RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (639) < ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,12:08   

<quote>GETTING RID OF THE MANY KILLING DISEASES AND AND OTHER LIFE THREATENING PHENOMENA SO PREVALENT IN THE WORLD NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.</quote>

should we tell him who was responsible for figuring out how disease resistances work, and why?

nawww.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,12:08   

If Neal yells any louder at his computer screen, and has a brain aneuryism, would that qualify for a Darwin award?

Science Avenger

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,12:08   

<blockquote>Neal blundered on:

The “pointless profanities” are irrelevant, and you know it.

</blockquote>

Uh yeah, it was your pointless profanities to which I was referring.

<blockquote>There are no “baseless assertions”</blockquote>

He baselessly asserts, right before making some more baseless assertions.

Just when you thought we'd hit the bottom trollwise.  I wonder who he thinks is paying me to post here and why.

Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,12:16   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2007,12:00)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,11:08)
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

What sport are you talking about?...

LOL! The USA are playing England in the rugby World cup today.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,12:51   

28-10 to England. The USA played really well, considering it is not a well-established game over there.

@Carlsonjock

Rugby is a grown-up version of your football, played without body armour, and with more gore.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,13:00   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,12:51)
28-10 to England. The USA played really well, considering it is not a well-established game over there.

@Carlsonjock

Rugby is a grown-up version of your football, played without body armour, and with more gore.

Don't forget the lack of stopping play and changing players Alan.

Rugby is also still relatively unspoiled by comercialism.

Poor old Japan and Italy got hammered by the antipodeans. The All Blacks and Australia got off to awesome starts.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,13:01   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,19:08)
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

I've just finished watching NZ v Italy delayed 76 14.

I just had to see why the All Blacks let 2 tries be scored against them.

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

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,14:01   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 08 2007,13:01)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,19:08)
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

I've just finished watching NZ v Italy delayed 76 14.

I just had to see why the All Blacks let 2 tries be scored against them.

Ahhh! We have a gloater.

Edit to add: Australia. Whaddaya reckon? Scoring over 90 is impressive.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,14:02   

We lost yesterday.  Bummer. :(

Not hat Argentine played well, but we were worse, at least during the first half of the match.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,14:04   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 08 2007,14:02)
We lost yesterday.  Bummer. :(

Not hat Argentine played well, but we were worse, at least during the first half of the match.

I missed it but was told Argentina played well. Shock start for France though.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,14:23   

I've watched bits of all matches so far and it's looking like a southern hemisphere side is going to win this year.  NZ were awesome.  England (at least in the second half) were awful.

But we beat Israel 3-0, and India by 7 wickets, so it's not all bad.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,20:37   

In honor of Pavarotti's passing, I listenend to Nessun Dorma today. He was one hell of a singer.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,20:40   

http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007....ld.html

Interesting-looking book about a woman who is successful despite schizophrenia.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,22:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2007,04:40)
http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2007....ld.html

Interesting-looking book about a woman who is successful despite schizophrenia.

This is gratuitously cruel .....but how do they know?

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2007,22:47   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 08 2007,22:01)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 08 2007,13:01)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2007,19:08)
Anyone else going to watch England vs USA just starting now? I wonder if that's where Louis was going on holiday?

Edit: 21-3 at half-time. England played pretty poorly, so on this form they are hardly likely to end up winning the competition.

I've just finished watching NZ v Italy delayed 76 14.

I just had to see why the All Blacks let 2 tries be scored against them.

Ahhh! We have a gloater.

Edit to add: Australia. Whaddaya reckon? Scoring over 90 is impressive.

fffffft  90 against the friggin' Cherry Blossoms?

At least the Italians played properly and with one more player for half the game.

When the Kiwis last played the CBs the score was over a 100, they have scored higher though. The only reason Japan did so well is they had a Kiwi coach and a couple of polynesian players.

......I'm getting my gloating in early the ABs have a history of snatching defeat from the bosom of victory.

