RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 205 206 207 208 209 [210] 211 212 213 214 215 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,02:56   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2012,20:02)
In other words he has refuted saltation. Just 150 years after Darwin said it wasn't necessary.

Well, probably thinks he's dismissed the 'first organism'. Because the first organism was produced by random search of 'protein space'. Or 'DNA space'. Or some other v^n space derivable for a polymer.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 4569
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,08:44   

Guys next time you're out on a jaunt just check around for ....

 
Quote
...an immaterial intelligence



I had to listen to one on a train to work last week going on about nothing much to no one in particular at the top of his voice (while everyone tried not to notice) and all the time him humming to the rythm of the train.

It was immaterial that he was an intelligent passenger he was still a loony.


Poor guy....the only reason he wasn't locked up is he could have had 2 PhDs

--------------
"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

  
Patrick



Posts: 620
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,10:51   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 01 2012,20:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2012,15:13)
OK. I've been hearing search for a search for years and just tuned it out as bullshit. Can someone play devil's advocate and put the best possible face on this? Explain how it could possibly be relevant?

I'm not joking.

Okay, here's my best straight-faced attempt at presenting Dembski's argument:
 
Quote
1. A search is a process which attempts to find targets within a larger space of possibilities.

2. A search can be run over and over. Each time it is run, it "lands on" one point in the space of possibilities. If that point is one of the targets, then the search has succeeded. If the landing point is not a target, then the search has failed.

3. A blind search is one in which the "landing point" is chosen purely at random out of the space of possibilities, without favoring any points over others.

4. If the possibility space is huge and the target space is tiny, then a blind search will rarely succeed. The odds of hitting the target are just too low. In other words, the cost of finding the target is high with a blind search.

5. If we use a better search, we improve the odds of hitting the target. In other words, we can reduce the cost of finding the target by employing a better search.

6. However, finding a better search is itself a search ("the search for a search"). It has its own cost, which must be factored in.

7. The total cost of finding a target therefore includes both the cost of the search plus the cost of the "search for a search".

8. According to the Law of Conservation of Information, this total cost is always greater than or equal to the cost of finding the target through a blind search. One way or another, you have to pay the piper in order to find the target.

9. Evolution is a search: it looks for viable organisms (the targets) within the much larger space of possible organisms.

10. Evolution obviously cannot succeed as a blind search, because the target space is too small relative to the possibility space. However, evolution uses the fitness landscape as a source of information to zero in on the target space. (A designer may also inject information at crucial moments.)

11. The fitness landscape doesn't come for free. The total cost of the evolutionary search has to include the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape.

12. The Law of Conservation of Information tells us that the total cost of the evolutionary search, including the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape, equals or exceeds the cost of a blind search.

13. Purely material processes don't generate information. They merely rearrange information that was already there. Therefore, no material process can "buy" you a fitness landscape.

14. Thus, the information in the fitness landscape comes from an immaterial intelligence. (And so does any information that is injected along the way.)

15. Without this information, evolution could not succeed.

16. One way or another, then, evolution depends for its success on information generated by an immaterial intelligence.

It's riddled with holes, but that, to the best of my knowledge, is the argument that Dembski is actually making.

I would love to see Dembski's response to this. However, like Upright BiPed and his semiotic argument, Dembski avoids clarity in order to insulate himself from potential refutation.

Quote
5. If we use a better search, we improve the odds of hitting the target. In other words, we can reduce the cost of finding the target by employing a better search.

This is where Dembski starts to abuse the NFL theorems. He's slipping in the concepts of explicit targets and costs that he'll misapply to evolutionary biology later.

Quote
6. However, finding a better search is itself a search ("the search for a search"). It has its own cost, which must be factored in.

This is just incorrect (Dembski's argument, not your summary.) Some algorithms work better on some fitness landscapes than do others. It is not surprising that we observe an algorithm (known evolutionary mechanisms) that works well in our fitness landscape (reality) actually working in our fitness landscape. Observing an algorithm that works worse than blind search would be the real surprise.

Quote
7. The total cost of finding a target therefore includes both the cost of the search plus the cost of the "search for a search".

Here's where Dembski goes totally off the rails because of the idea of a cost introduced previously. In the only fitness landscape we observe, only those search functions that work in this landscape will be observed. There is no need to search for a search function.

Quote
8. According to the Law of Conservation of Information, this total cost is always greater than or equal to the cost of finding the target through a blind search. One way or another, you have to pay the piper in order to find the target.

Once again, Dembski fails to show that any search for a search function is necessary or observed.

Quote
9. Evolution is a search: it looks for viable organisms (the targets) within the much larger space of possible organisms.

