

And if he doesn't care I sure the #### am not going to.

Stephen Elliott

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:04   

<quote>
Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 10:40 AM (e)
<quote>
Now what was the serious discussion? What did “kevin from nyc” contribute?</quote>

I’m sorry, but that is so effing stupid that it’s almost beyond my conprehension how your mind works. Are you saying that any thread of over 700 posts doesn’t contain any serious discussion because some troll is posting there? Neither PZ nor I were referring to kevin’s posts, you git. Kevin hasn’t posted here since the 25th, two days before PZ posted his comment about the discussion having taken a major upswing in seriousness. How do you bear being such an intellectually dishonest scumbag?
<quote>
In the second comment on this thread, PZ’s opening sentence is “Lenny is part of the problem”.</quote>

In response to B. Spitzer’s comment about “‘Sides, Lenny’s going to show up any minute to shrug at everybody”. Indeed, Lenny’s anti-intellectualism and bad faith tactics are part of the problem, as is your irrelevant garbage here about “kevin from nyc”.

Now go ahead, say something else incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest.
</quote>

You are obviously reading something different into the comments than I am. But go ahead, fill your boots and be as angry as you like.

Glen Davidson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:04   

Well great, I defend PZ, and find out that he's sent my other two posts to the Bathroom Wall in the meantime.  Perhaps it's not all that important, since Registered User is obviously dishonest and ignorant, but really, why is he allowed to call names and lie, while understandable reactions are banned?

I can't reason with someone who dismisses the actual facts of the matter any more than PZ could reason with Lenny on this thread.

Sure I upped the rhetoric (nothing he doesn't deserve), but he doesn't write anything of substance, just a bunch of accusations based on his lack of knowledge about science and its history.

Then again, this will also probably end up on the Bathroom Wall, while RU's vile accusations and incompetent remarks remain.  At least this will be a record on the Bathroom Wall of a rather cavalier censorship effected by PZ.

pzmyers



Posts: 35
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:07   

I am sending everything that continues this trend, no matter who says it. If you look above, there is RU, Popper's ghost, and Glen Davidson.

   
Popper's Ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:08   

Stephen, because you seem to lack the requisite tools to work these things out yourself:

<quote>Now what was the serious discussion?</quote>

Precisely, PZ's post that you mischaracterized as a "cheap shot" was #108841, in which he wrote "the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness".  Try finding that and then looking at the posts that closely preceded it; those would constitute the "serious discussion" ... that was taking place among PZ, Mike Dunford, and others.

Stephen Elliott

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:22   

<quote>
Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 10:59 AM (e)

Stephen, because you seem to lack the requisite tools to work these things out yourself:

Now what was the serious discussion?

Precisely, PZ’s post that you mischaracterized as a “cheap shot” was #108841, in which he wrote “the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness”. Try finding that and then looking at the posts that closely preceded it; those would constitute the “serious discussion” … that was taking place among PZ, Mike Dunford, and others.
</quote>

Yes, and I admited as such in my reply to you. On my first reading though, I thought it was an atack on somebody unable to respond.

On my second reading (after reading your post), I realised that I was probably mistaken.

Now, would you like to go over the opening posts again and explain why Lenny was so out of order?

Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:24   

Quote
I am sending everything that continues this trend, no matter who says it. If you look above, there is RU, Popper's ghost, and Glen Davidson.


Yeah, well, the lying slimeball RU tells his lies and they stay on PT, while I point out the obvious and undeniable fact that he is a liar and stupid, and I get sent off.

What is more, the post in response to Clouser did not "continue this trend".  It appears that what I write is being sent here, not anything obviously objectionable, certainly no more objectionable than the post to which I was responding.  So quit pretending a fair hand here, PZ.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:29   

Quote
<quote>
Posted by Registered User on June 29, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Glen...

Oh, and<b> blogwhoring.</b></quote>

What does that mean?


It just means that he's too stupid to respond to the substance that I wrote, which is why he resorts to name-calling and his severely limited knowledge base to deny all learning.  

