RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Evo, I love you man!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:11   

I just wanted to say that! I've always wanted to meet one of those "flat earth" guys just to see how they manage to construct a world view that skips right past reality. And evopeach, you are #### near as good! This board freaking rocks!

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:50   

rAMEN brother, sauce be upon Him. Evo, that is.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,05:13   

Bentonit and Link,

I always wanted to meet a band of pseudointellectual wireheads who thought they had become part of the intellectual elite and that the American people would fall at their feet... until we impeached their trailer trash president, pounded father Gore into the dust and sent Carrie baby back to the senate in disgrace. And the polls on the issues at hand going 2:1 against you.

Now I learn they are right here and available for public insults and humiliation daily and they come back licking my boots and wimpering for more ... its so much fun to see their attempts at debate fall quickly into the muddy ditch of stupidity and watch them return to mutual buttkissing and slobbering attempts to shore each other up ... laughable.

Are all of you one person under several pseudos? Its just not possible that there can be that many ignorant wireheads on earth at the same time... that would be a miracle.

Kissy Kissy Boys

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:19   

Are you for real, Flatty? :p

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:33   

I wonder if Evo believes the Moon landings were faked also?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:56   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,10:13)
we impeached their trailer trash president

So you did.

Yet you say nothing about his successor invading Iraq on what I'll charitably call false intelligence and going on record as saying that a voice in his head told him to invade.

What a world!

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,07:17   

Dear Wonder Pinko Pants

What false intelligence was that specifically and where is the evidence concerning a voice in His head telling him to go invade Iraq.


Assertions without multiple unimpeachable sources is trashtalk expected only from evos and other liars.

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,08:51   

I thought the vote for impeachment failed.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:31   

Nah, Clinton was "impeached" but he was not removed from office. Those were two separate things. Impeachment is leveling charges at a government official.

evo: Ambassador Joe Wilson gave a talk to part of my freshman class at American University. He knows the country of Niger inside and out. He went there and determined that there was no possible way whatsoever that Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from them. He said that he gave a full report and that it should have reached, at the very least, Condi Rice. He told us in no uncertain terms that when we cited intelligence that Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from an African country, we were referring to Niger.

Niger was not selling. Iraq was not buying. We knew this. Hence, we went to war under false pretenses.

Joe Wilson for president, people.

    
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:40   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,12:17)
Dear Wonder Pinko Pants

What false intelligence was that specifically and where is the evidence concerning a voice in His head telling him to go invade Iraq.


Assertions without multiple unimpeachable sources is trashtalk expected only from evos and other liars.

Evo:

In the why-do-I-bother department, here goes:

Reasons given for invading Iraq:

1) WMDs (false; Iraq didn't have any)

2) Ties to terrorism (false: Iraq didn't have any)

3) Threat to the region (false; toothless tiger)

4) Threat to US (give me a break)

5) The people of Iraq will shower our troops with flowers (<100 dead during war, >1900 dead after war)

6) To close the torture chambers and rape rooms (Abu Ghraib)

7) To establish stable democracy in Middle East (oops! we meant to say fundamentalist theocracy! )

8) Us will win war. (Iran wins war)

Dubya is on record as saying God told him to smite Saddam, so he smote Saddam. The technical term for that is "doing what the voices in my head tell me to do."

(If you want support for the above assertions, get your head out of the Free Republic and read some actual newspapers. Any ones published in the last three years will suffice.)

Meanwhile, your own troop of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers managed to impeach one of the most popular and successful presidents of the 20th century for...what?...getting a blow-job in the oval office?

BTW: Chimp: the vote for impeachment succeeded. The vote to convict failed. The house managers, the ones who'd put together the whole sorry spectacle, later admitted that the whole thing was a collossal failure. They admitted they wished they'd never brought the thing up in the first place, especially when Clinton's approval ratings peaked after the vote to convict failed. At that time, Clinton's approval ratings were close to double what Dubya's currently are, and W's ratings have a tendency to go down about a point a month. He's still got 39 months to go, so he should be down around zero by the time his term ends.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:53   

Eric,

A list of assertions without a single source is not just similar but congruent to the BS that you brain is filled with.

