Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Do you think this is enough...: Do not revert wandalism.)
Line 94: Line 94:
 
:::Continuing from above... when you have someone dishonest enough to argue against a metaphor... you have someone willing to do all the mental gymnastics in the world to be right.  Hey, Tricksy, still feel like being an apologist for this asshat? --{{User:Eira/Signature}} 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Continuing from above... when you have someone dishonest enough to argue against a metaphor... you have someone willing to do all the mental gymnastics in the world to be right.  Hey, Tricksy, still feel like being an apologist for this asshat? --{{User:Eira/Signature}} 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Bradley puzzles me.  He seems like a smart enough guy, certainly smart enough to avoid attaching his good name to someone like PJR, let alone a pack of lies like Creationism in the first place.  And yet here he is, making excuses for equivocation, word games in place of actual thought and the promotion of falsehood under the guise of holiness (an old game to be sure, but a sleazy one nonetheless).  It seems there is no whopper so big or so greasy that Bradley won't swallow it whole, so long as it's attached to Philip or the liars at CMI. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] ([[User talk:Kels|talk]]) 03:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Bradley puzzles me.  He seems like a smart enough guy, certainly smart enough to avoid attaching his good name to someone like PJR, let alone a pack of lies like Creationism in the first place.  And yet here he is, making excuses for equivocation, word games in place of actual thought and the promotion of falsehood under the guise of holiness (an old game to be sure, but a sleazy one nonetheless).  It seems there is no whopper so big or so greasy that Bradley won't swallow it whole, so long as it's attached to Philip or the liars at CMI. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] ([[User talk:Kels|talk]]) 03:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::(EC)Eira, I was never an apologist for you, or for RW.  For what it's worth, your metaphor was unclear.  I had to read it twice to be sure that instead of a criminal accusation, it was merely innuendo.  Yes it was metaphor, but your choice of metaphor was questionable.  As to all this bleating about dishonesty, so far you have defined disagreement as dishonest, and made demonstrably false statements followed by quibbling when called on it.  Tu quoque is a legitimate response, here.
+
:::::(EC)Eira, I was never an apologist <s>for you, or for RW</s> (Tricksey, can't fucking read).  For what it's worth, your metaphor was unclear.  I had to read it twice to be sure that instead of a criminal accusation, it was merely innuendo.  Yes it was metaphor, but your choice of metaphor was questionable.  As to all this bleating about dishonesty, so far you have defined disagreement as dishonest, and made demonstrably false statements followed by quibbling when called on it.  Tu quoque is a legitimate response, here.
 
:::::BTW, I am surprised that someone with such a precise and accurate memory alongside an imperative to be honest would engage in a "Parthian shot".  You either misunderstand the term, or were indeed practicing a deceptive withdrawal.
 
:::::BTW, I am surprised that someone with such a precise and accurate memory alongside an imperative to be honest would engage in a "Parthian shot".  You either misunderstand the term, or were indeed practicing a deceptive withdrawal.
 
:::::Kels, you should have stopped with your first sentence.  You readily admit that you don't understand me, then proceed to judge me.  Your character attack on me is completely empty of substance.  [[User:Tricksy|Tricksy]] ([[User talk:Tricksy|talk]]) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::Kels, you should have stopped with your first sentence.  You readily admit that you don't understand me, then proceed to judge me.  Your character attack on me is completely empty of substance.  [[User:Tricksy|Tricksy]] ([[User talk:Tricksy|talk]]) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:38, 9 August 2010

Template:AOTW Navigation

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Earth to "Ruylopez"

NOBODY IS STALKING YOU, YOU FRUITCAKE! We all know you're Ken DeMyer, notorious internet crank, because you SUCK REALLY BAD at hiding that. Nobody, but nobody believes it when you pull that "international man of mystery" crap, and anyone who says they do is lying to you. Give it a rest. --Kels (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can't wait for the 3rd of August and the launch of Operation wp:Minami Aoyama (who, I'm told has a wonderful personality and is probably the kind of Asian lady Ken likes best) --PsyGremlinTala! 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh and WHY THE FUCK WOULD A SHORTAGE OF MEN HAVE CHINESE GIRLS INTERESTED IN AN ARTICLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY???? Is there a "not even wrong" that we can apply to "not making even the tiniest smidgen of sense?" --PsyGremlinHable! 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Check the link. EddyP (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
does the CP Homosexuality article include Lesbianism ? Many Chinese lesbians would be resonable with so few men , except I thought it was lack of women that was the real chinese problem ? Hamster (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, he's quit. Pretty comprehensively, it seems. I'm quite relieved, since some of that was getting painful to look at - I think the best thing is to leave him alone.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
He'll be back under another guise surrounded by enigma. AceX-102 20:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably Peter Moore will appear and surprise us by supporting everything Ken's written. Him (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, leaving and never coming back. Yep. It happens. Sterile vector field 01:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As an outside to the Shithouse of Knowledge stuff (tonight was my first and only visit there, in fact), I must say that his behavior before leaving was similar to the hit-and-run jobs he used to do at WP before he'd leave and never come back so that they couldn't block him before he got the last word. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a meltdown