Just because some aspects of known evolutionary mechanisms can be modeled as a search does not mean that evolution is a search. IDCists often make this error of mistaking the map for the territory.

Evolutionary mechanisms explore the "organism space" immediately adjacent to known good solutions. The much larger space of possible organisms is immaterial.

Quote
10. Evolution obviously cannot succeed as a blind search, because the target space is too small relative to the possibility space. However, evolution uses the fitness landscape as a source of information to zero in on the target space. (A designer may also inject information at crucial moments.)

11. The fitness landscape doesn't come for free. The total cost of the evolutionary search has to include the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape.

This is where Dembski's entire argument falls apart. The idea that the observed fitness landscape (aka reality) represents a cost presupposes his conclusion that it was somehow selected from a set of alternatives.

Quote
12. The Law of Conservation of Information tells us that the total cost of the evolutionary search, including the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape, equals or exceeds the cost of a blind search.

Leaving aside the fact that Dembski's "Law" doesn't actually describe any observed regularity, this is just another misuse of the NFL theorems.

The bottom line is that, accepting ad arguendo that evolution can be modeled as a search, we have the single fitness landscape that we observe and we see that an algorithm that works better than blind search on that landscape is reified in chemical processes that result in evolution. That's not exactly surprising.

Dembski might be able to construct a theistic evolution argument from his "search for a search" idea, but it certainly doesn't remotely suggest that known evolutionary mechanisms require intelligent intervention.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,11:44   

Unless I'm missing something, evolution is blind. But it uses Braille to feel it's way around. Never far from it's current homeostatic position.

Over at TSZ a surfing metaphor was suggested. The landscape changes and undulates, and evolution is continually falling, without changing its level. It is always in equilibrium.

So Gould's paradox of punctuated equilibrium is an artifact of environtmental change.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,13:36   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,11:44)
Unless I'm missing something, evolution is blind. But it uses Braille to feel it's way around. Never far from it's current homeostatic position.

Over at TSZ a surfing metaphor was suggested. The landscape changes and undulates, and evolution is continually falling, without changing its level. It is always in equilibrium.

So Gould's paradox of punctuated equilibrium is an artifact of environtmental change.

Yeah, you're missing the point that without the earch-say you don't need an odd-gay.  Shhhhhh, it's a secret!

If nature can feel her own way (down, Louis!) then there's no need for You-Know-Who!

  
beluga



Posts: 4
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,15:29   

Not that it matters, but 2i*2i=-4

  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,15:40   

In Dembski's search space, only the Designer can buy you lunch.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,15:48   

Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,13:40)
In Dembski's search space, only the Designer can buy you lunch.

At the Baylor cafeteria.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,15:55   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,11:44)
Unless I'm missing something, evolution is blind. But it uses Braille to feel it's way around. Never far from it's current homeostatic position.

Over at TSZ a surfing metaphor was suggested. The landscape changes and undulates, and evolution is continually falling, without changing its level. It is always in equilibrium. But it's not a balance with something else.

So Gould's paradox of punctuated equilibrium is an artifact of environtmental change.

I think PE is more to do with the role of cladogenesis in evolutionary tempo, and the role of population size in cladogenesis. Although environmental change cannot fail to leave its imprint.

The never-getting-anywhere quality of evolution (the Red Queen) is an interesting one. If a new allele with a positive selective advantage arises, it spreads due to that advantage relative to the existing type. When everything is the new type, there is nothing to have an advantage over, and the playing field has levelled again (for that gene). But adaptation has moved on one notch, and new alleles have to be that bit more 'beneficial' to compete.

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

  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:02   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 02 2012,13:48)
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,13:40)
In Dembski's search space, only the Designer can buy you lunch.

At the Baylor cafeteria.

And only on Meatloaf Wednesdays.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:06   

"Environment" covers a lot of ground. Maybe its scope is too broad to be useful here. I'm just suggesting that if nothing changes about the requirements for survival then outward form is unlikely to change much, regardless of what's happening at the molecular level. And outward form is what fossilizes.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:11   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,17:44)
... evolution is continually falling, without changing its level.

Genetic entropy proven! With a zero wavelength at that!

AFDave and Dembski vindicated in the same post: take that, evil materialists!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:30   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2012,14:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,17:44)
... evolution is continually falling, without changing its level.

Genetic entropy proven! With a zero wavelength at that!

AFDave and Dembski vindicated in the same post: take that, evil materialists!

but if evolution is continually falling while always missing the ground, isnt that technically 'flying'?

eta: thank you, Douglas Adams, pbuh

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:43   

Some honesty from tjguy:
Quote
If we give up on this battle and throw out Adam & Eve as myth, how many of our children do you think are going to have confidence in Gods Word? They are clearly going to see what we are doing desperately trying to find a way to keep the Bible believable in the face of increasing contrary evidence. [emphasis mine]

And:
Quote
If you dont care if your kids reject the faith, then sure, go ahead and throw out Adam & Eve. My question is what will be the next thing to go? The flood has already been trashed by even many IDers. How about the Tower of Babel?

tjguy,

How about setting an example for your children by following the evidence where it leads? Show them that the truth matters. Be willing to revise your own beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence -- even when it's painful to do so.

You have presumably believed for years that the Bible is the infallible word of God. What if it isn't? Do you want to teach your children something that isn't true? How are you going to figure it out without looking at the evidence?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,16:45   

Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,14:30)
but if evolution is continually falling while always missing the ground, isnt that technically 'flying'?

Technically, that's 'orbiting'.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Henry J



Posts: 5060
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,17:40   

Quote (beluga @ Sep. 02 2012,14:29)
Not that it matters, but 2i*2i=-4

It is a complex subject, after all.

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,18:09   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 02 2012,16:45)
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,14:30)
but if evolution is continually falling while always missing the ground, isnt that technically 'flying'?

Technically, that's 'orbiting'.

I prefer riding the curl.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1406
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,18:34   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,13:09)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 02 2012,16:45)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,14:30)
but if evolution is continually falling while always missing the ground, isnt that technically 'flying'?

Technically, that's 'orbiting'.

I prefer riding the curl.

In the tube?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2737
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,20:18   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,11:44)
Unless I'm missing something, evolution is blind. But it uses Braille to feel it's way around. Never far from it's current homeostatic position.

Over at TSZ a surfing metaphor was suggested. The landscape changes and undulates, and evolution is continually falling, without changing its level. It is always in equilibrium.

So Gould's paradox of punctuated equilibrium is an artifact of environtmental change.

I've pointed it out to Creationists many times - evolution is a feedback system that works as a tracking loop to follow environmental changes. As long as the loop inputs from the environment don't change too rapidly or drastically the loop tracks the changes and tries to drive the species towards any local fitness maxima. Too rapid or too drastic a change and the loop can't keep up - the species goes extinct.

It's similar to the feedback loop used by the cruise control on your car. On long stretches of level ground the engine RPM will remain constant. Come to an uphill gradient and the loop will increase engine RPM; downhill it will lug the engine to keep the vehicle speed down. Hit a wall or go over a cliff and you're SOL - the loop breaks down and you're extinct. The loop tracks the elevation changes and the engine RPM will show a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern just as real evolution.

--------------
"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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2737
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2012,21:17   

kairosfocus to Joe G:

 
Quote
"Joe: It seems Mathgrrl/Patrick the latter having confessed to using the former [which properly belongs to a Calculus professor out there . . . ] as a sockpuppet is forgetting that we at UD keep records"


linky

Someone should remind the Manjack Heights Mauler that Joe G was banned at UD under the name "Joseph" and came back a few weeks later as "Joe"

No double standards to see here folks, just move along...

--------------
"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

  
DiEb



Posts: 284
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,01:33   

The thread Conservation of Information Made Simple at ENV was quite amusing - I'm still having two comments in moderation over there (now for two days and counting - they can be read here: Some Annotations to the Previous Post )

Joe has indeed changed his position over time and KairosFocus has provided us with what must be the shortest version of his strawman-theme:
Quote
F/N: this is evidently yet another case of a red herring distractor led off to a strawman side issue. Notice, just how little of the above actually addresses the main point. KF
(yes, that's the whole comment! Amazing!)

   
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,02:02   

Given the fond regard in which they hold Jonathan Wells, it is remiss of the IDiots not to sympathise on the passing of Rev. Moon.

Then again, he'll probably rise again by Wednesday, so it's hardly worth the trouble of sending a note.

Do Hallmark do resurrection cards?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,02:09   

Joe says 'fart' and KF blows a gasket:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 11:46 am)
velikovskys-

In the words of Monty Python-

I [vulgar reference deleted-- KF] in your general direction

Have a nice day

Joe, you probably have an inch of leeway left if so much. Kindly watch tone and manners. KF

And:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 8:15 pm)
And KF that line you thought was vulgar was from a very funny Monty Python movie- I definitely need to tone it down but you need to lighten up, just a little

Joe: All that did is to further reduce Monty Python in my already low estimation. The language reference to flatulence is vulgar, and should not be used. KF

What a useless, insufferable, hypocritical, sanctimonious priss KF is.

Apologies if someone already commented on this little episode. I can't be arsed to go back and find out.