Your trailor trash president got his law license for lying on the witness stand unde oath to a federal judge and thats a matter of public record.. although he would gladly have tried for a BJ from the judge in open court in front of a 1st grade class.. it had no bearing on his SENTENCE.  It was a felony butt head.

Now I see you and lenny and most of the others are just another band of socialist pinko anarchists who have no compunction about lying, cheating, BSing, etc. and are  antithetical to the truth and every value except me first and right now.. well it just clears things up considerably.

By the way I just read the cross on Dr. Miller and he needs a blood transfusion... wirerheads are so helpless in the hands of a true intellect like yours truly or in that case the defense lawyer.

What office do you hold over at the CPUSA anyway?

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:17   

EricMurphy has saved me the trouble of answering Evopeach. :)

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,14:53)
Now I see you and lenny and most of the others are just another band of socialist pinko anarchists who have no compunction about lying, cheating, BSing, etc. and are  antithetical to the truth and every value except me first and right now.. well it just clears things up considerably.


And there are so many things wrong with that comment that I won't even bother making an attempt at it.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:31   

Hey, don't put down republicans. I know lots of them who don't bury their heads in the sand pretending that evolution doesn't exist.

Anyway, evo, sorry you got upset. Maybe god will make it up to you and violate his law of "conservation of miracles" to grant you a win in Dover!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,11:37   

Quote (Wonderpants @ Oct. 21 2005,16:17)
EricMurphy has saved me the trouble of answering Evopeach. :)



And there are so many things wrong with that comment that I won't even bother making an attempt at it.

You've just returned the favor, WP. :-)

As Weevil said, it was fun for a while, but now that evo's just stuck behind the couch furiously spinning his wheels, it's getting monotonous.

I wonder what his handle is on freerepublic.com.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:14   

Quote
It was a felony butt head.
Clinton later recanted, but he technically did not lie on the witness stand (for what that's worth).

Bush is #### near guilty of treason.

    
Weevil



Posts: 6
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,22:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 21 2005,12:17)
Assertions without multiple unimpeachable sources is trashtalk expected only from evos and other liars.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

So, what's your excuse for 'Assertions without multiple unimpeachable sources'?  Let me guess - you don't think you've made any?  

Sheesh, you can't see out of that box at all, can you?

The lesser of TWO Weevils!

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,06:44   

I just can't keep from  :D when pondering the various possible meanings of "unimpeachable" in the above case.

Perhaps the Valerie Plame case will continue to wake people up.  The current administration has pandered to the non-reality-based community in many ways, and gotten away with it.  But in this case, they sabotaged some of their own intelligence operations because of a petty vendetta against one agent's husband.  Rather a stunning act from officials of an administration who spend so much time banging the drums for their "war on terrorism".

These people have promoted empty facades of foreign policy, civil rights, disaster preparedness, and educational standards.  It's not surprising that they're also promoting an empty facade of science.  There's nothing in the least bit patriotic about it -- these clowns have been methodically undermining every strength that this country has ever plausibly claimed.

Oh, I forgot.  We're too reality-based.  We just don't understand ....

  
Moderator



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,07:54   

Read the board rules

Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach". Others who want to continue to use this BB for playground antics will follow. Is that clear?

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,08:12   

NOOOOOOOOO!

    
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,09:12   

Quote (Moderator @ Oct. 22 2005,12:54)
Read the board rules

Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach".

As rude and misinformed (to give him the benefit of the doubt) as Evopeach is, does he still warrant a ban?

I'd like to think that we can hear the other side (unlike a certain William Dembski with his blog) and prove that we don't gag dissenters out of hand, as the IDers/creationists are fond of claiming.

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,10:17   

Is anyone really offended by evo? I think he's hysterical - very entertaining. Hense the title of the thread.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,11:46   

Its hard to be offended by such an obvious troll.  How can anyone take a guy like him seriously?  

Sure, I found him exceedingly distasteful.  And no, he didn't contribute anything to the conversation.  The one useful thing he did add to this board is a dissenting opinion.  What good is it if we all stand around agreeing with each other all the time?  Through challenge, we learn.  Unfortunately, EvoP's dissenting posts had little to do with instruction or dialogue, and vastly more to do with ego and spew.  There is a postive way to be a dissenting contributor, and EvoP amply demonstrated the polar opposite of postive contributions.

I won't say good riddance, because I personally don't mind obvious trolls.  But I'm not disappointed he is gone.  He mostly served to distract us from more productive endeavors.  Anyway, betcha he'll be back with a different name before long.  He's got too much love to share. :D

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,22:11   

well, I'm not surprised, but i will miss him backpedalling on the trial wager he proposed.

no big loss.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2005,23:44   

Quote
The one useful thing he did add to this board is a dissenting opinion.


I agree. Have a look at the surreal world of Uri Bill Dembski's blog where the comments are a pathetic mix of sycophancy, hubris, venom and just plain IDiocy. Try injecting reason and see how long your comment lasts. Lack of censorship is a major demonstration of science's resilience to criticism.

Mind you, Evo did overstep the bounds of civilised conduct, and he would have had to go when he lost his bet, anyway.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,12:04   

bah, if peach was even remotely accurate about his assesement of the popularity of ID, it would seem to me you could just go to any public place and recruit a replacement for him, if you are really concerned about dissenting opinion.

do try to recruit somebody with at least a slightly more rational brain, if you want dissenting opinion rather than just op-ed humor.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,14:52   

Well, we do have Paley's Ghost to haunt us.  Even though I think he's an imposter, at least he is calm, civil and (ahem) rational.  The problem with finding a satisfying dissenter is that... well... their arguments are generally blase and flimsy.  Imagine if Behe himself was a constant voice on this forum.  We'd rip him apart, scientifically.  And he is among the best of the IDioTs.

So it goes.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,14:59   

perhaps, but at least you would have to think before you did so.

i guarantee that a real debate with any of the leaders of the ID movement wouldn't be quite as simple as you might think.

ask Wesley; he has debated Dembski at least once.

In contrast, i often feel i have to dumb down to debate most (not all) of the IDers who post on PT or here.

but then, it's that way with most forums, most intelligent folks don't want to submit themselves to hostile opinions, period, so most semi-rational IDers would consider coming here to post their positions worthless at best.

speaking of Dembski, he has dropped in to post on PT on several occasions, but apparently has never actually been interested in debate in this format.  Even i have to admit, he wouldn't find an impartial audience here, now would he.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2005,15:12   

Quote
i guarantee that a real debate with any of the leaders of the ID movement wouldn't be quite as simple as you might think.


Oh, I'm sure of that.  I have no doubt that Behe would overwhelm me with biochemistry that is far, far out of my range.  But we do have the advantage of the web format which isn't real time, and not really a "debate" in the traditional way.  There is ample opportunity for both sides to gallop around marshalling supporting evidence.  There is time to develop arguments carefully.  

It wouldn't take all that much effort.  Look at what Rothchild (sp?) did to Behe on the stand.  I have no doubt Behe knows volumes more about biochemistry than the ACLU lawyer.  But its not the amount of information you have at your disposal, its how you arrange it, what you infer from it.

Quote
speaking of Dembski, he has dropped in to post on PT on several occasions


Really?  Too bad he doesn't stick around more.  But its not like he's genuinely interested in opinions that dissent from his own.  Behe would make a more satisfying jouster.

  
  27 replies since Oct. 20 2005,10:11 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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