But what a beautiful meltdown. Surprising it took this long for them to realize, though. --Kels (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My block expires tonight. Look out for more question dodging, ignorance and mind twisting bullshit from PJR. AceX-102 02:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a skeptic by nature. I won't just take what is told me at face value, I need to actually test it myself. Plus, honestly, I thought I was better than all of you. ;) I still can't find the "K" key... I have to hit such a small target to press it now. :( It could be worse... I could have lost my middle-finger key. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want dihonesty, Philip continually argued with me over Inflation Theory without reading any of the supporting evidence I provided - yet still said I was wrong. Also he argued with me over the definition of Dark Energy without so much providing ANY support for his position while dismissing all of mine. Now that's dishonest. AceX-102 03:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well, arguing those I could maybe see just being willfully ignorant. But for "falsifiable"? The definition that they attempt to give falsifiable means that nothing would be falsifiable unless it were falsified... because it would have to be physically possible to be falsified, and if it is, then it would be false. (Someone noted that they were confusing falsifiable with falsified... should have paid more attention.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That was Sterile, and he was wrong.Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, PJR (and now CPalmer) have asserted that things must be falsifiable in the real world to be falsifiable. This is wrong. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
So falsifiable, but not really = falsifiable :) Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG! I was blocked! For only one day? Lame... CP would have banned me for life. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shit man, I have had four 1 month blocks since starting on aSK. I have never received anything less than a month actually. AceX-102 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Amongst all this fascinating self serving nonsense about honesty, it is meet to point out that this particular claim of Ace's has already been made and objectiviely falsified. Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Which claim of Ace's are you talking about? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. The claim about never getting a block shorter than 1 month. Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's because it's difficult to argue for my "incivility". I didn't go out with a blaze of epithets and curse words. (That was my first draft.) I've also admitted readily when I'm wrong, and kept a rational and civil tone. He just didn't like what my page said. Note particularly though the page for Teh Terrible Asp, whose red box is quite more prominent, and uncivil than my comment ever was. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You'd think after enough people end discussions with you by telling you that you're a lying, weaselly fuckwit you'd start to wonder "is it me?" The common factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you, and all that. I have no idea why you guys still bother. It's impossible to have a real discussion with the master of tq. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Pfff... I totally bitch slapped PJR with the tq's... just take a look at my edits. (Towards the end there, it got nearly impossible to keep things together.) The problem is the dishonesty... I mean to argue against the definition of falsifiable, when it has been explained to you multiple times? That's what finally got me... you can nitpick my arguments to death, but after the numerous "I'm going to have to assume good-faith that you didn't mean to imply that I'm an idiot." and his absolute refusal to admit error... that's just fucked up in my book. But then, it would make a lot of sense if he had wp:Antisocial personality disorder or the more extensive wp:psychopathy. Those people don't end up with any aversion to arguing against the current facts, even though they just argued against the facts that they are now using. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Explanation doesn't automatically equal agreement. We understand your definition just fine, but it is not the only definition and it is not the correct definition for this context.Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, there is one fucking definition of falsifiable, and you don't get to determine it, because it has already been established. You can bitch and whine all you want about it being a bad definition, but you can't just redefine it to whatever makes you happy. e.g. You can't call your food stuff "chocolate" just because it tastes like chocolate. It must meet the definition thereof. Accepting the widely established definition of "falsifiable" is the entry fee for science. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope; page one of my google search gave 3 distinct definitions in the 1st 3 links I followed. I was doing no redefining. The upshot was that for a theory (in contrast to a mathematical or logical statement) to be falsifiable, the falsifying situation must be at least possible. Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, first link on my Google: to wikipedia, which defines it as: "the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false". Second is "freedictionary.com" with: "1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted. 2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science." and third is to merriam-webster, which shows "falsify". Fourth is skepticwiki with: ""Falsifiable" does not mean "false." For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in theory, for some observation to be made that is incompatible with the proposition" (emphasis added) Again. If you could falsify a scientific theory in reality, then that theory is already false. If I could make an apple fall up (not just throw it up, but it actually just fall up), then it would falsify our theory of gravity. As stated on aSK, I assert that anyone making the argument that something isn't falsifiable unless it can be done "in reality" (which means the theory is already false) then they are either an idiot or being dishonest. In PJR's case, I reject the former, because he's obviously intelligent. In your case, I can only affirm the former. You're either an idiot, or willfully stupid. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I now see where we have been arguing past each other. No time now, more on this at aSK later. Tricksy (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find I have never cursed at PJR and my last block was because I said he was dishonest for arguing against me without providing a single reference nor reading my ref's which supported my position. AceX-102 05:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Who fucking knows then... I mean, the ad hoc random way that they argue things, it's a wonder there is any logic at all behind their blocks. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My first block (1 month) was because I called Johnathan Sarfati a "moron" because he thought Evolution was a philosophy. AceX-102 05:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it kind of is... all scientific theories are grounded in science, which is grounded in philosophy. Is it a "life philosophy" a.k.a. a religion without the hockus pockus? Certainly not. I'll grant you that they play so many shell games with definitions, that it's impossible to know which one they're arguing with though. EQUIVOCATION YAY! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's Philip's de facto lie of choice. You want some real equivocation, go check out some of where he argues information theory with Sterile, or inflation theory with Ace. He doesn't actually need to know a damn thing about either topic, he just needs to twist the arguments enough that they agree with him. That's creationism in a nutshell, we have our answers and now reality must be made to fit. --Kels (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition to that Kels, is that they always get to define their opponents positions. So Evolution, or Atheism is what they say it is not what those who support evolution or profess to be atheists say about themselves. Case in point, I noticed that an external link was added to the "Further reading/Evolutionary viewpont" (sic) section of the Evolution page which PJR removed Revert; linked article is not about evolution per se, but about what is supposedly misunderstood about it, and gets many things wrong.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That was Sterile, and he was wrong. What the fuck you talking about, Tricksy? Sterile vector field (PS: Look up the word innuendo.) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Look just ahead of the statement that you quoted and you will see what I was talking about. No innuendo involved. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know where you are talking about. (You and Philip really need to learn to use diff-links when citing things. It would help enormously.) Actually, Eira pretty much sums up my position above (ie, the standard one), which I've explained oodles of times before. Innuendo refers to the absurd characterization of scientists at Objections to Evolution. Anyway, I'm away for a while and then will be busy; and I won't be back at ask until my self-imposed block expires. Even then, maybe not. Sterile vector field 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I was replying to Eira's comment that (Someone noted that they were confusing falsifiable with falsified... should have paid more attention. By "innuendo" I thought you were referring to my comments here. If you want to discuss the content of the aSK article, feel free to do so when (if) you come back. Tricksy (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It's getting difficult for me to justify having a conversation with people so insistent on mischaracterization, assertion with no evidence, an unwillingness to think critically and unwillingness to read something outstide their comfort zone. Aspie said it well. Sterile vector field 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

HELP ! please to clarify my thinking

I was discussing mutations and randomness with Philip when he asks at what point does the entire population die before a beneficial mutation occurs. I respond "This base population will continue to churn out kids with no mutations." and he replies "No, they won't. You mention an actual mutation rate of 2.5×10−8 per base per generation. That's the point; they won't churn out kids with no mutations. They'll churn out kids with mutations. Also, each set of parents will only produce a limited number of offspring. If enough fatal mutations appear in the offspring, the next generation will have a smaller population size than the previous. Eventually this process (along with natural deaths) will eliminate the population entirely." HERE The mutation rate I got from wikipedia. Since the human race does not appear to be dying off from mutational defects someone is in error. The obvios thought is that most mutations are either neutral or detrimental in non-critical ways. Explain please ? thanks Hamster (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The human genome is 90% useless information, the leftovers from millions of years of evolution. Mutations in those useless sections would have no noticeable effect.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"It is obvious" is weasel words for "I'm assuming without evidence," and he's asserted that with no justification. Furthermore, last I checked, the human population is still doubling. And, as usual, he's ignored natural selection. SSDD Sterile vector field 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC, more or less what lily said) Yes, exactly right. Most mutations do nothing at all to affect the organism in the current generation because the vast majority of the genome (I think something like 90%) is non-coding and probably functionless. You can roughly calculate the odds that something interesting will happen with the inevitable mutations in any given phenotype from these two facts. Then you'll know how vanishingly tiny the chance is for the present mutation rate to have any negative effect on the population. You'll also notice how important the magnifying effect of natural selection is on making sure beneficial mutations get a foothold in a population. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Two things: first, every human has approximately 100 novel mutations. Next, the vast amount of DNA is non-functional, and the mutations end up being neutral. Next, most single nucleon substitution mutations actually code for the exact same protein, because there are 4^3=64 base pairs, but only 20 standard amino acids.[1] Lastly, when a mutation occurs in a fundamentally vital piece of code, the fetus is highly likely to spontaneously abort, which is actually very common, but it is difficult to properly determine the true prevalence, because most spontaneous abortions happen prior to the mother even knowing that she is pregnant at all. It has been estimated that it is about 25% of all pregnancies prior to six weeks.
So, to answer your question, actually, nearly a quarter of the human race is dying off. However, the human species breeds fast enough to offset this. Especially, when these deaths occur before 6 weeks, which will delay a woman's fertility for only about 2 months, rather than the full 9 months carrying a viable fetus to term. So, to be clear: the 25% of the population that is never being born is having minimal impact upon the fertility rates of women. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the point?

ASoK has degenerated into an everybody vs. PJR and Bradley scrum. There are almost no mainpage edits and all that happens is people get frustrated when P & B keep going 'la-la-la-la can't hear you'; 'CMI/AiG is right'. He's had over a year, I say the time is ripe to simply walk away and let ASoK stagnate. It has no new editors, and RW probably counts for 90% of any edits made anyway. No amount of arguing is going to change PJR's mind, so what's the point? --PsyGremlinTala! 09:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no point, that's why I'm long gone. It's so dull it isn't even worth mocking. Also, thanks to PJR, now I know the true value of Christian "morality" as well as Christian "science." He can go fuck himself with a Jesus stick. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate everything JeevesMkII just said, particularly his suggestion that "[PJR] can go fuck himself with a Jesus stick" is so agreeable, that I felt it most necessary to explicitly repeat it myself. I destroyed a harddrive over this shit, because he's such an arrogant argumentative asshole. For my own health, I need to stay away. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Just look at what is going on his talkpage. I don't understand what the matter is. I have given him about 9 defferent sources to support my postion but he is stuck on a single quote from a magazine cover that he thinks supports him. AceX-102 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the Monty Python Argument sketch. 02:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Phillip can be driven to make some amazing statements defending his positions. I particularly liked his attempting to redefine DNA but anyhow. Everyone will be much happier staying clear of aSK , at least for a while. Hamster (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh look, he's declared victory again. Which is pretty amazing given what an indefensible position he's taken is. --Kels (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just made my Partian shotimg. PJR is a bat-shit insane man, who desperately needs some therapy. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice one. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
well said , you made a valient effort Hamster (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And Philip being Philip, he can't resist tq-ing the Hhell out of what's obviously marked as a Last Post. Clearly he doesn't want you to go, but to continue the argument. Not a debate site, indeed. --Kels (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The mind absolutely boggles at the man's total inability to even admit that he might be even ever so slightly mistaken. He's as bad as any of the hate filled sites around the web - his smugness is as revolting as his wrongness. I truly despise him. What a total TWAT! 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That's one thing that's always bugged me about Philip, although it does make him interesting to watch, at least for me. It's the supreme arrogance of the man. He's like Ken, except instead of coming from crazy it comes from deep-rooted dishonesty, and willingness to do whatever it takes regardless of any claimed higher morality to support the Holy Cause. --Kels (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know PJR, he has to have the last word. He even says so a the end. And What The FUCK? He's arguing with me about my drug abuser analogy, saying that it's not true? Has this guy even HEARD of metaphorical speech? The guy is just righteously evil. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I made a short response. Reminding him that humans don't know, with Bible verse (mostly because the verse is so clearly applicable), and chastising him for the refutation of metaphorical speech. His response? "I don't claim to know everything, but I know what I know." No clarity of realization, should I have suspected anything else? As well, a fallacy of accent by claiming that he addressed the metaphor as metaphorical, or realistic, completely ignoring that there is no reason to interpret the metaphorical statement as realistic in the first place. What a total jackass idiot. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is enough...

