RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive10

How ...
... does one say "Bollocks" without being offensive? These people are totally loopy. 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for telling the truth. 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a real convincing argument you used there, Susan. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know & I'm slightly ashamed of it but they just get me boiling!  14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought "Bollocks" WAS the polite term 8|  Hamster (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * er, just why is OscarJ an idiot ? I have interpreted BradleyF as saying No english translation of the Bible is usable as a source, so I am claiming a temprary win until they weasel out :) Hamster (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was his "cleaning up" of John Woodmorappe (why do I always read "Mapplethorpe") that got my goat. Bradley's an idiot too but I got fed up wit him when he affirmed his belief in demons - don't really think anything needs saying. 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * crap, cleaned up ? I suppose all my perfectly correct references showing what a lying asshole he is are gone ? I spent well, minutes on that :( Hamster (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OscarJ drives me nuts too. How many of us have gotten blocked because of him wheel warring or us flipping out and calling him even mild names? I propose we lay off him for the most part. We can't work on getting rid of the pseudoscience and lies if we're blocked.  16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Babble in the Bibble
I find the Tower of Babel at least as amusing as Noah's Ark, if not more so. WTF has the arguing over semantics in Hebrew got to do with the pure stupidity of the whole concept? 02:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This last week of gems has me ever more convinced that it's time for a PJR quote generator. I want it to be able to tq random phrases and eviscerate them in his special way. 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's make that the new RW/AWK project? Arguing with the IDiot got old years ago, let's build a Schlafly-quality quote gen thing.  Much more fun than banging my head up against some mad bugger's wall.  04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes plez, a special Rayment quote generator.Hamster (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * thats a circular argument
 * thats not what CMI says
 * creation scientists proves radiometric dating is flawed
 * ad hominem!

Logic fail
...why don't you tell me where else is the evidence for the god of the bible aside from the bible. I think that question has been framed to be unanswerable by definition (i.e. not by my inability to supply evidence). That is, you are not asking about evidence for a god, but for the God of the Bible. To put that another way, you are asking for evidence for the particular characteristics of God that are known only from the Bible. But if they are known only from the Bible, then obviously there cannot be any evidence from outside the Bible! As such, it is a loaded question, and it is unfair to ask it.

PJR here

Remembering this is after a long diatribe about circular reasoning. Who does he think he's kidding? Šţěŗĭļė 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's now removed some rather approving comments from Mapplethorpe[whatever] because they're "apparent parody". He obviously doesn't think that "He has successfully pointed out the flaws of radiometric dating methods, and has provided ample evidence to support the feasibility of the Biblical narrative of Noah's ark."  01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who put that in woodmoroppe ? doesnt sound like anyone here Hamster (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oh I see, "successfully" and "ample" removed as parody. Well I wont object to Phil agreeing that Woody wasnt successful at the one or provided ample evidence of the ark. lol Hamster (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * either Phil doesnt get circular reasoning or I am wrong about my example, any takers Hamster (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the actually creationist stuff, but it seems that Philip doesn't understand interpolation or correlation, nor independent confirmation (ie, MORE evidence), nor the difference between evidence, hypothesis, prediction, and data and observations. Šţěŗĭļė 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or of theory, fact, premise, fallacy, argument, assertion, claim, proof or evidence. 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Verily, oh ye of little faith, what it sayeth in the Good Book cannot be gainsaid by such things as "logic" or "science", for know ye not that these things were deviséd by the followers of The Nazarine and therefore are true through all eternity. (so sayeth the Book of Philip) 17:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although a diverse group of human authors wrote the books of the Bible in differing styles over a long period of time, the Bible really has only one author — God. Since God is perfect, holy, and true, we know there are no real contradictions in His Word, no matter what it seems at first. So we must delve more deeply. As one expert says, “If the Bible is truly from God, and if God is a God of truth (as he is), then ... if two parts seem to be in opposition or in contradiction to each other, our interpretation of one or both of these parts must be in error.” 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit I get it now
Hamster: ...creation science ... has been largly refuted... PJR: So you claim, but creationists disagree. So you are begging the question. He doesn't know what begging the question means. Disagreeing with someone's claim is not begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy that arises from a syllogistic assertion that assumes its conclusion. Hamster was making a simple assertion of fact that's not susceptible of PJR's criticism. Seems like things "beg the question" when PJR disagrees with them according to his "biblical worldview." I understand a whole lot more now why I keep asking him to take some science and logic classes. 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At best Philip doesn't use the terms begging the question, stawman argument, or circular reasoning consistently. At worst he doesn't understand them.  Hell, I'm not sure he know what an ad hominem is half the time.  He doesn't even distinguish premises/reasons from arugments all that well.  It's critical thinking 101.  Šţěŗĭļė 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem arguments can be legitimate if the characteristic of the person being brought up is relevant (i.e the level of trust you put in someone's statements depends on whether or not they're a habitual liar). It's also not a fallacy if it's not presented as an argument; sometimes insults are just insults.  People aren't saying creationists are wrong because they're stupid, but that they're wrong and they're stupid. Jaxe (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's chicken and egg stuff, that is. --Horace (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Project Batbird moves along nicely. Hamster (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can show that your opponent is lying or uninformed, that is not an ad hominem, it's an argument (largely an argument about character). And in rhetoric, any argument, fallacious or not, is OK, as long as your opponent doesn't get it, if it advances your cause.  The problem is, Philip gets called on it all the time.  Šţěŗĭļė 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The truth
No, detailing the truth accurately and honestly is not good enough because it won't be my version of the truth. Agree with me or go away. Jaxe (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not like he wasn't up front about rejecting reality in favor of what he read in the bible and CMI tells him. In his defense, he uses the term "biblical worldview" for a reason. I have a "reality based worldview." To each his own. 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed something of a pattern in that all the most dangerous movements in world history got their worldviews from a book, rather than from reality. -- 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An evening at the Rayments.....
"What would you like for dinner, honey? Steak?" "What would you like for dinner, honey?" This is begging the question Steak? Non-sequiter" Acei9 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny because it's true. -- 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dad! Me, Jimmy and Steve saw a kangaroo at the park!"
 * Dad! Me, Jimmy and Steve saw a kangaroo at the park! "That's argumentum ad populum, son." Acei9 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Now now, son. You know Jimmy's an athe...I mean, anti-Creationist, so you can't trust that he actually saw a kangaroo, even if you saw it there too." --Kels (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "No son, he saw a mouse. Baraminology teaches us that kangaroos are mice that grew bigger due to their exposure to the volcanic plumes that transported them from Turkey to Australia." -- 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing 101
Your professor today will be Dr. BradleyF. Master of Creation Science (as much as any of the other frauds, at least) and Doctor of Demonic Studies. --Kels (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The post that starts that section is full of win. I'm agonna ponder that argument for a whilst, methinks.  20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I always thought, if I were Satan and I were opposed to God, why I'd put out a book full of all kinds of crazy shit, but tell everyone that God wrote it. And since I'm an expert on lies, it would be simple to put all sorts of justifications for that crazy shit, even if it contradicts other crazy shit within into the minds of the more prominent readers.  That'd be an awesome way to subvert God's works. --Kels (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with WIGOaSK
No matter what is WIGOed, the sillyness cannot be beaten. He (I say "he" because it is [pace Bradley, Dan] very much a one man band) is just out and out idiotic. He's twisting, gishing and galloping even more as time goes by. gOD only knows what it'd have been like if we'd never found it. He is truly certifiable (IMHO). 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is a comic genius in my opinion. Acei9 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, science does not work on him, as he rejects its philosophical basis. 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ACE: I did suggest to him that he take up stand-up: no comment.
 * LX: Wrong! Only he understands science: everyone else is wrong. What was the one about the old lady watching the troops go by? "They're all out of step but our Jimmy". 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to actual science, rather than PJR's misconception of it. 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * I How do you know you are you?
 * was So you were, presumably you've changed now?
 * referring
 * -well you get the idea. 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the pretense of making an encyclopedia is gone. It's a weird discussion board with a parakeet from CMI now.  Šţěŗĭļė 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
Is anyone else teed off with hitting "Random page" because of his (rational but non standard} positioning of the Recent changes link? 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No because I am not a retard who continually clicks the wrong button. Heh. Acei9 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent bit of Kenning there, Ace. What happened? Hit the wrong button? 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL Marxism. --Kels (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL kangaroos and choo choo trains. 02:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling!
How the hell was that trolling? 02:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The GODDIDIT addition was probably what prompted his conclusion... 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't agree 10000000% with Philip, therefore Trolling. Nothing except the purest drivel straight from the CMI vats will do. --Kels (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does size matter when trolling? Šţěŗĭļė 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PJR conclusions
Is my imagination working overtime, or did Philip just admit that real science isnt wanted at his site. can he weasel out ? Hamster (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course he can weasel out. He's not limited by such quaint notions such as logic and honesty as his opponents (forgive me, "Anti-Creationists"). --Kels (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would classify him as a thorough dupe with a poor grasp of logic, rather than a dishonorable sort of person like . 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with LX. He is brainwashed and deluded, poor wee lamb. Acei9 04:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, LX, for stating the obvious. 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he does have a dishonest streak but it's not a conscious choice, and he doesn't see it as dishonest. He just really really wants anyone who reads one of his articles to believe what he does, and he'll write almost anything to achieve that.  Including things he doesn't actually believe are true. Jaxe (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can take ASK much more this week. Dumb, dumb, dumb; moreso than usual.  Šţěŗĭļė 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done. I can't even stand looking at it anymore. People in my offline life are remarking that I'm spending too much time talking about the insanity of some fringe group. Enough is enough for a while. 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Circular reasoning about the Bible
I just noticed this CMI article, which PJR cited in one of the arguments on his talk-page. Unlike with several other CMI articles, I was immediately wondering precisely what Sarfati had smoked before writing the article. We should have a side-by-side for this one. 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice find. 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RIP (for a week day) Teh Asp. 07:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PJR will probably lengthen Teh Terrible Asp's block now for overstepping blocking authority. 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SBS is a good idea for that article. Šţěŗĭļė 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he'll remove Asp's membership, which would be fine if he also implemented a sensible system of getting past captchas. 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made the side-by-side. 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fun Facts
While I've filled my tweaking PJR quota for this month, those so inclined might be interested in this fun fact. The 20% or so of people that PJR seems to be claiming are believers in magical creation seems a lot less impressive when you put it next to the fact that 20% of people also believe the sun revolves around the earth. A cynic might be inclined to believe that there are 20% of people who are incurable dumbshits. I'm more inclined to believe that the process of shoving a question under the nose of someone and putting them on the spot to answer it leads to a certain experimental error that there is no accounting for. -- 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ask the uninformed (not necessarily the same as the unintelligent) you'll get uninformed answers. 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) There are, unfortunately, a loony fringe of the loony fringe: modern geocentrists. CMI sees fit to print their drivel from time to time; this probably constitutes the only CMI-sourced material ever burned on aSK for parody. 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This argumentum ad populum gets even sillier when you look at the stats for astrology, reincarnation, or the evil eye... even among Christians. --Sid (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By "Christians" they obviously mean "baptized members of a Christian church." A good swatch of Lutherans are, I think, Norse pagans who call Odin by another name. 00:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * HEY ! watch who you call a pagan, I was raised in a Lutheran Church, all I learned was that God was a nice guy who understood that people sometimes made mistakes. All the little trees are just decorations, yup, decoration , the eyepatches are for special ... oops , what eyepatches , nothing to see folks , move along . Hamster (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there are pirates involved, thus paving the way for a smooth transition to FSM worship. --Kels (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Odin had one eye, is a homage to our... well to Odin. Us Lutherens are a bit strange that way. Hamster (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting
It seems to me that OscarJ's possibly (probably?) nipping in here & voting WIGOs down. 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know Bradley..I'M SORRY, THE MYSTERIOUS BON WHO CALLS US OUT ON OUR MISREPRESENTATION..does it from time to time. Not surprising if OscarJ did it too.  It's in character. --Kels (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a brand new WIGO was 1 down seconds after being added, OJ was the only one on ArseK at the time. 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So what? Are you now saying that nobody has a right to dislike your brand if inanity?  Are WIGO votes only meant for the elect?  Or perhaps only favourable votes should be accepted?  I only vote on WIGOS after I have followed the links and compared them to the WIGO commentary.  I don't know about Oscar, but again, so what?  Thanks for acknowledging your misreprentation, btw. RW is a whole bag full of nuts. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What "misreprentation"? 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Kels saying the word misrepresentation means she acknowledges it. Kinda like "my Muslim faith". -- Nx  / talk 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given what they consider support for Creationism among real scientists, my using the word in any context is not only an admission, but proof positive we all do it and can therefore safely be ignored. Fortunately, sane people don't agree. --Kels (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oscar's got a point here. The down vote option is there for a reason.  WIGO's can be downvoted for ideological reasons, sure.  I'm sure TK and Rob do it over at WIGOCP all the time.  The point is just that the good ones get enough support for the downvotes to become negligible, and the bad ones would fail anyways.  I don't see a problem here.  -- 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup! Not complaining, just commenting. 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not Oscar. B. I was playing around with Kelseigh's irony; not actually claiming anyone admitted anything. Tricksy (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd call that a positive step. Now let's try whether Darwin said the eye was evidence against evolution.  --Kels (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * course he did, well, if ya stop reading at the right spot. Hamster (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote WIGOs down when they misrepresent. Which is more often that I would thought is acceptable. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wigos that misrepresent should be voted down, then made honest, then their writers should be throbbed and whistled by the Lamp Juicers. 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

