Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Joe G Thread

Pages: (14) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,15:18    Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,15:06) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:01) Oh, he was canned for actually threatening people online during working hours? Who and how? That story's even better! I think it was on the old NAiG site. ?I don't know if it's archived any longer. ?If someone remembers the old URL, maybe they can check the Wayback Machine. Here are a couple of posts at Telic Snots discussing it after the fact. Quote I have watched this with some fascination. It is amazing how short Joe's memory is. When he first started posting at NAiG (before Stratus told him to hit the road) he actually made threats from his work computer. That's how one of the posters there learned his identity - the IP traced to Joe Gallien at Stratus Computers. It is too funny to see Joe try to rewrite history. I don't blame him, as shameful as his conduct has been. As far as "nothing happening to him", well take that with a grain of salt. He no longer works for that employer, and it was not by his choice. After he was let go, he came back to NAiG making a lot of noise about getting even. That's a fact. TP Joe's just the gift that keeps on giving. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,16:07    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 06 2007,14:00) Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:37) You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance? I don't understand what you are saying. Do you have evidence that Joe G's employer knows about his internet activities and doesn't care? Does Joe G actually work in a vetted environment on secret classified subjects? He may well do. But vetting is quite concerned with honesty. The questions could go on. I am not trying to interogate you though. I just do not understand what you are claiming and would like some clarification. It's a reference to an answer joe gave me once as to why he couldn't talk about his qualifications to talk about an subject he may or may not know something about. We were having a discussion as to what his qualifications for setting curriculum were.  He said he'd tell me when I showed up at his door.  As he had previously posted his address, I said I'd be stopping by.  He then told me that he couldn't share any of his expertise because he had top-secret clearance and his job involved secret government operations. I like to point this out to Joe as much as I possibly can. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,18:26    Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember. The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site. Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets. By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,19:53    Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,19:26) The guy's just a prick with ears. *Fires up Photoshop. Then thinks better of it.* -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,20:40    Could it be: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin....&nl=fix Hate email to columnist Mark Morford, second one down. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,21:14    I don't know, but some of those are pretty unintentionally funny. Quote There's no better example of an elitist, condescending, snide and UNINFORMED liberal progressive. A commune-living, bike-riding environmentalist could write a scathing article like this, ripping your Audi (I think you wrote an article on it), which you must assume runs on progressive ideals or your sex toys instead of gasoline. But they DON'T -- because they are different than simple, narcissist progressives, who pat themselves on the back for being marginally less polluting than the next guy. You're sick, offensive and laughably hypocritical -- you're a perfect San Francisco progressive liberal. I've been reading your nonsense since 2002 and I have no idea why. -Brendan

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,21:18    Quote I can't believe your audacity. We live in a death culture where people are contracepting, murdering children on a daily basis (abortion), and the world's population is growing eerily older as we speak. There will be no more children to support your sorry bum when you are older. Why?? Because NO ONE is having children!!! There will be no more social security and no more "workers" in your nursing home. Why?? Because you all chose to have no more children. Look at Europe!! The Muslims are taking over because the Europeans are too selfish to have kids of their own!!!!!! God Bless You. -KP The funny thing is you could probably get this guy to say that them damn teenagers are having way too many babies.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,09:01    Quote (khan @ Sep. 06 2007,20:40) Could it be: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin....&nl=fix Hate email to columnist Mark Morford, second one down. I saw that and thought the same thing. But would New Hampshire Joe bother to send hate mail to a California columnist? Besides, our Joe is a Muslim, not a Mormon.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,09:11    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2007,21:14) I don't know, but some of those are pretty unintentionally funny. ? ? Quote There's no better example of an elitist, condescending, snide and UNINFORMED liberal progressive. A commune-living, bike-riding environmentalist could write a scathing article like this, ripping your Audi (I think you wrote an article on it), which you must assume runs on progressive ideals or your sex toys instead of gasoline. But they DON'T -- because they are different than simple, narcissist progressives, who pat themselves on the back for being marginally less polluting than the next guy. You're sick, offensive and laughably hypocritical -- you're a perfect San Francisco progressive liberal. I've been reading your nonsense since 2002 and I have no idea why. -Brendan (When they pull out the insult 'elitist' in the first sentence, you know they're gonna have nothing to say.) Wow, he's the wingnut and HE'S been reading Morford for 5 years, while I'm the wicked Islamofascist liberal who's destroying America and almost never bother to read Morford. Funny how that works. There is a funny dynamic among Bay Area/SF wingnuts. Wingnuts are so massively outnumbered and disenfranchised here, that they tend to become much more hysterical and defensive than their counterparts in areas where they dominate. A wingnut in, say, Texas can be complacent in the knowledge that he lives in an area where people just like him run everything. Out here where people laugh at folks like that and Bush has around 10-15% approval, wingnuts act epecially put upon and shreiky, like they're horribly persecuted and upset that no one invites them to parties anymore once they tell everyone how cool Ann Coulter is. I think Dan White was a very early example of this. For example, I am sorry to say that SF spawned Michael Savage. QED. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,10:58    Could somebody chime in over at Joe G's blog?  I've accepted, under duress, his claim that he's really saying that nobody knows anything about the genes responsible for the origin of the visual system.  But even there he's wrong, as I've pointed out (Pax6 and related genes seem to be well established in that regard).  But he's really obsessed with me, calling me out by name, etc. I'm not sure what to do. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,14:49    Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,18:26) Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember. The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site. Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets. By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless. Actually, he mentioned that 'not everyone drives through (my town) to go skiing.'  This was after he had oh-so-cleverly put my address in his signature line.  It was as if he thought those who he threatened would just retract all of our statements and declare his every utterance truth and factual because we would be all a-scared of him or something.   Also, while Robert Rapier was involved in the discussions at the time, and Joe had 'challenged' him to come say things to his face and such, he did not contact Joe's employer, and I do not know who did.  Generally, I am against such activities (as I have actually had creationists threaten to contact my colleagues and my employer not because I threatened them - I have never done anything like that - but because I showed them to be wrong, ignorant, etc.), but in Joe's case, I think the fact that he was making threats from his place of work (he was also posting as two people at the time, claiming that his 'alter ego' was a coworker, one 'Cool Hand Luke', who also tried to intimidate people he disagreed with) to multiple people warranted some sort of intervention.  It wasn't as if tempers flared and one discussant writes 'I'll kick you ass!", he was actively stalking people, posting personal information about them on the net, and making implicit threats, all because he could not handle the fact that he was (and still is) too underinformed on the issues he tried to discuss and was put in is place. He also tried to 'arrange' meetings between himself and one 'Skeptic boy' and I at least 2 other people if I remember correctly, and each time, he mysteriously stopped posting for several days.  On one occasion, he actually claimed to have been at the place that where one of these 'meetings' was to take place, but he was unable to describe the place. He is s typical bully.  A coward at heart. By the way - just in case anyone might need such information, he let it slip one time that he had had surgery on his lower back...

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,17:22    Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 09 2007,10:58) Could somebody chime in over at Joe G's blog?  I've accepted, under duress, his claim that he's really saying that nobody knows anything about the genes responsible for the origin of the visual system.  But even there he's wrong, as I've pointed out (Pax6 and related genes seem to be well established in that regard).  But he's really obsessed with me, calling me out by name, etc. I'm not sure what to do. Do you think anyone finds Joe's arguments convincing? Other than those who already agree with him? If not, then his arguments don't need debunking. Dembski and others did have people bamboozled for a while. But the non-reality based movement is at the end of its latest manifestation. Of course, the other reason to comment is for fun. Just don't take it too seriously. I think you have acquited yourself well in your discussion with Joe. Readers may get lost in details, so stick to the basics. Joe will readily hang himself. Clogging (Commenting on Blogs) -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,17:55    Thanks Z.  I'm afraid I just got a little freaked out when he started exhibiting stalker behavior (mentioning where I live, for example) on his blog.  I'm fine now. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,19:12    "I know where you live!" "You and millions of identity thieves and phishing scammers. Great company you have there. Were you saying something about having an actual argument?" -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,19:23    Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 09 2007,17:55) Thanks Z.  I'm afraid I just got a little freaked out when he started exhibiting stalker behavior (mentioning where I live, for example) on his blog. DaveScot has been known to employ that particular rhetorical device, too. Maybe it deserves to be listed at TalkOrigins as a Creationist fallacy. Argumentum ad addressum? (Okay, so I never took Latin, so sue me.) PS: I guess it's a subcategory of this. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,23:29    https://www.blogger.com/comment....3429519 Quote As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys. [/B] -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,00:00    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 09 2007,23:29) https://www.blogger.com/comment....3429519   Quote As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys. [/B] Hilarious. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,00:12    Joe's the one with the little whizzer. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,11:04    Quote He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications. Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability? Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened? Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@! Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin. Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,12:27    Quote (slpage @ Sep. 09 2007,14:49) A coward at heart. Here's another tale of Brave Sir Joe: I proposed to Joe that we ask Dembski about one of our disagreements.  