RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:29   

I just wish the PT gang could be consistent about bouncing Larry's messages. They only ever bother to do it in about a third of the threads that he infects.

Also they're not consistent about what they do with Larry's messages -- half the time they're deleted, and half the time they come here. I doubt this is the result of any specific policy.

Either way, it's a good start.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:37   

Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:30   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.

Does Larry post at UD?  Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:41   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ April 05 2006,11:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.

Does Larry post at UD? Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:35   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,11:41)
[quote=Rilke's Granddaughter,April 05 2006,11:30][quote=Stephen Elliott,April 05 2006,10:37]Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).


No, it's not your opinion, it's an objective, emperical fact: Larry IS an irritant.

Quote
Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.
Does Larry post at UD? Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.

If Larry behaved at UD the way he does at PT, UD would tell him to shut up, too.

Larry I warned you about changing your name every two days and I don't see why you're qualified to give legal advice. You're outta here.-dt

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,09:07   

Quote
And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.


but, it was after he posted twice, yes?

so, er, who won?

  
k.e.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,11:18   

Larry I completely agree with you
It's a pity the creationists who brought the case to court aren't made to pay the legal fees since what they did was illegal.

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,11:18   

<quote>I would have left it a long time ago.</quote>

larry, you've been BANNED, for flagrantly violating the rules of this very board.

as you are doing, yet again.

your posts are moved not only because they are inane, but because you have been BANNED.

why don't you look that up?  Oh that's right, your reading comprehension is extremely limited.

BANNED:  as in; excluded, no longer wanted, ridden out on a rail, hit the road jack...

If PT actually required registration, you would not have been able to violate the rule against posting after you have been banned, but because there is NO censorship on PT, you are still able to post.

Now go away, Idiot.

W. Kevin Vicklund

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,11:18   

<quote>If you are deleting my posts on sight because of my posting name, I will just have to change my posting name again. I have gone through about a dozen names already.</quote>

This is the very reason you are being banned, and you know it, and I believe that you deliberately started posting under multiple names to get banned when we wouldn't ban you for merely being obnoxious.  You are not being banned due to the contents of your posts.  Your dishonesty speaks for itself.

Steviepinhead

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,16:10   

<u>Memo</u>

To: Panda-Management
From: Steviepinhead
Re: Posting Policy / Garbage Disposal

FYI: <b>baconboy = Larry FarFromAboveBoard</b>.

In case you're interested.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,16:10   

I thought Larry was bounced out on his ass . . . . ?

Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,22:48   

So Larry is waging an annoyance campaign with SciAm to rescind SciAm's award to PT.

Let's consider whether Larry is going to have much luck with that. SciAm is no stranger to controversy, and, in fact, it is in dealing with controversial topics that PT got that award. SciAm folks understand that where there is controversy, the disaffected will follow, and not all of them are going to be honest and polite about things. SciAm also has the benefit of experience with the disaffected. There was that whole Forrest Mims flap a couple of decades ago.

So I think that the likelihood that SciAm is going to take any sort of drastic action because of Larry's correspondence is pretty small. I'd be very surprised if they took any step without corresponding with the PT administration, and so far we haven't heard from them. If they do talk to us, we will point out our comment policy, document Larry's violation of it, and I really don't see how that would <b>not</b> be that. The truly tremendous record of harassment that Larry has built up since he was first banned for Rule 6 violation is overwhelming. The recent threats of further, more serious disruption of the comment system are not going to look good at all if he is trying to pass himself off as a reasonable person with only the best interests of SciAm in mind.

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

    
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:33   

Wesly, any comments on my question a day or two ago about starting a Larry et al refutation thread here at AtBC?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:39   

I think that you can go ahead and start one. Posting using multiple identities is "excessively annoying" here, so there's no difference for Larry. If thread doesn't end up within the bounds of the rules here, I'll just lock it then.

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

    
J Simes

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

<blockquote>Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 2171 on April 4, 2006 07:44 PM (opening comment of thread)



the old board decided to go against their legal counsel and use the Thomas More Law Center, which voided their insurance and left the taxpayers with the bill.</blockquote>

I never found out exactly how the Dover School Board forfeited its lawsuit insurance coverage.      I thought maybe that one possibility was that the coverage was only for accident liability.      Anyway,   I read somewhere that the maximum coverage for legal expenses was only $100,000,   and the Dover school board probably figured that the free legal representation offered by the Thomas More Law Center was potentially worth much more than that.

