RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive11

This is an archive page, last updated 8 November 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <12>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Priceless

Cry moar, n00b! --Kels (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that was in response to Teh Asp's alleged incivility, the fact that CPalmer gets to namecall as an umpire and senior member, and the fact that Philip apparently treats his wife like a child. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody broke PJR's wiki. I suspect Kendoll spilled guacamole into his computer's cupholder. ħuman 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He is acting like a such a big fucking baby on that talkpage. Someone has suggested he do some reading on carbon dating. PJR's response: Elephant hurling. Ace^{Liquid Room} 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's another batch of non-fundie Christians for those assholes to alienate. Great. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 01:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Elephant hurling, stawman, ad hominem, whine, whine, whine. Šţěŗĭļė oganesson 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

some new person, NormalChristian, has appeared and has not been too nice to PJR. Hamster (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of handwaving, that old favourite. Do we have a handwaving emoticon by any chance?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip is only interested in green texting, not having a discussion. I don't think I've ever seen him give a straight answer to anything. Jaxe (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Philip might actually believe that's what a dialog is. Which is such a sad thought, isn't it? --Kels (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should take that "essay" and slice and dice it into green dialogorhea. ħuman 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Handwaving!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool

Gonna have to remember this one next time Philip claims he never said there was an EVILutionist conspiracy. --Kels (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark it sticky? ħuman 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you do this magic? Does it involve sacrificing goats? --Kels (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One does as I did above, fair damsel. PS No goats were harmed during this edit. --PsygremlinPraat! 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even evil goats? --Kels (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavens no! Then I'd have nothing to stoke whilst plotting world domination. --Psygremlin말하십시오 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Whirled domination", hehe. You said "whirled domination". ħuman 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"I've said multiple times before that creationists are not claiming a conspiracy." Here's one.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

“[Conspiracy is an] elastic, sprawling and pervasive offense, ... so vague that it almost defies definition. Despite certain elementary and essential elements, it also, chameleon-like, takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid. It is always ‘predominantly mental in composition’ because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and an intent.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 445–48, 69 S.Ct. 716, 719–20 (1949) PJR describes a conspiracy over and over and over and over again but objects to use of the word "conspiracy" and then deflects. I no longer have any doubt whether he has shit between his ears or is a liar. 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From the main page(!): "widespread suppression of alternative views and even efforts to deny believers of alternative views positions in academia." Jaxe (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(I've reminded him of that, Jaxe - good spot)   ^Contribs_Talk 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the Demon-Haunted Bradley trying to be cute, it takes a special sort of liar to claim all that shit and then stand there and say he'd never suggested a conspiracy. But then, it takes a special sort of meathead to persist in Creationism after being slapped in the face with the sheer amount of evidence Philip has, as well. He's got his head so far up his own ass, he's looped around and started a second try. --Kels (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kels - please draw us an ouroboros of head-assery to refer to in occasions like this. Kthxbai. 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to unsticky this the next time I log in, unless there's an objection. MrBot will archive it.... Sterile oganesson 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done for you. ħuman 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Crapping out

Has everyone been getting masses of SQL errors? - π 01:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's broken. That's what you get for hiring a creationist to host your website. They deny all empirical evidence in favor of anything outside their range, which apparently includes webhosting, redundancy, etc. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they just don't believe in evolution of technology, which is why he's hosting it on an old 386 with 32Mb RAM. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That would have been quite a lot of RAM for a '386.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing but the finest... ħuman 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I keep getting some odd out of memory error when switching page :( , does anyone knowledgable on websites know why this happens ? Hamster (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's out of memory. ^{—Preceding obvious comment added by: Captain Obvious / talk / contribs} 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to raise it for over a day. This does not distress me. 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

On a personal note...

Heribert-Nilsson-Day is coming up! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have baked a cake! --Kels (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I must send a card saying Grattis på er årsdag. Swedish Botanical Institute, Sweden should get there ? its not a big country. Hamster (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No haste - there are more to come... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pushed to the edge ?

Phillip finally decides that a talk page is not for debate. The flood happened , dont raise inconvenient points, like evidence. My fun is over , the sites unfun now :( Hamster (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He means the article itself is not a debate page, not the talkpage. Ace^X-102 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But the article itself is a debate page. The whole point is, here are questions that attack the "flood model" (which doesn't really exist) and here are answers (mostly dodging the questions). --Kels (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip is good at killing his own wiki. If no one debates, people will get bored and leave. Sterile oganesson 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Precambrian Rabbit

Precambrian Rabbit is a pretty cool user name. Bet she's not a creationist. Sterile oganesson 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Ken?

That cloud around you isn't mystery. And you wonder why we mock you. --Kels (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He's completely hatstand! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I briefly wondered why Ken feels the need to lie so often, but then I remembered he's a creationist and it made sense. --Kels (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cited qualities

He lives in his own little world, doesn't he? I think one of the things that continues to interest me about aSK is Philip's enormous arrogance. Like in this discussion, where it all comes down to "PJR said so, and reality must be made to fit". --Kels (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you need to fit reality to a story in a book, the ways in which you resolve your cognitive dissonance are indeed stunning. It's very disturbing. Sterile oganesson 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is he quoting when he says evolution is an "explicit substitute for Christianity"? Himself? Whoever it was, I'll bet all the internets I own it wasn't a biologist. His own little world is right. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy. --Sid (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read the article in full? I am willing to bet another creationist quotemine. Philip is a grandscale idiot. He sits their tqing you until he can find the first perceived flaw in your argument (usually he is the only one that can see it) and then dismissing everything you say out of hand and continue deluding himself that the evidence is not against him. - π 23:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a ten-year-old newspaper article. Conveniently enough, it's not available online from what I can see, and all quotes I found are pretty much this exact quote. Surprise, surprise, I know. --Sid (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it was apparently called "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" and "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians" - hmmm... I'd really like to actually read the article now... --Sid (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then again, the base problem is how that one guy's alleged remark from ten years ago suddenly has so much weight. Sure glad that Creationists get to pick the representatives of evolution AND Creationism! :D --Sid (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ever look at the list of cognitive distortions on Wikipedia, Philip demonstrates all of them all the time. He is the case study. Sterile oganesson 03:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I argued with Philip about this essay before. It's here, but it's too late for me to process. The essay does end, "There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed. But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack? The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even. For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to preach that gospel to the world." It's really just a social Darwinism conflation and indeed a quote mine. Sterile oganesson 03:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Philip's insane. Criticism for creationism, but objections for evolution. Sterile oganesson 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk!

Argh! Just bumped heads with PJR over Ken's "why hasn't PZ Myers written about Stalin" crap.

“”Not really, given that Conservative didn't refer to Myers as a biologist, and could well have in mind his obvious atheism. If he had captioned the picture "Atheist PZ Myers has yet to offer any scholarly works concerning the murderous atheist regimes of...", the question makes much more sense.

No it flippin' doesn't. That means we can ask that why the Christian Philip Rayment or Ken DeMyer isn't writing about the evils of Catholic abuse? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I especially like this one, " But if you said that you read the Bible today, would I think you had read a book about science, or about history?" Isn't that like saying if you drove an SUV, would I think you had driven a banana or a frog? --Kels (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I found that a bit odd myself. I would have said "You read a religious text which is neither accurate history nor scientific." Ace^X-102 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shows that Philip doesn't understand the Bible properly. Yes, none of it is science, but different bits are history, poetry, biography and so on. The only sensible response to "I've been reading the Bible" would be "Which bit?".-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Super Villian Like Madness

This is a truly disturbing insight into PJR's mind. Ace^X-102 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole site is, honestly. But that's Creationism for you, when you try to back it up you show a lot of nasty psychological flaws. --Kels @ Work

I'm struggling to remain moderately civil in the whole dino-blood discussion. I've not seen so much easily refuted deceit in a while. No wonder Schweitzer hates creationists. They've coopted her work to serve their brutally dishonest end. Fuck. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite reviled by his claimed monoply on morality. Ace^X-102 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For a guy who makes so many claims about morality, he sure seems to have no problem lying or supporting liars. But again, creationist. --Kels (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Super-villains like Madness? That surprises me. Doesn't seem their type of music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkZFmZqZZM4 DickTurpis (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

she makes the point in one interview that her comment on incomplete fossilization of the bone was interpreted wrongly as meaning some of the original bone was present. Her papers are a great example of a person with obvious religeous beliefs staying within the limits of what science allows and actually doing the tests to verify what material was actually present. Hamster (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to that sniveling shit, Bradley, who has a troubling understanding of what direct misrepresentation looks like. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 05:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Bradley's got the "Igor" thing pretty much down, hasn't he? Oh, and I enjoy this edit comment, although in reality it's more like "flushing the toilet, saving the crap". --Kels (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I had my first and last run-in with PJR as per above. I'm now officially washing my hands of that mess. The only positive thing is that ASoK is still only a shouting match between PJR and us. The rest of the world seems ignorant of it, and long may it stay that way. --PsyGremlin講話 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way to make it more inaccessible would be to change the name to:

astorehouseofknowledgethatnoonewilleverreadbecausetheURListoolongforanyonetoactuallywanttotypeinanytimesoon.info.au

--Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I know Ken Ruy does some weird things...

but this edit plain does not make sense. - π 05:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Human has the number one Google result for epicure speakers. Maybe he is about to dish the dirt on Human, like how his name is Huw Powell and he was born in Wales and he is kind of old and has a business selling speakers and stuff. - π 05:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He has been reading cliff note versions of sun tzu for the internet warrior. Cower. tmtoulouse 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm he is getting worse. - π 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is actually quite damned disturbing. Ace^X-102 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Urg. I think Ken just crossed over from being "funny in an ouch kind of way" to being downright creepy. I can almost hear him whispering "It rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again," as he was typing that last bit. I seriously think the man is becoming unhinged. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It gibberish man, he has crossed a line I am sure. what is my address? looking out a window. do not see you. sorry impossible to find. no forwarding address. disappeared. vanished. 47 hours 25 minutes left to stop cyberstalking me. What the fuck does that mean. Ace^X-102 09:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am genuinely worried about him, he seems to be getting worse and he actually thinks he is getting better. - π 09:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think somewhere in the tangled mess that is his mind, he's successfully spinning the fact that we know full well he's a well-known internet crank into us stalking him because we feel threatened by his Holy Truth. Except it's coming out very much like the stuff my Dexidrine-abusing ex used to write after her third or fourth day awake, utterly disjointed and rambling. Of course, since he's got the Creationist Retard Membership Card, Philip will of course side with him. But that's a given. --Kels (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Human's website isn't loading now. Coincidence? EddyP (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a rather common question, but does anyone have any idea what Ken's going on about in this particularly instance? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he's been claiming that we've been stalking/obsessed with him for a while now. EddyP (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

...wow. His various countdown sections are disturbing. As I was reading them, I actually had this expression. And then it continued in the WIGO(CP) about Ken being a former debt collector and destroying atheism twice as hard as before or something. Really makes me happy I stopped following aSK and filter out his edits on CP. --Sid (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Former debt collector" probably means "worked the phones at a collection agency" and involved harassing people rather than any investigation or actual on-site stuff. Which isn't anything to be proud of, since a lot of those guys really skirt (if not cross) the line of legality. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

From taking dozens of depositions in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases over the last 10 years I'm very very familiar with all kinds of typical debt collector personalities, from the owners of agencies down to the losers who threaten people on the phone. Ken suddenly makes a lot more sense to me now. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 15:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I locate PJR's webhost for arSK? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Bogdan Bednarczyk? Him (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was in the United States. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

astorehouseofknowledge.info = 69.73.186.33 and 69.73.186.33 = static-33-186-73-69.nocdirect.com. Like all really classy hosting operations, nocdirect.com hides its whois info and their website doesn't work. nocdirect's name is also a lie, as they appear from traceroute to be a reseller with a box inside gnax.net. Bogdan may well be the sysadmin for aSK. Cheap generic hosting is the way to go for a low-traffic site - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the archives [1] [2] it seems Bogdan is somebody PJR knows. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Earth to "Ruylopez"

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

Ah, I can't wait for the 3rd of August and the launch of Operation wp:Minami Aoyama (who, I'm told has a wonderful personality and is probably the kind of Asian lady Ken likes best) --PsyGremlinParla! 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and WHY THE FUCK WOULD A SHORTAGE OF MEN HAVE CHINESE GIRLS INTERESTED IN AN ARTICLE ON HOMOSEXUALITY???? Is there a "not even wrong" that we can apply to "not making even the tiniest smidgen of sense?" --PsyGremlinTal! 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Check the link. EddyP (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

does the CP Homosexuality article include Lesbianism ? Many Chinese lesbians would be resonable with so few men , except I thought it was lack of women that was the real chinese problem ? Hamster (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's quit. Pretty comprehensively, it seems. I'm quite relieved, since some of that was getting painful to look at - I think the best thing is to leave him alone.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He'll be back under another guise surrounded by enigma. Ace^X-102 20:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably Peter Moore will appear and surprise us by supporting everything Ken's written. Him (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, leaving and never coming back. Yep. It happens. Sterile oganesson 01:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As an outside to the Shithouse of Knowledge stuff (tonight was my first and only visit there, in fact), I must say that his behavior before leaving was similar to the hit-and-run jobs he used to do at WP before he'd leave and never come back so that they couldn't block him before he got the last word. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