I also proposed some stakes:  Whoever turned out to be wrong, according to Dembski, would never post about ID on the internet again. In Joe's response, he ignored the proposed bet, so I repeated it. Joe responded with a quote from Meyer that supposedly supported Joe's position, and asked, "Do you still want to bet?" I answered, "Absolutely. I'm just waiting for you to say yes." Joe's responded with, "BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people." And he followed that up with, "Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet)." My response: "Okay, then what do you want the stakes to be? As this is a bet that you're sure to win, I'm sure you'll want to bet something really big." I also proposed a separate wager on another issue that we were in the middle of debating, once again with Dembski as the judge. Joe's response: "Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up." My long response: "In which case, you would report my welching to the ID and anti-ID communities, which would be pretty embarrassing for me. "My point in proposing the bets is for us to show that we stand behind our claims enough to put something at risk. Otherwise, we're all talk, and this discussion isn't worth our while. Talk is cheap. "Besides, since you're obviously going to win both bets, you have nothing to lose, right? So I don't understand your reluctance to accept the bets." Joe responds with more weaseling, concluding with, "I explained my reluctance. That you can't even understand my simple explanation is very telling." My parting comment: "Well, Joe, the proposed wagers stand. If you ever decide to take me up on them, you can let me know in a comment at any of the high profile sites, ie Uncommon Descent, Pandas Thumb, etc. Until then, best wishes to you and your blog." To which Joe responded, bizarrely, that I never even made any claims on which to bet: "And everything I said still stands.  Until you make a claim there cannot be any wager." So there you have it.  Joe can't muster the measly courage to accept bets that would be adjudicated by Dembski himself, and for which Joe would get to choose the stakes. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:06    Wow Rob, that's 100% class. Joe admits there's a potential bet on the table   Quote Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet). And then backs out faster then Dembski from Dover (well not strictly true, Dembski waited around to get paiiiid). Joe, I'll be linking to that post if I ever need a potted summary of "Joe" to explain what you are. Oneoneone111oneoneone -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:45    Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,12:27)   Quote (slpage @ Sep. 09 2007,14:49) A coward at heart. Here's another tale of Brave Sir Joe: ...Joe's responded with, "BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people." Wagers are the key. They demonstrate that on some cognitive level below the telencephalon, all of these people know that they are lying, and have nothing resembling faith in their position. We all should use this technique more often.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,13:51    Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,11:04) Quote He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications. Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability? Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened? Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@! Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin. Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin. I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot" Superb, sir. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:41    Oh, and another one of Joe's excuses that I forgot to mention:   Quote To me, betting with imbeciles is not a fruitful endeavor. And betting with anonymous imbeciles is just not worth my time. That's strange.  Most people consider betting with imbeciles to be very fruitful.  Easy money. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,14:49    Quote (blipey @ Sep. 10 2007,13:51) I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot" Superb, sir. Coming from the master of ID mockery, that's a high compliment indeed.  Thank you. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,12:00    Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.   We now return to our usual programming. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,13:11    Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00) Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade. As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait. I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,13:37    Quote (Rob @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)     Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00) Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade. As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait. I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future. I share the temptation.  Hell, I have drawn attention to his blog even here.  But maybe that's why his blog exists: just to pick fights.  Looking at the comments over there, it's clear that nobody gives a shit about his blog except those who want to correct his stupidity and viciousness.  Seeing as he lives in a universe of his own invention, however, correction so far has failed to take.   I have liked your comments over there.  A lot.  Maybe the thing to do is just ignore the posts about me.  I'm not really concerned about the other threads.  Meanwhile, I'll not post over there at all. Whatever you decide is fine by me.   (I've put a link to the basics of his behavior at the top of the pro-science blog, so it doesn't got away.) -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,13:54    Obviously Joe G needs to be sent to Coventry.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,14:21    I decided to not visit Joe's blog a while ago.  There really is no point in going there.  His moderation policy doesn't allow for commenting in any sort of non-maddening way.  Annd it doesn't do any good. I will engage Joe anywhere else he shows up; these are the places where he has to show his ugliness to others.  Unfortunately, these are the places he usually runs away from. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Pages: (14) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard