Joined: Oct. 2006
The Uncommonly Dense Nixplanatory Filter: the BLOG CZAR years. Er, months.
In January 2006 Uncommonly Dense was resurrected, with DaveTard pulling the cord on the moderation guillotine. He also introduced a new convention in these exchanges. If posting ALL CAPS is tantamount to shouting, DaveTard's boldface interjections directly into others' posts is tantamount to commentary from a loudspeaker in the ceiling.
4 January 2006
The Resurrection of Uncommon Descent
By popular demand this blog is back in operation, though with only limited participation in the future from me. Past contributors to this blog have decided they are willing to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining this blog, namely, DaveScot, Bombadill, Crandaddy, and Gumpngreen. Unlike in the past, when they were limited to commenting on my postings, they now have full posting privileges. They will be in charge of the day-to-day business of this blog, everything from keeping it interesting to approving comments to booting recalcitrant commenters. Of these four, DaveScot has been the designated blogczar - the buck stops with him.
First day on the job and DaveTard is already warming up:
I haven't seen any empirical evidence of the supernatural yet so I fail to see why it should come up in any discussion unless of course it's merely being used to further a personal/political agenda. When I do see empirical evidence of the supernatural I'll let you know. I expect you'll return the courtesy. Not a single thing yet discovered about the nature of life requires a designer to break any laws of physics in its design or implimentation. There are almost assuredly artificial structures in the machinery of life but no supernatural structures or supernatural mechanisms required to create said artifices.
You evidently acknowledge this but are unwilling to divorce the supernatural from ID and insist that ID must take on the question of who designed the designer. That question is a strawman. ID (at least Dembski's latest, most refined works) is about design detection, not designer characterization. Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else. This is your final warning about harping on supernatural designers.
And now, a Very Special Moment: DaveTard's first ban. He takes out Keiths, which arouses protests that would never make it to the light of day today:
keiths is no longer with us.
Why was keiths kicked?
Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!
This blog is a sham.
Crandaddy to the rescue!
In Dave's defense, it does not logically follow that because nature bears marks which we recognize as being attributable to intelligence, a supernatural entity must be responsible for them. Keith was given a fair warning.
Couple days later, DaveTard sharpens his knives and pounds his chest:
Questioning Perry's motives as mere political maneuvering is dissing someone I respect. Your opinion is noted and if you insist on having the last word I'll make sure that was indeed your last word here. Consider yourself warned.
I want this body count nonsense to stop. This is your final warning. If you try to get in a last word on this you're out of here. The same goes for Keith.
Josh is no longer with us.
What happened to Josh?
Josh wrote a flaming comment to me after being warned to drop the body count rhetoric. I deleted the flame and the flamer
And now time out for another classic:
|8 January 2006|
Reminder to Stay On Message
This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course.
The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion. I consider atheism to be a contrarian religion and ID offends them as one might expect of anything that pleases the faithful. If you want a soapbox for your favorite religion (including atheism) go somewhere else. I realize that it's hard to divorce our innermost faith from our writing and will try to tolerate a generous amount of spillage but the bottom line is if you're warned to ease up, ease up or the axe will fall. Professor Dembski advised me to be ruthless in policing this blog. I'd naively hoped it wouldn't come to that but as usual he was right. Stay on topic. Feel free to tell me I'm off topic if I wander but don't expect me to ban myself if I don't.
Yet another innovation in conversation control:
Comments are now closed on this thread.
And another. Mr. Christopher's banning, which occurred not for comments made on UD, but for comments made elsewhere on the intertubes, gets its OWN TOPIC. Jealous?
10 January 2006
(Off Topic) Mr. Christopher is no longer with us
People writing things like this are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda's Thumb.
Time out for something special, as DaveTard reminds us that he is a moral relativist:
I'm pretty confused by all this, DT. Morals are always going to be subject to agreement between individuals. Thus there's really no such thing as absolute morals. The closest you can get is unanimous consensus amongst some arbitrary number of agreeable individuals. They can claim their knowledge is absolute but it's still just a claim backed by nothing more than consensus.
