Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Kris On Comments started by Kris


Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,21:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2011,10:32)
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is < taking a step into uncharted territory >. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, your MASSIVE hypocrisy is showing, and so is that of your sycophants. You posted your incredibly hypocritical remarks on Panda's Thumb, even though Panda's Thumb censors and moderates comments, and bans people who "dissent".

It is astounding to me that you won't see that you condone the exact thing that you're bitching about. The DI may be run by hypocritical people but you've got no room to condemn them unless you advocate completely open, free speech here and on Panda's Thumb, and everywhere else.

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,21:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,21:58

chunky old buddy old pal?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 20 2011,22:04

Lardy, lardy lardy- These creatos sur' do piss an' moan.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,22:12

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 20 2011,22:04)
Lardy, lardy lardy- These creatos sur' do piss an' moan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Look who's talking. All you guys ever do is piss and moan about creationists.

And if you're implying that I'm a creationist, you couldn't be more wrong.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,22:15

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,21:58)
chunky old buddy old pal?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,22:16

your bullshit is too boring to report.  i wouldn't piss down your throat if your guts were on fire.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,22:22

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,22:16)
your bullshit is too boring to report.  i wouldn't piss down your throat if your guts were on fire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, aren't you the intellectual one. Is that all you've got? Even 3rd grade dropouts like you probably know a few more words. By the way, have you ever heard of a shift key or a capital letter?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 20 2011,22:24

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it or retract it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,22:28

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,23:22)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,22:16)
your bullshit is too boring to report.  i wouldn't piss down your throat if your guts were on fire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, aren't you the intellectual one. Is that all you've got? Even 3rd grade dropouts like you probably know a few more words. By the way, have you ever heard of a shift key or a capital letter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


obvious troll is obvious


Posted by: sparc on Jan. 20 2011,22:31

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:15)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,21:58)
chunky old buddy old pal?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you find the "report this post to a moderator" message offensive just use firefox and install adblock plus. You then don't have to see it anymore.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,22:40

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,22:24)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:39)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it or retract it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be kidding. Why should I retract the truth?

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,22:46

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,22:28)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,23:22)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,22:16)
your bullshit is too boring to report.  i wouldn't piss down your throat if your guts were on fire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, aren't you the intellectual one. Is that all you've got? Even 3rd grade dropouts like you probably know a few more words. By the way, have you ever heard of a shift key or a capital letter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


obvious troll is obvious
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




You're definitely living down to my expectations.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 20 2011,22:49

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2011,10:38)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis in the original.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There will indeed be some discussion between < Casey and Luskin > in the near future:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In two further posts I'll discuss additional off-base critiques of intelligent design in Synthese.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis not in the original)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,22:49



waaah i am freely bitching about being moderated and no one is moderating me
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 20 2011,23:02

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,19:35)
(shorter version)

YOU WON'T LET ME SHIT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!!! WHAAAA!!!! CENSORSHIP!!!! WHAAA!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,23:29

i looked at about 20 of the posts over there and none seemed to have comments enabled.  maybe they're waiting to publish < the new issue of ISCID or PCID or whatever the hell it was called in 2005 > before they get around to it.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 20 2011,23:29

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 20 2011,23:02)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,19:35)
(shorter version)

YOU WON'T LET ME SHIT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!!! WHAAAA!!!! CENSORSHIP!!!! WHAAA!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why do you or anyone else here think you can shit in DI's living room, without them having a problem with it? In other words, what are you bitching about??

Is it ok for you to have double standards, but not for them? Did it ever occur to any of you that they get sick and tired of ad hominem attacks that are based simply on your arrogance and biases?

Have any of you ever considered that it you were to use actual, verifiable evidence in your arguments against them, instead of arrogant name calling and insults and a bunch of lame inferences, that you just might be able to make strong points that are hard to refute? If nothing else, you'd at least look like you're trying to use intelligent arguments instead of just looking like a bunch of monkeys throwing shit. You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,23:32

no Kris no one ever thought of that.  gee thanks!  epic narrative, comrade!
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 21 2011,02:18

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,21:58)
chunky old buddy old pal?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever heard of spam?
Posted by: Seversky on Jan. 21 2011,02:29

We should thank Kris for proving our point.

What he has posted here already, if apparently coming from an evolutionist, would be sufficient to get him banned from Uncommon Descent. (Hi, Clive)

It wouldn't have been published at all in "DI's living room".

Yet he is still here.

So come right ahead, Kris.  Try and get yourself banned.

Every provocative comment you make here simply demonstrates how wide is the toleration gap between IDC and its critics.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,02:30

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 21 2011,00:18)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:15)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 20 2011,21:58)
chunky old buddy old pal?

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he said without fear of being moderated, censored, or banned.  what a maroon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? Then why is this in the lower right corner of every post here?

"Report this post to a moderator"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever heard of spam?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you read the posting rules? Here are a few that show that spam isn't the only thing against the rules.  If this site actually enforced its rules you would all have been banned long ago.

# MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.
# MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.

Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s). Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as "ignorance") is *not* an attack.

Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.

*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

# :Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.
# :Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,03:01

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,02:30)
If this site actually enforced its rules you would all have been banned long ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

next!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,03:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 21 2011,03:45

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


uncivil =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 11:31 AM)
You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ad hominem=  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


foul language =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 12:56 PM)
you’re a chickenshit punk to boot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


threats =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a mess you are Kris.  I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable.  Get help.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,04:04

Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 21 2011,00:29)
We should thank Kris for proving our point.

What he has posted here already, if apparently coming from an evolutionist, would be sufficient to get him banned from Uncommon Descent. (Hi, Clive)

It wouldn't have been published at all in "DI's living room".

Yet he is still here.

So come right ahead, Kris.  Try and get yourself banned.

Every provocative comment you make here simply demonstrates how wide is the toleration gap between IDC and its critics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible. If you all would speak and discuss things in a reasonable way, and actually follow the posting rules here, a real discussion might be possible. A 'discussion' isn't just everyone agreeing on the same things and attacking other ways of looking at those things.

The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them. Just look at the responses I've gotten here and then imagine what some people have said to the people at DI.

I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted. I was attacked and insulted over and over again simply because I don't worship science like religious zealots worship their God, and I gave people back the shit that they started.

The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else. If all religious beliefs in the world were gone they would still hate something and still be looking for an internet site where they could vent their pathological anger and arrogance.

If science is as solid as some people say it is, it doesn't need anyone to constantly attack religion. Attacking religion doesn't make science stronger and it doesn't make scientists look better. In fact, when ALL people do is bash religion, in the name of science, it makes science look real weak and as though it has no credible foundation. You people are chasing more people away from science than you are attracting them to it. Why would anyone with any decency want to associate with any of you? I'd rather associate or be friends with a rabid Tasmanian Devil than any of you.

Rather than constantly and only bash religion, why don't you guys let good science speak for itself? If you know of some well done science that isn't full of inferences, mistakes, fraud, or just plain bullshit, use it as your arguments. If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.

If you all would spend more time making sure science is done well, you might find that more people would trust science and you might not feel the need to bash religion so much. Science's real enemy is badly done science and the people who promote science and scientists as though they're perfect and have all the concrete answers to every possible question.  

I care about science and that's why it bothers me to see so-called scientists or alleged science supporters fucking it up so much. You people are not doing science any favors. You come across like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Constantly spewing hypocritical, partisan anger, hatred, insults, and ridicule just makes the religious believers want to strengthen their beliefs and their defenses against you and science.

Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?

Most people in this country go to church mainly for the friendly fellowship. They like the fact that they're welcomed and treated nicely. Where can they go for that in science?

Yeah, you're likely thinking I'm religious and that I'm supporting religious zealots. I'm not. I'm simply thinking of how religious people must feel and why they believe what they do. If you guys (and science) were as smart as you think you are you'd be working at finding EFFECTIVE ways to get GOOD science across to the masses. It isn't going to happen if all you do is bash religion.

And what the fuck happened to enforcing the rule below? Why does such a phony rule even exist? All this board is meant for is attacking religious beliefs. Why should anyone believe a word of what any of you say when the so-called rules are constantly broken here and nothing is done about it? You all should think about cleaning up your own messes before condemning others for their behavior and belief system.

*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,04:10

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 21 2011,01:45)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:39)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


uncivil =    
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 11:31 AM)
You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ad hominem=    
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


foul language =    
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 12:56 PM)
you’re a chickenshit punk to boot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


threats =    
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a mess you are Kris.  I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable.  Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever you do, don't consider what was said to me or about me before I said those things.

I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 21 2011,04:31

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:10)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 21 2011,01:45)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:39)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


uncivil =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 11:31 AM)
You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ad hominem=        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


foul language =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 12:56 PM)
you’re a chickenshit punk to boot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


threats =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a mess you are Kris.  I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable.  Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever you do, don't consider what was said to me or about me before I said those things.

I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, I don't ever threaten anonymous people I argue with on websites with physical violence, no matter what they say to me.  I don't post their personal information online either, or make childish threats to call their spouses and tell them intimate details I think would damage their relationships.  I guess you have different standards.  That's why I suggest finding help before you hurt yourself or someone else.  

I also suggest finding a thesaurus, and looking up some synonyms for "chickenshit"; I think you've hit a vocabulary roadblock there.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,04:59

Kris:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Creationism and religion in general" encounter difficulties when claims are made that contradict observed reality. Galileo's observations brought him into conflict with the Catholic church but his observations were real and repeatable. The Catholic church dogma had to change to accommodate reality. Similarly, the age of the Earth is fairly well established at around 4.5 billion years. Common descent has recently been reinforced by comparing DNA and observing the nested hierarchy of homologies. Make reality-based claims and you can expect to be challenged if they don't match the evidence.

(Some) ID proponents make claims about reality. One claim I want to test is whether there is a 'replacement' for any aspect of evolutionary theory. Is there a theory of ID?

ETA recently
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,05:01

Kris,
I made you a thread now, to have the reasonable discussion you claim you want to have.

So, what do you want to talk about?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,05:17

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 21 2011,01:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims.

I'm not an ID-ist or a creationist or religious, but the concept of ID or creation is somewhat intriguing. I don't usually put much thought into it and would enjoy and study nature just as much whether ID or creation were true or not. From what I've read about ID, especially on the UD site, I think I understand what they're getting at. If I do, I'd say the 'irreducible complexity' part is the most compelling. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it or with any other part of the typical ID arguments, but I do find it interesting.

One of the problems with ID is that different people see it in different ways. Some people cram religion into it while others say religion isn't the basis for it and has nothing to do with it. Whether there's a 'testable' theory about ID or creation right now or not, I have an open mind about them. No one knows what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe. Science doesn't have all the answers and neither do religious people.

One of the problems with science is that it too is looked at in different ways by different people. There are lots of disagreements in science and people are just as likely to see what they want to see in science as others are in religious beliefs. There are zealots in both arenas.

It's not so much that ordinarily religious people are a problem for science. It's the zealots who are the problem. The ones who want to push their religious beliefs into everyone's mind and life. The same could be said about science zealots. They also want to push their beliefs into everyone's mind and life as though it were a complete replacement for religion. Most people don't take kindly to being forced and that's why sites like this one, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites are likely doing more harm than good when it comes to getting people to follow and trust science and scientists.

Try to imagine what a young person would think if they came here or to one of the other sites I mentioned and read all the vitriol against religion. What impression would it give them about science and scientists? Would they come away with more knowledge about science and nature or would they see science and scientists as obsessed religion haters with a HUGE chip on their shoulders?

Also try to imagine a face to face meeting where one side is talking like many of the people here do. Insults, name calling, arrogance, attacks, etc. wouldn't go very far in convincing someone that science is a good thing or that scientists are nice people, and especially if that someone already has a belief system that is anything contrary to science.

Try ordering a smoker not to smoke. Try ordering a drug user not to use drugs. Try ordering a hooker to stop having sex for money. Try ordering a religious person to give up religion. Try ridiculing, insulting, and attacking them and see how well it works.

There has to be a more effective way. Just think if sites like this and the other religion bashing sites were strictly devoted to educating people about science and nature. It could be interesting and fun, with healthy, honest, informative discussions that make people want to come back to learn more.

Kids are the future. If anyone wants them to like and trust science, science and scientists are going to have to appeal to them in a way that attracts them. The same thing goes for attracting adults. Simply bashing religion or anyone who questions science isn't going to accomplish that. It's just going to push people away.
Posted by: DNA_Jock on Jan. 21 2011,09:13

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:17)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 21 2011,01:29)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims...
snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT.
If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.
To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,09:26

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:40)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,22:24)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:39)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it or retract it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be kidding. Why should I retract the truth?

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah the classic line.

Kris says "Of course I can't prove it, because I want it to be true.  The fact that it isn't true is not my problem.  I'll post this scree that it's 'obvious'."

Let's see... does anyone here, including Kris, think I'm a hypocrite.  If so, please post links to the places where I have shown my hypocrisy.  Please, I want to know... since I, more than anything else on Gaia's Green Earth, loathe hypocrites.

But you can't do it, Kris.  You can't show that I'm a hypocrite (because I'm not).  And you're too cowardly to admit that you are wrong.  

Whatever, if you ever want to have an adult conversation, let me know.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,09:38

Kris, do you, perchance, know why there are three threads about 'Uncommon descent' on this page?

Do you know why, all the users from here, repost all their comments that they would have made there, here instead?

I'm saying this in all honesty, I really encourage you to read those threads here at ATBC.  I really want to know, if, after reading all of those threads, you think that UD allows 'discussion'.

BTW: What you started off with at PT, wasn't 'discussion'.  It was telling us all we are wrong.  Do you walk into a party and tell everyone that they are too drunk and they'll die?  Do you get offended when they tell you to 'fuck off'?

I know you think that you are a pargon of reason, but you come off to us as an arrogant little snot.  If you don't like the way that we treat me, you might consider acting a little nicer.

For example, proving to me that I am ahypocrite by posting the material that led you to this conclusion.

That being said, I fully admit that I have different moods and my response to you may vary depending on how I feel at the time.  However, I would never, ever publish contact information for someone without their express permission and would never threaten anyone with physical harm merely for disagreeing with me.  Defending myself, that's another story and I hope you don't have to find out what that story is.

Now, do you have something you want to talk about or not?  Can you do so in a reasonable manner?  I honestly don't know if you can or not.

I ask this question of creationists all the time, so I'll ask it of you as well.  Are you aware of the kind of reputation you have developed in your short time here?  Are you aware that we can't read your thoughts and that the ONLY information we have about you is what you post here?  Read ONLY the things you post here and ask yourself, "is this me?"  Would I show these posts to my mother (or someone else you greatly respect)?

If you answer honestly to those questions, then I hope you gain some wisdom out of it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,09:54

Kris complains of moderation... yet he now has 3 entire threads devoted to him.  Fascinating.

As an experiment, why don't you run over to UD or one of the other pro-ID sites and ask for your own thread or byline.  See how far you get... that would be the scientific method of determining who moderates more.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 21 2011,11:18

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,04:10)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ironically, that's exactly what you are doing.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2011,11:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




It's not important but there is a dedicated thread listing and detailing some of the moderating shenanigans at UD.

The rest of your comment does not appear to be addressed to me particularly and you seem to have had other replies. I am all for the scientific approach. If you want to raise some scientific issue here why not just do it and see what happens. Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife, you'll find commenters here, many of whom are working scientists, pretty knowledgeable. If you get abused, your hypothesis will be confirmed.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 21 2011,11:41

JoeyKris is running true to form, which is kind of disappointing.

I'm just not getting a real high signal to noise ratio from him, and frankly if he has anything of importance to say, he's already set expectations in the other direction with his constant 'tu quoque' blather.

If we're nice, he's a jackass.
If we respond to his jackassery in like manner, that is proof that he's right.
If we bend over backwards to give him space to have a decent discussion, that's an excuse to accuse us all of being worse that the creotards and godbots he claims he isn't.

He is not acting and speaking in good faith, full stop.  His intent seems to be pointless monkey-wrenching for the sheer puerile joy of being a destructive little git.

I would prefer to see some strong evidence that my cynicism is misplaced, but prior experience says that this is not at all likely.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 21 2011,11:54

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:17)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try ordering a smoker not to smoke. Try ordering a drug user not to use drugs. Try ordering a hooker to stop having sex for money. Try ordering a religious person to give up religion. Try ridiculing, insulting, and attacking them and see how well it works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're so funny, "Kris". Here's one for you: try actually making a valid argument that parallels what we actually rant about here.

See...here's the problem - what group of smoker has ever tried to get smoking taught in public schools by claiming it was science? What drug group has ever tried to get drug use taught in schools claiming it was science? What hooker has tried to teach prostitution or actually hook in schools claiming it was science? Hmmm...any? No? Then your request above is a non-sequitur; it has zero to do with why we bash ID/creationism and the institution of Christian fundamentalism that dishonestly promotes such tripe as science.

Try again.
Posted by: Seversky on Jan. 21 2011,17:58

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,04:04)
If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with you about the lynch-mob mentality that can erupt in the Pharyngula comments (although it's far from being just there) but isn't that the price you pay for free speech?  Free speech is not about just allowing what you personally find agreeable and inoffensive, it is in the quote (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

UD and DI are criticized because they are far less tolerant of dissent than PT.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them.  But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was called a "moral monster" by Bully Arrington and later banned from Uncommon Descent.  Many years back I was also the victim of a pack attack on Pharyngula for arguing againt abortion.  The difference was UD banned me, PZ didn't.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see them more as reactionary.  The wildebeeste infidels or gnu atheists or whatever they call themselves are a reaction to the centuries of oppression of non-believers by the various religions.  Even today there are many in this country that don't believe atheists should be citizens and that they rank below pedophiles in terms of respectability.  As for the chances of a self-proclaimed atheist being elected to public office they are usually calculated at a p-value of snowball-in-hell.  There is a Dark Side to religion that cannot be ignored.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scientists are human just like everyone else so you will find examples who overstate their case for various reasons.  Mostly, though, they are well aware of the limitations of their knowledge, more so than the critics who are usually responsible for setting up the strawman of the arrogant boffin.  

Need I remind you that Newtonian mechanics were superseded by relativity theory, not as a result of lay critics pointing out holes that professional physicists were supposed to have missed, but because scientists understood in detail the problems with the old theory and therefore what its successor would need to do.  A number of scientists were groping towards a solution, Einstein managed to get there first.

Well-established theories are not overturned easily and that's as it should be.  If you have something that works reasonably well, you only give it up when someone offers something demonstrably better.  Science isn't about defending some dogma - if that were the case biologists would still be defending the inerrancy of every last word of On the Origin of Species - it is about hanging on to something that works until something that works better comes along.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You come across like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Constantly spewing hypocritical, partisan anger, hatred, insults, and ridicule ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad to see we have the same opinion of those three.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science isn't trying to replace religion as the "opium of the people", it is just trying to understand and explain the way the natural world works.  The problems arise when religions claim that their explanations of the world are better than those of science and that if science disagrees then science must be wrong.  If proponents of ID want it to be taken seriously as science then they need to get out into the lab and the field and put together a working, testable theory.  As for comfort and companionship, there is no reason why religion shouldn't keep on doing what it does best.  I would help,though, if they dropped some of the less savory bits.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2011,22:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:01)
Kris,
I made you a thread now, to have the reasonable discussion you claim you want to have.

So, what do you want to talk about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh.

Kris reminds me of someone online long ago who insisted he was being discriminated against because he was a straight, white, male. I pointed out to him that he was more likely being discriminated against because he was an obnoxious jerk.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,23:18

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 21 2011,07:26)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:40)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,22:24)
     
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:39)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking. Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it or retract it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You must be kidding. Why should I retract the truth?

And why don't any of you bitch about the moderating, censoring, and banning on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and here? Is it only considered moderating, censoring, and banning when YOU'RE the ones who aren't allowed to say whatever you want, where and when you want?

Do any of you own a mirror?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah the classic line.

Kris says "Of course I can't prove it, because I want it to be true.  The fact that it isn't true is not my problem.  I'll post this scree that it's 'obvious'."

Let's see... does anyone here, including Kris, think I'm a hypocrite.  If so, please post links to the places where I have shown my hypocrisy.  Please, I want to know... since I, more than anything else on Gaia's Green Earth, loathe hypocrites.

But you can't do it, Kris.  You can't show that I'm a hypocrite (because I'm not).  And you're too cowardly to admit that you are wrong.  

Whatever, if you ever want to have an adult conversation, let me know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn't know what an "adult conversation" is if your life depended on it. Hypocrite. And you're the coward.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,23:23

Wow...

Just wow...

I could say so many things right now.  But it's not worth the effort.  Goodbye Kris.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,23:27

Quote (DNA_Jock @ Jan. 21 2011,07:13)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:17)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 21 2011,01:29)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims...
snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT.
If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.
To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2011,23:39

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,21:27)
Quote (DNA_Jock @ Jan. 21 2011,07:13)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:17)
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 21 2011,01:29)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You guys make science look real bad. No wonder so many people don't trust science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not sure about that, Kris. I think what makes science (or rather any particular theory) look bad is if it turns out not to be true when tested by experiment.

I got interested by chance in ID about 6 years ago and, since then, have been banned at all but one (ARN - which has adopted the alternative strategy of not permitting new registrations) of the ID sites that I am aware of that actually permit comments. It seemed to me that asking simple questions about ID or correcting misinformation about evolutionary theory were the usual reasons for a ban (though not the pretext, if mentioned at all).

ID's problem (as regards to science rather than politics or apologetics) in my view is simply that there is no coherent ID theory and being asked for details seems to be upsetting for ID proponents.

Solution; get a testable theory of ID, unless you know where to find one already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alan, I can't reasonably comment on why you were banned from those sites since I haven't seen what was said by you or anyone else. I have read some discussions on Uncommon Descent (UD), and have noticed that some of the ID proponents do argue fairly strongly at times but they're a LOT more decent about it than people typically are here, or on sites like Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula. I've also noticed that some of the ID proponents quote or cite scientific studies to support some of their claims...
snip
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kris,

I will agree with you that the tone at Pharyngula can sometimes be counter-productive, but all of these sites, especially PT, are paragons of tolerance compared with UD or TT.
If you are interested, I can review for you precisely why I was banned from UD. I am sure many others here can do the same. The data are in, respectful dissent is not allowed. It matters little whether the remaining contributors are polite to each other - the dialog has been stifled, leaving the echo chamber free to MISQUOTE and MISCITE scientific studies - no-one is left there to correct them.
To repeat, if you are interested, I can show you why I was banned. But I don't think you are interested, I think you are just a concern troll. I predict your reply will focus on my penultimate sentence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, let's start again. Please continue the exchange on the second thread started just for you (because, you know, we're so intolerant and all).
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,00:56

Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 21 2011,15:58)
     
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,04:04)
If I were commenting on the DI site I wouldn't say things like I do here. The reason being that they are much more likely to actually discuss something than to resort to name calling and other insults. On this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites the vitriol is so out of control that the only way to get you guys to even pay attention is to be as blunt as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree with you about the lynch-mob mentality that can erupt in the Pharyngula comments (although it's far from being just there) but isn't that the price you pay for free speech?  Free speech is not about just allowing what you personally find agreeable and inoffensive, it is in the quote (wrongly) attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

UD and DI are criticized because they are far less tolerant of dissent than PT.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The DI site has likely received so many attacks, insults, and threats that they probably just figure it's best to not allow comments at all, and frankly, I don't blame them.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them.  But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was banned from Panda's Thumb and the Bathroom Wall and Pharyngula. Some of my comments were either removed or never posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was called a "moral monster" by Bully Arrington and later banned from Uncommon Descent.  Many years back I was also the victim of a pack attack on Pharyngula for arguing againt abortion.  The difference was UD banned me, PZ didn't.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The vast majority of the people who post on Panda's Thumb, the Bathroom Wall, Pharyngula, and other religion bashing sites aren't really standing up for science. They're just haters who need something to hate and bash, and if it weren't religion it would just be something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see them more as reactionary.  The wildebeeste infidels or gnu atheists or whatever they call themselves are a reaction to the centuries of oppression of non-believers by the various religions.  Even today there are many in this country that don't believe atheists should be citizens and that they rank below pedophiles in terms of respectability.  As for the chances of a self-proclaimed atheist being elected to public office they are usually calculated at a p-value of snowball-in-hell.  There is a Dark Side to religion that cannot be ignored.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the science is well done but is still provisional or incomplete, don't be afraid to admit it. Stop acting like you know it all or that science knows it all. Acting like that makes you look as pompous and delusional as the most flagrant religious wackos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Scientists are human just like everyone else so you will find examples who overstate their case for various reasons.  Mostly, though, they are well aware of the limitations of their knowledge, more so than the critics who are usually responsible for setting up the strawman of the arrogant boffin.  

Need I remind you that Newtonian mechanics were superseded by relativity theory, not as a result of lay critics pointing out holes that professional physicists were supposed to have missed, but because scientists understood in detail the problems with the old theory and therefore what its successor would need to do.  A number of scientists were groping towards a solution, Einstein managed to get there first.

Well-established theories are not overturned easily and that's as it should be.  If you have something that works reasonably well, you only give it up when someone offers something demonstrably better.  Science isn't about defending some dogma - if that were the case biologists would still be defending the inerrancy of every last word of On the Origin of Species - it is about hanging on to something that works until something that works better comes along.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You come across like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Constantly spewing hypocritical, partisan anger, hatred, insults, and ridicule ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad to see we have the same opinion of those three.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many of you regularly argue that ID and creationism and religion in general don't have a satisfactory 'replacement' for the theory of evolution or just about any other aspect of science. You expect them to have that satisfactory replacement before you will even consider any of their theories or beliefs (take your pick). Well, what does science have that will satisfactorily replace all religious beliefs? For instance, does science have anything that will provide people the comfort and feeling of security they get from their religious beliefs? How about the companionship?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Science isn't trying to replace religion as the "opium of the people", it is just trying to understand and explain the way the natural world works.  The problems arise when religions claim that their explanations of the world are better than those of science and that if science disagrees then science must be wrong.  If proponents of ID want it to be taken seriously as science then they need to get out into the lab and the field and put together a working, testable theory.  As for comfort and companionship, there is no reason why religion shouldn't keep on doing what it does best.  I would help,though, if they dropped some of the less savory bits.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's no such thing as free speech at Pharyngla, Panda's Thumb, or here.

UD and DI may be less tolerant, although I can't judge that without seeing every comment ever submitted to them, but it shouldn't be a matter of who's "less tolerant". Selective censoring and banning on any forum does not allow or promote free speech. Just because censoring and banning may be done less here or on Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula doesn't make it any more right.

You said, "Website administrators are fully entitled to impose whatever standards of moderation they choose and any visitors should expect to be held to them.  But if they do subject comments to draconian restrictions they cannot at the same time present themselves as champions of free enquiry and speech, not without being called on it."

Yeah, and that applies to this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and any other site.

You say you see the haters and bashers as "more reactionary". It's interesting that when I 'react' I'm accused of being all kinds of bad things. Apparently it just depends on who's being reactionary to what, or more accurately, whether someone is saying what others want to hear, or not, no matter who started it.

Being reactionary to what religion did in the past is like black people bitching about slavery. My ancestors were likely oppressed by religion and they may have been slaves too but I don't really care. They're all dead and that was a long time ago.

There's nothing wrong with being reactionary now about things that happen now, depending on what happens and the reaction of course. Some religious wackos should be reacted to and pressured to stop their holier than thou bullshit but that shouldn't be the job for science or scientists, and it doesn't make science look better if it's used simply as a weapon against religion. A lot of scientists spend a lot of time and effort trying to use science as that direct weapon and some do appear to be trying to replace religion with science as the opium of the people. Education about science and nature would probably be more effective, and especially with children.

I agree that religion, or at least some religions, get away with way too much, have unsavory bits, and are detrimental to society in some ways, but I'm not convinced that simply bitching about religion on a website is going to change anything for the better. There has to be a better way. Science and nature must be made interesting, accessible, understandable, and attractive to the masses, and especially to children.

Maybe it's time to 'outsmart' the religious zealots who want to cram religion into schools and every other aspect of life. There's a battle going on near where I live. Sea lions congregate below a dam and eat too many salmon, according to the 'authorities', even though humans have killed, polluted, and destroyed more salmon and their habitat than all the Sea Lions that ever lived could do in thousands of years. So, what's the remedy? Kill the Sea lions of course. Throw explosives into to the water too (which also kills salmon) and spend a fortune driving around in boats chasing the Sea lions away from the dam. Is that the best we humans can do? Can't we outsmart a Sea lion and come up with a better remedy? Can't science or scientists 'outsmart' the pushers of the unsavory bits and fairy tales in religion and find effective ways to get people interested in science and nature?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,01:37

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:27)
I don't doubt that UD and some other sites are intolerant of some comments but that doesn't make it right for this site or any other religion bashing site to also be intolerant. This site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and some others are just as much an echo chamber as the sites you people condemn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's pronounced tu quoque, Kris.  It's a logical fallacy.  That seems to be all you've brought to the table this time, same as last time...and the seventeen times before that.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,04:22

Making threats against other participants coupled with public release of personal information crosses the line into cyberstalking, a prima facie illegal activity. Looking back in my email archives, "Kris" was banned for cause on PT, with multiple people pointing out the cyberstalking incident. I hadn't recalled that when "Kris" started posting here. Usually, a ban in one forum I'm associated with gets carried over to the rest, and certainly there are signs that the belligerence behind the event on PT is being carried over here.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating: Those most in need of being moderated are also those least likely to acknowledge that plain fact. I have no compunction whatever in banning people who can't refrain from cyberstalking. "Kris" has gotten an undeserved second chance to make a point; right now it is up to him whether he blows it or not. In case that isn't clear enough, cyberstalking is "excessively annoying".
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,07:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2011,02:22)
Making threats against other participants coupled with public release of personal information crosses the line into cyberstalking, a prima facie illegal activity. Looking back in my email archives, "Kris" was banned for cause on PT, with multiple people pointing out the cyberstalking incident. I hadn't recalled that when "Kris" started posting here. Usually, a ban in one forum I'm associated with gets carried over to the rest, and certainly there are signs that the belligerence behind the event on PT is being carried over here.

I've said it before, and it bears repeating: Those most in need of being moderated are also those least likely to acknowledge that plain fact. I have no compunction whatever in banning people who can't refrain from cyberstalking. "Kris" has gotten an undeserved second chance to make a point; right now it is up to him whether he blows it or not. In case that isn't clear enough, cyberstalking is "excessively annoying".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell you what Wesley, send all my posts from Panda's Thumb, and all the posts from other people leading up to mine, to any prosecuting attorney you like. Then come back and try to convince me that mine are illegal. Go ahead, do it.

Are you going to ban me? I thought someone said this was a free speech site (or words to that effect) and that I don't have to worry about moderation or banning.

What's really bugging you Wesley? Is it that I don't bash religious people in the vicious way you'd like me to? Is it that I noticed the massive hypocrisy of you and this site with the so-called rule against bashing religious beliefs, even though that's all you and this site ever do? Is it that I noticed the other so-called rules that are constantly broken, and never enforced on your fellow religion bashers here?

Ya know, if I'm as stupid and screwed up as some of you say I am it should be easy for you to deal with me. You should be able to make arguments against me with logic, truth, and evidence, and you should be easily able to respond to what I actually say instead of what you think I said. You guys do claim to be well educated scientists, don't you? If that's the case, you should know more than enough to argue against me or anyone else without any strain whatsoever and without resorting to name calling, insults, or threats of banning. Of course it would help you if you first lived up to the so-called rules here and presented yourselves in an honest way.

I doubt that you noticed it but a few people have responded to me in a reasonably decent way, and my responses to them are reasonably decent too. Most of you here are looking for a fight, but when someone gives you one you blame them for it. If you guys don't want a fight, don't incite one.

Try going into a church or a grocery store and talking to someone like you do here. See how long it takes for the cops to haul YOU away, even if someone in the church or store punches your lights out.

What many of you apparently don't understand is that every day it's the same old shit here and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., and you set an example every day with your hypocritical, hateful, arrogant behavior. Sometimes someone comes along and questions you or gives you back what you dish out. If you don't like it, make this a private forum for invited religion bashers only.

I want to tell you guys something, and this is the truth. Before I read anything on Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula or here I bashed religious beliefs pretty much the same way you guys do, although not on a daily basis. Now, after reading posts and comments here and on those other sites, and having arguments with some people, I have a different view of things and I'm more inclined to cut some religious people (but not all) a little slack, and I also now realize that some so-called scientists and science supporters are just as hypocritical, delusional, and arrogant as any power hungry religious zealots are.

I can't help but wonder how many people have been influenced, by the words and actions of religion bashers, to be more tolerant of religion and less friendly toward science. I'm still friendly toward science itself (good science that is), but I'm more critical and unfriendly toward some of the people involved in it now.

Here's something you all might want to consider: I am strongly scientifically inclined and I am not religious at all. If someone like me is turned off by some of the ways people act on sites like this or Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula, just think about how religious people (whether mildly religious or total zealots) must feel when they view this site or those others. Like I've said before, you guys may be doing science more harm than good.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 22 2011,07:41

You've had the floor now for several days. Are you going to make a scientific point sometime soon? Or are you just going to whine about PT? Being here isn't mandatory, you know. You don't like it, find another site to troll.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,07:45

Kris:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is it that I don't bash religious people in the vicious way you'd like me to?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You seem to be pretty vicious in bashing me, which contradicts your statement.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,07:55

Free speech is something between you and the government. Commenting on a forum like this is a privilege, not a right. Nor is it my job to be finicky about stuff at the borderline between legal and illegal; if it looks dodgy, that's bad enough for me. The cyberstalker does not have legal recourse if his privileges get yanked, but the cyberstalker's victim quite possibly may have recourse if a forum fails to respond promptly to a problem. But thanks for encouraging me to take things up with authorities; I am checking into what your ISP and local authorities consider to be beyond the pale.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 22 2011,08:12

Wesley:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Looking back in my email archives, "Kris" was banned for cause on PT, with multiple people pointing out the cyberstalking incident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Kris" has gotten an undeserved second chance to make a point; right now it is up to him whether he blows it or not
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, there is a bit of history, there. Can Kris still comment here subject to the normal rules? There doesn't seem much point in posting further comments in this thread if not.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,08:25

"Kris" is commenting and has had no specific restrictions imposed ... yet.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,08:31

From "Kris"'s ISP's Acceptable Use Policy:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Threatening Material or Content: IP Services shall not be used to host, post, transmit, or re-transmit any content or material (or to create a domain name or operate from a domain name), that harasses, or threatens the health or safety of others. In addition, for those IP Services that utilize [X] provided web hosting, [X] reserves the right to decline to provide such services if the content is determined by [X] to be obscene, indecent, hateful, malicious, racist, defamatory, fraudulent, libelous, treasonous, excessively violent or promoting the use of violence or otherwise harmful to others.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps "Kris" hadn't read that far?
Posted by: dvunkannon on Jan. 22 2011,08:37

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,08:32)
Here's something you all might want to consider: I am strongly scientifically inclined and I am not religious at all. If someone like me is turned off by some of the ways people act on sites like this or Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula, just think about how religious people (whether mildly religious or total zealots) must feel when they view this site or those others. Like I've said before, you guys may be doing science more harm than good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Classic statement of concern trolling, there.

There are threads here that should attract the strongly scientifically inclined, threads with names like "Science Break". People post about science.

I predict that Kris is not very interested in the Science Break thread, because it is about science, not Kris.

So, Kris, what kind of science interests you? We know that Joe G has telescopes, does field experiments with watermelon rinds and ticks, what about you? To be clear, I'm asking for a few sentences about science, not yourself.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,08:53

Any web site so bereft of civility is no doubt empty of true and thorough rationality and real intellectual honesty.

AMIRITE?  


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,09:00

State law possibly relevant to "Kris":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

© Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person’s control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2011,09:25

It would appear that concern troll is concerned.

Should we be concerned by his/her concern? Does it concern us? Hmmm. Not as far as I'm concerned.

What was that nice fraud perpetrated by a poster at Sheril and Chris's blog, The Intersection? Some chap named Tom Johnson or something wasn't it? Didn't he make claims that the tone of new atheists etc was actively turning people away from science, and that he's seen it in action and could prove all these so called big named people were nothing more than mockers and scoffers? Something along those lines, IIRC. I seem to remember it was bought hook line and and sinker by Sheril, Chris and like minded folks, and touted from the heavens as proof positive that PZ et al were hurting science (or some such). Now didn't it turn out that he'd made the whole thing up? Gosh! Why yes it did. Hmmmm. I wonder why my Spidey-sense is tingling with regards to Kris. This is all so.....familiar. I also wonder, where's the evidence behind this claim of ridicule turning people off science?*

Oh that's right, there isn't any beyond shrill shrieking, anecdote and hysterical cries of "won't someone PLEASE think of the children". Maybe Kris hasn't grasped the idea of praagmatic pluralism in communication (a position I think I could genuinely defend), i.e. using the technique most appropriate to the situation. Sometimes, ridicule works, and the productive effect is rarely aimed at the target of the ridicule.

Louis

*Waits for the inevitable: "But where's the evidence that mockery works?". The problem is, I'm not sure anyone claimed it does "work", or at least perhaps that it it is working towards a different goal. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something about ridicule and coherent propositions once?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,10:37

Annnnnnnnd more pointless whining by Kris.  You appear to be extraordinarily thick (and not in the way that women find appealing)* so I'll just take a chance and do something completely out of character by being blunt:

Kris, nobody here buys your male bovine excrement about being "scientifically minded" and "not religious".  You came in, guns blazing, just like every creationist assmunch who has come before you.  You have nothing of value to contribute, you have no salient point to make, and you are fucking boring as hell.  If you don't like PT (I'm beginning to get the feeling that this might, perhaps, be true), feel free to just fuck right off, then.  Seriously, you will NOT be missed and the vacuum you create (Henry?) will inevitably be filled by another not entirely unlike yourself, more's the pity.

Now, your diaper obviously needs changing.  Toddle off, then.  There's a good ookie-wookums!

--Wolfie

* It could be true that the female members of Kris' species do, in fact, find extreme skull density attractive.  To each her own, I suppose.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,11:24

Wolfie, you're a true poet after my own heart!
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,11:30

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,12:24)
Wolfie, you're a true poet after my own heart!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...with a coil of rope, a roll of duct tape, and a carving knife.*

Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAAAAAH!

*Just kidding.  I'd used a strong sedative and a stryker saw.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,11:36

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,17:30)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,12:24)
Wolfie, you're a true poet after my own heart!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...with a coil of rope, a roll of duct tape, and a carving knife.*

Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAAAAAH!

*Just kidding.  I'd used a strong sedative and a stryker saw.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the easiest way to a man's heart is bellow the ribcage then a good stab up...
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,11:40

I already have Deadman's but I'm still hungry.  

*burp*
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 22 2011,13:13

Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 22 2011,13:15

I don't think we'll see Kris again, or his moral outrage.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2011,13:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2011,13:45)
Kris:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is it that I don't bash religious people in the vicious way you'd like me to?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You seem to be pretty vicious in bashing me, which contradicts your statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always been amused by the very unpleasant tone of most people who tend to complain about, well, someone's unpleasant tone.

Irony. I like it.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 22 2011,13:31

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 22 2011,13:47

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 22 2011,13:57

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,08:47)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, quite a bit of history!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2011,14:02

I read a small section of that thread.....impressive. Well, that's the word I'm going with. Wouldn't want to use a nasty word, might lower the tone, what!

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 22 2011,14:26

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:47)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*reads thread*

Holy shit. What an asshole.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 22 2011,14:28

Dale - thanks for the link. It's a perfect sdemonstration that "Kris" has hoisted himself on his own petard.

So, in the future, rather than letting "Kris" post on the Bathroom Wall, perhaps we could send his future posts to the Bathroom Bowl where they belong?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 22 2011,14:54

Oy.

And this is the guy who's major complaint seems to be "Scientist R MEEEN! Whaaah!"

At least, I think that's what he's trying to say.

Sometimes he's like a cross between Dennis Markuze and Robert Byers, i.e., a narcissistic nutjob.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 22 2011,14:55

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:24)
Wolfie, you're a true poet after my own heart!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it's your heart she's after, rock star.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,15:12

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2011,20:55)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:24)
Wolfie, you're a true poet after my own heart!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it's your heart she's after, rock star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rhooo!!! You dirty you!

And after seeing Dale's linky and all, I can now totaly commit to insulting the shit out of Kris.

And there I was hoping for some interesting debate, silly me...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 22 2011,15:16

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,20:26)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:47)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
     
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*reads thread*

Holy shit. What an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tut tut. You know Bill your tone is dreadful. Using naughty words like that and all. Why I am off to become a homepath just because of that, you see if I don't.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,16:21

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2011,14:54)
Oy.

And this is the guy who's major complaint seems to be "Scientist R MEEEN! Whaaah!"

At least, I think that's what he's trying to say.

Sometimes he's like a cross between Dennis Markuze and Robert Byers, i.e., a narcissistic nutjob.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heck, we've been practically begging him to discuss... well... science.  But someone disagreed with him and he decided we were all... something bad.  I think he randomly picks insults from a book and applies them to user names.  It's the only thing I can come up with.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,16:59

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2011,16:16)
Why I am off to become a homepath just because of that, you see if I don't.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Going off down the homo path, are you?  We always figured that was the direction you were heading.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,17:45

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,22:59)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2011,16:16)
Why I am off to become a homepath just because of that, you see if I don't.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Going off down the homo path, are you?  We always figured that was the direction you were heading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totaly uncalled for! We all know Louis is "straight"...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,18:48

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,17:45)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,22:59)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2011,16:16)
Why I am off to become a homepath just because of that, you see if I don't.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Going off down the homo path, are you?  We always figured that was the direction you were heading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totaly uncalled for! We all know Louis is "straight"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that algebraic straight, non-Euclidean, or Euclidean straight?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,20:19

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 22 2011,11:57)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,08:47)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
     
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, quite a bit of history!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a few things about the link and the "history": several posts at that link were not made by me, even though my name is on them. The history goes back further than that page.

Do you guys really want to see "psycho"? If so, take a good look at Dale's blog.

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/ >

And then there's:

< http://www.myspace.com/seeker_alpha >

< http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=112601330 >

< http://www.opposingviews.com/users/dale-husband/comments_list >

< http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/dale-husband/muslims-get-life >

< http://twitter.com/Dale_Husband_HS >

< http://www.youtube.com/user/DaleHusband >

< http://www.iranian.com/main....thority >
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,20:38

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2011,07:00)
State law possibly relevant to "Kris":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

© Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person’s control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to consider how (B) applies to you and others here.

What (B) is actually saying is that if you start shit, don't be surprised if you get worse shit back. The entire purpose of this site, Panda's Thumb, and Pharyngula is to start shit.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,20:42

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,20:19)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 22 2011,11:57)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,08:47)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
       
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930 >

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, quite a bit of history!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a few things about the link and the "history": several posts at that link were not made by me, even though my name is on them. The history goes back further than that page.

Do you guys really want to see "psycho"? If so, take a good look at Dale's blog.

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/ >

And then there's:

< http://www.myspace.com/seeker_alpha >

< http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=112601330 >

< http://www.opposingviews.com/users/dale-husband/comments_list >

< http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/dale-husband/muslims-get-life >

< http://twitter.com/Dale_Husband_HS >

< http://www.youtube.com/user/DaleHusband >

< http://www.iranian.com/main....thority >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just because someone is worse than you, it doesn't mean you are a saint... or even nice.

It's a great attempt at a Red Herring though.  A few more years and I'm sure you'll convince someone.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,20:43

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,20:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2011,07:00)
State law possibly relevant to "Kris":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

© Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person’s control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to consider how (B) applies to you and others here.

What (B) is actually saying is that if you start shit, don't be surprised if you get worse shit back. The entire purpose of this site, Panda's Thumb, and Pharyngula is to start shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You came here.  You're free to leave.  You're free to stay, until you cross a line.

BTW: You still haven't retracted or proven your statement about me being a hypocrite.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 22 2011,21:02

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,20:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2011,07:00)
State law possibly relevant to "Kris":

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harassment. (1) A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:

(a) Harasses or annoys another person by:

(A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact; or

(B) Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

(b) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; or

© Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.

(2) A person is criminally liable for harassment if the person knowingly permits any telephone or electronic device under the person’s control to be used in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, harassment is a Class A misdemeanor if a person violates subsection (1) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might want to consider how (B) applies to you and others here.

What (B) is actually saying is that if you start shit, don't be surprised if you get worse shit back. The entire purpose of this site, Panda's Thumb, and Pharyngula is to start shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That may or may not be, but I'm going to end it.

Some of us have jobs and cannot get here all the time to baby-sit.

If you want to end up on the BW from now on, you'll get your wish.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,00:04

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,20:19)
Just a few things about the link and the "history": several posts at that link were not made by me, even though my name is on them. The history goes back further than that page.

Do you guys really want to see "psycho"? If so, take a good look at Dale's blog.

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/ >

And then there's:

< http://www.myspace.com/seeker_alpha >

< http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=112601330 >

< http://www.opposingviews.com/users/dale-husband/comments_list >

< http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/dale-husband/muslims-get-life >

< http://twitter.com/Dale_Husband_HS >

< http://www.youtube.com/user/DaleHusband >

< http://www.iranian.com/main....thority >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I have a unique personality and opinions about lots of subjects. So fuking what?! I didn't know having a mind of my own instead of always nodding in total agreement with you was so offensive to you, Kris!

And of course, this is more proof that you HAVE been cyberstalking me.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,00:21

Has Kris ever been banned from Pharyngula, the blog by P Z Myers? I found an entry at the long list of banned people that seems to be of Kris:

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mr G

Insipidity, trolling, wanking

Tiresome pseudo-intellectual who popped into a thread about the mind-body problem and started insisting…what? Nobody knows. He was darned sure his opinion was superior to everyone else's, but we couldn't get him to explain what his position was. Maybe a few years in the dungeon will give him time to organize his thoughts.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because Kris will say he is not religious and not Creationist, but then attack us for not being tolerant and respectful enough of Creationists, claiming that this somehow damages the ability of the public to understand and appreciate science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Concern trolling
A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,00:32

someone remind me why this shit stain gets replies again?  i would like to see kris get fucked by a rhino.  to death.  or go away and troll for man meat somewhere else.  who cares
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,00:38

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,00:32)
someone remind me why this shit stain gets replies again?  i would like to see kris get fucked by a rhino.  to death.  or go away and troll for man meat somewhere else.  who cares
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly. Kris flounced out. Enough rope, et cetera. Spare the poor rhino.  :p
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 23 2011,01:52

Welcome back, Kristine.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,02:37

I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,02:54

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,02:20)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,22:04)
 
So I have a unique personality and opinions about lots of subjects. So fuking what?! I didn't know having a mind of my own instead of always nodding in total agreement with you was so offensive to you, Kris!

And of course, this is more proof that you HAVE been cyberstalking me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unique personality? That's hilarious Dale. You're a complete fucking loon.

By the way Mr. Paranoid, it took all of five minutes to look up those links. No "cyberstalking" was necessary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot the rest of your favorite insult at me.

"...and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one."

You mind must be slipping even faster than before.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:01

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,02:34)
Actually, I didn't make any reference to your wife, or at least not in the way you're implying. I asked you if she knows that you want to cheat on her. I didn't threaten to make crank calls to her either. I said, "Hmm, maybe I should give Cheri a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?" There's nothing "crank" about that. You're the one who says you have a desire for someone else on your blog and you're the one who says polyamory looks good to you.

Ya know Dale, if you're worried about your personal information, maybe you shouldn't spread it all over the internet. And if you're worried about your own words coming back to haunt you, maybe you shouldn't spread them all over the internet too.

By the way, You’re a complete fucking loon, a hypocrite, a bigot, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Kris, do you want to date my (Circle H) avatar?

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU >

Uh, I thought you hated being called a liar. So why did you lie just now?
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:08

Well, at least I have consistent standards of honor and do my best to live up to them, no matter the cost.

You, on the other hand, seem to have NO standards whatsoever. All you ever have is hate for the rest of humanity.
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:03)
 
Aren't you the one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of, and friendship with, people from various groups?

"Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure."

Aren't those your words Dale? Were you lying when you typed them? If you're so friendly toward religious people, why do you constantly bash religious Creationists, religious ID-ists, Muslims, Christians, etc.?

Let's take a look at your claim about how "honorable" you are:

"An Honorable Skeptic

This is my ethical philosophy that I always express everywhere I may go.

I am a skeptic by nature.  I question everything I see, not taking what I am told at face value, but demanding proof, evidence, and corroborations before I accept something as true. Thus, when I am told by liberals that there was a conspiracy of American government officials involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11, I am skeptical. If I am told by liberals that atrocities were committed in either Afganistan or Iraq by American forces against civilians, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that tax cuts are a way to help the economy grow and that tax hikes hurt the economy, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that the War in Iraq was justified even though no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found there even after being told before that they were there, I am VERY skeptical of that!!! When it comes to skepticism, I don’t discriminate politically! I doubt everything!

Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of honor, which I hold more dear to me than my life. It allows for no exceptions whatsoever. So if I have lost friends or even made enemies for standing up for my honor, so be it. If I see someone who comes across to me as a liar, a bully, or just plain rude and stupid, then I usually try to fight back. If I see someone doing or saying things that damage the credibility of the causes I happen to believe in, I deeply take offense at that because I want those causes to be protected, even at the expense of picking fights with those who are unworthy to support those causes. I beleive in absolute standards of right and wrong and so I see no point in ever excusing something that is wrong because the wrongdoer is otherwise a friendly or nice guy. That’s how corruption sets in.

Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure. Once I recognize that another soul is honorable, no matter what else may be true of that person, I embrace him as a brother. But if I discover a fellow American, a fellow agnostic, a fellow liberal, or a fellow chess player to be dishonorable in his behavior, he becomes my enemy, period. I distrust and shun him like I would a leper.

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight like a pit bull to prove my case and defeat my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles here as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

No matter how great the pressure, I feel that one must never “sell out”. It is being able to stand up to the urge to conform to the shallow desires and priorites of others who have a limited vision that makes one truly heroic. I choose my friends according to my ideals; I never bend my ideals for the sake of keeping friends."

Your "ideals" are rooted in insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, malignant narcissism, and bigotry, and you're a legend in your own mind.

Oh, and I don't think your link to Pharyngula is about me. Better luck next time Mr. Dishonorable Wacko.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,03:17

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,09:13)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,00:37)
I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so it's ok for you and other people to insult me over and over but it's not ok for me to insult anyone back. I'm expected to be reasonable but no one else is. I see.

You and some others here should look at your own flaws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be nice, it's my birthday!

And you will get insulted if you insult. Let's see who started insulting who on this thread... My! It seems it was you, in the very first post.

Want to start it all again without calling people hypocrites (and not being able to back up your claims)?
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:22

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,03:17)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,09:13)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,00:37)
I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so it's ok for you and other people to insult me over and over but it's not ok for me to insult anyone back. I'm expected to be reasonable but no one else is. I see.

You and some others here should look at your own flaws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be nice, it's my birthday!

And you will get insulted if you insult. Let's see who started insulting who on this thread... My! It seems it was you, in the very first post.

Want to start it all again without calling people hypocrites (and not being able to back up your claims)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:27

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:18)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:01)
 

Uh, I thought you hated being called a liar. So why did you lie just now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't lie about anything. You, on the other hand......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said, "maybe I should give [Dale's wife] a call and let her know you want to cheat on her." That was indeed lying. You were lying to everyone else in PT and threatening to lie to her. I never said I wanted to cheat on her. You have a really strange mind to come to that conclusion after reading my blog entries on polyamory, prostitution, and statutory rape. I was discussing legal and philosophical matters, not personal desires, you @$$hole!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,03:27

see? You're not very reasonable. I'm honestly proposing to start this whole discussion over on clean basis, without insults, yet the only answer you manage is another tu quoque.

In the end, you are not really here to discuss science, are you? You're more here to complain and bitch around, which is a shame since there was potential for an interesting interaction.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,03:38

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:22)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,03:17)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,09:13)
     
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,00:37)
I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so it's ok for you and other people to insult me over and over but it's not ok for me to insult anyone back. I'm expected to be reasonable but no one else is. I see.

You and some others here should look at your own flaws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be nice, it's my birthday!

And you will get insulted if you insult. Let's see who started insulting who on this thread... My! It seems it was you, in the very first post.

Want to start it all again without calling people hypocrites (and not being able to back up your claims)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should quit while you're behind Dale, or you'll just get behind-er.

You really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. Learn how to read and comprehend and then come back. See you in several years or so.

Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.  

Are all creationists and/or ID-ists dishonorable to you Dale?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,03:41

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,01:27)
see? You're not very reasonable. I'm honestly proposing to start this whole discussion over on clean basis, without insults, yet the only answer you manage is another tu quoque.

In the end, you are not really here to discuss science, are you? You're more here to complain and bitch around, which is a shame since there was potential for an interesting interaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You like to play games, don't you? Have you ever heard of Eric Berne?
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:47

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:38)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:22)
 
So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should quit while you're behind Dale, or you'll just get behind-er.

You really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. Learn how to read and comprehend and then come back. See you in several years or so.

Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.  

Are all creationists and/or ID-ists dishonorable to you Dale?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will rephrase the question to make it direct.

Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because I think it doesn't. The only real hypocrite all along is, was, and will be YOU as long as you keep up the phony concern troll act! It fools none of us.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,03:55

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:47)
Philosophical matters??   ROFLMAO!

Your 'philosophy' is really fucked up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suppose you would think that if you were a Christian fundamentalist, yes. Uh, didn't you say on other occasions you were not religious? More confusion and inconsistency from the concern troll.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,03:55

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:47)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:38)
     
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:22)
 
So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should quit while you're behind Dale, or you'll just get behind-er.

You really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. Learn how to read and comprehend and then come back. See you in several years or so.

Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.  

Are all creationists and/or ID-ists dishonorable to you Dale?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will rephrase the question to make it direct.

Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because I think it doesn't. The only real hypocrite all along is, was, and will be YOU as long as you keep up the phony concern troll act! It fools none of us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?"

No.


I have another question for you Dale. If one ID-ist or one creationist says something you don't like, or believes something you don't believe, does that give you the right to insult every ID-ist or every creationist forever?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 23 2011,04:00

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,02:37)
I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To the extent that I've even bothered to scan the record of this sad and disgusting incident i can only express my own humble opinion:

WTF is the use of discussing who are the baddest: creationists, atheists, theists, Christians, scientists, non-scientists, pseudo-creationists, psychopaths, sociopaths, deranged, insane, cdesignproponentsists, or just plain idiots like, well ...?

I even believe the Bible contains some wise words attributed to the mysterious magical maestro himself, about not pointing the finger at others. The observation is quite correct; What/whom you dislike to a degree like some people go to such great pains to tell all the world, like f.i. the lead character in this here charade does, it reveals to the world what nice character he himself is.

Better not contaminate ourselves by playing in the pigpen.

Some people are incapable of introspection.

My first and last word on this display of much more than just bad manners.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,04:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey, YOU invaded OUR space with your worthless crap, Kris! What the hell were you expecting? That we would simply say, "Hey, you are right, we should tolerate the Creationists' posting their misconceptions of evolution all over the Panda's Thumb."? No, of course not!

Any credibility you may have had was blown away by the arrival of  flowersfriend , a Christian fundamentalist who actually came to ask some good questions about science education. And what did you do to her?

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-244226 >

{Kris replied to comment from flowersfriend

I’m curious about something and I would like to hear your feelings about it:

Why does “spirituality” have to include the fairy tales in the bible, like Noah’s Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, 6,000 year old Earth, etc.? Ya see, that’s where most of the disagreement is between science and Christianity. Does the belief in a god/creator have to include the trappings of a prescribed ‘religion’?}

You are really full of shit!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,04:18

Kris, one thing I'd like to understand is this:

If you are not religious or a creationist, why do you spend so much time and energy defending them? I think they are well enough capable of trying to defend themselves (which they do, even if most of thge time it's in clumsy, ineffective ways). It makes you come out as patronizing.

And if what you say is indeed true (our behavior towards the religious fanatics, liers-for-Jesus, creationist hacks... turns some people away from science), just keep in mind that the opposite is also true, on a much larger scale. A LOT of people end up rejecting religion because of the zealots' attitude. I don't know how many are turned away from science by some scientists'/atheists' behavior, but I've never met anyone who has been, whereas I've met quite a few ex-religious persons who left their faith because of the religious nutjobs...
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,04:24

"Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?"

No.

Then why the hell do you do just that???

I have another question for you Dale. If one ID-ist or one creationist says something you don't like, or believes something you don't believe, does that give you the right to insult every ID-ist or every creationist forever?
No, and I do not insult all of them. Just the ones who are delusional enough to invade the Panda's Thumb and pick fights with us.

I have to admit that it's hard to comprehend just how mentally deranged you are Dale. Where you could possibly get the idea that I'm a "Christian fundamentalist" or religious in any way is beyond me. You're the one who is religious. You're the one who goes to church. You're the one with religious 'faith'. You're the one who proselytizes. You're the one who modified a variety of religious beliefs into your own version of your religious beliefs. You're the one who has and needs a religion based crutch.  
Do you hate me for being insulting to Creationist bigots or do you hate me for going to a Unitarian Universalist church? Your wild inconsistency is just breathtaking.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,05:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2011,00:48)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,17:45)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,22:59)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2011,16:16)
Why I am off to become a homepath just because of that, you see if I don't.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Going off down the homo path, are you?  We always figured that was the direction you were heading.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Totaly uncalled for! We all know Louis is "straight"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that algebraic straight, non-Euclidean, or Euclidean straight?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I work in a lab and do reseach science, do they call me "Louis the Scientist"? Nope.

So there was this one time I pulled two people out from an overturned car, do they call me "Louis the Lifesaver"? Nope.*

But you shag just one rugby team...**

Louis

*This really happened

** This didn't.

P.S. I meant "homeopath", as in the least thinkable thing anyone with even a basic undesranding of chemistry could become. But I'll be damned if the typo and subsequent gay jokes weren't funny. It stands!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 23 2011,05:54

Kris,
If you are *all that* then why, when typing a bit of one of your comments into google, do I find that it's all boilerplate?

< >

hahah.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,06:02

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,02:18)
Kris, one thing I'd like to understand is this:

If you are not religious or a creationist, why do you spend so much time and energy defending them? I think they are well enough capable of trying to defend themselves (which they do, even if most of thge time it's in clumsy, ineffective ways). It makes you come out as patronizing.

And if what you say is indeed true (our behavior towards the religious fanatics, liers-for-Jesus, creationist hacks... turns some people away from science), just keep in mind that the opposite is also true, on a much larger scale. A LOT of people end up rejecting religion because of the zealots' attitude. I don't know how many are turned away from science by some scientists'/atheists' behavior, but I've never met anyone who has been, whereas I've met quite a few ex-religious persons who left their faith because of the religious nutjobs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it interesting that you think I'm "defending" religious people and creationists. That you and others think that way makes me realize that you're twisting what I actually say into something different than what I actually say because of your own biases.

Few to none of you seem to understand me. Of course you'll assume it must be my fault, but first take a look around this site. What do you see? I see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they don't like. I also see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they do like. In other words, clones.

Anything or anyone who doesn't fit into the belief system here is instantly and automatically attacked and treated as the enemy. They MUST be an evil creationist troll! Off with their head!

Hmm, that sounds just like the way some religions treat people who don't adhere to their belief system. In fact, it sounds a lot like Muslim extremists. Infidels! Off with their heads!

Think about it, and think about this too:

Everything said on this site, or on Panda's Thumb, or Pharyngula, etc., is available to read by anyone who wants to. When someone comes here and makes their first comment they likely have already read some or a lot of the stuff said here. Just because that person is new to you doesn't mean they're new to the site. What you people say here may make some people happy but it may also incite some people to respond in a way that you won't like.

Try putting a billboard in your front yard with something controversial or insulting on it. See what happens when your neighbors and the community see it or hear of it. Don't be surprised when some people respond in a way you don't like. This site is more accessible to more people than your front yard.

Ya know, if I were a creationist troll, as I've been accused of being, it would be real easy to cause all kinds of malicious trouble here. You people are so easy to figure out and you're very predictable.

In case you're wondering, I'm not a worshiper of science or religion. I like science, good science that is, a lot, but I don't see it as something to worship or believe 'in'. I'm practical and skeptical but I'm also open minded about some things. To me, being skeptical isn't just about religion. It's about science too and maybe even more so than religion. Religion is mostly pretty easy to figure out and it usually doesn't change much or very quickly. Science is a lot more complicated than religion and there are a lot of new claims and/or changes on a daily basis. Nature is a lot more complicated than science, so I'm skeptical about any claim science makes about nature. I don't just automatically believe anything or everything some scientist says, no matter who they are.

It's because I like science that it pisses me off when it's done badly. Some of the shit in science should never happen and I wish more scientists were more concerned with cleaning up the messes in science than they are in fighting against religion. If science were strong enough, and made more accessible, understandable, interesting, and enjoyable to the masses, religious zealots wouldn't be as big a problem.

Just one thing I'd really like to see:

TV stations/networks with good science and nature shows on 24/7, on free TV (not just cable or satellite) in as many countries, states, and cities as possible. Some of the shows could be aimed at children, in the appropriate time slots. Religious zealots have some of their shows on 24/7 on free TV (and on cable and satellite). Why can't science do the same thing? To reach a bigger audience requires a bigger effort.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,06:17

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,09:17)
[SNIP]

Be nice, it's my birthday!

[/SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No it's not! I distinctly remember you having that last year.

WHAT? You want ANOTHER one?

In my day we only got one birthday. And that was too many. Harrumph.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,06:29



Just, you know, FYI. Because you're so "reasonable" and all.

Louis

(Meta to fellow AtBCers: Wasn't there a TV show called "Everybody Hates Chris"? It seemeth to me that someone with Photoshop and some skillz wiv compooters could make something of that if they had the time. I mean, if we're mocking fools, it might be worth doing so via the medium of the LOL-image. BRING FORTH THE LOLOCAUST!!*)

*Kris, sweetie, this, plus all the other mockey, should indicate to you that no one is taking you seriously. You appear to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, old chum. Do be a good boy and shut up, you're disturbing the animals and children. If you don't want to be mocked, erm, well you could always be, you know, serious and rational. As you're not, well, the mockery will continue until such time as it becomes boring, which is likely to be soon, you're a one trick pony it seems.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 23 2011,06:34

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,06:02)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,02:18)
Kris, one thing I'd like to understand is this:

If you are not religious or a creationist, why do you spend so much time and energy defending them? I think they are well enough capable of trying to defend themselves (which they do, even if most of thge time it's in clumsy, ineffective ways). It makes you come out as patronizing.

And if what you say is indeed true (our behavior towards the religious fanatics, liers-for-Jesus, creationist hacks... turns some people away from science), just keep in mind that the opposite is also true, on a much larger scale. A LOT of people end up rejecting religion because of the zealots' attitude. I don't know how many are turned away from science by some scientists'/atheists' behavior, but I've never met anyone who has been, whereas I've met quite a few ex-religious persons who left their faith because of the religious nutjobs...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it interesting that you think I'm "defending" religious people and creationists. That you and others think that way makes me realize that you're twisting what I actually say into something different than what I actually say because of your own biases.

Few to none of you seem to understand me. Of course you'll assume it must be my fault, but first take a look around this site. What do you see? I see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they don't like. I also see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they do like. In other words, clones.

Anything or anyone who doesn't fit into the belief system here is instantly and automatically attacked and treated as the enemy. They MUST be an evil creationist troll! Off with their head!

Hmm, that sounds just like the way some religions treat people who don't adhere to their belief system. In fact, it sounds a lot like Muslim extremists. Infidels! Off with their heads!

Think about it, and think about this too:

Everything said on this site, or on Panda's Thumb, or Pharyngula, etc., is available to read by anyone who wants to. When someone comes here and makes their first comment they likely have already read some or a lot of the stuff said here. Just because that person is new to you doesn't mean they're new to the site. What you people say here may make some people happy but it may also incite some people to respond in a way that you won't like.

Try putting a billboard in your front yard with something controversial or insulting on it. See what happens when your neighbors and the community see it or hear of it. Don't be surprised when some people respond in a way you don't like. This site is more accessible to more people than your front yard.

Ya know, if I were a creationist troll, as I've been accused of being, it would be real easy to cause all kinds of malicious trouble here. You people are so easy to figure out and you're very predictable.

In case you're wondering, I'm not a worshiper of science or religion. I like science, good science that is, a lot, but I don't see it as something to worship or believe 'in'. I'm practical and skeptical but I'm also open minded about some things. To me, being skeptical isn't just about religion. It's about science too and maybe even more so than religion. Religion is mostly pretty easy to figure out and it usually doesn't change much or very quickly. Science is a lot more complicated than religion and there are a lot of new claims and/or changes on a daily basis. Nature is a lot more complicated than science, so I'm skeptical about any claim science makes about nature. I don't just automatically believe anything or everything some scientist says, no matter who they are.

It's because I like science that it pisses me off when it's done badly. Some of the shit in science should never happen and I wish more scientists were more concerned with cleaning up the messes in science than they are in fighting against religion. If science were strong enough, and made more accessible, understandable, interesting, and enjoyable to the masses, religious zealots wouldn't be as big a problem.

Just one thing I'd really like to see:

TV stations/networks with good science and nature shows on 24/7, on free TV (not just cable or satellite) in as many countries, states, and cities as possible. Some of the shows could be aimed at children, in the appropriate time slots. Religious zealots have some of their shows on 24/7 on free TV (and on cable and satellite). Why can't science do the same thing? To reach a bigger audience requires a bigger effort.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats. It seems the only place you posted that particular post is here.

Way to go! Otherwise, people might start to think that you have a set of text you go round pasting at various sites just to see what reaction you provoke...
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,07:15

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,04:29)


Just, you know, FYI. Because you're so "reasonable" and all.

Louis

(Meta to fellow AtBCers: Wasn't there a TV show called "Everybody Hates Chris"? It seemeth to me that someone with Photoshop and some skillz wiv compooters could make something of that if they had the time. I mean, if we're mocking fools, it might be worth doing so via the medium of the LOL-image. BRING FORTH THE LOLOCAUST!!*)

*Kris, sweetie, this, plus all the other mockey, should indicate to you that no one is taking you seriously. You appear to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, old chum. Do be a good boy and shut up, you're disturbing the animals and children. If you don't want to be mocked, erm, well you could always be, you know, serious and rational. As you're not, well, the mockery will continue until such time as it becomes boring, which is likely to be soon, you're a one trick pony it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one? Did you poll everyone who looks at this site? Just wondering.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,07:21

What the fuck is he talking about? Well, a couple of posts ago he demonstrated that some of your rants are direct Copy/Pasta of some other rants you (or someone else) posted elsewhere.

That's very funny, I think.

And Kris, about the last paragraph in your quoted post: science never had very good PR. And you know what? Science doesn't give a flying fuck!
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,07:39

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:08)
Well, at least I have consistent standards of honor and do my best to live up to them, no matter the cost.

You, on the other hand, seem to have NO standards whatsoever. All you ever have is hate for the rest of humanity.
     
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:03)
 
Aren't you the one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of, and friendship with, people from various groups?

"Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure."

Aren't those your words Dale? Were you lying when you typed them? If you're so friendly toward religious people, why do you constantly bash religious Creationists, religious ID-ists, Muslims, Christians, etc.?

Let's take a look at your claim about how "honorable" you are:

"An Honorable Skeptic

This is my ethical philosophy that I always express everywhere I may go.

I am a skeptic by nature.  I question everything I see, not taking what I am told at face value, but demanding proof, evidence, and corroborations before I accept something as true. Thus, when I am told by liberals that there was a conspiracy of American government officials involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11, I am skeptical. If I am told by liberals that atrocities were committed in either Afganistan or Iraq by American forces against civilians, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that tax cuts are a way to help the economy grow and that tax hikes hurt the economy, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that the War in Iraq was justified even though no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found there even after being told before that they were there, I am VERY skeptical of that!!! When it comes to skepticism, I don’t discriminate politically! I doubt everything!

Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of honor, which I hold more dear to me than my life. It allows for no exceptions whatsoever. So if I have lost friends or even made enemies for standing up for my honor, so be it. If I see someone who comes across to me as a liar, a bully, or just plain rude and stupid, then I usually try to fight back. If I see someone doing or saying things that damage the credibility of the causes I happen to believe in, I deeply take offense at that because I want those causes to be protected, even at the expense of picking fights with those who are unworthy to support those causes. I beleive in absolute standards of right and wrong and so I see no point in ever excusing something that is wrong because the wrongdoer is otherwise a friendly or nice guy. That’s how corruption sets in.

Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure. Once I recognize that another soul is honorable, no matter what else may be true of that person, I embrace him as a brother. But if I discover a fellow American, a fellow agnostic, a fellow liberal, or a fellow chess player to be dishonorable in his behavior, he becomes my enemy, period. I distrust and shun him like I would a leper.

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight like a pit bull to prove my case and defeat my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles here as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

No matter how great the pressure, I feel that one must never “sell out”. It is being able to stand up to the urge to conform to the shallow desires and priorites of others who have a limited vision that makes one truly heroic. I choose my friends according to my ideals; I never bend my ideals for the sake of keeping friends."

Your "ideals" are rooted in insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, malignant narcissism, and bigotry, and you're a legend in your own mind.

Oh, and I don't think your link to Pharyngula is about me. Better luck next time Mr. Dishonorable Wacko.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have "consistent standards of honor"?? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only things consistent about you are your insanity, hypocrisy, bigotry, malignant narcissism, dishonesty, lack of honor, and hatred of anyone who doesn't kiss your ass and agree with everything you say or believe in.

For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it. Think of that when you're showing your hatred of ID/creationists.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,07:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it. Think of that when you're showing your hatred of ID/creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry, but it doesn't mean they're right, and it certainly doesn't mean some of them can distort science and lie about science to serve a political agenda...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,08:00

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,13:15)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,04:29)


Just, you know, FYI. Because you're so "reasonable" and all.

Louis

(Meta to fellow AtBCers: Wasn't there a TV show called "Everybody Hates Chris"? It seemeth to me that someone with Photoshop and some skillz wiv compooters could make something of that if they had the time. I mean, if we're mocking fools, it might be worth doing so via the medium of the LOL-image. BRING FORTH THE LOLOCAUST!!*)

*Kris, sweetie, this, plus all the other mockey, should indicate to you that no one is taking you seriously. You appear to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, old chum. Do be a good boy and shut up, you're disturbing the animals and children. If you don't want to be mocked, erm, well you could always be, you know, serious and rational. As you're not, well, the mockery will continue until such time as it becomes boring, which is likely to be soon, you're a one trick pony it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one? Did you poll everyone who looks at this site? Just wondering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well of course I did. Don't you have an Insta-Universo-Poll-o-matic? Tchoh! You're behind on technology as well as, well, just being, you know, "behind".

Shape up, old boy.

Louis

P.S. Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously are most welcome to come forward and present "The Case for Kris: Why He Is Weally Weally Sewious and Should Be Tweateded Wike a Big Boy". Note to Kris: sock puppets don't count. This is Teh Intawebz, we are familiar with such fun tactics.

ETA: Interesting, by the way, that you would equivocate on the use of the word "no one" and read it in a global manner as opposed to a limited manner (i.e. "no one reading this site" vs "no one posting to your threads"). Gish, it's almost like you're not actually interested in a serious conversation but instead are concerned only with venting your bilious little spleen and pathetically trolling isn't it? Oops sorry, did you get exposed....again?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,08:06

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,05:21)
What the fuck is he talking about? Well, a couple of posts ago he demonstrated that some of your rants are direct Copy/Pasta of some other rants you (or someone else) posted elsewhere.

That's very funny, I think.

And Kris, about the last paragraph in your quoted post: science never had very good PR. And you know what? Science doesn't give a flying fuck!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he didn't show any such thing. I copied and pasted what Dale says about his alleged honorable skepticism. What's wrong with that? Dale's the one who says exactly the same thing on several sites.


It's funny that you say science doesn't give a flying fuck about PR. I guess that means that you and most of the people on sites like this one, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., aren't representatives of science.

What is your motive for bashing ID/creationists here or anywhere else? Is it just so that you can vent your hatred of ID/creationists? Is it to promote science? Is it to get people to shun religion and become more interested in science?

Ya see, if you're not interested in the PR of science, then you must be here just to bitch about religion/creationism/ID. Apparently that's why most people must be here.

If scientists want the public to care about and trust science they should be concerned about PR. You guys are wasting your time if you think that just bitching about religion/creationism/ID is going to accomplish anything positive for science. With an attitude like yours it's no wonder that religion is more popular than science.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,08:10

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,05:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it. Think of that when you're showing your hatred of ID/creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry, but it doesn't mean they're right, and it certainly doesn't mean some of them can distort science and lie about science to serve a political agenda...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did I say that they're right or that it's ok for some of them to have a biased or dishonest political agenda?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,08:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it. Think of that when you're showing your hatred of ID/creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hatred? HATRED? Dear Sweet FSM, if mocking the excesses of a vocal, politically bent minority of a minority of a minority of religious people equates to hatred, then I think you need to pull your head delicately from the deeper recesses of your rectum and get out in the real world. Speaking purely personally, I haven't got it in me to hate anything or anyone. Mocking/ignoring =/= hate. Perhaps you should learn that.

It might also help you to note that There are millions of people who read Pharyngula/PT/such sites on the web, a tiny subset of that who comment and neither of these categories are a) homogenous nor b) in universal agreement. Teating them as such is....I'll be generous....an error. Treating them as their if their "worst" exponents* are the best expression of their argument is....again with the generous....an error.** You know, just FYI. Any chance of anything serious from you yet? Or is all you have more outrage and bluster?

Louis

*Said "worst exponents" at the most are guilty of being exceptionally rude and stupid. I've yet to see one fly a plane into a building or shoot a medical doctor or what have you. And so help me, if you bring up Zombie Stalin or similar you will get a very impolite instruction to learn some fucking history.

**Interestingly, chuckling funsters like yourself are fond of false equivalences, so let me head you off at the pass. Yes indeed there are muppets who treat religious folks as if they are all fundamentalists, guess what, they are wrong. Shock horror.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,08:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,08:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on. There might be some. Well, one. Maybe. You never know. I mean, weirder things have happened.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,08:24

Kris doesn't seem to understand that people can have opinions and still be strict scientists.

He also doesn't seem to understand that attitudes like his are the reason that science has poor PR.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,08:37

Well if Kris wants to discuss science and PR, science itself, the "accomodationism vs Gnu Atheists" tone debacle (because it's rarely a debate), or any such thing, he is welcome to discuss it. I'm interested in all of them, for one. I'm sure there are also others here who would welcome a serious discussion to break up the LOLcats and dick jokes.*

I'm not sure Kris bouncing into the room and insulting everyone is the best way of achieving his stated goal of having this conversation, but then I remain unconvinced this IS his stated goal. He seems to me to be a GoP-like character, so convinced of his rightness, righteousness and chock full of false equivalences that it somehow justifies him acting like a moron. Still, I long for the day I am proven wrong about ostensible internet trolls like Kris. It's yet to come of course, but I still long for it.

Louis

*Guilty as charged, Your Honour....for the LOLcats and dick jokes I mean.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,08:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm, I didn't realize that asking flowersfriend some questions in a nice, sincere way was such a bad thing.

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You were being nice and sincere?!  I didn't think so.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"OUR space"? "we"? Are you one of the owners of the Panda's Thumb website?

You say you don't paint the members of any group with the same brush and that you treasure the diversity of different people. You also say you have conservative, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends. Those people are all creationists, unless of course they have modified their belief system to accommodate the scientific theory of evolution, which also means that they're not really conservatives, Christians, Jews, or Muslims. I'm surprised that you have friends who have such contradictory belief systems. Why don't you think of them as dishonorable people? Is acceptance of the ToE your criteria for determining the honorable-ness of who may be worthy of being your friend?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What are you, FL in disguise? And since you obviously hate my standards, why continue to discuss them with you? Anything I say, you just throw it back at me with venom. That's what crazy people do.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'm surprised that you have any friends at all. Frankly, I doubt that you do, for real.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How many friends do you have?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 23 2011,10:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He seems to me to be a GoP-like character...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, Loki-troll is a possibility! I thought of trying the Khrushchev telegram technique but I see SD has already chimed in.

Kris, you are definitely losing the attention of the regulars here. Your comments have become repetitive and boring. You are risking the ultimate indignity of being ignored. There's no worse fate for the attention seeker.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 23 2011,10:09

Meh. He's an idiot, says nothing of interest and strokes himself when getting attention.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 23 2011,10:11

Seriously, this "Wah, wah, wah, you're all big meanieheads" is very tiresome. Howzabout you go make your very blog where you can concern troll, kvetch, and otherwise not make your point to your heart's content?  What?  Not satisfying enough?

Most folks (who aren't terminally stupid, socially autistic, or just plain masochistic) have the good sense to leave the scene when they know their presence isn't wanted.

Which one are you, Kris?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 23 2011,10:24

Kris,

For someone who claims to want rational conversation about things, you sure do run from any opportunity to engage in rational conversation.

I know, I know, big mean people are keeping you from doing what you really want to do.  It's terrible.  How about ignoring anything that's rude (actually rude, not just things you clam are rude to you know--avoid rational conversation) and starting a conversation on our terms?  It's what rational people the world over do.

Frankly, your behavior on this thread is your own worse enemy.  Prove me wrong by actually seeming to give a crap about conversation.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 23 2011,10:31

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,14:06)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,05:21)
What the fuck is he talking about? Well, a couple of posts ago he demonstrated that some of your rants are direct Copy/Pasta of some other rants you (or someone else) posted elsewhere.

That's very funny, I think.

And Kris, about the last paragraph in your quoted post: science never had very good PR. And you know what? Science doesn't give a flying fuck!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he didn't show any such thing. I copied and pasted what Dale says about his alleged honorable skepticism. What's wrong with that? Dale's the one who says exactly the same thing on several sites.


It's funny that you say science doesn't give a flying fuck about PR. I guess that means that you and most of the people on sites like this one, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., aren't representatives of science.

What is your motive for bashing ID/creationists here or anywhere else? Is it just so that you can vent your hatred of ID/creationists? Is it to promote science? Is it to get people to shun religion and become more interested in science?

Ya see, if you're not interested in the PR of science, then you must be here just to bitch about religion/creationism/ID. Apparently that's why most people must be here.

If scientists want the public to care about and trust science they should be concerned about PR. You guys are wasting your time if you think that just bitching about religion/creationism/ID is going to accomplish anything positive for science. With an attitude like yours it's no wonder that religion is more popular than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking for myself, I basicaly do it for the lulz.

But nobody here bashes the IDists/creationists that act with civility. At best, we bash the stupidity they are spewing, but not the guys themselves.

But when they become uncivil, or clearly irrational (IBIG, Floyd Lee, JoeG...) because cornered and unable to answer to simple questions, then we start bashing them. Why would we do otherwise when they come here and crap all over the carpet?

This is one of the reasons I proposed you start this discussion again presenting your point or queries without getting all ad hominem and stuff.

And you failed to do that, you failed to show a tinsy bit of backbone by starting a real discussion. if you have issues with Dale, resolve them thru private messages, but you should in this here venue try and discuss what you said you wanted to discuss: science.

If you continue on this same line you've been holding so far, the shitstorm will continue and you will be sure to get nailed to the cross (if only by numbers alone).
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 23 2011,10:49

It took all night (that's what she said) but I finished a poll of every visitor to the Panda's Thumb in the last 6 months.

The qwestion was:  Do you take Kwis sewiouswy?

Drum woll pwease!!!!

NO:  7,284,443

YES:  0

It appears that Kwis voted against himself, pwobabwy because he didn't understand the question.

Poo widdle Kwis!

(Heh, heh, she said "widdle!"  Srsly, that's what she said.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,11:59

well on the other hand he is good for something.

shit stains, blast them with piss
Posted by: Dr.GH on Jan. 23 2011,12:57

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,06:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,14:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on. There might be some. Well, one. Maybe. You never know. I mean, weirder things have happened.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have several conference abstracts on turds. They are far more interesting than krissy-poo.
Posted by: tsig on Jan. 23 2011,13:19

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 23 2011,08:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't use it to fertilize my garden.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,13:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it interesting that you think I'm "defending" religious people and creationists. That you and others think that way makes me realize that you're twisting what I actually say into something different than what I actually say because of your own biases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or maybe we are reacting the way we do because we have normal minds and find your inconsistency just incomprehensible.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Few to none of you seem to understand me. Of course you'll assume it must be my fault, but first take a look around this site. What do you see? I see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they don't like. I also see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they do like. In other words, clones.

Anything or anyone who doesn't fit into the belief system here is instantly and automatically attacked and treated as the enemy. They MUST be an evil creationist troll! Off with their head!

Hmm, that sounds just like the way some religions treat people who don't adhere to their belief system. In fact, it sounds a lot like Muslim extremists. Infidels! Off with their heads!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We have a community here with shared values, yes. But I don't recall anyone saying they wanted to execute people for being Creationist. What stupid hyperbole!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about it, and think about this too:

Everything said on this site, or on Panda's Thumb, or Pharyngula, etc., is available to read by anyone who wants to. When someone comes here and makes their first comment they likely have already read some or a lot of the stuff said here. Just because that person is new to you doesn't mean they're new to the site. What you people say here may make some people happy but it may also incite some people to respond in a way that you won't like.

Try putting a billboard in your front yard with something controversial or insulting on it. See what happens when your neighbors and the community see it or hear of it. Don't be surprised when some people respond in a way you don't like. This site is more accessible to more people than your front yard.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are merely stating the blatantly obvious. That's called empty rhetoric.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ya know, if I were a creationist troll, as I've been accused of being, it would be real easy to cause all kinds of malicious trouble here. You people are so easy to figure out and you're very predictable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You mean you'd be even WORSE than you are now?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In case you're wondering, I'm not a worshiper of science or religion. I like science, good science that is, a lot, but I don't see it as something to worship or believe 'in'. I'm practical and skeptical but I'm also open minded about some things. To me, being skeptical isn't just about religion. It's about science too and maybe even more so than religion. Religion is mostly pretty easy to figure out and it usually doesn't change much or very quickly. Science is a lot more complicated than religion and there are a lot of new claims and/or changes on a daily basis. Nature is a lot more complicated than science, so I'm skeptical about any claim science makes about nature. I don't just automatically believe anything or everything some scientist says, no matter who they are.

It's because I like science that it pisses me off when it's done badly. Some of the shit in science should never happen and I wish more scientists were more concerned with cleaning up the messes in science than they are in fighting against religion. If science were strong enough, and made more accessible, understandable, interesting, and enjoyable to the masses, religious zealots wouldn't be as big a problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gee, you say all the right things, but your track record shows that you pick fights over the silliest things, like whether or not certain woodpeckers are extinct. Why not talk about really important issues like the misuse of science for military purposes?

I have written about the importance of peer review and skepticism in science.  It's standard procedure among scientists, including those who study evolution. You seem to think we believe the opposite, which is a falsehood.

< Natural selection and the scientific peer review process. >

So what the hell are you griping about???


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just one thing I'd really like to see:

TV stations/networks with good science and nature shows on 24/7, on free TV (not just cable or satellite) in as many countries, states, and cities as possible. Some of the shows could be aimed at children, in the appropriate time slots. Religious zealots have some of their shows on 24/7 on free TV (and on cable and satellite). Why can't science do the same thing? To reach a bigger audience requires a bigger effort.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nice. So why aren't you working harder for that instead of bitching so much at us?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,16:50

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 23 2011,18:57)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,06:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,14:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh come on. There might be some. Well, one. Maybe. You never know. I mean, weirder things have happened.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have several conference abstracts on turds. They are far more interesting than krissy-poo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't doubt it.

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,00:28

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,07:39)
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentam ad populam fallacy.  Reality, last time I checked, is not a consensual construct that changes if only enough people believes something.

If six billion people believe a thing that is counter to factual data, it is still counter-factual.  Popularity's got nothing to do with it.  No matter how hard you believe you can fly, gravity will win if you leap off a tall building.  Closing your eyes and wishing will not render the oblate spheroid into a flat surface, round or otherwise.  This is pretty basic stuff.

Try again, please, without using a red herring that is not actually under dispute.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,19:20

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,22:28)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,07:39)
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentam ad populam fallacy.  Reality, last time I checked, is not a consensual construct that changes if only enough people believes something.

If six billion people believe a thing that is counter to factual data, it is still counter-factual.  Popularity's got nothing to do with it.  No matter how hard you believe you can fly, gravity will win if you leap off a tall building.  Closing your eyes and wishing will not render the oblate spheroid into a flat surface, round or otherwise.  This is pretty basic stuff.

Try again, please, without using a red herring that is not actually under dispute.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try, but you quoted me out of context, which makes your comments irrelevant to what I said.

And hey, you might want to consider that Argumentam ad populam thing when you and others here think you're right just because you agree with each other.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,19:28

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,06:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hmm, I didn't realize that asking flowersfriend some questions in a nice, sincere way was such a bad thing.

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You were being nice and sincere?!  I didn't think so.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"OUR space"? "we"? Are you one of the owners of the Panda's Thumb website?

You say you don't paint the members of any group with the same brush and that you treasure the diversity of different people. You also say you have conservative, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends. Those people are all creationists, unless of course they have modified their belief system to accommodate the scientific theory of evolution, which also means that they're not really conservatives, Christians, Jews, or Muslims. I'm surprised that you have friends who have such contradictory belief systems. Why don't you think of them as dishonorable people? Is acceptance of the ToE your criteria for determining the honorable-ness of who may be worthy of being your friend?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What are you, FL in disguise? And since you obviously hate my standards, why continue to discuss them with you? Anything I say, you just throw it back at me with venom. That's what crazy people do.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'm surprised that you have any friends at all. Frankly, I doubt that you do, for real.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How many friends do you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you sneak out of your padded cell and get online with the asylum's computer again Dale? Shame on you.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 24 2011,19:39

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,20:28)
*snip*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yawn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 24 2011,19:48

Kris, I'm just curious, why are you on this thread whining, when you could be on another thread talking about your notions (whatever it is that they are)?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 24 2011,19:50

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,07:39)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:08)
Well, at least I have consistent standards of honor and do my best to live up to them, no matter the cost.

You, on the other hand, seem to have NO standards whatsoever. All you ever have is hate for the rest of humanity.
     
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:03)
 
Aren't you the one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of, and friendship with, people from various groups?

"Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure."

Aren't those your words Dale? Were you lying when you typed them? If you're so friendly toward religious people, why do you constantly bash religious Creationists, religious ID-ists, Muslims, Christians, etc.?

Let's take a look at your claim about how "honorable" you are:

"An Honorable Skeptic

This is my ethical philosophy that I always express everywhere I may go.

I am a skeptic by nature.  I question everything I see, not taking what I am told at face value, but demanding proof, evidence, and corroborations before I accept something as true. Thus, when I am told by liberals that there was a conspiracy of American government officials involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11, I am skeptical. If I am told by liberals that atrocities were committed in either Afganistan or Iraq by American forces against civilians, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that tax cuts are a way to help the economy grow and that tax hikes hurt the economy, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that the War in Iraq was justified even though no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found there even after being told before that they were there, I am VERY skeptical of that!!! When it comes to skepticism, I don’t discriminate politically! I doubt everything!

Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of honor, which I hold more dear to me than my life. It allows for no exceptions whatsoever. So if I have lost friends or even made enemies for standing up for my honor, so be it. If I see someone who comes across to me as a liar, a bully, or just plain rude and stupid, then I usually try to fight back. If I see someone doing or saying things that damage the credibility of the causes I happen to believe in, I deeply take offense at that because I want those causes to be protected, even at the expense of picking fights with those who are unworthy to support those causes. I beleive in absolute standards of right and wrong and so I see no point in ever excusing something that is wrong because the wrongdoer is otherwise a friendly or nice guy. That’s how corruption sets in.

Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure. Once I recognize that another soul is honorable, no matter what else may be true of that person, I embrace him as a brother. But if I discover a fellow American, a fellow agnostic, a fellow liberal, or a fellow chess player to be dishonorable in his behavior, he becomes my enemy, period. I distrust and shun him like I would a leper.

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight like a pit bull to prove my case and defeat my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles here as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

No matter how great the pressure, I feel that one must never “sell out”. It is being able to stand up to the urge to conform to the shallow desires and priorites of others who have a limited vision that makes one truly heroic. I choose my friends according to my ideals; I never bend my ideals for the sake of keeping friends."

Your "ideals" are rooted in insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, malignant narcissism, and bigotry, and you're a legend in your own mind.

Oh, and I don't think your link to Pharyngula is about me. Better luck next time Mr. Dishonorable Wacko.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have "consistent standards of honor"?? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only things consistent about you are your insanity, hypocrisy, bigotry, malignant narcissism, dishonesty, lack of honor, and hatred of anyone who doesn't kiss your ass and agree with everything you say or believe in.

For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it. Think of that when you're showing your hatred of ID/creationists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's the entire context of your post.  What context did MP conflate please?

Are you saying that we have to be careful because if we don't say the things they want to here, then they'll riot and kill us with overwhelming numbers?

Or is it something else?

I think you're wrong.  I'm pretty sure MPs statement of your fallacy is correct.

See ya.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,20:11

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,19:20)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,22:28)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,07:39)
For your information, most of humanity believes that a creator/designer is responsible for the universe and everything in it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentam ad populam fallacy.  Reality, last time I checked, is not a consensual construct that changes if only enough people believes something.

If six billion people believe a thing that is counter to factual data, it is still counter-factual.  Popularity's got nothing to do with it.  No matter how hard you believe you can fly, gravity will win if you leap off a tall building.  Closing your eyes and wishing will not render the oblate spheroid into a flat surface, round or otherwise.  This is pretty basic stuff.

Try again, please, without using a red herring that is not actually under dispute.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try, but you quoted me out of context, which makes your comments irrelevant to what I said.

And hey, you might want to consider that Argumentam ad populam thing when you and others here think you're right just because you agree with each other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(eyeroll)

You really aren't very good at this, are you, son?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,20:29

obvious whore is obvious
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 24 2011,20:48

I'm sad that no one commented on my haiku about Kris.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,20:52

In all candor, O Cybertank, such an effort is casting pearls before a brick wall...

Wait.  JoeyKris is even less appreciative and observant than that.  Hold on.  Let me get my thesaurus rex.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 24 2011,20:55

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,20:52)
In all candor, O Cybertank, such an effort is casting pearls before a brick wall...

Wait.  JoeyKris is even less appreciative and observant than that.  Hold on.  Let me get my thesaurus rex.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BTW: Post for you in the Science Break Thread.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,21:12

Pour moi?  M'sieur is too kind...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,22:47

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,08:31)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,14:06)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,05:21)
What the fuck is he talking about? Well, a couple of posts ago he demonstrated that some of your rants are direct Copy/Pasta of some other rants you (or someone else) posted elsewhere.

That's very funny, I think.

And Kris, about the last paragraph in your quoted post: science never had very good PR. And you know what? Science doesn't give a flying fuck!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he didn't show any such thing. I copied and pasted what Dale says about his alleged honorable skepticism. What's wrong with that? Dale's the one who says exactly the same thing on several sites.


It's funny that you say science doesn't give a flying fuck about PR. I guess that means that you and most of the people on sites like this one, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., aren't representatives of science.

What is your motive for bashing ID/creationists here or anywhere else? Is it just so that you can vent your hatred of ID/creationists? Is it to promote science? Is it to get people to shun religion and become more interested in science?

Ya see, if you're not interested in the PR of science, then you must be here just to bitch about religion/creationism/ID. Apparently that's why most people must be here.

If scientists want the public to care about and trust science they should be concerned about PR. You guys are wasting your time if you think that just bitching about religion/creationism/ID is going to accomplish anything positive for science. With an attitude like yours it's no wonder that religion is more popular than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking for myself, I basicaly do it for the lulz.

But nobody here bashes the IDists/creationists that act with civility. At best, we bash the stupidity they are spewing, but not the guys themselves.

But when they become uncivil, or clearly irrational (IBIG, Floyd Lee, JoeG...) because cornered and unable to answer to simple questions, then we start bashing them. Why would we do otherwise when they come here and crap all over the carpet?

This is one of the reasons I proposed you start this discussion again presenting your point or queries without getting all ad hominem and stuff.

And you failed to do that, you failed to show a tinsy bit of backbone by starting a real discussion. if you have issues with Dale, resolve them thru private messages, but you should in this here venue try and discuss what you said you wanted to discuss: science.

If you continue on this same line you've been holding so far, the shitstorm will continue and you will be sure to get nailed to the cross (if only by numbers alone).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"But nobody here bashes the IDists/creationists that act with civility. At best, we bash the stupidity they are spewing, but not the guys themselves."

Yeah, right. You've got to be kidding.


"But when they become uncivil, or clearly irrational (IBIG, Floyd Lee, JoeG...) because cornered and unable to answer to simple questions, then we start bashing them. Why would we do otherwise when they come here and crap all over the carpet?"

You should look at a mirror when you say "uncivil, or clearly irrational". And you guys are real good at crapping on your own carpet. This site is craptastic.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 24 2011,22:56

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,22:47)
"But nobody here bashes the IDists/creationists that act with civility. At best, we bash the stupidity they are spewing, but not the guys themselves."

Yeah, right. You've got to be kidding.


"But when they become uncivil, or clearly irrational (IBIG, Floyd Lee, JoeG...) because cornered and unable to answer to simple questions, then we start bashing them. Why would we do otherwise when they come here and crap all over the carpet?"

You should look at a mirror when you say "uncivil, or clearly irrational". And you guys are real good at crapping on your own carpet. This site is craptastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You just lied outright for the bazillionth time. Or did you forget once more about flowersfriend? You need treatment for that memory problem of yours.

And how many times must you be told that "tu quoque" is not a credible argument? We are acting consistently with our standards of logic and truth, which you reject. It is not hypocrisy to live up to what we stand for, just because you dislike it. In our minds, you, and the Creationists you defend, get no less than what they deserve, always and forever. Get over it!
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 24 2011,22:59

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,23:47)
This site is craptastic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, fuck right off, then!   :)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 24 2011,23:12

Awwww, did widdle JoeyKris not like having his logical fallacies pointed out to him again?

You haven't got the feel for this at all, lad.  Now you're starting in with tu quoque to go with the argumentam ad populam from earlier and your usual weapons-grade projection.

I think perhaps you're a little too obsessed with the obsession you've projected onto us.  Also a little too quick to leap to the insults regardless of the person you're addressing and the topic on which you're pontificating, but I suppose you can't help yourself.

Fewer logical fallacies, at the very least, would lend you some credibility, and you need as much as you can get.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,23:53

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,21:12)
Awwww, did widdle JoeyKris not like having his logical fallacies pointed out to him again?

You haven't got the feel for this at all, lad.  Now you're starting in with tu quoque to go with the argumentam ad populam from earlier and your usual weapons-grade projection.

I think perhaps you're a little too obsessed with the obsession you've projected onto us.  Also a little too quick to leap to the insults regardless of the person you're addressing and the topic on which you're pontificating, but I suppose you can't help yourself.

Fewer logical fallacies, at the very least, would lend you some credibility, and you need as much as you can get.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,00:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I was nice to flowersfriend and simply asked her some questions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, just like you have been "nice" to all of us. I could foresee where you were going with those questions and moved to stop you before you could esculate the situation and drive flowersfriend away from PT in disgust. And I'd do it again.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You are one sick, pompous motherfucker, Dale-boi. Take your hypocritical, dishonest "standards" and shove them up your tu quoque.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We, our, us; do you ever just speak for yourself you gutless punk? Does your gang mentality make you feel like a big man?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How big do you think you are?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You better get back to your padded cell before the guys in white suits find you.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Insanity such as yours cannot be covered up by calling others crazy.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, we thank you for the pointless outburst. Because that is all you got.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 25 2011,00:11

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,23:53)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,21:12)
Awwww, did widdle JoeyKris not like having his logical fallacies pointed out to him again?

You haven't got the feel for this at all, lad.  Now you're starting in with tu quoque to go with the argumentam ad populam from earlier and your usual weapons-grade projection.

I think perhaps you're a little too obsessed with the obsession you've projected onto us.  Also a little too quick to leap to the insults regardless of the person you're addressing and the topic on which you're pontificating, but I suppose you can't help yourself.

Fewer logical fallacies, at the very least, would lend you some credibility, and you need as much as you can get.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh!  Such a mean talking internet tough guy!  :D

It must be that time of the month again for you JoeyKris, right?  I bet your Maxipad's soaked clean through.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,00:16

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:11)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,06:17)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I'm the one accused of being quick to insult??

Hey Dale-boi, why aren't you giving erasmouth shit for being so insulting and threatening? I mean, you've got all those "standards", right? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey erasmush, does FCD stand for Fuckfaced Cocksucking Dickhead or Fartbreathing Cuckold Dipshit? Just wondering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Becuase you started it and only you can end it by never insulting anyone here again. But I know you won't. Instead, you will lie to everyone by claiming you are just throwing our shit back at us, which, even if true, only reduces you to the same level you claim we are at. Our "hypocrisy" is also yours and always has been.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,00:17

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,23:53)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,21:12)
Awwww, did widdle JoeyKris not like having his logical fallacies pointed out to him again?

You haven't got the feel for this at all, lad.  Now you're starting in with tu quoque to go with the argumentam ad populam from earlier and your usual weapons-grade projection.

I think perhaps you're a little too obsessed with the obsession you've projected onto us.  Also a little too quick to leap to the insults regardless of the person you're addressing and the topic on which you're pontificating, but I suppose you can't help yourself.

Fewer logical fallacies, at the very least, would lend you some credibility, and you need as much as you can get.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you talking to that mirror, JoeyKris?

When I'm polite, you're abusive.  Therefore, there is no point in playing nice-nice with you.

Throughout this joyous ritual you have demonstrated a tendency towards being obtuse, mean-spirited, hypocritical (constantly), intellectually dishonest, and only too willing to commit fallacy after fallacy, all while insulting people who point out your errors.

One wonders why you insist on demonstrating your childishness at such lengths, and with such enthusiasm.  You certainly cannot be taken seriously.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,00:27

Lest we forget how this started, with Kris equating free speech with a chaotic atmosphere in which rational discussion becomes impossible because trolls like him are able to come and go as they please. But while Kris was banned from PT, other Creationist bigots like FL and Robert Byers have not been. Kris got banned only when he posted my phone number and said he wanted to crank call my wife and tell her a lie about me.
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:35)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2011,10:32)
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is < taking a step into uncharted territory >. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, your MASSIVE hypocrisy is showing, and so is that of your sycophants. You posted your incredibly hypocritical remarks on Panda's Thumb, even though Panda's Thumb censors and moderates comments, and bans people who "dissent".

It is astounding to me that you won't see that you condone the exact thing that you're bitching about. The DI may be run by hypocritical people but you've got no room to condemn them unless you advocate completely open, free speech here and on Panda's Thumb, and everywhere else.

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,00:28

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:17)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,23:53)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,21:12)
Awwww, did widdle JoeyKris not like having his logical fallacies pointed out to him again?

You haven't got the feel for this at all, lad.  Now you're starting in with tu quoque to go with the argumentam ad populam from earlier and your usual weapons-grade projection.

I think perhaps you're a little too obsessed with the obsession you've projected onto us.  Also a little too quick to leap to the insults regardless of the person you're addressing and the topic on which you're pontificating, but I suppose you can't help yourself.

Fewer logical fallacies, at the very least, would lend you some credibility, and you need as much as you can get.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you talking to that mirror, JoeyKris?

When I'm polite, you're abusive.  Therefore, there is no point in playing nice-nice with you.

Throughout this joyous ritual you have demonstrated a tendency towards being obtuse, mean-spirited, hypocritical (constantly), intellectually dishonest, and only too willing to commit fallacy after fallacy, all while insulting people who point out your errors.

One wonders why you insist on demonstrating your childishness at such lengths, and with such enthusiasm.  You certainly cannot be taken seriously.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You, polite??

Wow.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,00:31

Quote (Kris distorting the truth @ Jan. 25 2011,00:25)
It's interesting that you're accusing me of being insulting or mean to flowersfriend, even though I wasn't, but the fact that some other people did give her a bad time apparently doesn't bother you. Why aren't you bitching at those people Dale-boi? I thought you said you have standards that never waver. Pfft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, once most of us realized that flowersfriend wasn't a fanatical bigot like FL or IBIG, things cooled down and she even returned later for more pleasant conversation. So once more, you have been dishonest. And to her credit, she totally ignored you, and thus disaster was averted.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,00:35

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:30)
Lest "we" forget, you are a lying nutcase.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


State one lie I have EVER told about you, Kris. Just one. And please give us an example of us being hypocritical to you or anyone else here. Just one. Because merely calling me and others here hypocrites, liars or insane means nothing without evidence.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 25 2011,00:37

Thank-you, Kris, for being a true bastion of rational discussion.  Thank-you for proving that not everyone is fooled by the smoke and mirrors of trolling.  Thank-you, sir, for staying ever strong in your support for conversation and education.  Thank-you for not taking the bait of these evilutionists and remaining true to your ideals.  Thank-you for all you do to further the education of the truly interested lurkers.

Thank-you, Kris.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,00:50

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:28)
You, polite??

Wow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just because you have forgotten, or were not paying attention because it did not fuel your persecution complex, does not mean I have not at times been more civil to you than your conduct deserves.  Others here and back on PT have also been polite, even to the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt.  For this grandmotherly kindness, we have been rewarded with venom, bile, and threats of violence.

I am thus no less polite than you deserve, and probably a great deal more gracious than I ought to be, all things considered.  Unless, of course, what you mean by 'uncivil' is 'not agreeing with me'.

Odd double standard you have there, son.

I am uncertain whether to classify you as a fraud or a poser, although these are not mutually exclusive.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,01:29

To illustrate for all to see how Kris slowly degenerated into the lunatic we know him to be now, let's look back at Panda's Thumb nearly two months ago.

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240311 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris replied to comment from Lamar | December 3, 2010 9:40 PM

I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.
<snip>
In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”. However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science. I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240354 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

harold | December 4, 2010 10:08 AM
Kris -

You seem to take an interest in the discussion here, but you also seem to lack some background information about science and creationism.

Everyone makes mistakes and has things to learn. I have made plenty of mis-statements here and in other places. When someone points it out, I learn.

I’m going to give you a chance to do that right now.

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.

I noticed in my youth that I do instinctively hold certain assumptions. I assume the physical world exists, I assume my senses detect aspects of it, I assume other human beings exist, I assume that their senses detect aspects of the same physical world, and I assume that the axioms of logic, although having no physical existence themselves, should be used in evaluating physical reality. Therefore I prefer the scientific method for evaluating physical reality.

Scientific claims should always be viewed critically, with skepticism. No-one should “swallow whatever science cooks up”. To do so would be, in fact, unscientific. Sometimes scientific ideas initially get too much credit, because they are advanced by a prestigious source or seem especially exciting. But this is a mistake.

Having said that, please specifically explain which scientific observations, hypotheses, experimental results, or theories you dispute, and why.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240429 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harold, your responses have little or nothing to do with what I said.

Just one example: I was referring to the simplicity of the phrase “evolved from matter” in the sense that the phrase isn’t explanatory enough to necessarily describe how “evolutionists” (or any scientists for that matter) may feel about how the universe began. I was not referring to the concept or theory of evolution itself.

I think that Lamar’s comments are worth some consideration, as he stated them, and I tried not to read things into them that are not there. You might try to do the same with my comments.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Later....

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241116 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris | December 11, 2010 1:22 AM

harold said:

“There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.”

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241117 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 1:42 AM

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

no, he need not. It’s an absolutely accurate statement.

I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions.

Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement.

We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported.

likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc.

your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play “gotchya” games.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241121 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris replied to comment from Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 2:52 AM

It’s not a game, and you’re not Harold, or are you?

Just to be accurate, which one of Harold’s statements (that I quoted) are you referring to?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241123 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 6:22 AM | Edit

one, this quite obviously IS a game to you, and has been since you first started posting here.

two, you don’t get to control who responds to your posts.

three, it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what I was responding to, based on what I posted.

man, the nutters here are getting too damn thick.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You may read the rest of that thread, but I posted these bits here to show where I think the trouble with Kris got started.

BTW, I thought Harold's statement "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." was indeed obviously true. When Kris challenged it, I was astonished and also wondered what the hell he was doing. Soon, we all found out!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,02:01

Oh my FSM! He is a complete douche!

Well Kris, I've tried to be nice, polite, civil, so now I'm going for the other option:

Kris, go fuck yourself with a jackhammer!

Thanks.

Hugs.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,02:14

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,02:01)
Oh my FSM! He is a complete douche!

Well Kris, I've tried to be nice, polite, civil, so now I'm going for the other option:

Kris, go fuck yourself with a jackhammer!

Thanks.

Hugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd rather see Kris get hit with P Z Myers' Banhammer. Much more phunny, that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,06:01

I'd rather see him fellate a termite nest.

Kris I have never entertained any delusions about you being sane, rational or worth the shit on my shoe.  I've seen your work, tough guy.  I'm not insulting you to point out that you are a shit stain, I'm just understating the obvious.  

As far as threaten you?  

Sheeeeeeeyit boy.  Go out there and play on your swing set son, the grownups are talking.  You ain't done nothing here except cry really loud about your shitty diaper.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,08:14

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,22:31)
Quote (Kris distorting the truth @ Jan. 25 2011,00:25)
It's interesting that you're accusing me of being insulting or mean to flowersfriend, even though I wasn't, but the fact that some other people did give her a bad time apparently doesn't bother you. Why aren't you bitching at those people Dale-boi? I thought you said you have standards that never waver. Pfft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, once most of us realized that flowersfriend wasn't a fanatical bigot like FL or IBIG, things cooled down and she even returned later for more pleasant conversation. So once more, you have been dishonest. And to her credit, she totally ignored you, and thus disaster was averted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, what I said is true. So, again, why aren't you bitching at and about the people who did give flowersfriend a bad time? You keep bitching about me but I never gave her a bad time in the first place, or ever. You lied about that.

You really like to call certain people liars. You call people liars on a regular basis, on your blog and elsewhere, just because they don't instantly and completely agree with you. You think you're a paragon of truth and honor, but you're really just a lying, hypocritical, bigoted, delusional, dishonorable, insane, retarded, impotent, narcissistic, punk-ass sack of rancid shit.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,08:16

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,08:14)
a lying, hypocritical, bigoted, delusional, dishonorable, insane, retarded, impotent, narcissistic, punk-ass sack of rancid shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know what you are, but what am I?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:17

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,14:14)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,22:31)
 
Quote (Kris distorting the truth @ Jan. 25 2011,00:25)
It's interesting that you're accusing me of being insulting or mean to flowersfriend, even though I wasn't, but the fact that some other people did give her a bad time apparently doesn't bother you. Why aren't you bitching at those people Dale-boi? I thought you said you have standards that never waver. Pfft.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fact, once most of us realized that flowersfriend wasn't a fanatical bigot like FL or IBIG, things cooled down and she even returned later for more pleasant conversation. So once more, you have been dishonest. And to her credit, she totally ignored you, and thus disaster was averted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, what I said is true. So, again, why aren't you bitching at and about the people who did give flowersfriend a bad time? You keep bitching about me but I never gave her a bad time in the first place, or ever. You lied about that.

You really like to call certain people liars. You call people liars on a regular basis, on your blog and elsewhere, just because they don't instantly and completely agree with you. You think you're a paragon of truth and honor, but you're really just a lying, hypocritical, bigoted, delusional, dishonorable, insane, retarded, impotent, narcissistic, punk-ass sack of rancid shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tut tut, Kris.

Now is THAT good marketing?

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,08:24

sigh... it's so hard to find good opponents these days.

I half expect Kris to go "neener, neener".  Blah blah blah.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,14:24)
sigh... it's so hard to find good opponents these days.

I half expect Kris to go "neener, neener".  Blah blah blah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Half expect? Dude he's ALREADY DOING IT. Just with slightly longer words and more butthurt.

Louis

ETA P.S. I will point out that were we all playing some war game on an XBox (I don't own one but am familiar with the phenomenon) we would currently be standing over Kris' virtual corpse teabagging it. We are in his base, killing his d00ds. All his base belong to us. He is getting pwned at every opportunity. His noobishness is there for all to see and what have you.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,08:47

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,23:29)
To illustrate for all to see how Kris slowly degenerated into the lunatic we know him to be now, let's look back at Panda's Thumb nearly two months ago.

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240311 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris replied to comment from Lamar | December 3, 2010 9:40 PM

I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.
<snip>
In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”. However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science. I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240354 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

harold | December 4, 2010 10:08 AM
Kris -

You seem to take an interest in the discussion here, but you also seem to lack some background information about science and creationism.

Everyone makes mistakes and has things to learn. I have made plenty of mis-statements here and in other places. When someone points it out, I learn.

I’m going to give you a chance to do that right now.

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.

I noticed in my youth that I do instinctively hold certain assumptions. I assume the physical world exists, I assume my senses detect aspects of it, I assume other human beings exist, I assume that their senses detect aspects of the same physical world, and I assume that the axioms of logic, although having no physical existence themselves, should be used in evaluating physical reality. Therefore I prefer the scientific method for evaluating physical reality.

Scientific claims should always be viewed critically, with skepticism. No-one should “swallow whatever science cooks up”. To do so would be, in fact, unscientific. Sometimes scientific ideas initially get too much credit, because they are advanced by a prestigious source or seem especially exciting. But this is a mistake.

Having said that, please specifically explain which scientific observations, hypotheses, experimental results, or theories you dispute, and why.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240429 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Harold, your responses have little or nothing to do with what I said.

Just one example: I was referring to the simplicity of the phrase “evolved from matter” in the sense that the phrase isn’t explanatory enough to necessarily describe how “evolutionists” (or any scientists for that matter) may feel about how the universe began. I was not referring to the concept or theory of evolution itself.

I think that Lamar’s comments are worth some consideration, as he stated them, and I tried not to read things into them that are not there. You might try to do the same with my comments.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Later....

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241116 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris | December 11, 2010 1:22 AM

harold said:

“There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.”

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241117 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 1:42 AM

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

no, he need not. It’s an absolutely accurate statement.

I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions.

Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement.

We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported.

likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc.

your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play “gotchya” games.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241121 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kris replied to comment from Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 2:52 AM

It’s not a game, and you’re not Harold, or are you?

Just to be accurate, which one of Harold’s statements (that I quoted) are you referring to?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241123 >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 6:22 AM | Edit

one, this quite obviously IS a game to you, and has been since you first started posting here.

two, you don’t get to control who responds to your posts.

three, it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what I was responding to, based on what I posted.

man, the nutters here are getting too damn thick.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You may read the rest of that thread, but I posted these bits here to show where I think the trouble with Kris got started.

BTW, I thought Harold's statement "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." was indeed obviously true. When Kris challenged it, I was astonished and also wondered what the hell he was doing. Soon, we all found out!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Dale-boi, thanks for the plug, but you left out one of the most important posts of mine. You know, the one with the quote from Darwin. You're not trying to get people to take things out of context, are you? Nah, you'd never do anything like that. You're too "honorable" to do that. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Nice try at quote mining though. Too bad that it makes you look like a desperate douchebag.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,08:51

Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,09:04

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 25 2011,00:14)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,02:01)
Oh my FSM! He is a complete douche!

Well Kris, I've tried to be nice, polite, civil, so now I'm going for the other option:

Kris, go fuck yourself with a jackhammer!

Thanks.

Hugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd rather see Kris get hit with P Z Myers' Banhammer. Much more phunny, that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already been banned from Pharyngula. PZ Myers is a malignant narcissist with delusions of Godhood, just like you Dale-boi. Neither of you are any different from the religious zealots who want to stifle or eliminate anything they don't want to hear.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:12

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:04)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 25 2011,00:14)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,02:01)
Oh my FSM! He is a complete douche!

Well Kris, I've tried to be nice, polite, civil, so now I'm going for the other option:

Kris, go fuck yourself with a jackhammer!

Thanks.

Hugs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd rather see Kris get hit with P Z Myers' Banhammer. Much more phunny, that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already been banned from Pharyngula. PZ Myers is a malignant narcissist with delusions of Godhood, just like you Dale-boi. Neither of you are any different from the religious zealots who want to stifle or eliminate anything they don't want to hear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Under what online nickname were you banned from Pharyngula?

Louis
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 25 2011,09:18

Does anyone remember this?

< Put a Sock In It >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again.

If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty darn light with the stick (despite being "boss around here" which I am not), but I must admit that I now see this page in a new light.  :p

I am also reminded of a book of scenes for actors that I read when I wanted to become an actor, in which one character repeated, essentially, "I hate you, you suck, you're horrible, blah, blah," and then the director quizzed the actress on why she showed no emotional nuance in the scene. The actress replied, "Well, my character hates his character!" and the director replied, "No - if that were true, you would have walked out on him by now."  :)
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,09:18

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,06:51)
Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,09:19

You're absolutely right.  Neither myself, nor most of the people I know, want to hear ignorance being spewed forth as if it was divine inspiration.  

We don't like to be called hypocrites by someone who can't prove that it is the case.*

We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll.

So, you are right.

I'll note that these types of things are not based on us however, Kris.  They are based on you.

If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go.

And no, don't start squealing about how mean we are to you.  This is 100% about how you act.  You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

Or, you could act like a whiny 4-year-old (I know, I have one) and demand things for no reason, respond with vile accusations with no foundation, perform acts that are not polite in civil discussion and potentially illegal, and just generally be a jerk.

How you act is up to you.  There is nothing that we can do to change that.  You could take the high road, but you haven't yet.  I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false.


*No, your whining about it doesn't mean we actually are.  There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:31

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:18)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,06:51)
Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They link to the originals, right? They link to the context, right? So anyone interested can follow back to the original full context and examine whether Dale has honestly reported your arguments and words or not. That is awfully ineffective quote mining, if indeed quote mining it is.

Which part of this escapes you? Or is your palpable hatred of Dale* and unfortunately obviously lacking intellectual gifts blinding you to this fact?

Louis

*Posting personal details, poor move whoever does it, and some clowns in the commentariat of Pharyngula have done it and I've spoken out against it there too, so this isn't about infantile "sides" before you misunderstand. It's a wanker move of the first water, marking you out as a troll and a moron of high scumminess...but I digress.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 25 2011,09:34

About The Author (Krissy)(from Encyclopaedia Britannica):

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The person most vulnerable to a persecutory paranoid state is the tense, insecure, suspicious person who has little basic trust in other persons, who has always found it difficult to confide in others, tends to be secretive, usuallly has few close friends and is addicted to solitary rumination.  These characteristics are sometimes hidden behind a facade of superficial sociabiltiy and talkativeness.  Above all, there is a rigidity about such a person's thinking which becomes most obvious when he is under emotional stress.  This may give an impression of certainty and self-assurance, but actually it is based on profound insecurity, upon a need to be dogmatic because of an inability to tolerate suspended judgement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cue tu quoque in 3, 2, 1...

btw, Kris, in case you missed it the first million times, yes, there might be a "designer" (shrug). Bring in some evidence and we'll consider it. Meanwhile, the grown-ups have actual work to do, rather than sit around in Foreman's basement with you.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:39

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,15:18)
Does anyone remember this?

< Put a Sock In It >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again.

If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty darn light with the stick (despite being "boss around here" which I am not), but I must admit that I now see this page in a new light.  :p

I am also reminded of a book of scenes for actors that I read when I wanted to become an actor, in which one character repeated, essentially, "I hate you, you suck, you're horrible, blah, blah," and then the director quizzed the actress on why she showed no emotional nuance in the scene. The actress replied, "Well, my character hates his character!" and the director replied, "No - if that were true, you would have walked out on him by now."  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The UD stuff aside (which, since it is full of IDCist boilerplate nonsense is best ignored by decent folk)

Regarding Kris: Ah well this presumes Kris is:

a) interested in what he claims he is
b) is capable of discussing what he claims to be interested in
c) is more than a vacuous troll

The answers to a), b) and c) are "he's not". Kris is butthurt and wants to hurt in turn. He has failed to realise he is too ineffectual to hurt, he is just a laughable muppet. Hence: MOCKERY!

Personally, I am loving the "marketing lecture" and macho comment to Dale of "you wouldn't last a second in marketing buddy" (or words to that effect). I genuinely LOLed IRL. Unintentional irony like that is priceless. Kris can be our dancing monkey for a while can't he? Please. I'll clean his cage and feed him and everything.*

Louis

*Kris, you are being mocked. Ask yourself why. If the answer you come up with is anything other than "because I, Kris, am acting like a mockable fool" then you lack the self awareness to participate in adult conversation. Go to therapy for butthurt and come back when you've grown up a bit.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:42

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,15:34)
[SNIP]

Meanwhile, the grown-ups have actual work to do, rather than sit around in Foreman's basement with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you. It's January, time to bloody do everyone's job reviews again. 4 times a year now. Now I don't like threats of violence, but whoever dreamt up this HR model needs a swift size 12 applied to their gentleman fruit. Possibly with repetitions.

Louis
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 25 2011,09:48

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:42)

OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you.
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  Some of us must go to work and deal with people, ya slacker!  ;)

My reference to "Put a sock in it" was definitely for Kris, who is like the actress I described.

Be good, all! Time for me to clamp down on swear words and sunflower seeds, and tell the kiddies to make up their minds choosing between coloring, Uno, and checkers.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:50

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,15:48)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:42)

OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you.
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  Some of us must go to work and deal with people, ya slacker!  ;)

My reference to "Put a sock in it" was definitely for Kris, who is like the actress I described.

Be good, all! Time for me to clamp down on swear words and sunflower seeds, and tell the kiddies to make up their minds choosing between coloring, Uno, and checkers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PEOPLE!!!!!!??????

Ewwwwwwww.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,09:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,15:19)
[SNIP]

....perform acts that are not polite...[SNIP]...and potentially illegal....

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{Ears perk up}

{Reads post in full}

I am Louis' painful sense of awesome disappointment.

;-)

Louis
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,09:57

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,07:18)
Does anyone remember this?

< Put a Sock In It >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again.

If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty darn light with the stick (despite being "boss around here" which I am not), but I must admit that I now see this page in a new light.  :p

I am also reminded of a book of scenes for actors that I read when I wanted to become an actor, in which one character repeated, essentially, "I hate you, you suck, you're horrible, blah, blah," and then the director quizzed the actress on why she showed no emotional nuance in the scene. The actress replied, "Well, my character hates his character!" and the director replied, "No - if that were true, you would have walked out on him by now."  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're not the boss around here then why did you say you were "going to end it"? Did you think that just because you spoke that I would vanish?






"Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again. If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long."

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring. You sound just like some of the religious zealots you complain about for not wanting your same old arguments for the zillionth time. And you wonder why I call you hypocrites.

If you don't like their closed ears, maybe you should think about yours too. Maybe you should find a better way of getting your message across to the public and the powers that be (government). Nah, a different way might work and then you wouldn't have religious intrusions to hate and bitch about.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 25 2011,10:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cue tu quoque in 3, 2, 1...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quod Erat...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,10:03

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,10:48)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:42)

OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you.
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  Some of us must go to work and deal with people, ya slacker!  ;)

My reference to "Put a sock in it" was definitely for Kris, who is like the actress I described.

Be good, all! Time for me to clamp down on swear words and sunflower seeds, and tell the kiddies to make up their minds choosing between coloring, Uno, and checkers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I took an early retirement with a small pension because supervising fundies was literally making me sick.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 25 2011,10:09

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,07:42)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,15:34)
[SNIP]

Meanwhile, the grown-ups have actual work to do, rather than sit around in Foreman's basement with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you. It's January, time to bloody do everyone's job reviews again. 4 times a year now. Now I don't like threats of violence, but whoever dreamt up this HR model needs a swift size 12 applied to their gentleman fruit. Possibly with repetitions.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Foreman's basement. 4:20. Be there. We can all wax... Krissish. Krissical. (snicker). Or something. (giggle).
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:12

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,06:51)
Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep using that excuse for some reason.  It doesn't fly.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:16

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,09:48)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:42)

OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you.
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  Some of us must go to work and deal with people, ya slacker!  ;)

My reference to "Put a sock in it" was definitely for Kris, who is like the actress I described.

Be good, all! Time for me to clamp down on swear words and sunflower seeds, and tell the kiddies to make up their minds choosing between coloring, Uno, and checkers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(salutes)

Best of luck on watch, Kristine.  I have just the one Cub to watch over, and she's trial enough!


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,10:21

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:16)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,09:48)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:42)

OI! Some of us grown ups are sat in the office as opposed to the lab today and are desperately trying to avoid work thank you.
Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:D  Some of us must go to work and deal with people, ya slacker!  ;)

My reference to "Put a sock in it" was definitely for Kris, who is like the actress I described.

Be good, all! Time for me to clamp down on swear words and sunflower seeds, and tell the kiddies to make up their minds choosing between coloring, Uno, and checkers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(salutes)

Best of luck on watch, Kristine.  I have just the one Cub to watch over, and she's trial enough!


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty soon, MP, you'll have to watch her and ALL the little male cubs that come calling.  

Me, I stuck with male offspring so only have one to worry about (well, that and Catholic priests).

Hey, Kris, just a question.  Are you going to comment on my post at the top of page 7?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:28

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:21)
Pretty soon, MP, you'll have to watch her and ALL the little male cubs that come calling.  

Me, I stuck with male offspring so only have one to worry about (well, that and Catholic priests).

Hey, Kris, just a question.  Are you going to comment on my post at the top of page 7?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That or the little girl cubs.  (Not saying that that'll happen, just admitting that I'm prepared for it.)  Fear not!  Prospective suitors will have to pass muster, for I am a prepared panda.

She's disarmingly cute, she is.  And she's very smart, which means that I'd have my work cut out for me even if I weren't planning on raising her on the classics (Sun Tzu, the Thirty-six Stratagems, Three Kingdoms...).  So Baba-Xiongmao must show he can plan several steps ahead.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 25 2011,10:39

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,08:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:21)
Pretty soon, MP, you'll have to watch her and ALL the little male cubs that come calling.  

Me, I stuck with male offspring so only have one to worry about (well, that and Catholic priests).

Hey, Kris, just a question.  Are you going to comment on my post at the top of page 7?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That or the little girl cubs.  (Not saying that that'll happen, just admitting that I'm prepared for it.)  Fear not!  Prospective suitors will have to pass muster, for I am a prepared panda.

She's disarmingly cute, she is.  And she's very smart, which means that I'd have my work cut out for me even if I weren't planning on raising her on the classics (Sun Tzu, the Thirty-six Stratagems, Three Kingdoms...).  So Baba-Xiongmao must show he can plan several steps ahead.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I commented on how cute my buddy's 5-year-old daughter was, his response was "Yeah. I'm gonna have to buy a gun."
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 25 2011,10:44

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,06:51)
Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uhhh...of course it did...he linked to your entire comment, dingbat.

(rolls eyes)

What "context" do you feel was missing from the entirety of what you wrote? Did you image some additional "context" that you didn't actually include in the entirety of your response? If so, then by definition it wasn't part of the context.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 25 2011,10:51

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:39)
Kris is butthurt and wants to hurt in turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A scene from Tombstone (slightly edited of course) comes to to mind here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Kris, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?
Doc Holliday: A man like Kris has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never lash out enough, or distort enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
Wyatt Earp: What does he need?
Doc Holliday: Revenge.
Wyatt Earp: For what?
Doc Holliday: Bein' born.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:52

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2011,10:39)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,08:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:21)
Pretty soon, MP, you'll have to watch her and ALL the little male cubs that come calling.  

Me, I stuck with male offspring so only have one to worry about (well, that and Catholic priests).

Hey, Kris, just a question.  Are you going to comment on my post at the top of page 7?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That or the little girl cubs.  (Not saying that that'll happen, just admitting that I'm prepared for it.)  Fear not!  Prospective suitors will have to pass muster, for I am a prepared panda.

She's disarmingly cute, she is.  And she's very smart, which means that I'd have my work cut out for me even if I weren't planning on raising her on the classics (Sun Tzu, the Thirty-six Stratagems, Three Kingdoms...).  So Baba-Xiongmao must show he can plan several steps ahead.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I commented on how cute my buddy's 5-year-old daughter was, his response was "Yeah. I'm gonna have to buy a gun."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have...other means at my disposal.   :D  Guns are so banal and familiar.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,10:53

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,10:55

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,07:19)
You're absolutely right.  Neither myself, nor most of the people I know, want to hear ignorance being spewed forth as if it was divine inspiration.  

We don't like to be called hypocrites by someone who can't prove that it is the case.*

We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll.

So, you are right.

I'll note that these types of things are not based on us however, Kris.  They are based on you.

If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go.

And no, don't start squealing about how mean we are to you.  This is 100% about how you act.  You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

Or, you could act like a whiny 4-year-old (I know, I have one) and demand things for no reason, respond with vile accusations with no foundation, perform acts that are not polite in civil discussion and potentially illegal, and just generally be a jerk.

How you act is up to you.  There is nothing that we can do to change that.  You could take the high road, but you haven't yet.  I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false.


*No, your whining about it doesn't mean we actually are.  There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep proving my point about what hypocrites you are.

You said: "If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go."

You might want to actually do that then. Most of the people on this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., are about as far from that as it's possible to be.

You said; "This is 100% about how you act."

Actually, it's 100% about how you and most others here act, and many of you have been doing it for years. Your words are here for anyone to see ya know, whether they ever respond to you or not. Remember what I said about a billboard in your front yard?

You said: "You could take the high road, but you haven't yet. I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false."

Right back at you.

You said: "There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality."

Right back at you.

You said: "We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll."

Where did I say or even imply that scientists can't do their work anymore?

You said: "How you act is up to you."

Right back at you.

You said: "You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best."

Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

By the way, my pride is perfectly intact, no matter what happens here.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:53)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh please...he's just so wrong. The mockery I've been posting is quite fresh and new. I know - I made them just this morning.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,11:04

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,07:19)
You're absolutely right.  Neither myself, nor most of the people I know, want to hear ignorance being spewed forth as if it was divine inspiration.  

We don't like to be called hypocrites by someone who can't prove that it is the case.*

We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll.

So, you are right.

I'll note that these types of things are not based on us however, Kris.  They are based on you.

If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go.

And no, don't start squealing about how mean we are to you.  This is 100% about how you act.  You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

Or, you could act like a whiny 4-year-old (I know, I have one) and demand things for no reason, respond with vile accusations with no foundation, perform acts that are not polite in civil discussion and potentially illegal, and just generally be a jerk.

How you act is up to you.  There is nothing that we can do to change that.  You could take the high road, but you haven't yet.  I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false.


*No, your whining about it doesn't mean we actually are.  There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You keep proving my point about what hypocrites you are.

You said: "If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go."

You might want to actually do that then. Most of the people on this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., are about as far from that as it's possible to be.

You said; "This is 100% about how you act."

Actually, it's 100% about how you and most others here act, and many of you have been doing it for years. Your words are here for anyone to see ya know, whether they ever respond to you or not. Remember what I said about a billboard in your front yard?

You said: "You could take the high road, but you haven't yet. I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false."

Right back at you.

You said: "There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality."

Right back at you.

You said: "We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll."

Where did I say or even imply that scientists can't do their work anymore?

You said: "How you act is up to you."

Right back at you.

You said: "You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best."

Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

By the way, my pride is perfectly intact, no matter what happens here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Kris.  It is about you.  Please, go to the search box and hit my username... read every post I've ever made.

Then compare them to the posts you have made.  

no nevermind.

You can't even read in that I told you it wasn't about us, it was about you being a whiny baby with no evidence.

Again, hypocrisy is a dangerous term, I suggest you retract it since you cannot show it.

Anyway, I'm done too until you actually start talking about science, which, considering the response to the ONLY CHANCE YOU HAVE TO CHANGE HOW WE ACT won't ever happen.

I'll try one more time.  We act the way toward that we do, because you are causing it.  Everyone here has told you that if you act like an adult with reasoned arguments, then we can talk just fine.  You bring incorrect arguments, demands, and spewing crap like you, then that's what you get.

If you can't understand that, then I suggest a return in elementary school until you figure it out.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,11:08

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, my pride is perfectly intact, no matter what happens here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



at least you got something, shit stain
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,11:21

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,08:53)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Which areguments are these then?" (sic)

The ones you and most other people here and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc. keep making over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......

You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 25 2011,11:23

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,08:53)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Which areguments are these then?" (sic)

The ones you and most other people here and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc. keep making over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......

You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't support your own argument.

Match point.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,12:23)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,08:53)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Which areguments are these then?" (sic)

The ones you and most other people here and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc. keep making over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......

You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't support your own argument.

Match point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hey, he's got his pride.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 25 2011,11:34

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh for crying out loud! More lies? Is that all you can post, "Kris"? You are without a doubt dumber than a box of hammers.

But here...I'll give an out. Here's your chance to toss egg on my face: Find ONE POST...just one...where any PT poster who supports evolution - any one of us - has ever made the claim that science, or scientists, or zealous science supporters are perfect. Go for it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,11:37

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 25 2011,11:34)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh for crying out loud! More lies? Is that all you can post, "Kris"? You are without a doubt dumber than a box of hammers.

But here...I'll give an out. Here's your chance to toss egg on my face: Find ONE POST...just one...where any PT poster who supports evolution - any one of us - has ever made the claim that science, or scientists, or zealous science supporters are perfect. Go for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, demanding evidence again.  WTF is with the science guys?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,11:39

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,07:57)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 25 2011,07:18)
Does anyone remember this?

< Put a Sock In It >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again.

If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty darn light with the stick (despite being "boss around here" which I am not), but I must admit that I now see this page in a new light.  :p

I am also reminded of a book of scenes for actors that I read when I wanted to become an actor, in which one character repeated, essentially, "I hate you, you suck, you're horrible, blah, blah," and then the director quizzed the actress on why she showed no emotional nuance in the scene. The actress replied, "Well, my character hates his character!" and the director replied, "No - if that were true, you would have walked out on him by now."  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're not the boss around here then why did you say you were "going to end it"? Did you think that just because you spoke that I would vanish?






"Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again. If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long."

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring. You sound just like some of the religious zealots you complain about for not wanting your same old arguments for the zillionth time. And you wonder why I call you hypocrites.

If you don't like their closed ears, maybe you should think about yours too. Maybe you should find a better way of getting your message across to the public and the powers that be (government). Nah, a different way might work and then you wouldn't have religious intrusions to hate and bitch about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just noticed a mistake in one of the sentences I wrote. It should be:

You sound just like some of the religious zealots you complain about for not wanting 'to hear' your same old arguments for the zillionth time.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,11:44

shorter Kwis:  "you are"

i would like to see you get fist fucked by an octopus.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 25 2011,11:46

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:39)
I just noticed a mistake in one of the sentences I wrote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pity that you don't notice the important ones...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,11:49

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,12:44)
shorter Kwis:  "you are"

i would like to see you get fist fucked by an octopus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They have fists?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:49

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,17:21)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,08:53)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Which areguments are these then?" (sic)

The ones you and most other people here and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc. keep making over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......

You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh shit did I make a typo? Well done for spotting it, thanks Kris.

Now, those arguments were what precisely? Details, old bean, I crave details.

Louis

P.S. I'm not sure I've ever said (or ever would say) that scientists are perfect (I am one, I work, and have worked with lots of them, neither they, not I, am perfect). Same goes for zealous science supporters. But hey. You're infantile projections, distortions and false equivalences are really all you have aren't they? Shit, you're even funnier than I thought!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,11:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,17:23)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,08:53)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Which areguments are these then?" (sic)

The ones you and most other people here and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc. keep making over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .......

You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, you can't support your own argument.

Match point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't that come our way a loooooooooong while ago?

Louis
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,11:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,11:57

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
shorter Kwis:  "you are"

i would like to see you get fist fucked by an octopus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a great spokesman for science. Not.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,12:01

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,17:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
shorter Kwis:  "you are"

i would like to see you get fist fucked by an octopus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a great spokesman for science. Not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who said he was a spokesman for science? What are you a spokesman for, Kris? And are you good at it? Why do you never answer serious questions and instead tone troll all the time?

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,12:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Man (?), are you fucking stupid! You don't give a fuck about science, you are nothing more than a puny little conern troll. You are accusing the scientific community and its supporters of giving a bad image of science, yet you don't really care if some religious nutjob builds a waky museum and passes it as a science exhibit.

Go fuck yourself with a complete set of ornamental silver candle-holders! With extra pebbles for lubrification!
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,12:06

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,17:55)
[SNIP]

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So your argument runs roughly thus:

Given

1) "Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator.

Therefore

2) "Religions are better marketers than science."

So it's a binary choice is it? Science or religion? Evidence needed. Religion is more popular than science? How? Where? In what way? Are they even competing for the same turf? Explain, evidence and elaboration very much needed. This all somehow means that religion is doing something right and science is doing something wrong in terms of marketing? Citation, evidence and elaboration needed quite badly indeed.

I think you might be a little confused, Kris. Elaborate, explain your position. Hint: this is not the same as continually asserting it without basis.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,12:07

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,09:44)
shorter Kwis:  "you are"

i would like to see you get fist fucked by an octopus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're a great spokesman for science. Not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


science doesn't have anything to do with you being a shit stain, Kwis.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,12:08

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kris, if you think it's OK to build a 'museum' using government funds for support and infrastructure that highlights something that is fundamentally wrong... then you must be a creationist.

Science isn't about personal opinion.  It's about reality.  If you allow people to think (like you do) that science is all about opinion, then you are setting US kids up to fail at life (like... well... you know).

Teaching kids that it's OK to believe things that aren't real and that have a real impact on our world is LYING. I know you don't care because you do it all the time with no pangs of conscious.  

To prove it, find one post in this entire forum where a pro-science (not you) regular said that scientists are perfect.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

While you're at it, provide evidence that I'm a hypocrite.  Show me the posts where I said one thing and then said the opposite.  What do you want to bet that you don't?  I'll let everyone else be the judge of whether you are correct or not.

You are the one complaining about science, but you don't want to talk about it.  You just want to whine about how mean we are.

You want to hear about mean?  Did you know that there is only one person* on this planet who lost their job solely due to the evolution/creationism debate?  And that one person was a science supporter who lost her job because she sent an e-mail saying the Dr. Forrest was going to be speaking at that people may want to attend.  That sound fair to you?

How about this... if a teacher attempts to teach evolution in class, then he gets censured, a black mark in his book, etc for it.  Even after he explains that evolution is a state standard.  But other teachers can have students pray in class with no effects.  Do you know what that is?  It's illegal.  Sound fair to you?

How about this... what do you think would happen if a Muslim wanted to build a creation museum in Kentucky?  Do you think that he would get state support or state built infrastructure improvements?  Do you know what that is?  It's illegal.  Sound fair to you?

There are so many things wrong with the things you say it's really hard to know where to start.  You don't get it... you never will... so just walk away.  Tell all your friends how you bearded the lion in the den and were victorious.  Whatever... just leave.

* No Sternberg doesn't count, Gaskill doesn't count.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 25 2011,12:13

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,17:55)
[SNIP]

Why do you care if they build a creation museum?

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I for one don't give a rat's arse. Let them fleece the rubes...erm...I mean take donations from their congregations and build their Mammon-Loving Monument to Moronity.

Don't do it with government money, don't deliberately encourage schools to tour there, in fact prevent school science classes from having tours there (religious studies class/history class/philosophy class etc = different matter), don't make it a tax exempt institution and in no other way fund or support it from the public purse, then fine! It neither picks my purse nor breaks my leg as someone fairly famous to you Yanks once said.

I've got no problem with what these folks believe or what they do with their money, go to it with my blessing sayeth I.

But if they want their demonstrably false, demonstrably anti-science claims taught AS SCIENCE in SCIENCE CLASS then I will oppose them. If they want the government to support their religious claims with tax breaks and money then I will oppose them. Clear?

Louis
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,20:23

[quote=Kris,Jan. 25 2011,10:55][/quote]
Kris, can you show where anyone posted YOUR phone number, home address, or anything else you consider personal info here or in PT? Can you show where anyone threaten to call your wife, or any other relative of yours, and tell him or her lies about you?

Because you are indeed a liar, Kris, and you have been lying outright and constantly since you barged into here and possibly since you showed up in PT back in late November. You constantly hold on (at least in public) to those pathetic, baseless delusions about yourself, about science, and about us and spit them out over and over for no other reason than because you think you can get away with it.

"Right back at you." is for grade school punks who are too stupid to come up with a credible argument.

It is not our responsibility to treat you nice when you keep acting like a total @$$hole. If you had come to us nearly three months ago with a different attitude (like that of flowersfriend, to be precise), you'd still be posting in PT now and some of us might even consider you a friend. But you blew it and we all saw you crash and burn. And you have not learned a single thing. In you mind, you have all the answers and are superior to the rest of us. Well, you don't and you are not.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You keep proving my point about what hypocrites you are.

You said: "If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go."

You might want to actually do that then. Most of the people on this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., are about as far from that as it's possible to be.

You said; "This is 100% about how you act."

Actually, it's 100% about how you and most others here act, and many of you have been doing it for years. Your words are here for anyone to see ya know, whether they ever respond to you or not. Remember what I said about a billboard in your front yard?

You said: "You could take the high road, but you haven't yet. I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false."

Right back at you.

You said: "There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality."

Right back at you.

You said: "We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll."

Where did I say or even imply that scientists can't do their work anymore?

You said: "How you act is up to you."

Right back at you.

You said: "You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best."

Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

By the way, my pride is perfectly intact, no matter what happens here.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Kris on Jan. 25 2011,22:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2011,10:08)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kris, if you think it's OK to build a 'museum' using government funds for support and infrastructure that highlights something that is fundamentally wrong... then you must be a creationist.

Science isn't about personal opinion.  It's about reality.  If you allow people to think (like you do) that science is all about opinion, then you are setting US kids up to fail at life (like... well... you know).

Teaching kids that it's OK to believe things that aren't real and that have a real impact on our world is LYING. I know you don't care because you do it all the time with no pangs of conscious.  

To prove it, find one post in this entire forum where a pro-science (not you) regular said that scientists are perfect.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

While you're at it, provide evidence that I'm a hypocrite.  Show me the posts where I said one thing and then said the opposite.  What do you want to bet that you don't?  I'll let everyone else be the judge of whether you are correct or not.

You are the one complaining about science, but you don't want to talk about it.  You just want to whine about how mean we are.

You want to hear about mean?  Did you know that there is only one person* on this planet who lost their job solely due to the evolution/creationism debate?  And that one person was a science supporter who lost her job because she sent an e-mail saying the Dr. Forrest was going to be speaking at that people may want to attend.  That sound fair to you?

How about this... if a teacher attempts to teach evolution in class, then he gets censured, a black mark in his book, etc for it.  Even after he explains that evolution is a state standard.  But other teachers can have students pray in class with no effects.  Do you know what that is?  It's illegal.  Sound fair to you?

How about this... what do you think would happen if a Muslim wanted to build a creation museum in Kentucky?  Do you think that he would get state support or state built infrastructure improvements?  Do you know what that is?  It's illegal.  Sound fair to you?

There are so many things wrong with the things you say it's really hard to know where to start.  You don't get it... you never will... so just walk away.  Tell all your friends how you bearded the lion in the den and were victorious.  Whatever... just leave.

* No Sternberg doesn't count, Gaskill doesn't count.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?"

Those are the words that were said about the creation museum, and those are the words I responded to. Nothing was said about funding the museum with government money or tax breaks. Nothing. I don't condone any government money being used for religious things. In fact, I strongly feel that religious organizations/churches should be taxed just like anyone else.

No matter what I say, you people are going to twist it into something else. The only thing you will tolerate is an echo of what you say and believe. You're more like your enemies than you realize.

You people are obsessed. You are consumed by your pathological hatred of religion. It controls every moment of your lives. It controls every thought you have. It is who you are, and what you do. It has imprisoned you. You are as much a slave to your obsession as religious zealots are to theirs, if not more so.

Step out into nature. Breathe in the fresh air. Expand your horizons. It will do you good.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 25 2011,23:46

You say all that, yet you bashed me for being a Unitarian Universalist, and thus having a religious affiliation and associating freely with religious people. How it is that my example debunks your own claim, yet you attack me too? Or do you EVER think before you spit more venom?

You are an inconsistent fraud, of course.

Here's another entry from that blog of mine you are so obsessed with. Seems you missed this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010....ristian >

For the record, I am very critical of the Christian religion. But my slamming it ends when I am dealing with a Christian who is open-minded enough to befriend and respect me in spite of my hostility towards his religion. Such a person, in turn, earns my respect. I only do battle with bigots among the Christians, not Christians in general. If I hated all Christians, I wouldn’t be a Unitarian Universalist (UU). UUs, even those that reject Christianity, are still Protestants. If not for the Protestant movement in Christianity, UUs as a denomination wouldn’t exist.

I spent one Sunday talking  with a young member of my UU church. She told me about how she visited a Baptist church while wearing a necklace with a rainbow on it, the rainbow being a symbol of gay rights. She was then confronted by the church’s pastor who demanded why she wore such a necklace. The girl then said that she liked other girls, which caused the pastor to give her a lengthy diatribe about how she was headed for hell for being gay.

Later, the UU girl brought to her church a Christian girl who was wearing a cross around her neck. The Christian was confronted by an old UU man who was quite hostile to her and an argument erupted. The UU girl was very embarrassed.

I think that old man should have faced some sort of punishment for his rude behavior. While many people, including myself, regard UU churches as a refuge from Christian fundamentalism, that does not mean we can lable all non-UU Christians as members of the “enemy”. Such an attitude never fails to disgust me. And when a UU teenager is smart enough to recognize the hypocrisy of one of her own elders, that actually gives me hope that the next generation of UUs will be more enlightened and pull UUs in general away from any form of fanaticism, including that of atheists and other anti-Christians. That simply has no place among the UUs!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Kris lied again when he said:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?"

Those are the words that were said about the creation museum, and those are the words I responded to. Nothing was said about funding the museum with government money or tax breaks. Nothing. I don't condone any government money being used for religious things. In fact, I strongly feel that religious organizations/churches should be taxed just like anyone else.

No matter what I say, you people are going to twist it into something else. The only thing you will tolerate is an echo of what you say and believe. You're more like your enemies than you realize.

You people are obsessed. You are consumed by your pathological hatred of religion. It controls every moment of your lives. It controls every thought you have. It is who you are, and what you do. It has imprisoned you. You are as much a slave to your obsession as religious zealots are to theirs, if not more so.

Step out into nature. Breathe in the fresh air. Expand your horizons. It will do you good.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's exactly how a religious fanatic talks, of course.
Posted by: commondescent on Jan. 26 2011,00:05

Kris, if you want to meet someone who thinks like you do but isn't nearly as batshit about it, talk to this guy:

paradigmperipheral@gmail.com

They seemed really deep into ID when they ravaged the blog "quintessence of dust." Goes by the name of jeff snipes or something. You'll never guess how I got their email... :D
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 26 2011,03:13

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet all those people go home, watch their TV and eat their processed dinner.

And their children grow up knowing that science makes it all possible and that their parents have some rather funny ideas that they certainly won't be thinking.

I don't expect the world to change all at once, but it's enough to know that each subsequent generation is more secular then the one before. And provably so.

And if rational people can help speed that process then all the better.

Note I'm not saying that all theists==irrational. But those who distort reality (i.e. science) in favour and to promote a worldview out of a child's story book, like the Ark story, and teach that to children should be opposed in every peaceful way possible.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 26 2011,10:44

{Sniffs the air}

No Kris today? He must be preparing the reasoning and evidence behind his wild claims and asinine arguments. I hope so because otherwise he'd just be a yappy little shithead who trolls websites for kicks by endlessly repeating the identical, erroneous horseshit he came in peddling at the start.

And no one would want that.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 26 2011,13:32

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about porn?  Lots and lots of people are interested in porn--enough people to keep just a handful of internet sites, theatres, and street corners open.  Are you in favor of advancing the cause of porn?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 26 2011,14:50

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,09:55)
Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me give you a hint: what is it that someone once said was "born every minute"?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,04:28

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 26 2011,19:32)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,10:55)
Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, that's the thing though.

A zealot cannot be convinced via rational argument.

A scientist can be convinced via rational argument.

So if argument does not work with religious zealots then what? Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?

That might work for you, but some people won't stand idly by when ignorance is promoted as knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you care if they build a creation museum? If few to no people were interested in what's in the creation museum, it wouldn't stay open for long. You must think that enough people will be interested to keep it open. What does that tell you?

Here, let me give you some hints: Religious beliefs are popular. More popular than science. Most people believe in a God-like creator. Religions are better marketers than science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about porn?  Lots and lots of people are interested in porn--enough people to keep just a handful of internet sites, theatres, and street corners open.  Are you in favor of advancing the cause of porn?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish to advance the cause of porn. How do I go about this? Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Louis

P.S. I was not going to comment on this hilarious post from Blipey. I lasted a whole 12 hours, but dammit, comedy porn comments...what's not to like?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 27 2011,09:28

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,04:28)
{fluff snipped}

I wish to advance the cause of porn. How do I go about this? Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



25 euros / month.  Preferably drawn directly from your bank account (not the joint one) by me with the number you supply.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,10:38

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2011,15:28)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,04:28)
{fluff snipped}

I wish to advance the cause of porn. How do I go about this? Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



25 euros / month.  Preferably drawn directly from your bank account (not the joint one) by me with the number you supply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


25 Euros? You mean one percent of my current monthly spend?* I'm in!

Louis

* This is for FTK, because you know, we atheists alllll love the porn. Constantly. Look at nothing else. It's part of out "lifestyle" that involves being sub-human serial killers who just love aborting a foetus and callously looking at photos of it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,10:45

if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,10:57

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,16:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All week. Here. Veal. Waitress. On?

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 27 2011,12:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 27 2011,12:16

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 27 2011,12:29

Page turn bug.

*Insert funny comment about marriage and sex-life here*

*Insert the now mandatory "Kris, go fuck yourself with [funny object/appliance/foodstuff, preferably painful, of choice]!" here*
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 27 2011,17:19

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not true. The good lady wife and I engaged in conjugal unpleasantness quite recently. Twenty eight months ago to be precise. I now have a nineteen month old son. You don't think we will be doing it again do you? Look what happened last time! Gadzooks, it's positively un-British!

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 27 2011,17:26

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,17:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not true. The good lady wife and I engaged in conjugal unpleasantness quite recently. Twenty eight months ago to be precise. I now have a nineteen month old son. You don't think we will be doing it again do you? Look what happened last time! Gadzooks, it's positively un-British!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now I have that song from Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life stuck in my head.

I would be vexed, but it has rather chased off the other song that was in there, which was at least an improvement over the Macarena...

...oh, damn...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 27 2011,18:46

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,17:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not true. The good lady wife and I engaged in conjugal unpleasantness quite recently. Twenty eight months ago to be precise. I now have a nineteen month old son. You don't think we will be doing it again do you? Look what happened last time! Gadzooks, it's positively un-British!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wait.  My girls (2 and nearly 5) have reached the age when they develop an uncanny knack for interrupting any and all attempts at intimacy.  First, they are very careful never to nap at the same time.  If you try the middle of the night, they wake up and crawl in the bed.  If you try the middle of the afternoon, they find a way to get sent home from daycare.   The only option is to call up family/friends and beg them to take the little darlings for twenty minutes (cause it's all about her needs right?).
Posted by: sledgehammer on Jan. 27 2011,19:34

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 27 2011,16:46)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,17:19)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not true. The good lady wife and I engaged in conjugal unpleasantness quite recently. Twenty eight months ago to be precise. I now have a nineteen month old son. You don't think we will be doing it again do you? Look what happened last time! Gadzooks, it's positively un-British!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wait.  My girls (2 and nearly 5) have reached the age when they develop an uncanny knack for interrupting any and all attempts at intimacy.  First, they are very careful never to nap at the same time.  If you try the middle of the night, they wake up and crawl in the bed.  If you try the middle of the afternoon, they find a way to get sent home from daycare.   The only option is to call up family/friends and beg them to take the little darlings for twenty minutes (cause it's all about her needs right?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..
Seriously, when my daughters were that age, it got so bad that we would go out to "dinner", and order room service from a hotel room.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 27 2011,21:33

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 27 2011,19:34)
20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I now have this mental image of Hellboy wearing a corset.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 28 2011,00:31

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 27 2011,19:34)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 27 2011,16:46)
   Just wait.  My girls (2 and nearly 5) have reached the age when they develop an uncanny knack for interrupting any and all attempts at intimacy.  First, they are very careful never to nap at the same time.  If you try the middle of the night, they wake up and crawl in the bed.  If you try the middle of the afternoon, they find a way to get sent home from daycare.   The only option is to call up family/friends and beg them to take the little darlings for twenty minutes (cause it's all about her needs right?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..
Seriously, when my daughters were that age, it got so bad that we would go out to "dinner", and order room service from a hotel room.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume you two are joking. If any of my children interrupted my time of intimacy with my wife for any reason less than a medical emergency, they would have a severe punishment coming!

But I don't have kids, so what do I know.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 28 2011,01:21

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,08:14)
In other words, what I said is true. So, again, why aren't you bitching at and about the people who did give flowersfriend a bad time? You keep bitching about me but I never gave her a bad time in the first place, or ever. You lied about that.

You really like to call certain people liars. You call people liars on a regular basis, on your blog and elsewhere, just because they don't instantly and completely agree with you. You think you're a paragon of truth and honor, but you're really just a lying, hypocritical, bigoted, delusional, dishonorable, insane, retarded, impotent, narcissistic, punk-ass sack of rancid shit.

Hey Dale-boi, thanks for the plug, but you left out one of the most important posts of mine. You know, the one with the quote from Darwin. You're not trying to get people to take things out of context, are you? Nah, you'd never do anything like that. You're too "honorable" to do that. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Nice try at quote mining though. Too bad that it makes you look like a desperate douchebag.

I've already been banned from Pharyngula. PZ Myers is a malignant narcissist with delusions of Godhood, just like you Dale-boi. Neither of you are any different from the religious zealots who want to stifle or eliminate anything they don't want to hear.

The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing you said above is even remotely true or logical. Again, you need to think before you spit venom at me or anyone else here. It makes you look stupid.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 28 2011,01:55

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 27 2011,18:16)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 27 2011,12:00)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 27 2011,11:45)
if you are looking callously use the other hand.  or some lotion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aw, c'mon, now.  Louis doesn't need to use that stuff.  He's married, you know, and...oh...wait...nevermind.

Erm, as you were...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what married means.  You sleep together, but you can't get none.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The main reason my main squeeze refuses to even consider marriage; predictable results from her last experiment with that institution.  Bless her horny little heart.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.