please to explain the difference
"Magic is not the only alternative to the Big Bang, fiat creation by an infinitely-powerful creator is another possible explanation. PJR"Hamster (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't he wonderful?[[image:Internet-get.gif]] 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is one sounds like complete lunacy, and the other sounds like complete lunacy with a paper thin veneer of acceptability plastered over it. Remember kids, god isn't the magic man in the sky. He's the miraculous man in the sky. Totally different. -- 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But, but, but magic requires a wand or an incantation! Šţěŗĭļė 23:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaron's rod; prayer. Nuff said. 23:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Šţěŗĭļė 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what he thinks the difference is, but it is an entirely theological distinction and immaterial to any scientific inquiry about the matter. 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a line about Aaron's rod and majic gestures but I am just gonna let it go by. Hamster (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful: turned into a snake if I recall correctly (from 50 years ago) and you know what they do to Hampsters, don't you? (although I suspect it's more this you've got in mind - dirty boy!) 04:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A new gem: "It's not special pleading. An omnipotent, honest, omniscient God who revealed information to us would be expected to get it 100% correct." He's now giving examples of the logical fallacies immediately after telling me he's not using them. Šţěŗĭļė 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's funny
I don't see anything prohibiting the use of sock accounts in the Rules and Regulations. Well, the whole site is based on post facto justifications, he can just add a rule afterwards I guess. --Kels (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of my socks were blocked while I was blocked a while ago. 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So long as we're on the subject of CP-ness, anyone notice how suddenly they're removing comments from blocked users? There's a familiar tactic. --Kels (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * is heating up a little. I got threatened by Bradly for nearly vandalising a page 8| and when I responded TimS showed up. Whos TimS ? Hamster (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TimS is CPAdmin1 (me) --T1mS (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * and are you trustworthy, loyal, thrifty and neat like boy scout ? Hamster (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat is not in the Law (IIRC). It ends kind and reverent, by the way.  An din my day, "reverent" meant "open minded and respectful of others", not "can't be an atheist".  03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I get mixed up with the Gummy Bear song :) Hamster (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to treat others as I would like to be treated if it were me. And I like to think of myself as trustworthy.  --T1mS (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is good that everyone promised to be good and not mess up aSK
I think everyone here deserves to take a bow for showing moral fortitude in respecting Phils wiki. Hamster (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, respecting might be putting a little strongly. Not bringing it crashing to the ground (his host company did that with no help from his detractors) is probably closer.  But I also applaud the restraint. --Kels (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that people should stop the edit-wars; it is a very old precept that one does not abuse their host's hospitality, and now PJR has been provoked into burning insults. 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everybody (not me) promised to be good. But they didn't expect PJR to be such an idiot. He had some sort of respect when he started aSK, but lost it day after day of insults, dishonesty, lying and stupidity. Editor at CPmały książe 09:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also made no promise to be good. The pledge always looked like a hostage to fortune to me.--BobIt's windy! 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, by his new policy, only Creationists will be able to insult people. Everyone else, down the memory hole.  I assume it goes without saying that "ones where the entire post has no merit" equals "ones written by my critics", regardless of content aside from abuse. --Kels (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if they sick bots on him. He's got it coming by now. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip should feel lucky that the barbarian hordes at Pharyngula and antievolution.org have not been set on his site. If too many people came at the same time, his site would fall apart.  Šţěŗĭļė 14:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I promised to be good ''but I had my fingers crossed at the time. 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I promised nothing. Jaxe (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also never promised to sheath my sword. The mole's declaration was only ever going to be used against you. 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you have all been very 'restrained then', Have a cookie. Hamster (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting a serious Andy Schlafly riff at his hiding of Parthians under the misleading description of "removing trolling"? He has truly learned at the master's knee. --Kels (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, I'm surprised he's not kicked more out. There's been some pretty "unchristian", or at least "un-biblical-worldview" editors making themselves a nuisance. He's worn me down by the sheer length of his talk page gallops. I just can't be bothered to read them & cross refer to the referred comments. His only chance is to booyt out the "dissenters" and get on with his own little kingdom. As it is we're his only readers and most of it is absolute crap. 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * they are removing profanityand naughty language like 'crap' from talk pages. If its objectionable the whole thing gets deleted. I, me, him and it have done a small pile of articles that have been trimmed of any science. Good ptactice for some study guides I am writing though. :) Hamster (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you and Horace & Sterile & Jaxe & Sally have managed to stay even half as civil as you have. If I'd edited at all, I'd definitely have been banned "until the rupture" byy now. He's absolutely infuriating in all the ways of AiG & CMI that he's learned so well. The Fisking Gish is his best trait though it just TL;DR's me to death. 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This link shows a few examples. Hamster (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that happened tomorrow! 04:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean Teh Asp isn't civil? Ah come on. That hurts my feelings almost as much as Bradley's private email telling me he was disappointed in me for posting this, which apparently "defames" the CMI shills. 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I jumped on your bandwagon. 06:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will confess to have gone after Philip a bit in December. It's all gone now in the loss.  Right now I'm just indifferent to Philip and more focused crazy busyness at work.  Philip's not really even trying any more, to be honest, probably because there are too many people to respond to.  Šţěŗĭļė 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to think that he realizes that we give him some feedback on the worst of his articles but thats more my fantasy. I try to piss him off but its like throwing water on a ducks back, it just rolls off. Hamster (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

molerats thing

 * "We the undersigned may find ourselves opposed to some or most of the content that will be developed on ASK, but we cherish free speech and open debate. We ask to be given a voice in the project without ideological censorship or blocking, and in return, we pledge that we are publicly refraining and discouraging others from doing the following on the ASK Wiki:
 * Vandalizing content
 * Posing as other RW or CP users to conduct mischief in their name
 * Inserting parody
 * Manipulating pageviews
 * We may wind up provoking each other over time, but with this start we look forward to building mutual respect over time as well."

I don't see how any of us have broken that, even people who didn't "sign" it. Except for the part where PJR failed to earn any respect, since he is such a closed minded authoritarian choo choo train asswipe. 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SusanG signed it and broke it by inserting an anti-theistic essay on several mainspace pages. I signed it and have inserted some borderline edits that, due to Poe's Law, I could not judge to be parody or not; these were reverted for parody. None of the victims of this recent spate of blocks have violated it, however. 06:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a big gap in viewpoints to consider. I suspect that some slightly entertaining comments on talk pages struck Philip as insults. I dont believe anyone messed in articles, except the science ones we wrote and they were technically correct. Hamster (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarfati, scientist or philosopher ?
Philip lined to THIS in response to a suggestion to take a logic course. One of the interesting quotes "...christians...but to use their God-given minds in subjection to God’s Word, e.g. Isaiah 1:18" Psalm 14:1: 1 The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
 * If this is his guide to logical argument all I can say is YIKES! Hamster (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we have a diff-link to the edit? 06:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * dunno if this works Theres a fair bit in that. Hamster (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, he calls that a logic course? Any class in calculus will teach you more logic than that in three lectures, and pound it into your skull so you never forget it. I like how Sarfati tries to make an inductive scientific argument look like a deductive argument in formal logic. 06:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think Phil noticed that he accidentally coughed to circular reasoning in that particular string of rambling nonsense? I'm going to go with "no". -- 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that shit will notice he tq'd me out out of context in order to say "another evidence-free claim" while omitting to tq the part where I discuss why the CMI/Sarfati article discussing circular arguments makes its argument circularly? Yes. Yes he noticed because he's a liar to the core of his being. He knows exactly what he's doing when he lies for CMI and his god. 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably more of a problem of Philip taking the Bible as true and diverting anything that conflicts with that. Logic doesn't matter at that point.  Šţěŗĭļė 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Jackingson and GordonLightfoot
Parodists? Šţěŗĭļė 03:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Folk singers. --Kels (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did I put that hammer? 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Point making
Will people please stop trying to get themselves blocked over there? I do not relish being the last one left. 06:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It did seem to me that some of them actually were trying to get blocked and/or reverted just so that they could cry foul and say that it is just like CP over there. --T1mS (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I kinda agree with T1mS here. Acei9 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't. Editor at CPmały książe 08:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PJR has every right, as we all do, to opinion his ideas no matter how foolish. Sometimes I feel people forget that. Acei9 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He certainly has and, as long as he lets us, we've got the right to mock him. The man's a loon. 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We certainly have the right to mock him but we don't have the right to tell him not to say what he thinks. Perhaps I am thinking tangentially, due to whisky no doubt, but I get the feeling sometimes that some don't respect his right to say what he believes. Acei9 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should continue to promulgate his claptrap to poison the minds of the vulnerable unimpeded. I wouldn't stop him, but I think he ought to be ridiculed, denigrated and mocked publicly so that others can see what an absolute idiot he (and you Tim, and demons Bradley, and the rest) is. 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't we, Ace, have the right to say what we think? Don't we have to right to point out how stupid and/or dishonest he is? Don't we have the right to denounce his double standards, where he can insult anybody while our non-insults are taken for insults and punished accordingly? Maybe we don't these rights - in that case, I fail to see the difference with CP. Editor at CPmały książe 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * God fucking damnit you weirdos miss my point. Fuck, Ed @ CP, be cleverer. We may certainly mock but I feel some wish he had never opened his mouth to start with and that his poject should never have come to light. This is the fucking internet - we welcome dissenting voices. Acei9 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Ace. Most of us were quite positive with him at the beginning. Editor at CPmały książe 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ace is spot on, even with the whisky. And all this talk of rights is misplaced. It's PJR's site - he has a right to do whatever he wants there (within the law). Your rights on ASK are limited to what PJR will allow and what you can get away with. Your "unlimited" rights apply to the Internet as a whole, not to individual private sites. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ajkgordon, you are perfectly right. PJR has every right to do what he wants as Andy has over at CP. And we have to right to have fun with them express our opinions here and there (as long as we aren't blocked). Editor at CPmały książe 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But complaining about rights when you are blocked is hardly appropriate. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly appropriate? Put a sock in it with the pontificating from someone who I'm assuming hasn't spent hours putting together posts over there only to have them dishonestly Fisked to death, with even sentences and parts of sentences being pulled apart to be grossly misrepresented by a guy with a high school science education who cites a CMI article as a "logic course." Nearly everyone else who's active on this page has been spending way too much time up to their ears in bullshit over there. If AJK is secretly someone Teh Asp already knows from aSK, let me know and I'll apologize for telling him to mind his own fucking business. To anyone wondering what the score is or claiming that any of the current editors is complaining inappropriately about anything, here's my take: our only expectation, ever, was that PJR would (a) be an honest person and (b) follow his own rules. He's not doing either. When it comes to misrepresenting science and muddling his way through explaining what he takes to be the necessary conclusions of his own holy book he's just about as dishonest as you can be. And it's not a "worldview" problem. We're familiar with the feigned indignance, sideways insults (yet he's quick to block if you intimate a CMI "scientist" is unqualified), intentionally misleading analogies (the man talks about refrigerators so much you'd think he's got a front yard full of them), logical fallacies, fallaciously pointing out others' alleged logical fallacies, etc. From what he's explained about the way he approaches both what he calls his "science" and his faith, I have no confidence he's capable of being honest in any sense we'd recognize. As for the rules at aSK, they're a moving target in the few ways that have mattered. The active non-creationists have always come out getting blocked, and sometimes for significant periods, as new rules get interpreted.