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

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,00:19   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 08 2007,22:47)
fffffft  90 against the friggin' Cherry Blossoms?

At least the Italians played properly and with one more player for half the game.

When the Kiwis last played the CBs the score was over a 100, they have scored higher though. The only reason Japan did so well is they had a Kiwi coach and a couple of polynesian players.

......I'm getting my gloating in early the ABs have a history of snatching defeat from the bosom of victory.

Although not a consistently (who is?) good side yet, I am impressed with the way the Italians have improved over the years. I think it was a good idea to get them into the (now) 6 nations competition.

Feel free to gloat BTW (as if it was in any doubt), I will be if given the opportunity.

C'Mon England! *Waves cross of ST. George*

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:02   

Just watched South Africa vs Samoa. Great running game.

On current form England don't stand a chance against the Springboks, (or the All Blacks or NZ either).

  
Neal

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

FOLLOW THE MONEY? YOU DUMB BASTARDS (MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY PRIESTS, SAINTS, WORSHIPERS, ETC) SORRY MOST POWERFUL EDITOR, YOU CERTAINLY CAN CUT ME OFF AS I WOULD EXPECT YOU TO!!!!!!
WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST DECADES!!!!!!!! GROUSING OUT FROM THE "IGNORANT" PUBLIC MASSES, THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT YOUR VASTLY UNSUBSTANTIATED PHILOSOPHICAL CLAIMS REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO (OVER WHAT EVER AMOUNT OF "TIME" THAT HAS TRANSPIRED) FACILITATE THE CHEMICAL MOLECULAR MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, WITH ALL THE GIVEN INTERVENTIONARY MITIGATING FUCKING NATURAL (SHOULD I SAY IN A MOST GRACIOUS WAY) RETARDANTS  that would, in SOO MANY WAYS SHOOT THE SHIT OUT OF THE ABILITY OF YOUR BELOVED PHILOSOPHICAL, SO CALLED SCIENTIFIC "PROOFS" TO
IN ANY KIND OF WAY DEMONSTRATE WHAT IT IS YOU "WANT" TO BE ABLE TO SLAM DOWN THE PUBLIC'S THROATS?????

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

so would chromosomal duplication count as "NATURAL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN THE SPATIO TEMPORAL PHYSIO REALITIES"

??

and would the resulting entirely new species fit the description of a published result for you?

or were you looking for more cows->flying monkeys coming out of my butt  kinda thing?

again, the fact that you, neal, are entirely ignorant of the thousands of articles showing how selection and mutation have produced new species doesn't mean they don't exist.

you can put your fingers in your ears when you yell at your computer monitor, and that won't make the reality go away either.

seriously, if you want to make reality disappear, you need to talk to Depak Chopra, or Oprah, maybe.

can't help ya.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

<quote>YOU CERTAINLY CAN CUT ME OFF AS I WOULD EXPECT YOU TO!!!!!!</quote>

Sweet plastic dashboard Jeesus!

give the man what he wants already!

cut him off.

fnxtr

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

So apparently Neal has some kind of problem with the biological sciences.

If only he would stop yelling and explain what it is.

Shrug.

Oh, well, back to work.

Neal

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

Posted by Richard Simons on September 8, 2007 11:59 PM (e)

My initial reaction whenever I see a post with large sections written in upper case and with exclamation marks spattered liberally through it is ‘Oh no. Another frothing loony on the rampage.’ If I bother to read them I seldom find any reason to change my assessment.

"From Neal’s posts I get the impression of a person who is extremely annoyed about something (probably not primarily about evolution), and a person who is ignorant about evolution but who assumes that people who have made a career of studying it are just as ignorant as he is.

Neal, if you feel this is unjustified I suggest instead of posting another incoherent rant you go for a long walk somewhere peaceful. Take an hour or two to decide exactly what you are trying to say (including the evidence that supports your position) and how best to put it across. If you want to convince people you need to come across as a reasonable person, not as a screaming ignoramus who has fried his brain."