P.S. Hey KF -- I said 'arsed'!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,03:22   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 03 2012,02:09)
What a useless, insufferable, hypocritical, sanctimonious priss KF is.

A TSZ commenter gave the most succinct summary of KF's perpetual horrification - a 'pearl-clutcher'.

In another universe - one where they did not have common cause, and the one did not exert some odd kind of authority over the other - Joe would be kicking KF's arse seven ways to Sunday.

Watching the KF 'n' Joe Show is almost as much fun as watching Joe 'do' programming or chemistry.

Edited by Soapy Sam on Sep. 03 2012,03:26

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 4569
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,05:52   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 03 2012,01:40)
Quote (beluga @ Sep. 02 2012,14:29)
Not that it matters, but 2i*2i=-4

It is a complex subject, after all.

Henry

All complexity has its conjugates.

--------------
"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

  
k.e..



Posts: 4569
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,09:39   

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 03 2012,09:33)
The thread Conservation of Information Made Simple at ENV was quite amusing - I'm still having two comments in moderation over there (now for two days and counting - they can be read here: Some Annotations to the Previous Post )

Joe has indeed changed his position over time and KairosFocus has provided us with what must be the shortest version of his strawman-theme:  
Quote
F/N: this is evidently yet another case of a red herring distractor led off to a strawman side issue. Notice, just how little of the above actually addresses the main point. KF
(yes, that's the whole comment! Amazing!)

Yeah 'Probability Mathmatician' Joe can't find Omega

hahahahahahahahahaha

Jesus IF Dembski had anything useful to say other than probability zero* therefore GOD his personal and altogether useless definition of 'Conservation of Information'.....

WOULD FUCKING CONSERVE INFORMATION!!

In the same way Shannon & Hartley did.

Bill get a grip man.

*Oh and BTW a probability of zero is just that, zero.

A Null question IOW.

ETA: And the corollary; Some equally small number to zero that GOD is just present enough to not be zero is dangerously close to the logical proof god doesn't exist.

You're on a slippery slope Bill.

Time for some more street theatre I think.

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5410
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,10:16   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2012,19:34)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,13:09)
 
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 02 2012,16:45)
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 02 2012,14:30)
but if evolution is continually falling while always missing the ground, isnt that technically 'flying'?

Technically, that's 'orbiting'.

I prefer riding the curl.

In the tube?

In the pipe, five by five.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Patrick



Posts: 620
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,10:17   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 02 2012,22:17)
kairosfocus to Joe G:

Quote
"Joe: It seems Mathgrrl/Patrick the latter having confessed to using the former [which properly belongs to a Calculus professor out there . . . ] as a sockpuppet is forgetting that we at UD keep records"


linky

Someone should remind the Manjack Heights Mauler that Joe G was banned at UD under the name "Joseph" and came back a few weeks later as "Joe"

No double standards to see here folks, just move along...

"Confessed"?  I was outed by kairosfocus' very good friend vjtorley (admittedly due to my own sloppiness).  Since kairosfocus considers outing to be such egregiously offensive behavior, I'm sure he'll publicly shun vjtorley and stop gratuitously associating my name with the Mathgrrl nym real soon now.

  
damitall



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,10:17   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 03 2012,02:09)
Joe says 'fart' and KF blows a gasket:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 11:46 am)
velikovskys-

In the words of Monty Python-

I [vulgar reference deleted-- KF] in your general direction

Have a nice day

Joe, you probably have an inch of leeway left if so much. Kindly watch tone and manners. KF

And:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 8:15 pm)
And KF that line you thought was vulgar was from a very funny Monty Python movie- I definitely need to tone it down but you need to lighten up, just a little

Joe: All that did is to further reduce Monty Python in my already low estimation. The language reference to flatulence is vulgar, and should not be used. KF

What a useless, insufferable, hypocritical, sanctimonious priss KF is.

Apologies if someone already commented on this little episode. I can't be arsed to go back and find out.

P.S. Hey KF -- I said 'arsed'!

All that is, of course, true.

There is one good result.

People with those characteristics (and a complete lack of a sense of humour) have zero chance of influencing young people in any way they'd like to.

Any teenager I've ever known would be absolutely repelled by kairosfocus

(Any rare teenager who did cleave to that set of attitudes and behaviours would be a lost cause anyway)

KF may be instrumental in saving a generation of Caribbean kids for rationality

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2715
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2012,10:32   

Quote (beluga @ Sep. 02 2012,15:29)
Not that it matters, but 2i*2i=-4

Shh. Wait for him to cough pony up the unicorns.

Edited by Zachriel on Sep. 03 2012,10:38

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

   
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 205 206 207 208 209 [210] 211 212 213 214 215 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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