A spelling lesson:
Did you mean puerile?
By the way, innoculated is spelled with two n's. How about if I go ahead and delete you so you can return using real words in your name and comments?
Something that never was true
Josh, you're out of here again. This is not a soapbox for Christian apologetics. -ds
Banning in secret code:
Nice flames there Josh. Unfortunately they caught some bridges on fire
DaveTard is SO afraid of clowns.
I am assuming, then, that my questions above count as trolling?
Some of them were okay but you're in time out until you stop flooding the blog with so many comments. Come back in a couple of days and slow it down. I promise the blog will still be here and evolution will still be the biggest hoax in the history of science.
(This is gonna get complicated because bannings may now occur in bold face, embedded in others' comments by means of the loudspeaker in the ceiling.)
Now to shape up those Newbies:
Maybe something to do with it only being up for 12 hours.
Might also be that it's rubbish hardly worth a comment.
In any case, that's your first comment to be approved on Uncommon Descent and if you don't have anything more constructive to say it's going to be your last.
Some defensive comments:
|19 January 2006|
(Off Topic) Reasonable Expectations
I'm a bit aghast that some people here and elsewhere are offended that I will moderate commenters based on their behavior outside the Uncommon Descent blog.
To wit, a number of commenters that have appeared here recently, while behaving reasonably here, are elsewhere gratuitously bashing Uncommon Descent, its founder Professor Dembski, Intelligent Design, and other sundry aspersions cast our way. Then these ill mannered children whose parents obviously were negligent in instilling basic manners into them are offended when I discover their extra-curricular activities and invite them to leave Uncommon Descent.
In my opinion this is like someone in the real world that talks behind your back and then expects you to invite them into your home like cherished friends. I can't imagine that upon being disinvited for this they would come to you and say But I never said any bad things to your face! Why are you treating me this way??
Goodness gracious. Do we really have to refer this to Miss Manners for a definitive judgement? I think not.
Jack Krebs gets his:
blah blah blah
Jack - since I'm banned on Panda's Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda's Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds
Stephen Elliot gets the Heave-Ho (but now he's with US! Yay!):
Stephen Elliot is no longer with us.
Can't fool ole' DaveTard:
puckSR is no longer with us. He was banned in December and snuck back in.
Banning as editorial
For some reason one of my posts keep being deleted. I don't think I am rude or something in the post, so I will try again. If the post is not acceptable, could the person deleting it please state his reasons? Thank you.
If you have something new it gets a hearing. If it's something old it's subject to deletion. Repeat it elsewhere. Also, nobody here needs to have the scientific method repeated to them like they're morons who never heard it before. As I recall the scientific method is introduced in the sixth grade. If that's the best you have to offer you should probably move along to Panda's Thumb where they never tire of hearing 6th grade science lectures. -ds
Another new innovation: The Quiz?:
ET itself does not promote atheism.
Understanding it to be an unguided, unplanned process, as the Wiesel 38 wrote for posterity to the Kansas BoE, certainly DOES promote atheism. Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you don't understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner?
You're treading on thin ice. Answer correctly or I'm tossing you out.
Time out for a another classic. Remember DaveTard warning UD to stick with the science, and science unquestionably indicates common descent?
|31 January 2006|
Common Descent at Uncommon Descent
I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin's single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion.
To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community's diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single Tree of Life? and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.
In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor.
Holy shit. That was just January. February gets off with a bang: A one post banning:
Renier: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little community here. Go in peace, but go.
UD adds a time out room:
Saxe is in timeout while he thinks about why asking old people why they don't kill themselves is too insensitive for words.
And on it goes. It's "The Banning Fields"
I'm afraid you don't fit in very well here. It's time for you to take your rage elsewhere.
M J has been awarded a time-out for failing to heed my warning to cease and desist with the man designed man nonsense.
Josh Rosenau's cowardly ducking of the question has earned him the right to take his bogus arguments elsewhere.
That was easy. Thanks Josh!
Fitting in is very important:
And don't bother responding as I've decided you don't fit in here.