Neal's response:


None my posts are "incoherent" you philosophical BIGOT!!!!!!!  You, predictably, refuse to give any consideration to the truths expressed in my posts.  I don't "blame you" in a sense.  Ignorance often times follows it's own train of thought until it can no longer do so!!!!!!!

I would suggest you look within your own assertive realms of "incoherence" and, even at the risk of turning from your beloved preferences, look at the FACTS at hand and allow yourself to engage in SCIENTIFIC REALITIES!!!!!! (you dumb shit) sorry mr most powerful editor who has the ability to judge what is good and what isn't good!!!!!! (By the way, on what standards do you have the ability to judge, you prick-head!!!!!!)

Wolfhound

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

Wow.  We gots us one angry, illiterate troll, eh?  So full of hatred.  Perhaps God's Love has not yet soothed his soul?

Seriously, Neal, you and your ilk can spew whatever magic pixiedust fairy tales you want in the privacy of your tax-exempt houses of worship.  Once your brainwashing institutions start having to pay their way then you'll have a leg to stand on.  Well, not really, since your worldview is total crap, but at least your bitching might make more sense.

Like the bumper sticker says, "You don't [teach creationist bullshit] in our schools, we won't think in your church!"

Wolfhound

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

Wow.  We gots us one angry, illiterate troll, eh?  So full of hatred.  Perhaps God's Love has not yet soothed his soul?

Seriously, Neal, you and your ilk can spew whatever magic pixiedust fairy tales you want in the privacy of your tax-exempt houses of worship.  Once your brainwashing institutions start having to pay their way then you'll have a leg to stand on.  Well, not really, since your worldview is total crap, but at least your bitching might make more sense.

Like the bumper sticker says, "You don't teach creationist bullshit in our schools, we won't think in your church!"

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

<quote>So apparently Neal has some kind of problem with the biological sciences.</quote>

I'm not even sure I could be as specific as that. I think I would just stop with:  apparently Neal has some kind of problem.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:27   

<quote>None my posts are “incoherent” you philosophical BIGOT!!!!!!!</quote>

Neal, did you know that schizophrenics think everybody ELSE is crazy, because they can't see the bugs crawling up the walls?

do you see the bugs, Neal?

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:29   

<quote>Comment #205263
Posted by Donald M on September 8, 2007 4:18 PM (e)

Clearly this LifeWorks Foundation was a private foundation. The grantors of these types of foundations don’t have to have any application process at all and are free to make grants to whomever they wish, as long as the recipients meet the qualifications established by the IRS, which clearly Baylor does. It matters not one whit if Dembski and Allen or Marks and Allen are friends or not.</quote>

If you give a grant to a University and specify the recipients, you look to the relationship of the recipients of the grant to apply the self-dealing rules through the step-transaction doctrine.  In short, your explanation seems technically right, if Baylor were the intended recipient, but wrong because it is the end grantee in this area.


<quote>It is sometimes (though not often) the case with private foundations that the granters approach the potential recipient first because they’ve heard of a specific project or cause in which they have an interest.

In short there’s nothing out of the ordinary or “fishy” here. I see nothing suspicious in the 990 either…looks just like the hundreds of others I’ve looked at over the years. I know of a few private foundations that believed so strongly in something that they opted to give from their corpus and not just the earnings of their foundation. If Allen wanted to reduce his principle by $500k to support the DI, more power to him. Allen may have had personal financial reasons to give away the foundation. That’s between him, his CPA and the IRS.</quote>

Not quite.  A private foundation can pretty much do anything it wants with its money.  Except for self-dealing with disqualified individuals, hold more than 20% of the private stock of a corporation, spending money on political or lobbying causes or engage in imprudent and speculative investing.  It's the exceptions that make things interesting, not the permissions.

So the question remains, and you don't address anywhere in your post, was there improper self-dealing?  Did Baylor believe there was improper self-dealing?  Do you have any facts to support your indictment against Baylor in light that there could have very well been some improper self-dealing (direct or step-transaction)?

As for Baylor, I can see them legitimately returning the money.  Intelligent Design is a political cause, not a scientific cause.  This would give Baylor every right to return the money for two reasons - 1. It would be tainted from a prohibited transaction (politics) and 2. would serve to drag Baylor into politics (which is prohibited to Baylor) and would threaten the institution's tax exempt status.

I don't know whether Baylor terminated this project and returned the grant because of self-dealing, or they just feel that the entire ID movement is political, or Baylor decided to make sure it wasn't affiliated with plain old bullshit.  But attacking Baylor and claiming they're giving themselves "black eyes" without understanding and accounting for ALL of the rules that govern Private Foundations and Exempt Organizations is a load of crap.

As we can see from their behavior and Kitzmiller ID is a political movement repackaging creationism.  Any University that enjoys Tax Exempt status would be well within their rights to avoid being drug into prohibited political activities.   And that, more than any claim of political (which I find ironic) and/or scientific persecution, seems to be the most logical speculative explanation without being privy to all the facts.

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:29   

Regarding Comment 205263 by Donald M:

Not quite.  If you give a grant to a University and specify the recipients, you look to the relationship of the recipients of the grant to apply the self-dealing rules through the step-transaction doctrine.  In short, your explanation seems technically right, at least to the unsophisticated, if Baylor were the intended end recipient, but is likely to be wrong because it is the specified grantee we would use for this transaction.  

Also, you're not quite right with the Private Foundations rules.  A Private Foundation can pretty much do anything it wants with its money.  Except for self-dealing with disqualified individuals, hold more than 20% of the private stock of a corporation, spending money on political or lobbying causes or engage in imprudent and speculative investing.  It's the exceptions that make things interesting, not the permissions on which you focused.

So the question remains, and you don't address anywhere in your post, was there improper self-dealing?  Did Baylor believe there was improper self-dealing?  Do you have any facts to support your indictment against Baylor in light that there could have very well been some improper self-dealing (via step-transaction)?  Further, Intelligent Design is a political cause, not a scientific cause.  This would give Baylor every right to return the money as it would serve to drag Baylor into politics (which is prohibited to Baylor) and would threaten the institution's tax exempt status.  Do have facts to remove this possibility from the equation?  Did you even consider it before you jumped the martyr shark?

I don't know whether Baylor terminated this project and returned the grant because of self-dealing, or they just feel that the entire ID movement is political, or Baylor decided to make sure it wasn't affiliated with plain old bullshit.  But attacking Baylor and claiming they're giving themselves "black eyes" without understanding and accounting for ALL of the rules that govern Private Foundations and Exempt Organizations is bunk.  A fuller understanding of the rules tells anyone in the industry that Baylor could very well have very legitimate reasons for returning the money.  All of which deny the "ID Martyr" scenario.

Moses

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:29   

Sorry.  But the comments kept saying it "crashed."  So I'd try to shorten it.  Close it down a bit.  Remove tags.

Now I've got a ton of posts.

Neal

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,11:35   

"So you are making unsupported claims, for example that micro- and macroevolution are separate processes. It isn’t even certain that they are qualitatively and quantitatively different and discernible."


Neal's response:

Amusing, you are claiming I am making "unsupported claims". Please, look at the history of the philosophy of macro-evolutionary ideology and look at the "fg" magnitude of undemonstrated, assumed, unsubstantiated, unverified and, really poetic and artistic assertions that your ilk has had the freedom to propose as fact!!!!!! And you have audacity to criticize me of making unsupported claims???????

So if you don't know (i assume you are a competent purveyor of the Darwinian philosophy if there really is such a thing), how can you claim you have the all of the required answers any reasonable person should ask in order to even get some kind of sense of the magnitude of the vast UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS you and your fellow darwinian (God, we hope this is true so we can continue to do our thing in the closet)fellows have been able to PUSH DOWN THE THROAT OF THE UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC for so many years. (d_t)

  19144 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (639) < ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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