Should be enough...surely..? AceX-102 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because Philip isn't honest. When it comes down to it, he's misunderstanding the quote in the first place, and deliberately conflating (the same as with "theory") the colloquial use of a term with how Guth used it. By now he has to know the difference, but somehow this makes him "right" in that very perception-equals-reality way he has. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
How can he deny it when the quote I have provided talks specifically about why he says the universe is a free lunch and how much matter is required? It'll take some supreme mental gymnastics. AceX-102 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Never under estimate what "mental gymnastics" a dishonest person is willing to use. This is why I destroyed my laptop harddrive, and left. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Continuing from above... when you have someone dishonest enough to argue against a metaphor... you have someone willing to do all the mental gymnastics in the world to be right. Hey, Tricksy, still feel like being an apologist for this asshat? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Bradley puzzles me. He seems like a smart enough guy, certainly smart enough to avoid attaching his good name to someone like PJR, let alone a pack of lies like Creationism in the first place. And yet here he is, making excuses for equivocation, word games in place of actual thought and the promotion of falsehood under the guise of holiness (an old game to be sure, but a sleazy one nonetheless). It seems there is no whopper so big or so greasy that Bradley won't swallow it whole, so long as it's attached to Philip or the liars at CMI. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Eira, I was never an apologist for you, or for RW (Tricksey, can't fucking read). For what it's worth, your metaphor was unclear. I had to read it twice to be sure that instead of a criminal accusation, it was merely innuendo. Yes it was metaphor, but your choice of metaphor was questionable. As to all this bleating about dishonesty, so far you have defined disagreement as dishonest, and made demonstrably false statements followed by quibbling when called on it. Tu quoque is a legitimate response, here.
BTW, I am surprised that someone with such a precise and accurate memory alongside an imperative to be honest would engage in a "Parthian shot". You either misunderstand the term, or were indeed practicing a deceptive withdrawal.
Kels, you should have stopped with your first sentence. You readily admit that you don't understand me, then proceed to judge me. Your character attack on me is completely empty of substance. Tricksy (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
NO FUCKER! I meant you being an apologist for PJR. And it's clear that you're not going to stop being an apologist for him, because you're actively continuing right here. Now, I want to ask you. Why the fuck would I ever claim that PJR is a drug user in reality? That would have to be one of the stupidest statements for anyone to make. You and PJR seem to enjoy attributing the most stupid and absurd reading possible into another person's words. This is just wildly dishonest debate, because you are intentionally misreading/misunderstanding your opponent. "Parthian shot" would work adequately... I claimed to be retreating, then when PJR took the bait, I responded with the killing shot of pointing out the evidence that he is dishonest, and assumes no good faith in his debate opponents. So, my initial withdraw was deceptive. Not intentional actually, but it was indeed deceptive. Just like your god making a world that appears to be billions of years old. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I reserve the right to judge your actions, Bradley, which generally include carrying water for a pack of liars. The scum you're covered with is of your own will, and doesn't brush off that easily. --Kels (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't reserve something you don't have, Kelseigh. You've yet to back up any of your accusations of dishonesty. From what I have seen, when challenged you either withdraw for a time or go straight to HCM. Tricksy (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. As your master likes to say, "pull the other one". --Kels (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Everyone on this wiki knows that you're dishonest, just like PJR. On your own wiki, you can block people for calling you out, and by controlling the medium, you can suppress dissenting views. By controlling the medium, you can even deny all the evidence to the contrary of your dishonesty. However, that will not happen here. We assert honesty over being polite here. As for your "joke", it sucked... it sucked bad, because it made you look like an idiot. Imagine how bad PJR would have bit my head off for making such a comment on your wiki. You do not have a sympathetic audience here, so the idea of putting in such a lame joke that makes you look like a total fucking drooling window-licking idiot is not advisable. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So not only do you levy a completely non-specific and unsupported accusation, you take the so-mature path of "everybody knows it"". As to asserting honesty over being polite, you need to look around. I have over time pointed out several lies and false accusations, and the response is generally to attack me instead of providing any support for claims. Kind of like now. As far as your "controlling the medium" comments, you are seriously misrepresenting what actually happens. I do notice that I have had my rights here at RW removed, and as I am not a vandal I can only conclude that this is simply because of my dissent. As to my joke, I was making a point. If you didn't get it, why not simply admit it rather than rage at me? Tricksy (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is an "enough". Someone mentioned to me wp:Anchoring, which neatly describes what PJR has been doing throughout this whole argument. He is hanging tenaciously upon his single quote, because it says what he wants it to, and he won't let it go. He simply cannot accept that people revise statements, and can be misrepresented. I think getting some sort of official statement from Guth regarding the statement, would be best though. A direct question such as: "Mr/Dr. Guth, it has been asserted by Philip J. Rayment that you believe that the big bang originated from nothing. This is based on a quote from you in the Discover magazine, volume XY, which states, 'blah'. Does this statement accurately represent your beliefs, and if it does not do you disclaim/revoke that statement?" Anything less won't convince PJR, and it's likely that he still would hold his belief. And all this just for a single concession of fact. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised.
Ace, I don't know what makes you think you started this thread. There's no proof for it. Sure, it looks like you started this thread but that's only because the Infinite Power of GOD wanted it to look that way. I'm afraid all your actions since then have been part of HIS ineffable plan. Your post on PJR's talk page was made to challenge his faith so that he could overcome the challenge and affirm his total faith in evidence-less bullshit. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Philip need not deny his faith nor agree that the big bang happened. All he need do is see that his argument for Alan Guth believing the universe comes from nothing holds no water and that he was wrong from the start. AceX-102 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Philip need....his faith....Alan Guth....was wrong from the start I'm so glad you agree with Philip now! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, so wrong... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You know I was taking the piss out of PJR there, right? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
But PJR already KNOWS what Guth believes, as it was clearly stated in the magazine. And absent a better source for what Guth believes, we must take such a quote at face value. Oh, you have other sources? Well, this source still says what PJR believes, and as a result we have conflicting evidence, that must be compared against each other, and clearly he magazine article is more authoritative. What? I wasn't arguing that it wasn't his words, but the fact is that the magazine article says this, and I'm going to believe it no matter what else is there, because the magazine is true. ANCHOR AWAY!!! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Guys, what are you getting out of trying to debate these guys on the merits? Nothing valuable I'd imagine. They're liars. This cosmology discussion is old hat. Sure, PJR's going to new lengths to avoid admitting he's openly misrepresenting both the highly technical and idiomatic meaning of "nothing" and thus consequently misrepresenting a fundamental part of Guth's cosmology, but what's new? He did the same thing when presented with examples of Hebrew and OT scholars who didn't believe the Genesis account should be read literally. In that discussion he bottoming out on the kind of intentionally ignorant incredulity he has here: someone I want to have said what I wanted him to say sort of said something like it, so there. Whether it was well-informed or he even understood it be damned. In the hermeneutics discussion, the academics weren't doing Philip's very idiosyncratic brand of biblical literalism, which he utterly failed to even explain despite direct questions on key points, so they weren't entitled to the simple dignity of holding a principled position on whether the Genesis days were literal 24 hours days. Here, he's incapable of understanding the meaning of terms of art used in a technical manner that have been amply explained because they don't mesh with his "biblical cosmology" evangelism. It's also possible that he's lying about having read or listened to anything more than that Discover magazine quote glossing the the gigantic point that this "nothing" is actually a pretty darn special "nothing" if it's "nothing" at all. One wonders how Philip could ever honestly describe the "false vacuum" and "exotic matter" that are theorized to have expanded into everything in our universe as "nothing" without the same big caveats that Guth makes, but hey. Whatever. He's a very troubled guy. Just make your points without emotion so you can sanely leave a record of Philip and Bradley's methods on the talk pages and editing history of the wiki. And then move on. If you think you're going to convince creationists as deeply down the rabbit hole as these guys are of anything contrary to their worldview you're barking up the wrong tree. Better to concentrate on the possibility that a younger and more reasonable person will happen upon the site and be justifiably horrified at what the creationist belief system requires of adherents when taken to its extreme. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
*golf clap* You can't even change the guy's mind about the definition of a word that he doesn't like. So, like anything else has a chance. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)