(The loudspeaker in the ceiling makes this project hell):
Re: DS at comment #18
I might remind you that it WAS the DI that advocated the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ("Wedge" document)
You can make your future reminders at After The Bar Closes. I think you fit in better there. -ds
Now I have a question for you. Why did I have to give you this information when it's freely available on the internet with a simple google? I'm not here to do your homework for you. Next time you question me I expect you to have done a little reseach youself first or you'll be asking questions on a different blog.
Faid gets the axe:
Phed, you're not fitting in well here. I think it's time for you to bother a different blog.
Thanks for all the fish. -ds
Note for Phed. I can see the email address you used to register at UD and knew you were Faid on ATBC since you began commenting here. Even knowing your duplicity I tried to give you a chance. You got the axe for being terminally stupid. Don't flatter yourself or your playmates into thinking it was because your arguments were too good. Thanks for laughs though! I'm glad you found a circus where you and clowns like you can feel good about yourselves through mutual back patting. -ds
Wouldn't want to educate anyone:
I'm sorry John, but this isn't an appropriate forum for you ask basic questions about evolution. Buy a book on evolutionary biology and read it. -ds
Jim Wynne gets the Axe by means of a personal banning by WAD (R. Bill beams at Jim):
JimWynne, You don't have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD
Tina Brewer finally gets cut (but she seems eternal):
avocationist: hurray! thank you for your beautiful statement of the absolute blasphemy contained in the notion that God, in his majesty and justice, demanded the bloody torture and murder of his only Son in order to satisfy his bloodlust
I was unaware, but interested to read, that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. Thanks.
I think that's about it for you here, Tina. Hasta la vista, baby! -ds
Hamiltonn gets a theological scolding from DaveTard:
You don't understand basic Christian theology if that's what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they'd be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you're not a stupid troll. -ds
And good old Tiax seems to have unlimited appetite for punishment:
"I rue the day that public opinion dictates science."
Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I'm surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn't live at the same time. Now go away and take both your brain cells with you. -ds
and a moment later
Three strikes you're out. Goodbye. -ds
Here's an invisible bannation:
Equivocation deleted. Answer the question. What examples do you put forward that RM+NS is working and what tests were performed to determine that the mutations were truly random? You will not be allowed further participation here until you provide answers. Negative answers along the lines of "I don't have any examples" and/or "No tests were performed" are fine. Then everyone here will know exactly how much real evidence your assertions are based upon. Good luck.
A moment later:
Physicist is no longer with us. -ds
TIAX seems to have slipped back in. Not for long:
Tony's wrong, you can't carbon date a dinosaur.
Tony didn't say you could carbon date dinosaurs. Tony mentioned carbon dating to dispute the general claim that the earth is 6000 years old. You can certainly carbon date things a lot older than 6000 years. I seem to recall asking you to pack your ignorant trash and leave this blog. If I didn't, I did now. Go. Go back to ATBC with the rest of the ignoramuses. -ds
Great ape leaves no descendants (but he'll be back, too):
I am unclear whether I should address the math/statistics applicable to biological diversity being generated by RM+NS, or, instead, those applicable to life ever having being initiated to begin with.
I don't see anything constructive to further discussion as you aren't fooling anyone here and I'm sure no one here is going to change your thinking. An hasta la byebye is in order. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.-ds
Mr. MusTard does in Dartos with the candlestick in the bedroom:
If I understand correctly,
Get a clue. And don't show your face around here again until you found one. -ds
Time out for another classic:
I'm running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That's too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Holy smokes. The illustrated ban, as dhogaza bites the dust. I had missed that:
Yeah, and ID has nothing to do with religion, uh-huh.
In case anyone was wondering -ds
Holy shit, another one. This is starting to feel like The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins:
I think this is a banning from the speaker in the ceiling. An ambiguous ban:
Pay attention. That's not what PZ said. He said he would vote against tenure for anyone who *claims* ID is science. They don't have to teach it, they only have to think it. Thanks for playing. You can go back to your own blog now -ds
Dave directs friendly fire at Sal:
This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It's comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I'm closing the comments on this thread.
WAD keeps his hand in:
A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.
The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling is sometimes magnanimous:
There is no doubt that Darwin inspired the eugenics movement. Francis Galton the founder the British Eugenics Society, was heavely influenced by Darwin's book, the full title of which is The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Galton once wrote...
Excellent. You've earned your release from the moderation list. -ds
Don't worry about making a decision to leave this forum. I made that decision for you when you wrote the original nastygram. -ds
UpdateYou acted like a spoiled little kid with nasty little mouth so you got treated like one. Now go away, little kids throwing hissy fits aren't welcome here. -ds
And sometimes languorously sadistic:
It's time for you move along to another blog, John. You've been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we've all heard a million times and don't care to waste our time refuting yet again. Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. You declined by saying you were not enough of an expert in evolutionary biology. Well, I'm an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don't even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds
Cute banning jokes:
OK, I'll take the bait
You're SO banned for that! Just kidding. - ds
Still feeling magnanimous, this time about Bob OH!
Hark! What's that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it's the sound of crickets chirping!
You're not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left.
But it doesn't last:
...To answer your second question, organisms can't evolve (in a Darwinian sense). That sort of change within an organism is called development.
No Bob, it's called evolution. This isn't an egg turning into a mature organism. It's a vegetative colony happily reproducing asexually. We'll have to agree to disagree. You can go home now. Come back again soon, but not too soon. -ds
Haven't we already heard this line?
Shalini: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD
I have no idea how Shalini escaped the moderation list. I reviewed his comment history and nothing in it warranted letting him off the leash. -ds
DaveTard has enough work on his hands:
I have no idea why you couldn't have looked these things up for yourself and posting uninformed crap is why you're banned. I made an exception to this comment just to make an example out of you. Don't bother responding. -ds
Not nice to fool with mother nature:
I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot's posts.
Dr Dembski: You're not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.
Well Steve, since you reviewed my articles I thought it fair I review your comments and upon so doing I decided you're not fitting in very well. I think it's time for you to move along. -ds
Secondclass gets it from WAD hisself:
This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information.
And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information - I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak's calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you're out of here. -WmAD
Spelling continues to be crucial:
PS: It is ironic that I have done archaeological work at both locations in the photos (the Olmec head was originally from La Venta, Tabasco Mex, and the first image was from Semmi Valley Ca, specifically part of the Corrigan Movie Ranch park. Bob Hope bought the Corrigan Ranch and subdivided most of it. Various parts were selected for parks based on their scenic and scientific features. The scientific features considered included archaeology.
Gary, you can't even spell Simi Valley much less figure out if you've been there or not. Get lost. -ds
Something newly twisted:backstage banning with disemvoweled bad language:
Professor Dembski isn't the one deleting your trollish comments. That would be me. Take a hint and take a hike. Y r n sshl.
Sometimes just a touch of the riding crop to keep them in line:
DS?Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity? During the Middle Ages the Muslim world was far more advanced and prosperous than Europe.
Yes. It really is just that simple. This isn't the middle ages. And you're wrong about trade balance. And now you're back on moderation again for making me correct you twice. -ds
Oftentimes DaveTard invited departure without actually banning:
I tolerate bright, thoughtful contrarians and you just don't fit that category. You had no knowledge whatsoever from which to base your statements but you made them anyway. That's not thoughtful. Move along now. -ds
My specious on-line poll reference was in response to turandot's specious on-line poll reference, which I note you did not feel needed any editorial comment. Wonder why?
Wonder no longer. Coulter's Godless is the top seller in non-fiction this week according to Nielsen's and is #3 in all categories. Given her well established popularity the poll Turandot quoted, while not reliable, is probably reasonably accurate. The one you quoted was not. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If so take it somewhere else. -ds
More hilliarious banning humor, reserved for the masochistic Tiax:
I notice that the news story uses the phrase "the missing link" and the scientist quoted uses "a missing link."
If you consider the use of a rather than the, I suspect your point of confusion will disappear.
I can make YOUR confusion disappear, pal. -dt
You're mis-construing the inportance. It's not "we've found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved", but rather "we've found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved".
There's a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life.
Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt
And now time out for yet another classic:
Given your obvious mastery of the finer aspects of gravitational physics, would you care to share with us your credentials and/or background in the field?
Certainly. I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled. Any more questions? -ds
DaveTard's errors are deliberate:
Hmm... DaveScot, you said you had broadband for 13 years, and while I'm nowhere as brilliant as you obviously are, I really don't think broadband was available until 1997 - at the extreme earliest - which is.. let me see only 9 years ago. Indeed, in practical terms, broadband wasn't commercially available 'till much later.
I'm certain your error was totally inadvertent.
P.S. Gravity continues to be the weakest force in the universe, with or without broadband availability.
Not inadvertant at all. 13 years ago I was a senior engineer at Dell Computer Corporation where we pioneered using the internet to manage the business, supply chain, and eventually much of our sales. I had a high speed internet connection there in 1993. A few years later, must've been around 1997, I was one of the first 500 people in the city of Austin to get RoadRunner broadband cable modem service in my home - it was their beta test program. Gravity is the strongest force in some situations and it's time for you to take a hike. See ya. -ds
Zachriel gets resurrected only to be crucified again:
ds: in a hard science journal
Ho hum. Scientific American is not a "hard science journal". It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.
I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I'd rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds
I had assumed my comment was in your spam bin and not for general publication. It was meant for your personal edification so that you could quietly correct your misstatement.
There is a significant difference between the philosophical speculation suitable for a column in a magazine and the publication of original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That you conflate the two is telling.
ds: I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got.
I take that as a retraction.
You don't handle rejection well do you? I don't want your private correspondences. Leave me alone.
And on, and on, and on, and...
"You are supposing that design is an invalid answer."
No, I'm only asking for more meat to the theory...
This is simply wrong and I'm sick of correcting you over and over about it. You are imagining chemical reactions that do not exist. Go find another blog. You're done here. -ds
Why do questions as to why theistic evolutionists are 'ashamed' of their faith constantly brought up if nearly everyone is not, at least implicitly, assuming that at one level or another God is the designer?
I warned you not to embellish the definition of ID on the sideboard. You did. Go now and find a different blog to bother. -ds
DaveTard has bandwidth concerns:
So It looks like "it's designed" is not a robust rationale. At least not for the scientific community.
Maybe it looks designed to you but not to me. I use an example of a digitally programmed protein factory (DNA and ribosome) and you offer me a rock with a couple of square crystals in it as a rejoinder? You're out of here. Go waste someone else's time and bandwidth. -ds
Time out for another classic:
Speaking of Scientific American the peanut gallery at ATBC is raising some questions about why I've variously mentioned reading it for 20, 30, and 40 years.
Here is clarification.
The earliest I recall regularly reading SciAm was in the 7th grade. The school library subscribed to it and I spent a lot of my time at school in the library. That would make it at least 36 years ago that I started reading it every month. I've no doubt rounded that up to 40 years or down to 30 years just because I like round numbers and it doesn't really matter that much. From age 18 to 23 I might not have read it every month as I wasn't in a library much except when required for college assignments and bought it off the newstands. Shortly after I married (at age 24) I began subscribing to it. That was over 20 years ago and I've no doubt mentioned that I've been a subscriber for 20 or 25 years.
I missed a few months of it last year in protest over John Rennie's crusade against ID. For the first time in decades I let my subscription lapse and promised to never subscribe to it again. So I told my wife it would make a nice Valentine gift and now she subscribes to it for me so I can have my cake and eat it too. After all, I didn't promise to stop reading it, I only promised to stop subscribing to it.
And now, quite abruptly, the end of an era:
|17 July 2006|
Evolution's Idiot Stepchild - Evolutionary Psychology (this time without the gratuitous comments)
Here's your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I've done it as has DaveScot. That's now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule.
DaveTard's feelings are hurt. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.
Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I'm going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I'll just be a regular user once more.
Which I think begs the question: Was DaveTard EVER "regular" at anything?
Now its off to investigate the brain tumor that I've sprouted over the last couple days, reviewing this stuff. Bye!
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
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington