RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months., Record of all the bans and threats at UD< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2671
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2016,14:35   

All science so far.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1948
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2016,14:57   

The over-under for Joe showing up at UD again with a new sock is 5 days.   :)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
k.e..



Posts: 4052
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2016,10:26   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 15 2016,22:57)
The over-under for Joe showing up at UD again with a new sock is 5 days.   :)

Maybe he'll frock up this time as Honey Golightly.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2016,09:07   

Zachriel's comments now disappear into the ether — a silent bannination.

Quote
bornagain: Mr. Arrington, once again I request that Zach be banned for trollish, dishonest, behavior.


Our response, posted before the bannination:

Quote
Zachriel: Once again you ignored a substantive response, preferring to shut down objections to your position.


--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2016,10:14   

Quote (Zachriel @ May 15 2016,09:07)
Zachriel's comments now disappear into the ether — a silent bannination.

Quote
bornagain: Mr. Arrington, once again I request that Zach be banned for trollish, dishonest, behavior.


Our response, posted before the bannination:

 
Quote
Zachriel: Once again you ignored a substantive response, preferring to shut down objections to your position.

Welcome to the club.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2016,12:21   

Quote (Zachriel @ May 15 2016,15:07)
Zachriel's comments now disappear into the ether — a silent bannination.

On the plus side, you don't have to talk to Bjorn Again 77 any more.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Cubist



Posts: 496
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2016,16:28   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 15 2016,10:14)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 15 2016,09:07)
Zachriel's comments now disappear into the ether — a silent bannination.
Quote
bornagain: Mr. Arrington, once again I request that Zach be banned for trollish, dishonest, behavior.

Our response, posted before the bannination:
Quote
Zachriel: Once again you ignored a substantive response, preferring to shut down objections to your position.

Welcome to the club.

"Welcome to"? I dunno; seems to me that five-times-banned Zachriel is a founding member of the club.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2016,16:42   

Quote (Cubist @ May 16 2016,16:28)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 15 2016,10:14)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ May 15 2016,09:07)
Zachriel's comments now disappear into the ether — a silent bannination.
 
Quote
bornagain: Mr. Arrington, once again I request that Zach be banned for trollish, dishonest, behavior.

Our response, posted before the bannination:
 
Quote
Zachriel: Once again you ignored a substantive response, preferring to shut down objections to your position.

Welcome to the club.

"Welcome to"? I dunno; seems to me that five-times-banned Zachriel is a founding member of the club.

Only five times? Some of us call that May.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,10:37   

Another sock has bit the dust. R.I.P. Rationalitys Bane.

Although creating multiple socks is a pain in the ass, it may be having some unintended beneficial. All new commenters are put into moderation as a matter of course. And recently, they stay in moderation longer until Barry develops some comfort level. I suspect that this may also result in many ID supporters giving up.

There is always a silver lining.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4862
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,13:45   

Moderation is a virtue, after all! Especially if the new common tater might actually understand stuff and make use of that understanding whilst commentating. In which case that could leave the moderator with a hot potato to deal with.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 386
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,17:12   

Quote
46
kairosfocusAugust 22, 2016 at 5:06 pm
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there.

Who would know this better than GEM of Tiki?

ETA: oops...wrong thread

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,17:41   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 23 2016,17:12)
Quote
46
kairosfocusAugust 22, 2016 at 5:06 pm
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there.

Who would know this better than GEM of Tiki?

ETA: oops...wrong thread

It works here as well since people get banned for ridiculing Mr Mullings.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10490
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2016,09:31   

sean samis has now been banned from UD.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2016,10:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2016,09:31)
sean samis has now been banned from UD.

silently, I assume. Batshitcrazy77 must have run home to Barry and complained.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10490
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2016,10:25   

yep. It was silent.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 02 2016,11:26

   
stevestory



Posts: 10490
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2016,21:27   

AhmedKiaan has been silently banned.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2016,10:12   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2016,21:27)
AhmedKiaan has been silently banned.

How about MatSpirit? Surely he/she would have been banned before AK.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10490
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2016,11:13   

AK called Trump a traitor, corrupt, and a man of no moral character, and KF went berzerk, and Ahmed pointed out that Trump has a history of legal trouble for refusing to rent to people who are of KF's ethnicity, and within about 24 hrs (after making 3-4 more comments pointing out that ID was worthless) AK's comments suddenly stopped being posted.

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1051
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2018,19:01   

Just reviving this thread to record this:

Quote

360
Barry Arrington
  January 19, 2018 at 8:16 am

JSmith is no longer with us.

UD link

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,05:40   

And poor mullers_ratchet has accumulated too many mutations
Quote


Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

   If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

Quote
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

But, of course, it doesn’t


But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

Quote
It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.


You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.


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

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1332
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2018,09:27   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 28 2018,05:40)
And poor mullers_ratchet has accumulated too many mutations  
Quote


Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

   If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

 
Quote
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

But, of course, it doesn’t


But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

 
Quote
It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.


You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

In Barry’s defence.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4052
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2018,07:56   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 28 2018,17:27)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 28 2018,05:40)
And poor mullers_ratchet has accumulated too many mutations  
Quote


Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.

   If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.

“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.

 
Quote
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.

But, of course, it doesn’t


But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!

So, let’s review the thread.

You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.

 
Quote
It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.


You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.

Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.

You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.

What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?

UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.

In Barry’s defence.

Not so much a case of art imitating life but an artless low life simulating his own version of hell. Barryambulance chaser will eventually die and no one will give a fuck even pork fat smelling Dembski. Lets hope they bury Assington 20 feet down because deep down he's a nice guy.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  1071 replies since July 29 2007,19:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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