That is to say, he can't read and understand what I write in fairly long posts, so he calls me a "blogwhore".  It doesn't bother PZ, as far as anyone can discern, quite possibly because the dunce was disagreeing with me after I had disagreed with PZ.  Or do you actually have a better explanation, PZ?  I truly am open to a better explanation, but I don't see one at this time.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Henry J



Posts: 4039
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:38   

I wish the moving of a post wouldn't turn quote marks and apostrophes into weird characters.

Henry


nt

Edit:
Huh. So the non-ascii characters do work here, but the moving process loses something in the translation. I'm guessing the material gets copied to a plain-ascii type file at some point, which misinterprets expanded characters as a string of separate ascii characters. If that intermediate file were saved as "UTF-8" it might avoid this form of character assasination.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,06:50   

Popper's Ghost is mischaracterizing the situation again, as if PZ's blog solely dealt with Numbers' comments, as if it didn't have anything to do with Lenny.  

The fact of the matter is that the bulk of PZ's comments were linked on Pharyngula.  And there he opened a salvo on Lenny.  I've written what I thought of it here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-108736

And as indicated there, PZ indeed did start the religious flame war.  Or what would you call the statement "Albert Einstein could be such an #######" over Einstein's mention that "science without religion is lame"?  Sure, I don't find Einstein's claim to be particularly profound either, but Popper blaming Lenny for the entirety of the unhappiness is profoundly mistaken.

I didn't see the point of trying to post this over at PT any more.  My last post stuck, but I have my doubts that responding like this to Popper's mischaracterizations would last there for very long.  Maybe it would, who knows?, but if my rather innocuous response to Clouser didn't stay put, why would this one?

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,07:16   

A note on Registered User: While he no doubt believes that anyone should legally be able to vote in any way that he wishes, in the de facto sense he is against free voting. A lot of his viciousness toward Lenny and myself is due to the fact that we voted Nader at one or more points in time, and not for the Democrat.

So yes, it's sort of like "freedom of religion" to many of the creos.  In the abstract sense they're all in favor of it, but they will try to prevent a free choice whenever and wherever they can. For instance, they won't vote for an "atheist", and of course they are free not to.  There is, however, no reason for us to characterize this as a de facto action against actual freedom of religion.

Likewise, the fascist RU is for "free voting," no doubt, but if you exercise your right to vote your conscience and make a truthful report of it in response to a question, his abstract belief in freedom disappears. To be sure, he can state what he likes, including his contempt for our exercising our rights, but it is only right for us to note in turn that his own actions run against freedom in the de facto sense. I do not, of course, think that there is anything wrong with someone urging others not to vote Nader, however attacks like Registered User visits on those who dare to assert our freedom are stupid, ignorant, and contrary to the spirit of true freedom.

And in fact, as someone who has never called himself a Democrat, I find those sorts of attitudes to be Democratic Party repellent. It's something Hitchens has commented on as well, that Republicans generally do not fault those who vote third party to the degree that a number of Democratic Party thugs do. I recognize that many Democrats are rather better than that, but the "vote the party line" attitude of too many is off-putting, particularly to someone like me who has never identified with the Democrats (once I slightly identified with Republicans, but I'm terribly tired of their nonsense, which Democrats don't necessarily favor, but rarely try to block with any conviction).

If one wishes for others to be liberal, one ought to be liberal oneself. Anything else is as hypocritical as the creos'/IDists' praise for science.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,07:21   

Well there you go, I can't even quote PZ's comment about Einstein without the censor blanking out "a$$hole."  And Popper wants to make the flaming out to be all Lenny's fault.

Sort of says it all.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
pzmyers



Posts: 35
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,08:31   

If you want to complain about my characterization of Einstein on PT, that's fine, I'm fair game. I was only cutting out those posts where people were beginning to take rhetorical shivs to each other.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,09:03   

PZ, I wasn't in the later posts really taking aim at what you had written before, I was disagreeing with Popper's Ghost.  Lenny responded in a poor enough manner to you, however I don't think that the troubles should be portrayed--by PG--as entirely one-sided.

And truth be told, when I was complaining about what you did it was more to skewer the idiot RU than any lasting unhappiness with you.  Not that I'm saying all you did was entirely fair, but perhaps it is close enough in horseshoes and in here.


I'm going to include the response I made to PZ's latest on Pharyngula, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ink.php

I still don't think that PZ quite gets how some theists use the honest that they think is their Xian duty, along with the universal and rationalistic parts of Xianity (and other religions) to combine both science and religion into a whole life.  And because this does relate to the thread here, my response follows:

Quote
I'm not one who thinks that we should go to any trouble to accommodate religion, but I also don't think we should (ordinarily) go to any trouble to antagonize religion.

Yes, it is all the same to PZ whether he is a scientist or an atheist.  But I would maintain that for some theists there is also no difference between being theistic and being scientists, and their universal search for knowledge is based on logical/universalistic notions gained from their religion.

It has not gone unnoticed that science benefitted from the Greek/Xian belief that unities and numbers exist across the phenomena that we see in the universe.  Some scientists still believe in this in a religious way, and at that point, at least, religion and science are not different for them.

Some theistic scientists wouldn't dream of controverting the evidence from science because they do science to know something about God.  This was especially true in the past, when many scientists essentially saw science as another avenue to find out about God.  

Religious scientists will add on religious ideas to the beliefs found through evidence, but the most honest ones are not going to make the same claims about religion as about evidence-based science.

Wes Elsberry has written that one of the reasons why he opposes creationism/ID is that it is so dishonest, something contrary to his religious--and personal--sensibilities.  Is this not a happy coincidence between a kind of theism and science?  

After all, Nietzsche was willing to bite the bullet and ask why we even want "truth", as if we were adherents of Xianity.  He really was more than a little willing to point out that desires for truth, and other attributes of the scientific endeavor, are a legacy of Xian beliefs and attitudes (he seems not to have paid enough heed to the fact that we all desire "truth" in some manner or other, but the push for "truth" was emphasized in Xianity more than it has been in many religions, almost certainly to science's benefit).  This is not as true today, I would claim, however the aims and ethics of science often do coincide with those of the most honest and open religious folk.

The fact of the matter is that religion is just a collection of human thoughts and beliefs of a bewildering variety and form.  Some of those varieties share the ethics and beliefs necessary for science, while a good many do not.  Any theist whose honesty requires acceptance of the evidence and its implications should be able to do science.  

That is to say, a metaphysical basis for a scientist's work is adequate for science, and indeed a number of past scientists, and even some present ones, have had a kind of religious/metaphysical drive to discover "God's creation".

Some theists have simply accepted a metaphysical view of the world and they do science with it (others, no doubt, are religious but not wedded to metaphysics).  The "mistake" that they make is that they have never questioned their a priori beliefs, because Xianity (and presumably all other religions) cannot be justified philosophically from the ground up.  However, within their limited range of views, they are combining their morality, honesty, and desire to know, as a kind of religious/scientific endeavor to know the world/god.

I wrote more about these things here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-109053

Glen D


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,09:38   

Quote

Well there you go, I can't even quote PZ's comment about Einstein without the censor blanking out "a$$hole."


IkonBoard's default configuration out of the box comes with that word in the filter. I've never had enough motivation to track it down and remove it. I doubt I will, either.

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,14:31   

No more velvet gloves, eh . . . . .

I will simply repeat that I would not like to live in a world run by PZ.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
pzmyers



Posts: 35
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,16:22   

I am now inspired to become Emperor of the World.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,17:28   

But...with or without clothes, pz?  People magazine wants to know!

--------------
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

   
Zarquon



Posts: 71
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2006,21:17   

Quote (pzmyers @ June 29 2006,21:22)
I am now inspired to become Emperor of the World.

Well what else are you going to do with an army of genetically modified zebrafish?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2006,04:22   

Or sharks with laser beams in their (frickken) heads.

So, whom really was mini-me? Or No. 2.

Bwhhahahahahaha

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
stevestory



Posts: 8862
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2006,04:26   

...with laser beams on their frickin' foreheads.

edit: dammit, resident beat poet KE beat me to it.

   
  19124 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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