 * I don't know about anyone else, but here's why I'll pop back over to aSK from time to time: PJR's a liar, his website is filled with lies, and it takes me very little time and energy to abide by his rules more or less and make the points I think are important to make. You all do of course realize that his recent move toward simply deleting talk page comments is a thinly veiled attempt to cull the weak from the herd, so to speak? He's as aware as we are that his shitty website doesn't get any better because there's a robust debate going on in the talkpages. I believe from the relatively few times any of our arguments have actually been integrated into articles that PJR can only view us as a distraction from his project of building a website filled with lies about science and people he is programmed by his religion to disagree with. 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Nutty. Only thing: Ajk, not to be confused with Akj, is a good and respected user at RW since a few years. I'd be very surprised if he were a parodist at aSK. Editor at CPmały książe 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, NR. I agree with pretty much everything you said above. My point was purely about rights. You might not like it but it is his site. You have a site here where you can say pretty much anything you want to ridicule and argue against PJR. But at ASK your rights only extend as far as PJR wants them to even if that conflicts with his written policy. What I mean is that it's pointless complaining about rights on ASK. No offence meant. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. PJR can do whatever he wants on his wiki. The point I was trying to make is that if he's going to run an open wiki, unlike CreationWiki for example, and go so far as to solicit collaborators, and he's going to pretend to be honest in his rhetoric and have a written policy on various matters, he better damn well do it right. What he really needs to do is just shut down registration and block us all so he can get back to the important work of misrepresenting science and atheists for jesus. As an aside, I simply cannot believe that a guy who grew up reading the English language could be confused about what consensus means in the scientific sense. No. I can believe it. He's not confused. He's doing the same thing he does with "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis." He's incorrigible. 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But my point was neither pontification nor was it not minding my own business. I've had plenty of "debates" with PJR where I've become as frustrated as you evidently have been. Most notably being told that my son's ignorance of Creationism (a post-grad marine biologist working on his Masters in Marseille) is down to him essentially being brain-washed by an atheist education system. In the nicest possible way of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel some people are making points by example that are worth making, and points that would otherwise be lost without example. So TalkerX can shut the fuck up and mind his own business. Furthermore, that mother fucker would love nothing more than to be the only one left at ASK so he could indulge his delusions of reasonableness and "opine" about whatever bullshit he keeps repeating. But maybe he does want you to stick around, so he can use you for perspective to compare just how much higher his road is than yours. But I digress... PJR can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to watch someone be intellectually dishonest (or lie to you when you both already know the truth). &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone opens up a fairground coconut stall and then complains that people keep knocking his nuts off, then he should either shut up or shut up shop. 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That reminded me of the australian advertising for a nut company. "Nibble Nobby's Nuts" . Fiear rime I saw it in print I just said Whhaaattt~ Hamster (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hee: "One such commercial is the advert for Nibble Nobby's Nuts featuring Slade frontman Noddy Holder". 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a reminder to anyone who thinks Philip is honest, re-read creation-evolution controversy at ASK (or Candardistan, as I think of it).


 * I honestly don't know why anyone ever thought he was reasonable and honest, even back in his CP days. Yes, he's not as outright looney as Andy, but other than that the only thing that made him stand out was his politeness.  Of course, as we've seen that politeness merely masks a contempt for science.  --Kels (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. I'm fairly sure he believes absolutely everything he says, that at no point does he think he's lying or being contemptuous of science. While we might find his rationalisations bizarre, he doesn't. I could be wrong though. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he actually is contemptuous of science that disagrees with the huge structure of lies put together by folks like CMI, it's just he has this thin overlay of politeness and faux-reasonableness that he seems to think makes it all perfectly acceptable. Clearly some of the extreme rationalizations he puts out there go way beyond simply being duped. --Kels (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's clear at all. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point, Ajk, is that there is a fundamental difference between supporting your view and misrepresenting the views of your opposition. There is little in that article to say that Philip understands evolution, and most of it is a character attack under thinly veiled "reasonableness."  Most of it is making a huge deal over small issues while ignoring the corresponding or worse issues in creationists.   A scant part of it is even from ahistorical perspective (what actually happened).  Even if an encyclopedia is "biased", it still ought to be "objective."  It's the same garbage that other denialists use from tobacco-lung cancer link denials to HIV-AIDS denialists to global warming.  Also, if you follow the history, all edits other than Philip's have been "rejected" by him.  Is that at all realistic?  Šţěŗĭļė 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but objectivity is hard to come by when your fundamental belief system is faith-based. But I really do think that PJR believes all this stuff. Take my opening sentence. He would completely accept without question that "evolutionists" also have a faith-based belief system - that they believe in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. in a similar way to him believing in 6,000 years and the Flood. To him, what you call him misrepresenting your views, is actually him pointing out the flaws in your views.
 * I don't want to defend PJR's nonsense any more than you do. What I object to is calls of "rights" and accusations of lying mainly because it's shrill and falls into the trap of making the rational appear anything but.
 * But all IMVHO of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more willing to accept that Philip honestly believes what he's saying if he didn't work so hard to avoid pinning down his own views to anything definite. He's entirely too slippery when it comes to defining his own beliefs and positions to accept that he's simply bought the party line. --Kels (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is very careful not to make absolute statements so he always has an escape route. Acei9 03:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you say "Two-faced arguments" is a "strategy" of the "evolutionist" movement? Use evolutionists "claim" just to make it sound like the evolutionists are crazy for making their point?  Say that schools "suppress" creationism when it is, in reality, legally problematic to include creationism in a science class?  Change your definition of information from moment to moment to fit your needs?  And most important, if you were called on it, would you change it?  It's not just that he believes in literalism, which I agree does affect what he writes; he is also dishonest in his characterization of people he doesn't agree with; it's a constant straw man from Philip, and from someone who accuses others of doing the same. Šţěŗĭļė 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And lo, Philip obligingly provides a lovely example of what Ace and I are getting at. He's quite happy to say what he thinks consensus isn't (in the context of support for evolution), but good luck trying to get him to tell you what he thinks consensus is.  Presumably he knows it when he sees it, like meaningful information. --Kels (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys just don't get it. Look, PJR knows he is right. He knows God created the world some 6,000 years ago, let a talking snake fuck everything up, then feeling a bit pissed off threw a tantrum and killed everything except an old bloke and his floating zoo. All the evidence suggesting that this isn't the case is simply wrong or misinterpreted.
 * The fact that he knows all this simply means that he doesn't get his arguments right all the time or fails in the art of persuasion. He would, I believe, genuinely feel that what you see as his lies is either you misunderstanding the truth or his lack of skill in persuading you of his argument's veracity. Indeed, in many cases, he knows it is you who are lying and deliberately misrepresenting him, not the other way round.
 * Again, the accusations of lying are mistaken. I don't believe PJR believes he is dishonest.
 * It is important, I think, for you to recognise this. Because a person who believes in his own honesty when he believes in such obvious bollocks is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a liar. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree more than we disagree, actually. I would say that Philip is dishonest, but doesn't necessarily lie. Although, the word lie has more than one definition: The one I get caught up on in Philip's case is definition #2, but not #1 or #3. Šţěŗĭļė 15:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
 * 2) something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
 * 3) an inaccurate or false statement.
 * 4) the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Lawdy, Lawdy!
How many askees are in direct contact with the Lord? Excerpts from Content Review Committee/cases: 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Hi, I'm going to leave Conservapedia, mainly due to issues with the Obama article and other things that the Lord has been speaking to me about" JY23
 * 2) "i am grieved about the CP Bible project, and I felt aSK is where the Lord would have me put it" Daniel1212
 * They are being rather narrow-minded if they suppose that an omniscient, infinitely intelligent God would only speak to people via direct oration. Even the Norse pantheon have other methods. 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say any intelligent deity wouldn't be wasting time with a bunch of Creationists anyway. Maybe it's actually Satan they're hearing, or possibly...well, I don't want to say the "D" word for fear of scaring Bradley. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Kelseigh, it must be nice to have a world so easy to mould to one’s own memes. When did I ever give any reason to think I would find demons scary? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't be afraid of a malevolent spirit.? My, ain't you brave confident of your own invulnerability. Better send for an exorcist to check you out, you might be already possessed to be so carefree. 06:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not invulnerable, no.167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Demons do tend to be rather nasty little buggers who can land you in if you are not careful.  06:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You try to be nice to the mentally disadvantaged, and see what you get? I tell you! --Kels (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Dan isn't "grieved" enough to actually put his money where his mouth is. 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.pngContribs Talk

Another (!) boycott?
I don't usually call for boycotts, nor should I now that I am blocked for a week (why?), but many users left Parthians in the last few days, so... should we? Editor at CPmały książe 08:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye!!

 * TerrySmall.pngContribs Talk 08:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Boycott Canardistan. Šţěŗĭļė 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay!

 * Whatever. Is that site still up?  Is PJR still writing massively tq's screeds that say nothing?  03:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yup Jaxe (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I accidentally improoved their little uncyclopaedia. Sorry. Also, Bradley, fuck you and the high horse you rode in on.  05:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in Soviet Russia, aWK boycotts you! 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * last time boycott planned people were banned and then the server broke. Maybe server will break again ? Hamster (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Did the last one accomplish anything useful? Is there any reason to think another will? Phil isn't hurt by not having people around who disagree with him and his delusions. --Kels (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When we're not there, they're like fish out of water. It's a little fun to watch them flop around, but that's the extent. They don't learn anything when you're there, why would they learn anything when you're gone? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should word that differently. Why make a big statement with a boycott (that won't bother Philip or his conjoined twin, Kuato Bradley) when you can simply just not go there?  --Kels (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most people are getting to that point. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Phil isn't hurt by not having people around who disagree with him and his delusions". Actually, I think he is. Without us there is only him and Bradley, and it becomes a sad place full of trains and conventions. Editor at CPmały książe 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They can always pretend to debate Oscar. Plus, Daniel1212 is there, and his Christianity is inevitably going to butt heads with Phil's Christianity, which will make for an interesting (albeit wayyyy too fucking long) discussion, butthurt and LANCB. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one thing that makes me wonder at this point is, what makes PJR any worse than Andy? People kept trying to engage him for longer than they do PJR, and hell they still try to engage TK even though it's obvious he's doing nothing but trolling. But PJR really gets people's ire up in a different way, it seems more personal or something. Why is that, exactly. --Kels (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he makes it personal by lying about what editors have said while also in the grand gesture of things lying about other stuff that's important to editors there. Oh wait. You were asking rhetorically. 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another ...
... homophobe?. Ken Ruylopez & Dan'll be all over him. 04:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Contribs Talk
 * Whodathunkit? "Semen" is a redlink at the whorehouse!  05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Jury's out right now. It could simply be he doesn't know the subject (as he says), and is just going by what he's been told.  Although in fundy-land, I wouldn't rule it out. --Kels (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some "truth" to the "article". Also wrote a redlink I made.  Moar brainz to come!  Maybe.  05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell kind of "enpsychlopedya" is awk, anyway? Every fucking link I create is red except Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome!  05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who hasn't been blocked for a week for expressing the truth that PJR has a penchant for lying for jesus go express contempt for Daniel's conclusion that atheism leads to being Pol Pot? I'm sick of this no absolute basis for morality shit, though I'm glad I don't live in fear of pissing off a bearded phantasm. Kthxbai. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs
 * I asked why the high rate of sexual misconduct charges among the clergy, catholic preists and Ted Haggard considering they should be models of morality Hamster (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anniversary
It is soon, right? 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone can prolly find it easier than me but this was the first edit on Phil's user page (21 Mar) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Something seems to be wrong, the earliest edit is number 3. 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was 21 March - the spring equinox. I'm not sure why Phil chose a Neopagan holy day to launch his Christian website. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * my birthday gift:


 * NS-AStorehouseOfKnowledge.png
 * Ns-AStorehouseOfKnowledge-8.png
 * }
 * 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How did Philip survive so long on CP without being banned for talk talk talk? I guess bullshit bullshit bullshit doesn't count. Jaxe (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk talk in support of Creationism and other CP-friendly delusions doesn't count. --Kels (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he was booted out of the soopah seekrit discussion forum a couple of times, because they didn't like his talk, talk, talk... most of which was 'Obama is a Muslim" and "TK is a lying little shit" (although not in those words). -- Psygremlin  14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually "Obama is not a Muslim." And where do you get this information? -- aSK Tim 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My bad! That's what I meant. As for the how... lucky guess? -- Psygremlin  15:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would explain it. I should have guessed.  -- aSK Tim 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, my block will end just in time for me to join the festivities! 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, saying that Philip does not understand science in any way is a personal attack? It's a freakin' statement of fact, you can reference every statement he's ever made about science to back that up.  Hell, just provide a link to his User Contributions, there's damning evidence right there! --Kels (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip's new interest in information is pissing me off. He's either an ignoramus because he doesn't realize that Davies isn't talking about creationist meaningful information or he's dishonest in his distortion of what Davies says.  Šţěŗĭļė 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * er, is BOTH out of the question ? stupid or dishonest isnt much of a choice. Hes back to his "science could have supernatural explanations, you lot are just arbitrarily not allowing them" complaint. Hamster (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wonders of the Solar System
This is a new BBC documentary on at the moment presented by the most excellent Prof Brian Cox. Well worth a watch (BBC2 and iPlayer in the UK). Of course he talks completely blithely about millions and billions of years. It's just a perfectly normal consequence of talking about astronomy. But because I've been exposed to YEC (which I'd never given a moment's thought (cue PJR's accusations of atheist education) before reading CP then RW then ASK), the millions and billions of years thing can't be heard without reacting to it. I feel dirty. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit I have the same reaction. My life was so much better when I thought that YECers were as real as Santa. Sure, some people dress up in that red suit and all, but they don't actually believe that stuff. Do they? Bondurant (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The same thing happens to me whenever I watch these sorts of programs. I'll often remark outloud something like - "That can't be, the world is only six thousand years old." or "Don't you mean Jesus did it?"  12:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply apply the standard Creationist test to find out:
 * Do I agree with it? Jesus did it!
 * Do I disagree with it? Satan, Hitler and probably homosexual atheists!
 * Easy! --Kels (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * billions of apparent years shrink up a lot under Gravitic Time Dilation. Dr Jason Lisle, creation astrophysician says so. Hamster (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PJR's total ignorance
Not meaning to pimp myself but here PJR shows his total and utter lack of knowledge save for a few quotes. Fucking idiot. Acei9 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Same old, same old? All he's ever had is a few quotes, and since he gets most of them from CMI, they're not honest quotes to begin with.  I suspect that honesty in this really isn't important to Philip.  Not that he's trying to lie, it's just he doesn't seem to care.  It's almost like a logic game or something, the "anti-creationists" are wrong by definition, so they've got to be shown they're wrong.  It doesn't matter what's thrown up, it's all fair in the name of proving the "anti-creationists" wrong, and mundane, day-to-day things like logic, honesty, etc. don't enter into it.  I suspect you've gotta seriously compartmentalize your brain to pull crap like that off. --Kels (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * but Phil has studied creationism for 30 years. He must have learned something in all that time ... surely... I mean must have done, how could you NOT ... hmm ? Hamster (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Same way homeopathic "patients" can claim to be under medical care, I suppose. --Kels (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the same man you are all speaking so highly of, about his discerning good judgment, on the WIGO-CP talk page? One might think people here are highly selective in their memories! [[image:Spit.gif]] --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 07:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Philip: As for RationalWiki badmouthing everyone else, please take note that they also badmouth me. But they badmouth me about my /beliefs/, not about my /fairness/.  If they are badmouthing you about your fairness, then perhaps that needs looking at. 
 * 08:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Worthy of a quote miner! People here, some of the same ones badmouthing PJR for his supposed closed mind, his fairness, and how he runs his wiki, say the exact opposite when it is to their liking, as I said. This isn't anything we all don't already know, LArron....why the need to rush in and seemingly refute? I won't be a part of the usual rat-packing ways here anymore, so go find someone else to pick a argument with. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 08:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though you are allowed to comment on this rat-packing wiki, you aren't forced to do so. But if you chose to comment here, you should be prepared to be engaged in a dialogue. Otherwise you should stop your drive-by commenting. 08:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, different rules for me only? I don't see the same comment from you whenever members you like do the same, LArron.  I have so rarely engaged in any dialog here that didn't include vile personal insults like those left by a Bureaucrat tonight on my own talk page, that I certainly wasn't expecting anyone to want a dialog.  And come to think of it, on WIGO-CP and elsewhere, where I have been falsely accused of passing emails to Psytroll (when we all know it was the invented "Jessica" CP user whose IP was also South Africa), some people were indeed lauding PJR's judgment and perception, which is indeed incongruous with the comments about him here.  Why are you so contentious that you have a need to take snipes at me, other than old business, old grudges?  A statement of opinion (as I assume the rest here are) doesn't deserve to be labeled with an insulting phrase anymore than the others here.  Mature much? --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 09:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TK, just reading your drivel makes me laugh. Please, please, please, learn how to use the comma properly.  09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, Terry, you get the lingo but you're too lazy to learn the templates... 10:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @TK:
 * as this isn't Conservapedia, there aren't any special rules for you. Sorry.
 * it's your choice of language not mine - or to quote you
 * Hey, jerkoff, I can dodge any questions I want. Where are your archives? As for your question above, I learned the oversighting trick from here. Fuck yourself.
 * PJR's judgment and perception were great compared with those of his (former) fellow sysops at CP.
 * I don't accuse you of leaking the Conservapedia:The Zeuglodon Blues. It would be just consistent with your history :-) But your case against Jessica T is compelling...
 * old business, old grudges? We never met at Conservapedia - cp:User:DiEb happened during your hiatus. I may hold old grudges against Ed Poor and his ignorance. In fact, I think that he is a bigger thread for Conservapedia than you are - though you seemingly want to hurt the site, while Ed Poor destroys it en passant. Doesn't that hurt?
 * A statement of opinion (as I assume the rest here are) doesn't deserve to be labeled with an insulting phrase anymore than the others here. Here, you totally lost me.
 * 10:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No point in continuing this "dialog" LArron, since you drag in quotes by me out-of-context, totally excusing and ignoring the people who started the insults and baiting. If you want to dialog, use the IM, and perhaps without an audience to "play to" you will be rational. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 10:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I remembered this quote of yours as it was directed to me, and I don't belong the the people who started the insults and baiting.
 * And you would be more civil without an audience? I doubt it - so, no IMs from me
 * 10:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Typical, run away, and insult in the process. I will email you the name of someone here who can vouch for my normal civility, who I think you respect. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 10:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, you are "civil" somewhere? 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You know so, Huw, and you were talking to him just the other night while I was as well. Why are you always such a hater? --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 10:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that if nobody else can see what TK says, he's both civil and uncivil, which means he's civil sometimes. Therefore, I'd like to apologize on behalf of the liberal hivemind for....whatever the hell it said in the first place. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 10:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for admitting I am the same as most other users here. That's a start. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 10:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To make it as clear as possible: I have no interest in behind-closed-door talks. It's the beauty of a wiki that everything can happen in the open.
 * Of course you may say that some engage in secret scheming - I don't do so, and therefore, I don't belong to any group a la Conservapedia:The Zeuglodon Blues. I've exchanged very few emails with members of this board - usually with fellow mathematicians...
 * If you don't want to talk with me here, well, you can always invite me back to Conservapedia - yep, I was incorrectly blocked there, due to an amusing case of mistaken identity. Thinking that Ed Poor should know the cp:Peano Axioms didn't help, neither.
 * So thanks - but no thanks - for your email.
 * 10:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for that, I was the one being hilariously dishonest by stealing identities and got him blocked by accident. 11:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this was just a welcomed pretext for the blocking. 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we will never really know, will we? The fact remains that you have publicly smeared Ed Poor for something your compatriot has publicly taken the blame for doing. I guess that just proves none of us have completely clean hands and should be far more tolerant of each other. Or at least more willing to give others another chance. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 12:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or at least more willing to give others another chance. So, you'll unblock me at CP? Thanks!
 * he fact remains that you have publicly smeared Ed Poor for something your compatriot has publicly taken the blame for doing nope - I haven't
 * 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, sorry. I thought the comment you made above was a uncalled for smear, since your buddy said he caused it through deceit.

"old business, old grudges? We never met at Conservapedia - cp:User:DiEb happened during your hiatus. I may hold old grudges against Ed Poor and his ignorance. In fact, I think that he is a bigger thread for Conservapedia than you are..."


 * If that was merely constructive criticism, and not a smear, I humbly apologize. My bad. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology, as this is constructive criticism - and in any case, this isn't the thing my compatriot has publicly taken the blame for doing (BTW, he wasn't my compatriot at that time...)
 * But you took me to a stroll on memory lane. You don't have to take my word for the event - you can check the now deleted talk page of cp:User:DiEb. But that's the event as I have seen it then - and described in an email to cp:User:Ed Poor
 * Dear Ed Poor,
 * I'm confused. I read the block:
 * 03:37, 23 August 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked DiEb (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (disruption, personal remarks)
 * and I don't get it:
 * For your information: A user named JasonH pretended to be Jinxmchue. He deleted two of my entries (cp:natural numbers, cp:proof by induction) and wrote on my talkpage
 * For starters don't post on both talk pages, everyone who is intelligent knows that. Second I have never heard of "Axiomatization" how do I know you didn't make it up as a parody so those mouth-breathers at the other site won't just laugh at us? Also again "Peano Axioms is fairly basic" I didn't understand it and I am sure Ed Poor who is a maths teacher won't understand it so it is above our reading level. Jinxmchue 09:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT) 
 * To which I replied:
 * For starters, there is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. I'll be quite disappointed if Ed Poor doesn't understand the Peano Axioms, as it's basic stuff - especially for a math teacher. Ask R. Schafly... I introduced it for the proof by induction entry. This technique is very important - and, yet, though elementary, sometimes difficult to grasp. And maybe the article wasn't written for the average dude - not everyone has to understand everything. But a bright student should be able to find this kind of information here at CP --DiEb 09:46, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
 * When JasonH was outed - and his changes were reverted - I deleted this entry. But I don't think that I was disrespectful to you (unless you have problems with the Peano Axioms, and that's doubtful :-)
 * Yes, your name appears for a second time on my talk page, but I don't think that there is a lack of respect, neither.
 * Yes, I maybe have been disrespectful towards JasonH as Jinxmchue, but this was due to the confusion he had caused.
 * IMO it would be quite unfortunate if this impostor disrupts CP still after his outing - the disruption was his, not mine!
 * Yours
 * DiEb


 * The problem: it turned out that Ed Poor doesn't understand the Peano Axioms, though he says he is a math teacher. That was a surprise for me - and it is disappointing that the curator of the math articles lacks such basic understanding.
 * BTW: my soft spot for PJR originates from this time, as he tried to reign in Ed Poor's caprice.
 * 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If what you say is correct (and I have no valid reason to suspect it isn't true) I will be more than happy to talk with Ed about removing your block provided you can be a member here and still edit in good faith at CP. Mistakes happen, even here.  As for Peano Axioms, is that a sauce? [[image:Chat-smiley.gif]] --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to remove the block of me, TK, that you gave? After all, I am still almost three years later neither a sock or a vandal.  Šţěŗĭļė 21:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So your complaint is really the block reason Sterile? You were not arguing constantly or changing the conservative point of view of articles and were completely civil (as you are here) and abiding the MYOB rule while at CP? You have no special rights you know, so if you want your block removed or the reason for it (which we don't really have a rule binding us to stating exactly why) you can do what everyone else is expected to do: email or IM. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, my complaint is the contrived world of CP's authoritarianism.  Are you really going after because of the format of my request?  SSDD.  Šţěŗĭļė 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Different places have different rules, surely you understand that concept, right? It doesn't really matter what you or I think about them, that's the way the world is.  We both have the right not to have anything to do with places we don't like the procedures or rules. I answered your question with civility and told you how we would handle your request.  If you don't want to follow my suggestions, then I will assume you were just bitching and playing to the mob, and don't really want reconsideration.  Anyway this isn't the place to discuss the business of another site, so you know what to do if you are sincere. Peace. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck, I forgot.   Apologies to all.  Except TK.  Šţěŗĭļė 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Move discussion to WIGO:CP talk? or Saloon bar re ZB? Šţěŗĭļė 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So TK, thank you for your offer: there are (and have been) some travelers between the worlds, you, RobSmith, HelpJazz, etc. Why not me? That could be possible. I could put some of my graphs directly on conservapedia. So let's have a try...

However, I see some obstacles. The main one is a character trait you and I share: when we get blocked and see something fishy about it, we get indignant and we look into it. And then, I expect to get an explanation - even a brusque one - and not being perma-blocked just for asking.

But Ed Poor expects an editor not to ask why was I blocked, but to say Sorry, I won't do it again. And, I'm sorry, I can't say that when I have done nothing wrong: it would deprive the blocking sysop of the opportunity to learn from his own mistakes.

So, while I'm willing not to reopen a debate about a block of Aug 2008 at Conservapedia, the best I can offer is to say Thanks Ed Poor, for doing the right thing - however belated.

07:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to your talk page, LArron. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 07:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Catching On
Well, you can't read something as lurid and over the top as this rot without asking yourself "what's really going on here?" So I did, of course, and Google was kind enough to show me this lovely link. Make of it what you will. --Kels (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help it. Acei9 03:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does make you wonder about Australian society. Hamster (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an Australian and, more particularly, as a Victorian, I resent that comment you... you... RODENT! --Horace (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently according to Bradley's latest comment I found the right program, which looks like comprehensive sex education, but blown WAY out of proportion and demonized, probably by his church. I seriously have my doubts that 12 year olds are "actively encouraged to experiment with homosexuality", more likely gay kids are being told it's okay to be who they are and the rest are educated in what it's all about (and further nosing around in Google suggests just that).  But I suppose to someone like Bradley that's the same thing.  Oh, and I like the little pederasty smear, it really highlights his hysteria about the whole issue.  --Kels (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kelseigh, you really should look out a window every now and then. There's a real world out there, and it's much better than your imaginery one.  "Hysteria" indeed.  I was asked, and I answered.  You may "seriously have doubts" but that doesn't actually effect reality.  I was not demonizing, and as far as I know my church has not mentioned Catching On.  If you are not aware of the overlap between homosexuality (particularly male homosexuality) and pederasty, that is not my fault.  I recall when the programme was initially being shopped around state education systems, the LGBT community were pitching it as "how do you know you're not unless you try it."  One group in particular wrote a lengthy document that concluded with "we want to recruit your children" or something to that effect.  That was a pointer that it was not about education, but access.  Anyway, back to regularly programmed nonsense. 118.208.96.252 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the real world yourself, not the fantasy world populated by magic sky fairies and demons, and certainly not the one where armies of gays are coming to convert your kids. Sorry, but I'm not willing to take the word of a delusional on this one. --Kels (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ''"One group in particular wrote a lengthy document that concluded with "we want to recruit your children" or something to that effect." --Kels (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in this venn diagram of homos and kid fuckers. Please teach us! &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women. In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children." lol...pwned by the first google hit. You should get a computer, Brad. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go Daddy
Down again. Will it be up for 1 year anniversary? Or dead? Šţěŗĭļė 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thats ok then, I thought my browser had gone bad . THis domin parked by GoDaddy. Domain was renewed today till 2011. Hamster (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why he didn't grab .com when it was available is beyond me. This is the first and only .info site I've looked at and I often mistype the URL. 15:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird, it worked for me just fine until a couple of hours ago, then was suddenly the GoDaddy page. --Kels (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is anyone able to view aWK? I'm getting emails that Bradley is posting on my userpage there but can't pull the site up. 21:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me. I get the GoDaddy page. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got GoDaddy here, too. -- 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can. the diff. dig www.astorehouseofknowledge.info says 69.73.186.35 --Swedmann (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link brings up GoDaddy for me. --Kels (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool. PJR, Bradley, and I are responding to each other through clenched teeth lately. I'm not proud of myself for having contempt for some of those guys personally, rather than merely bristling at the ideas in their heads, so I'll be taking a break. It's always a good thing when aSK isn't viewable from the United States anyway. 22:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the ip address brings up CPANEL for me. Its like the site is gone again. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Working for me. Sorry I meant 69.73.186.33. And you need to put that in your wp:hosts file and visit http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/ directly to request the proper http host or something. A quick way to test this without adding hosts is "wget --header='Host: www.astorehouseofknowledge.info' 69.73.186.33" --Swedmann (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All far too technical for my small brain, I'm afraid. I'll have to wait and see if it comes back in due time. --Kels (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All I've seen over a few tries in the last 6 hours is GoDaddy. Think he forgot to renew the domain name? Likely today was exactly 1 year from registering it... 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, miss the go daddy site. It was so much more factual and so much less combative. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Views and Article Length at aSK and RW
I looked up the page titles which occur at aSK and RW - there are roughly 1000 of them. 98 are user pages, indicating that there is (was) a big crossover between those two wikis (see here for a list of the pages)

Here is a diagram showing the number of views - and the length - of these thousand pages on aSK and RW:



00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't quite follow this graphic. What are the axis labels?  20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * a blue point indicates the views of an article which exists at aSK and RW. The views at RW are to be found on the x-axis, the views at aSK at the y-axis.#


 * the red points are for the length of the articles: here, the length at RW is shown at the y-axis, and the length at aSK at the x-axis.


 * the scales at each axis are logarithmic


 * the lines are regression lines.


 * 20:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I get it now, thanks. So we tend to have ten times the pageviews, but the articles there are about ten% longer?  20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We get ten times the pageviews. It's harder to judge the article length... 20:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got the length backwards, ours are longer where theirs are at 1000 ours is a bit higher. Now that you published your four-way graphic at wigo cp, I understand how to read this presentation better.  It's a very cool way to present several sets of related data!  21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this plot is an overkill for two data pairs - it really works better with a couple of data-sets to compare...
 * CZ, aSK, CP and RW are the wikis I usually look into: wikipedia.en is just to big... 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Site notice
Altogether now: [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&curid=2022&diff=35165&oldid=30264 Happy birthday to you, happy ... ] Doc Holiday (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone know when "19:52, 21 March 2010" is in EST/DS? Or at least what the UTC timecode is for the server?  I thought 6 PM there was early this morning or late last night?  20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe, server said 20:24 and my local time is 15:24 cst USA. That means server is +5 hours which is Greenwich mean time I think. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I ask. I see an 18:00 edit on PJR's talk page, but recent changes lists it as 14:00.  I emailed LowKey.  Maybe the down time glitched my block.  Oh well, thanks for the answer.  20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I get it, every time I look at there is converted into my pref. time zone (UTC-4), except it's off by an hour. So my freedom comes at 7 tonight, perhaps.  20:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Freedom to dissent? What else is there to celebrate? 1 year of that site? I think not. 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Freedom, to, um, fix my user page. Some troll there wandalized it.  21:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be OK by now,Human. Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WdZ. 05:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn about the site, but I'll just note that it's also kinda-sorta the anniversary of Philip ditching Andy and his echo chamber. --Sid (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To set up one of his own... --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 21:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD)I have replied to the email. Check the Date/Time tab in your preferences. It should tell you whether you are having system time converted to local time (handily it also tells you the current system time). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was my confusion, thanks, something.123.something.something. 05:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, that is not a "personal attack", it's a statement of fact. Loser and liar, you are both.  05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the First Birthday there were 13 (thirteen!) events on Recent changes including one (self) block and one New user.
 * This site is growing rapidly! Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see more like 30. 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International affiliate Alien Intrusion  lol ...
I thought this was funny. CMI has a list of affiliated sites, the first one being Alien Intrusion. The sites operator is Gary Bates, who is CEO of CMI–Worldwide. I wonder if Phillip knows his favorite source believes in little green men, area 51 and interdimensional entities abducting and probing humans ? Alien Intrusion CMI Hamster (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty hypocritical since they're always harping on about that Dawkins clip on Expelled where they make it look like he believes that aliens designed humans. Jaxe (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, which baramin do the aliens belong to? -- Nx  / talk 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly Nx. God only described things as they were relevant to the story. Everyone knows there were no aliens on the Ark to be saved, and hence no need to discuss them. Why do you think they need to be of any particular baramin? (I'm not very good at imitating those clowns) 16:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Baramin classification is a very complicated process. Does new species loosely fit a pre-existing baramin? Yes? You're done.  No? Invent one. Now you're done. Jaxe (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the book Bradley talks about. Alien abductions are actually demons doing the nasty on people.  Happens less with Christians.  QED Evolution is bad.  Seriously.  (Aliens would imply that evolution occurs throughout the universe: we not special no more:( .)Šţěŗĭļė 17:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sterile is the only one coming close to true here. The rest of you are talking nonsense. It shows the difference it makes by being a little informed about something before attempting to mock it. Sterile’s characterisation becomes inaccurate as it goes, but at least he took the time to find out some actual facts. Now if only someone would read the book you could find out what Gary Bates really says, and why. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now if only someone would read the Bible you could find out what God really says... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say true, you of course mean the delusional fantasies you have, and not actual truth. Mockery is the only reaction this stuff deserves. -- Nx  / talk 23:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Such sloppy reading and lazy thinking. I was talking about the statements above and how they compare to what claims are made.  Also, it is very irrational to conclude that something deserves mockery when you don’t even know what it is! And apparently can’t be bothered finding out.  You are free to mock, but don’t pretend that there is any intellectual reason behind your mockery. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We can read it... Google Books for the win! Šţěŗĭļė 23:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. -- Nx  / talk 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now if only someone would read the book you could find out what Gary Bates really says, and why. It's one of those instances where an "ad hom" is appropriate. 00:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Just ask a few teenagers, and several of them will tell you that they believe aliens exist and may have been humankind's original creators." p. 9 Yup, I'm convinced...  01:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * teenagers are well known for having amazing insights .. er, somewhere Hamster (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This would make a great subject for an article on a website that likes to write about the weird shit people believe, if one existed. Jesus and aliens are fighting for not just your soul, but the collective soul of humanity itself! 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like all the creationists will have this sorted out based on the talk page on ASK. This is shaping up to be a good one! Šţěŗĭļė 03:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus as the archangel Michael, Satan as himself, demons from an alternate dimension and the sons of god, horney bastards that they are, impregnating human women who seem to like it .. didnt they make that movie already ? Tribulation force ? maybe with John Travolta ? Hamster (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, if we had some of the great thinkers from the anti-defamation league I reckon we could build a good conspiracy theory around this. I think "alien" in this context is a code word for gay, and that the message that Jesus prevents anal probing is a cover for their homophobic agenda. True story. -- 07:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded, because that is easier than saying something smart. 09:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never heard an explanation of why the aliens were collecting cow anus(es) ? it seems like they didnt want the entire cow. Hamster (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think the fallen angels are just into assplay, as they're pretty equal opportunity when it comes to probing anii. 17:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, come on! I mean, we've been coming here for 50 years and performing anal probes and all that we have learned is that 1 in10 doesn't really seem to mind."

- Kids In the Hall --Kels (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

gOD (accent on the "odd")
I'm hardly an expert, but some of you are a bit more versed in such matters than I'll ever be. So tell me, is Philip pulling this business out of his ass, or what? It seems to me like he's trying to restrict the definition of "God" to only mean "The Christian God" rather than the more generic term most people use, and it's got a whiff of BS about it. --Kels (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard this from some apologists. They say that all gods are really their god and that the prophets of those religions received "general revelations" about their god, not specific ones like the Christian prophets got. Even when the religions are somehow more absurd and ass fuck backwards than Christianity. They just interpreted it wrong or something. The apologists usually gave up really quick because it made no sense and came down to trying to take credit for things they agreed with and distance themselves from the rest of the heathenry. It'd be fun to watch someone press Phil on this, as it would soon get ridiculous. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course its BS. I have just thoroughly eviscerated Phil over the Big Bang theory but he refuses to admit defeat. Acei9 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What gets me is how Zeus, according to him, is not a god and therefore atheists don't disbelieve in him. They only disbelieve in the Christian God because he's the only one the word "god" can refer to.  It's odd reasoning. --Kels (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you defeat athiestic science then whats left is the creationist view of the christian Bible and God goes with that. God seems less important than the truth of the Bible, and that is ODD. Hamster (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bradley, question
Can anybody not banned at aSK, ask Bradley why he can use offensive language to me, yet bans me when quoting the same statements in talk. He has in the past accepted that evolutionist = athiest = murdering, raping, child molestor so why cant I ask him to stop calling me an evolutionist and instead say baby raper, which is the same thing ? blocked at ask, no email available to anyone on site. Thanks Hamster (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "blocked at ask" is the only true statement I can see there. Not to worry, though.  Here at RW, nobody cares too much if your have no facts to back up your statements. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite ironic coming from you. Editor at CPmały książe 08:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an example right there! 118.208.127.70 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bradley, after an edit like this one, you've forfeited any right to talk about truth and honesty. Not that you've had a lot of use for it anyway, in your support for Philip's ongoing dishonesty and misrepresentation. --Kels (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And two more examples rolled into one. 118.208.127.70 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy, Bradley. A dishonest one, but funny nonetheless. --Kels (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite bit of that article is when they quote a serial killer as an expert on moral philosophy. Jaxe (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how Sancho pretends that since Philip said "fuck you all, this is staying in" and he agreed as usual, then it's settled and taking it out is vandalism. Oh, and the bit about "Gerard" is just precious. --Kels (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look before you leap, Kelseigh. The vandalism had nothing to do with what was removed. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, Junior Dishonesty Scout, let's hear specifically what you considered vandalism. --Kels (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that user, but if you want I can provide that, if you can't puzzle it out for yourself. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Hint: having ruled out what was removed, see what was inserted). 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it physically painful for a Creationist to give a straight answer? Okay, there's two additions, which not only can be inferred from the site and a good many other "biblical worldview" sources, that you didn't like.  So why not remove those and leave the removals of non-factual, heavily slanted information?  I know Philip's not willing to come out and say atheists are bad people, but from most of what he writes (atheist scientists are unethical, atheists are represented morally by a serial killer, atheist leaders are doomed to end up as genocidal dictators, atheists don't care about their fellow man, etc.) it's pretty clear. It seems like he's shooting for some sort of plausible deniability (where is the courage of his convictions?), but it's really not very plausible. --Kels (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're too busy celebrating the death of a terrorist. 10:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not so much a sacrifice as a bad weekend." --Kels (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironically the one edit that gets labelled vandalism is the one edit I wrote from a biblical perspective. Jaxe (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip rationalized explained that "evolutionist" is okay because of a bunch of isolated quotes from scientists that use the term. And in Philip's world, isolated quotes are what determines science, so you can't argue with science!  I doubt either of them have really thought through the whole "atheist morality" thing to the point where using their definitions atheism is a horrible insult. --Kels (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't he great, ladies and gentlemen? He'll be here all week. --Kels (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * is ok, pretty much done with aSK anyway. By blocking my ip, which is a proxy for the dial-up network, he has taken out a few thousand potential users from his site. lol I will work on my youtube vid on aSK for a while instead Hamster (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few thousand is more people than have ever used the site. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bradley ought to get out more
About this:

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Bradley says:

... That last verse is just about my favourite text outside of the Bible. BradleyF (LowKey) 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Green Giant (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In other news...
BlightyNet seems to be dying, too. 22:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh, it still redirects me to Wikipedia if I visit Blightynet for a kebab and a cup of tea. Bloody Mediawiki mobile support. Makes sense for shite browsers, but mine deals just fine with regular pages. 23:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been a good run?
Or not. I think it's time for WIGO ASK to disappear. If you want to know what's going on at ASK, just go there. The RC is about as active as our WIGO. About as interesting too...

This is the next step in letting ASK die the death it deserves. What say ye, interested parties? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you TK or something? Why are you so desperate to get rid of this page, is it hurting you in some way?  In any case, I'll vote oppose on the deletion, there's no good reason to do so. --Kels (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you TK or something? non-sequitur
 * Why are you so desperate to get rid of this page I'm not "desperate", so this is a strawman.
 * is it hurting you in some way? Loaded question.
 * In any case Which case? Pick one and stick with it.
 * I'll vote oppose on the deletion Do you have any reason to keep it around? Or are you making this about me?
 * Of course I'm making this about you. You brought up the deletion, and around here usually the one who wants to delete is the one who has to provide a compelling reason. --Kels (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * there's no good reason to do so. Sure there are. The project has been abandoned and a WIGO relies on continuing participation from an interested group. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TK loves running around and deleting stuff that's not currently being worked on. Especially when there's not a compelling reason to delete.  We've got essays and articles that haven't been touched in well over a year, but nobody's making noise to remove those, so why this one?  --Kels (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what if it has been abandoned? -- Nx  / talk 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because those are essays and articles. This is a WIGO. If nothing is "GO", then what the fuck is the point? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fundies aren't even bothering to give substantive responses to well-considered objections to their nonsense anymore. It's just a steamroller. Fuck that place. I vote get rid of the WIGO. 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * if there's nothing to WIGO, perhaps we could merge this into WIGO Clog. If it picks up again it can be resurrected. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. -- Nx  / talk 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I vote to get rid of the WIGO:ASK as well. But only because I've never even looked at, let alone cared about, that webshite. Let alone edited there.  18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I say keep it, even if only for the historical record. Even if it's not active, it's still a record of what went on. -- PsyGremlin  18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it's not listed on the front page or the Big List of WiGOs, what does it matter if it stays? A lot of people were involved in conversations here, and it seems far out of character for this website to go dumping all that into the memory hole. We followed this, so it's worth keeping for posterity. --Kels (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps This? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that I can support. --Kels (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. it may pick up. Is anyone actually NOT banned over there now ? Hamster (talk)
 * Pick up? Not likely. But keep, possibly mothball or put a big "NOTHING" banner at the top.  No need to wipe the page.  21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. I don't see much point in deleting, and as was mentioned up above, might as well keep it for the sake of historical interest or what have you. I'm also not a massive fan of deleting things just because they're not popular, even if there isn't much GO these days. Webbtje (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any objection to mothballing it for posterity? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no need to delete it. I don't even really see the point of the mothball template.  The main thing is that when it slowed down a while back, we pulled it off the main page/wigo links list.  So if there's nothing GO, it just sits and doesn't hurt anyone.  21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always said that the worst thing that possibly happen to aSK is that everyone here completely ignores it. By the way, 1,000 internets awarded to Neveruse for that PJR style reply. 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename
If aWK really has died, how about renaming to "what was going on at aWK?" 21:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooooooooooooh, I like that solution, Human! 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Time of death, yesterday, whenever. Fucking idiots.  Šţěŗĭļė 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Not a single edit yesterday (17th) and only 10 on the 16th. Methinks the beast doth breathe no more. Actually I feel kinda sad for CPalmer. Absolutely no recognition for all his hard work on CP, then just as he's about to make senior member on Ask, it dies. Now if he'd come here... -- PsyGremlin  09:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

not really dead yet... 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Crikey, Citizendium is more lively than this - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news- SallyM banned for incivility - yikes !
SallyM accused Phil of moving goalposts and then disappearing them altogether. After pointing out the subtle, veiled accusations of dishonesty Philip bans for being uncivil. Since the claims seemed to be self-evident and truthful Hamster concludes it was not the content but the delivery. Well done SallyM Hamster (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC) ( yes this is a bit desperate but not much happening at aSK )

Flash: Cpalmer promoted, yay !
 * Thanks. I'm officially done. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you out yourself? Tricksy (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been one of the few that was really interested in watching as Philip tried to justify his "worldview" in the face of multiple opponents armed with facts, but it's long since descended into flat-out dishonesty. Sure, he still tries to justify that, but it's not as interesting. Guess I'll be closing my viewing window on that corner of the lie-o-sphere. --Kels (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stay away from stupidplace, guys, please. I want to see how many zero-edit days we can get.  Šţěŗĭļė 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're all either liars or idiots, I don't know which is worse. The way they gallop around defending the indefensible is quite funny but ultimately pointless. 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More proof that aSK = CP MkII. 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like they were lying just so that when they were called liars, they could ban. "Oh, the guy who said 'Genesis 1 could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day'...I'm not sure if he really doesn't believe that the Author of Genesis intended to convey a 7-day week of 24-hour days..." lol. "I don't know of 'multiple' professors...you've only given two". &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, it seems a smooth progression to me. He wasn't the most scrupulously honest person in the first place, although he seems to want the appearance of honesty.  He just seems to have gotten caught up in the flow of the arguments, which requires him to veer more and more into "lying for Jesus" territory.  Igor Bradley seems happy enough to go along with the ruse, though. --Kels (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to argue that two can be considered multiple but then thought "why bother" :(

its as likely they would say "we dont know of any who disagree and we are not interested in looking" I actually had hopes for aSK when it started. Hamster (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, there's only so long someone can keep peddling the same bullshit over and over. When that wore thin he started on his green quote template trick of taking every chunk of a discussion out of context so he could "debunk" them without answering the initial question, but now that has become too tiresome and so it's easier to just revert any comments he doesn't like proclaiming them to be "trolling" and blocking anyone who comes up with good arguments over and over referring to them as "liars". Assfly realised this was the easiest thing to do many years ago. It's only natural that PJR would start doing it as well. 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Philip used a template similar to the garrish green one when he was on Wikipedia long before he was on CP. It's similar to what CMI does in a lot of their debunk attempts, and it probably is stylistic of the creationist movememnt.  Šţěŗĭļė 14:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * it seems very close to quote mining at times. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I particularly enjoyed Phil accusing Sally of quote mining after she notes that he says listing examples won't help prove him wrong. The guy can't help himself. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1. "One" is not multiple. If you all bothered to read you would see that THAT is the argument. 2. The tq template is green because RATS WANTED IT GREEN!
 * Was #1 supposed to be a coherent statement? I'm not really sure what you're talking about.  Ironic for someone who is trying to make an argument about an argument.... As for number 2, I don't think anyone gives a shit what color the template is; it's more the way it's used.  (PS Are you bored without us?)  Šţěŗĭļė 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Those following the discussion should understand the statement.

2. While there are many complaints about the use, there are also many complaints about the colour (including in the aSK article here).

(PS. aSK deserves more care and time than I can spare right now.  RW does not.) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs


 * Yet you keep reading - and replying. 05:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly at a loss for words that PJR won't credit that there are other ways to read the bible than his. I wasted several hours on those posts. You guys really try a guy's patience. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the Top 50 editors at aSK: aSK:aSK:Statistics - and I wanted to try the nice template... 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we made it green, PJR's original version was light gray and a small font. Quite a prick, he is.  07:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad, you're such a dishonest prick. Second only to PJR. "One" has nothing to do with it, because there were two examples that neither of you could deny without lying through your teeth. How do you expect people to believe you are honest when your conclusion from a Hebrew professor saying "Genesis 1 could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day" is "gee...I'm not sure if he really believes that". &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 12:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “One” has everything to do with it because you have only SHOWN one. You have claimed others, and one of those in a little detail, but you have ignored all requests for more detail, instead claiming a rejection where none has occurred.  So there is one.  I am not particularly interested in defending Barr’s quote, or the reliance on it in that article.  I in fact would rely more on Kline’s analysis of the text in question, except I can’t find one.  The analyses of the “6 day” text that I can find agree with the aSK article. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why you're a lying sack of shit. Do you think people are so fucking stupid that they won't realize what you're doing?
 * Meredith Kline: "Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts."
 * Gleason Archer: "on the basis of internal evidence it is [my] conviction that yo-m in Genesis 1 could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day"
 * It's completely, undeniably, ridiculously obvious that neither of these Hebrew professors "believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: ... creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience". But you're a lying sack of shit, so that's that, isn't it? It would have taken 5 minutes to go over with with someone who is not a lying YEC, but it took weeks, and you guys are still denying reality like we don't know what's going on. Face facts, Brad: You and Phil lie for Jesus. All day, every day. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the point in discussing the existence of Hebrew or OT scholars who don't believe that the Genesis author intended literal 24 hour days when PJR's biblical worldview™ won't even let him to admit there are multiple ways to get at the intent of a biblical author other than his particular literalism. This is what lying for Jesus looks like - here's PJR refusing to be honest and even credit the existence of other biblical hermeneutics or methods of exegesis because doing so would directly undermine his Barr quote mine and he wouldn't get to call anything he doesn't like eisegetical. Asp: You agree there are multiple ways to get at an author's intent. PJR: I didn't say that. That I indicated that we should be able to agree doesn't mean that I do agree. My point was that we hadn't discussed it and that you were therefore jumping to conclusions. There may be multiple ways, there may not. It's not a question that I have considered, and you've yet to put a case that there are multiple ways. And of course this is where the discussion ended. I'm not going back there to point out the obvious that all PJR has to do is open a fucking book on the subject to see that there are multiple ways to get at an author's intent. But when all you read is CMI the depth of your academic rigor is pretty shallow. This is why I hate creationism while still reserving hope that not all creationists are irredeemable assclowns. Bradley is making it harder and harder to hold out hope. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Bradley: That you've edited four times here today and none at ask seems at odds with "aSK deserves more care and time than I can spare right now. RW does not." Or perhaps you'll admit to your trolling here?  Šţěŗĭļė 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why “of course that is where the discussion ended”? Philip indicated that agreement was possible and seemed to be seeking more than simple assertion, and THEN you stopped discussing?  Were you not seeking agreement?  From my reading there ARE other hermeneutics, but their validity and exegeticality (real word?) are debated (sometimes hotly) among the various proponents. I’m out of time, but would like to dig into what hermeneutics are in/out of consideration and why.  167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not blaming the lack of resolution on that issue on me. I'm not going to hold PJR's hand as he discovers the wide world of biblical hermeneutics other than his. I posted numerous times on the subject. Either you credit the existence of other ways to discern the intent of the Genesis author than whatever it is you creationists do, or you don't. If you don't, I'm not interested in having anything to do with you. If you do, great. Get to it. Until that happens I won't be able to hold my tongue well enough to post on aSK without getting blocked. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Sterile, you are misreading what I said. Think about it mathematically. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think about it as your essentially crapping on our pages here. Šţěŗĭļė 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Bradley. I've engaged in a year long interaction about what information is, for which slippery Philip has systematically avoided even defining the term in a legitamite way.  If that's crapping, then guilty as charged.  Šţěŗĭļė
 * I would say it's impossible for anyone aside from the Truly Faithful like Bradley to look at the dialogs between PJR and either you or Sally and conclude that he's an honest man. Even OscarJ gives me the impression he wants to support PJR and his "Biblical worldview", but he's hesitant to go too far into that dark territory.  --Kels (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Meltdown
Anyone get the idea that PJR is on the verge of a breakdown? Every edit now which isn't a reversion is full of angry comments or contempt (e.g.). He used to reply quite politely but you guys have worn him down a bit too much now and I think he may go postal soon. 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The wages of self-deception. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's cracked. If an atheistic evilutionist said this he'd stomp his feet and embarrass himself. But when he says it he still gets to claim there's such a thing as "creation science." Nutty Roux (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pain of childbirth too much?
[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=Talk:Vestigial_organ&curid=2841&diff=36512&oldid=36502 "Drop dead." says Phil.] 03:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolute morals
There's a case about a Baptist pastor in Western Australia at the moment which underlines the hypocrisy of Phil and his religious cohorts. 02:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that just means he wasn't following those Absolute Moralstm and therefore wasn't a true Scotsman Christian. --Kels (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how Philip cannot see that it is totally irrelevant whether there is a basis for morals or not. Regadless of basis people do bad things. Overwhelmingly its religious people hence basis is irrelevant. But hey, its Philip we are talking about. Acei9 03:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * a christian has God granted free will. So they can chose to act against the absolute morality that comes from God. An athiest doing the same thing would be acting in accordance with their world view. Its a HUGE difference, dont you see ? Hamster (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll never understand.....Acei9 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll simplify for you. "Atheists are bad, mm'kay?"  --Kels (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noted this case in particular because it concerned an Australian Baptist, and I understand that PJR's a Baptist too. What if had been PJR's pastor who was the accused? (It isn't as it's the opposite end of the country.) This guy is criminally accused of burglary, assault, sexual assault and morally of adultery, encouragement of abortion, threatening suicide and bearing false witness while at the same time praying to gOD and quoting scriptures - so he's still a self-professed believer. 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PJR a baptist ! thank you lord ! now how do I get Westboro baptist church to support aSK ?
 * ok maybe westboro baptist is a bit extreme. I still chuckle over Ted Haggard lol Hamster (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on his user pages at ASoK and WP. 04:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he simply attends a Baptist church, but isn't actually a Baptist. Go figure, those weird Ozzies and their strange religious habits.  02:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