Reed A. Cartwright

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

The DASD has its own, retained legal counsel, which is a common thing.  The legal insurance was tied to their retained legal counsel.  By using the TMLC at trial, they voided their insurance because it didn't cover TMLC-run litigation.  The TMLC were either never placed under retainer, or the insurer has to approve any changes in retained law firms.

W. Kevin Vicklund

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

Larry, do you have Alzheimer's?  First of all, you are banned.  Secondly, the board members explained in their depositions that they were advised by the board solicitor that by not using the board solicitor, they would void the coverage.  Thirdly, we've explained this to you multiple times.

Seriously, I've noticed a number of posts you've made in the past couple weeks where you claimed to not know about something we had previously informed you of.  If you honestly don't remember, you might want to have your doctor examine you for early signs of Alzheimer's.  Personally, I think you're lying through your teeth, but just in case...

Steviepinhead

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

Airhead Larry:
<quote>[T]he free legal representation offered by the Thomas More Law Center was potentially worth much more than [$100,000].
</quote>

You got that right.  As long as you ignore the <b>sign</b> in front of the sum.

The TMLC's advice was worth a cool One Million Dollars to the Dover School Board.

Unfortunately, that's a <b>negative</b> One Mil...

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

thanks for the timely reminder, Lenny.

I think that analysis by WD40 typifies the predictive power of ID in general.

I'm being a bit too obvious in that observation, I'm sure.

Anton Mates

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

<quote author="barconboy AKA Larry Fafarman who's banned but keeps coming back under different aliases but everyone notices instantly because his arguments represent a unique brand of insanity">
<quote author="W. Kevin Vicklund">
First of all, you are banned.</quote>
Kevin, I am fed up with you. Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).</quote>

I just wanted to say that, given the subject of the thread, the above complaint is freakin' awesome.  You could power a small starship off the irony.

k.e.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

Larry (you unraveling halfwit).

said

<i>It just seems strange to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company. </i>

Have you never signed a contract in your life?

Oh that's right you got to look after the engineering library while you worked, I'll bet none of of your co-workers trusted you you to even open a door!!

Rilke's Granddaughter

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

<quote author="Larry">If I am “banned,“ then why don‘t you just ignore me?</quote> Larry, if you're banned, you're <i>not supposed to be here.</i>  That's what being banned <i>means.</i>

Apparently you're too ignorant to understand that, as well as being clueless that nobody <i>cares</i> what you think - everything you've ever posted has been inaccurate, inane, illogical, or simply stupid.

If you bothered to learn anything from this, you might have some hope as a human being.  But at the moment, you look much akin to a clueless, ignorant, maliciously stupid crank.

And we respond because (a) your ridiculous remarks are so astonishingly idiotic; and (b) we dislike folks who have bad manners - such as yourself.

Raging Bee

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:56   

Larry the Laughable Feebleman sums up his wretched excuse for a life thusly:

<i>Generally, I do not just take people‘s word on something that seems strange to me.</i>

Does that mean you get off your ass and do ACTUAL RESEARCH to VERIFY the claims of others?  No, apparently it means you stay in your comfort zone and only take the words of people who repeat the soothing bromides you already know.

<i>...However, I had to find the reference myself — no one showed it to me.</i>

And I'm guessing no one served you breakfast in bed today, either; which is why you're so hungry and grumpy today.  Right?

barconboy

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:57   

<blockquote>Comment #94994 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 5, 2006 04:26 PM

First of all, you are banned.</blockquote>
Kevin,   I am fed up with you.     Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).

If I am ``banned,``   then why don`t you just ignore me?   Instead you continue to respond to me.

<blockquote> Secondly, the board members explained in their depositions that they were advised by the board solicitor that by not using the board solicitor,   they would void the coverage. </blockquote>

Where in the depositions?     I have not been shown any references.     It just seems strange  to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company.      Generally,   I do not just take people`s word on  something that seems strange to me.    

BTW,    I finally found out how that attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion --  the trial testimony revealed that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs (though I have no idea why,  as the message was damaging to the defendants).    However,   I had to find the reference myself -- no one showed it to me.    I still think that Judge Jones should have put an explanation in the opinion.

The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,07:02   

For what it's worth, I think it's a shame that Larry is doing this. Internet fora like Panda's Thumb are the last holding pens for free speech. I may not agree with many of the ideas here, but at least you give your "satans" a platform for their objections. I'd hate to see this board become more restrictive due to security concerns. What makes this doubly ironic is the fact that Larry is, apparently, a holocaust denier - a belief that has been legislated out of existence in many countries. Yet he wishes to quash other people's speech.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,07:34   

<quote>Kevin, I am fed up with you. Commenters like you are to blame for a lot of the problems I have been having on this blog (the PT staff is often very nasty too).

If I am “banned,“ then why don‘t you just ignore me? Instead you continue to respond to me.</quote>

You have only yourself to blame for being banned.  I tried to point out that you were violating the rules, I even gave you an incentive to stop violating the rules, something I might point out no one else did, and you threw it in my face.  You knew - you had been specifically <i>warned</i> - you were violating the rules and that it would eventually lead to a ban.

Frankly, I wish you hadn't deliberately gotten yourself banned.  I had fun demolishing your arguments with detailed, factual arguments of my own.  So I'm pissed that I have to stew and let you post your lies, distortions, and ignorant statements without being allowed to refute them, lest I also get a ban.  The only recourse I have left is to get your posts removed.  I'd much rather dispute them freely.  (Note to moderators - this is not a criticism of PT's excellent standards)

<quote>Where in the depositions? I have not been shown any references. It just seems strange to me that the insurance company would restrict the board to just one attorney or to attorneys approved by the company. Generally, I do not just take people‘s word on something that seems strange to me.</quote>

Check out the depostions found at the NCSE webpage.  I think Nilsen and Baksa made them (it's been a whilesince I looked at the depositions), but they are in a format I can't simply cut and paste.  Besides, there are many other sources that explain why the company would restrict coverage from outside representation.

<quote>BTW, I finally found out how that attorney-client message got into the Dover opinion — the trial testimony revealed that the defendants gave the message to the plaintiffs (though I have no idea why, as the message was damaging to the defendants). However, I had to find the reference myself — <b>no one showed it to me</b>. I still think that Judge Jones should have put an explanation in the opinion.<i>emphasis added</i></quote>

You lie.  I know which references you are referring to, and I personally posted them here several months ago.  Besides, all you had to do to get that information was to resume posting under the rules.  In fact, the Judge did make an implicit explanation of how the plaintiffs got it and how the priviledge was waived.

k.e.

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:33   

Larry u D_kH__d

The dishonest lying outfit of snake-oil salesmen, fakes, hucksters and cheats   who were put on the witness stand ALL revealed their lies to the court when questioned under oath ....the judge smacked them down ...get it ?

It's pretty tough to re-write history WHEN ITS ALREADY HAPPENED.

The DI going on the attack? hahhahahahahhaha
That has all the intellectual rigor and scaryness of a bunch of wet lettuce leaves attacking a truck.

Lying Larry Get over it.

beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,18:35   

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060406/ts_nm/religion_judas_dc_2

'Gospel of Judas' gives new view of Jesus' betrayer


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday.

In an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching, the Judas gospel shows the reviled disciple as the only one in Jesus' inner circle who understood his desire to shed his earthly body.

"He's the good guy in this portrayal," said Bart Ehrman, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "He's the only apostle who understands Jesus."

The Judas gospel's introduction says it is "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." Later, it quotes Jesus as saying to Judas, "You will exceed all of them (the other disciples) for you will sacrifice the man who clothes me."

"The idea in this gospel is that Jesus, like all of us, is a trapped spirit, who is trapped in a material body," Ehrman said. "And salvation comes when we escape the materiality of our existence, and Judas is the one who makes it possible for him to escape by allowing for his body to be killed."


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



So Judas isn't a traitor afterall.
What else have Christians got wrong?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,05:52   

<quote>You are lying. I was banned before I ever violated Rule 6 or any other PT rule. </quote>



Can someone spray some Larry-B-Gone, please?


Thanks.

Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,14:31   

By popular demand, the Mike Baksa news clip has been moved here...

The poor week for antievolution shows no sign of letting up. The <url href="http://www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_3686995">York Daily Record reports</url> that Dover Schools Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa was charged with "driving under the influence" and several other traffic violations for a one-car accident that occurred on January 31st, 2006. The school district is taking this as a personnel matter. Baksa testified as a fact witness for the defense in the <i>Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District</i> case in 2005.

(The reporter on this story is Mike Argento. For those of us who waited with impatience for his hilarious send-ups of the "breathtaking inanity" revealed in the KvD case each week, this report shows clearly that Argento does straight reporting well, too.)

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

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

Pages: (638) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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