THE ARK!
HAS BEEN FOUND! Acei9 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "all believers need to be careful not to jump the gun, i.e. go beyond the evidence and announce it as the Ark for sure" blah blah blah. Does 🇰🇪 write for cretins.com?  Sure reads like it.  04:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "concrete replica" ? yes I realize its being picky but how can you have a replica of something that you dont know for sure what it looked like. ? good tourist attraction though  Hamster (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christianity worlds true religion ! Ark of the Covenant found on Ararat ! Bilical truth proven ! Athiests convert en mass, churches packed throughout USA ! Dawkins apologizes personally to Pope !
 * Icelandic scientists hurl small animals on wet vegetation mats into volcano, testing a theory says one ! ok, thats enough preparation. :) Hamster (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CMI carried an announcement, The Media Evangelism Ltd website shows the following from 2004.
 * "In October 2004, the expedition crew led by The Media Evangelism Limited made their 4th attempt to ascend Mount Ararat and on October 19, found the resting place of the suspected remains of the Noah’s Ark at the elevation of 4,200 meters. The crew’s expedition to film the Ark’s purported remains on Mount Ararat was the first such trip by a Chinese team. A meeting to share the expedition experiences at Mount Ararat was convened on Dec 5 at the Hong Kong Convention & Exhibition Centre, with Andrew Yuen Man-Fai and Pastor Boaz Li Chi-kwong as key speakers" Old news or CMI being dishonest? Hamster (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Media Evangelism has quality archaeologists.... Šţěŗĭļė 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I got blocked. I dare PJR to show me the diff where I did what he said I did. F'ing loser. 02:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I edited the "searches" section with the edit comment "fucking retarded shit".  Bad Hoomin!  18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some prodding at it. "Noah's Ark Ministries International Ltd." appear to be the same people as "The Media Evangelism Ltd." (both are legitimate companies registered in Hong Kong) who in turn are heavily involved in this. I know what you're thinking, what's the chance that a bunch of people with a Noah's ark theme park to promote would just happen to stumble upon the real ark? Oh, ye of little faith. As far as I can tell, they've been claiming to find the ark every year since 2006 when "a kurdish family" found a "secret" cave high on Ararat, and whose natural reaction was to call a bunch of people in Hong Kong to go look at it. Sounds totally logical to me. However, the story then changed from "family" to one "mountain climber", I guess it was noted that families aren't much likely to go for a jolly day out at 4000 fucking metres above sea level.


 * For added lulz, check out the video of the guys behaving totally scientifically. My favourite part is where they have the tape measure but NOTHING TO WRITE DOWN THE FUCKING RESULTS. It's exactly what you'd get if you take a bunch of people off the street, but them in silly costumes and tell them "look sciencey!" Also, check out some of the other videos of the pathetic array of artefacts "from the dig site". It's hilarious. I can't believe credulity ministries international would even print this garbage. -- 06:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW... does anyone read/write Turkish? I'd like to email someone to get the scoop on some of the more fishy claims in their press stuff, but there's a bit of a language barrier. -- 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and PPS. linky to the astonishing proof of Noah's ark! Check out Noah's chick peas. Bet I could make a mean ark curry with those. -- 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I kept wanting to hear an eerie voice say "who's there?" when they were knocking on that wall. 19:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * k, so they go in 2004 and announce they found an ark. Do nothing with it except build a theme park in Hong Kong. Then go back in 2009, find the ark again, and hold a press conference ? that all sounds completely honest and above suspicion.  How does Google language tools handle Turkish ? Hamster (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Noah's ark found" is now the 18th most common search in Google sez Google trends. Šţěŗĭļė 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Any creationist will do
Its fun watching PJR defend Ken. Defending Ken's ramblings, when others users would be derided and tq'ed to hell, is surely a sign of a diseased mind. Acei9 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * philip is running prettylow on good buddies on his wiki. He does seem to be getting a bit concerned about him though dont you think ? Hamster (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip still picks his fallacy labels at random I see. Jaxe (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Guth and PJR
PJR keeps quoting Guth and Inflation theory though he obviously has no idea about it. Amazing. Acei9 04:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PJR, Entropy, and the Intelligent designer
When evaluating the second law of thermodynamics to determine its status, you OBVIOUSLY meed to calculate the energy expended or gained by the Intelligent Designer. Is HERE if you really wanna read. Hamster (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No more of the painfully inane. Hamsta and Martin, you are on your own.  Šţěŗĭļė 22:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Flatlining?
Looking at RC, I see every edit (bar 1 to John the Baptist) going back to the 20th is a talk page edit. Looks like even Phil and Bradley have given up adding content. -- PsyGremlin  10:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of the 50 on the RC menu, there is only one block and two edits (John the Baptist and Christianity) that aren't talkpage. Philip never wanted an encyclopedia, he just wanted his own site were he controlled both the discussions and the content. 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excluding talk pages from RC is quite amusing. 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was obvious quite a while ago. Despite his and Bradley's talk about how without distraction they can get some real work done, somehow when people stop arguing with them they never actually do.  --Kels (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess all the controversial subjects have been conclusively sorted. Creationists win! Nutty Roux (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the problem: Philip seems way more interested in arguing (sorry, apologetics) than in encyclopedia-building. So why did he start an encyclopedia? Starting his own blog or posting on other sites and forums would have been far more sensible.
 * Say what you like about Schlafly, but at least he brought in the 90/10 rule to make sure some work got done. Um.-- 09:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bradley loves the attention. During the last boycott, he came over here to argue because no-one was talking to him over there. PJR thinks that if he posts bullshit until peole get frustrated and say YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!! then he wins, because you've got angry, and he loves to win. Why bother? 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like to think that people could learn something by reading the talk pages at ask. Probably more than reading the actual article. It does however tend to get boring and repetiteous quickly Hamster (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Guth, Woody or Arlo?
Holy crap, I just popped my head in to A Storehouse of Crap for the first time in a couple of weeks, and saw that this nonsense was still going on. It's stuff like this that make me think Creationists are biologically incapable of giving anyone a straight answer. Presumably they know they're full of shit, and don't want to say anything definite enough to be called on it. --Kels (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've totally ignored the place. My only comment could be: "You're batshit crazy, Phil" and apparently that doesn't come within the sphere of constructive discourse. 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I just got blocked for a month for less. Nutty Roux /Señor Admin/¡Con más machismo! 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True, you got blocked for not showing a bunch of scam artists (or worse, true believers) the same respect that you'd show scientists actually doing real work. Not that they deserve it, of course, and nor does Philip for that matter. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I forget, am I blocked there these days or not? I forget to check in, because the discourse there (Phil's at least) is so incomprehensible - and reprehensible.  03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its amusing but I wish he'd answer. Acei9 05:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I want not approve on it. I think polite post.   06:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for the first time, it makes me wonder if it's physically painful for him to answer questions directly. --Kels (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I just came across the whole inflation theory discussion. Amazing. Absolutely incredible. Why can't PJR just answer a question? 10 print Ace: "Tell me your understanding of inflation theory", PJR: "I don't want to, because I have a different understanding to you" 20 goto 10. 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to understand that I can't answer his query until I know what his understanding is. Acei9 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, he does understand that. He just doesn't want to tell you his understanding because he knows you will proceed to rip it to sheds and correct it, which will fuck up his ability to use that particular argument in the future. 10:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) If you go back to Wikipedia and CP, you'll see that creationists like Philip and his buddies 'never' abandon an argument simply because it's been legitimately eviscerated. It boils down to a "worldview" issue - for his part you'll always be wrong in your interpretation of the evidence if it's in conflict with the bibble. It's why these discussions cannot and will not go anywhere productive and really the heart of why creationists usually aren't doing science when they're doing creationism. There's literally no point in having a discussion with PJR or any other creationist unless you aim to make a record for what shameless liars they are and to educate less blinkered and credulous people away from these creationist charlatans. (b) Philip is woefully ignorant of most any subject he prattles on about and if its a scientific subject is often incapable of even responding without a CMI source specifically addressing the argument the anti-anti-evolutionist is raising. This ridiculous creationist cosmology shit is just the next frontier after that stupid c-decay theory was humiliatingly debunked, so there's not a lot out there yet, particularly in response to Guth. I can only find a few sharticles on CMI referencing Guth and the best they can do to address inflation theory is the hoary chestnut that it's untestable or that it's anti-biblical (and hence of course cannot be true) because it's consistent with the Cosmological Principle. So anything Ace manages to squeeze out of PJR here that goes beyond stuff like this is going to be pure magic horseshit. I cannot wait. On an unrelated subject, does PJR work for CMI in any capacity? ÑR /Señor Admin/Talk 17:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel good after this...
Feels good. Acei9 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not going to read it. He's too preoccupied with removing banter from the site than dealing with facts. 08:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your banter Crundy and would never have an umpire remove it. Acei9 08:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenny goes batshit crazy
This is just awesome. I think now we know that he's either a very bad (but dedicated) parodist, or he's completely insane. I'm so glad he went over to aSK, the crazy just flows there. 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have come to the conclusion that he once had the potential to be brilliant, but he has instead ended up a very disturbed person. He is of course unaware of just how far of the deep end he is and I don't think you will ever drag him back. I admire Hamster's efforts with the thought experiment, but Ken can't understand what one is because he fails at the first hurdle. 09:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't beat them... err archive them. I wonder how long this will last? 08:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenny admits he doesn't read things he can't answer. 11:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I'm actually worried now. In all seriousness, I think Ken has quite a serious problem. I know we've been laughing about it, but I think it's more a case of full blown schizophrenia rather than mild religious delusion. Should we not do something?  22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Powering through psychosis = mucho machismo. ÑR /Señor Admin/Talk 22:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found RuyLopez mostly incomprehensible and a bit strange with his gay/macho/ole fixations. I support a 72 hour psychiatric hold if it would benefit him, but does anyone have enough info to get action if he does not want help ? I actually thought archive before replying might catch on with Philip :) Hamster (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guacamole!  23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is close to being very compelling. Would someone more sober than I am please give this idea the treatment? Guacamole. Guacamole. Gaymachomolé!!!! Olé olé olé!!!!!!!!! ÑR /Señor Admin/Talk 03:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not qualified. But then again, you have been drinking margaritas for six days and nights... 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Human, I liked that diff, as if I'm the one with comminication issues. In all seriousness though, is there a way to politely coerce him to visit a doctor in a kind of "people on the internet think I have schizophrenia and so could you evaluate me to prove them wrong" way? I'm obviously not suggesting that his religious nonsense has anything to do with it, but his posts are getting more and more bizzare and I'm worried he might end up hurting himself. 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The harm he's doing to himself seems more existential than anything as far as I can tell. His condition contributes to him being underemployed lacking quality healthcare. I guess the good strong conservative xtian values he refers to all the time don't translate to him being able to afford the basics since he's posted about needing to make money to pay for healthcare his insurance won't cover. That's pathetic, and all too common in this country. Odd that he rails so incoherently against nationalized healthcare of any sort when he and other semi-literate people with indeterminate disabilities are the ones who would benefit most. I'd say that speaks volumes about how ridiculous a good number of positions he holds are, and alas I cannot make decisions for people like Ken, no matter how absolutely fucking awful their judgment is. I'd feel sorry for Ken if he wasn't such a churlish cunt. ÑR /Señor Admin/Talk 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)