HELP ! please to clarify my thinking

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

The human genome is 90% useless information, the leftovers from millions of years of evolution. Mutations in those useless sections would have no noticeable effect.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"It is obvious" is weasel words for "I'm assuming without evidence," and he's asserted that with no justification. Furthermore, last I checked, the human population is still doubling. And, as usual, he's ignored natural selection. SSDD Sterile oganesson 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC, more or less what lily said) Yes, exactly right. Most mutations do nothing at all to affect the organism in the current generation because the vast majority of the genome (I think something like 90%) is non-coding and probably functionless. You can roughly calculate the odds that something interesting will happen with the inevitable mutations in any given phenotype from these two facts. Then you'll know how vanishingly tiny the chance is for the present mutation rate to have any negative effect on the population. You'll also notice how important the magnifying effect of natural selection is on making sure beneficial mutations get a foothold in a population. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things: first, every human has approximately 100 novel mutations. Next, the vast amount of DNA is non-functional, and the mutations end up being neutral. Next, most single nucleon substitution mutations actually code for the exact same protein, because there are 4^3=64 base pairs, but only 20 standard amino acids.[3] Lastly, when a mutation occurs in a fundamentally vital piece of code, the fetus is highly likely to spontaneously abort, which is actually very common, but it is difficult to properly determine the true prevalence, because most spontaneous abortions happen prior to the mother even knowing that she is pregnant at all. It has been estimated that it is about 25% of all pregnancies prior to six weeks.

So, to answer your question, actually, nearly a quarter of the human race is dying off. However, the human species breeds fast enough to offset this. Especially, when these deaths occur before 6 weeks, which will delay a woman's fertility for only about 2 months, rather than the full 9 months carrying a viable fetus to term. So, to be clear: the 25% of the population that is never being born is having minimal impact upon the fertility rates of women. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the point?

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

There is no point, that's why I'm long gone. It's so dull it isn't even worth mocking. Also, thanks to PJR, now I know the true value of Christian "morality" as well as Christian "science." He can go fuck himself with a Jesus stick. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate everything JeevesMkII just said, particularly his suggestion that "[PJR] can go fuck himself with a Jesus stick" is so agreeable, that I felt it most necessary to explicitly repeat it myself. I destroyed a harddrive over this shit, because he's such an arrogant argumentative asshole. For my own health, I need to stay away. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just look at what is going on his talkpage. I don't understand what the matter is. I have given him about 9 defferent sources to support my postion but he is stuck on a single quote from a magazine cover that he thinks supports him. Ace^X-102 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Monty Python Argument sketch. 02:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Phillip can be driven to make some amazing statements defending his positions. I particularly liked his attempting to redefine DNA but anyhow. Everyone will be much happier staying clear of aSK , at least for a while. Hamster (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, he's declared victory again. Which is pretty amazing given what an indefensible position he's taken is. --Kels (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just made my Partian shot^img. PJR is a bat-shit insane man, who desperately needs some therapy. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. ħuman 04:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

well said , you made a valient effort Hamster (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And Philip being Philip, he can't resist tq-ing the Hhell out of what's obviously marked as a Last Post. Clearly he doesn't want you to go, but to continue the argument. Not a debate site, indeed. --Kels (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The mind absolutely boggles at the man's total inability to even admit that he might be even ever so slightly mistaken. He's as bad as any of the hate filled sites around the web - his smugness is as revolting as his wrongness. I truly despise him. What a total TWAT! 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one thing that's always bugged me about Philip, although it does make him interesting to watch, at least for me. It's the supreme arrogance of the man. He's like Ken, except instead of coming from crazy it comes from deep-rooted dishonesty, and willingness to do whatever it takes regardless of any claimed higher morality to support the Holy Cause. --Kels (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know PJR, he has to have the last word. He even says so a the end. And What The FUCK? He's arguing with me about my drug abuser analogy, saying that it's not true? Has this guy even HEARD of metaphorical speech? The guy is just righteously evil. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made a short response. Reminding him that humans don't know, with Bible verse (mostly because the verse is so clearly applicable), and chastising him for the refutation of metaphorical speech. His response? "I don't claim to know everything, but I know what I know." No clarity of realization, should I have suspected anything else? As well, a fallacy of accent by claiming that he addressed the metaphor as metaphorical, or realistic, completely ignoring that there is no reason to interpret the metaphorical statement as realistic in the first place. What a total jackass idiot. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is enough...

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

No, because Philip isn't honest. When it comes down to it, he's misunderstanding the quote in the first place, and deliberately conflating (the same as with "theory") the colloquial use of a term with how Guth used it. By now he has to know the difference, but somehow this makes him "right" in that very perception-equals-reality way he has. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How can he deny it when the quote I have provided talks specifically about why he says the universe is a free lunch and how much matter is required? It'll take some supreme mental gymnastics. Ace^X-102 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Never under estimate what "mental gymnastics" a dishonest person is willing to use. This is why I destroyed my laptop harddrive, and left. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing from above... when you have someone dishonest enough to argue against a metaphor... you have someone willing to do all the mental gymnastics in the world to be right. Hey, Tricksy, still feel like being an apologist for this asshat? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradley puzzles me. He seems like a smart enough guy, certainly smart enough to avoid attaching his good name to someone like PJR, let alone a pack of lies like Creationism in the first place. And yet here he is, making excuses for equivocation, word games in place of actual thought and the promotion of falsehood under the guise of holiness (an old game to be sure, but a sleazy one nonetheless). It seems there is no whopper so big or so greasy that Bradley won't swallow it whole, so long as it's attached to Philip or the liars at CMI. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Eira, I was never an apologist for you, or for RW^{struck by Eira}. For what it's worth, your metaphor was unclear. I had to read it twice to be sure that instead of a criminal accusation, it was merely innuendo. Yes it was metaphor, but your choice of metaphor was questionable. As to all this bleating about dishonesty, so far you have defined disagreement as dishonest, and made demonstrably false statements followed by quibbling when called on it. Tu quoque is a legitimate response, here.

BTW, I am surprised that someone with such a precise and accurate memory alongside an imperative to be honest would engage in a "Parthian shot". You either misunderstand the term, or were indeed practicing a deceptive withdrawal.

Kels, you should have stopped with your first sentence. You readily admit that you don't understand me, then proceed to judge me. Your character attack on me is completely empty of substance. Tricksy (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(Tricksey, can't fucking read) NO FUCKER! I meant you being an apologist for PJR. And it's clear that you're not going to stop being an apologist for him, because you're actively continuing right here. Now, I want to ask you. Why the fuck would I ever claim that PJR is a drug user in reality? That would have to be one of the stupidest statements for anyone to make. You and PJR seem to enjoy attributing the most stupid and absurd reading possible into another person's words. This is just wildly dishonest debate, because you are intentionally misreading/misunderstanding your opponent. "Parthian shot" would work adequately... I claimed to be retreating, then when PJR took the bait, I responded with the killing shot of pointing out the evidence that he is dishonest, and assumes no good faith in his debate opponents. So, my initial withdraw was deceptive. Not intentional actually, but it was indeed deceptive. Just like your god making a world that appears to be billions of years old. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the right to judge your actions, Bradley, which generally include carrying water for a pack of liars. The scum you're covered with is of your own will, and doesn't brush off that easily. --Kels (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't reserve something you don't have, Kelseigh. You've yet to back up any of your accusations of dishonesty. From what I have seen, when challenged you either withdraw for a time or go straight to HCM. Tricksy (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. As your master likes to say, "pull the other one". --Kels (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone on this wiki knows that you're dishonest, just like PJR. On your own wiki, you can block people for calling you out, and by controlling the medium, you can suppress dissenting views. By controlling the medium, you can even deny all the evidence to the contrary of your dishonesty. However, that will not happen here. We assert honesty over being polite here. As for your "joke", it sucked... it sucked bad, because it made you look like an idiot. Imagine how bad PJR would have bit my head off for making such a comment on your wiki. You do not have a sympathetic audience here, so the idea of putting in such a lame joke that makes you look like a total fucking drooling window-licking idiot is not advisable. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So not only do you levy a completely non-specific and unsupported accusation, you take the so-mature path of "everybody knows it"". As to asserting honesty over being polite, you need to look around. I have over time pointed out several lies and false accusations, and the response is generally to attack me instead of providing any support for claims. Kind of like now. As far as your "controlling the medium" comments, you are seriously misrepresenting what actually happens. I do notice that I have had my rights here at RW removed, and as I am not a vandal I can only conclude that this is simply because of my dissent. As to my joke, I was making a point. If you didn't get it, why not simply admit it rather than rage at me? Tricksy (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You defend PJR. This is your conscious choice to do so. You defend a dishonest person, and thus you defend dishonesty. All the evidence of PJR's dishonesty is clearly apparent to us. We have pointed to evidence numerous times, yet you and he decry this evidence as unconvincing. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, it is convincing. Again: PJR attacked me for being wrong about a metaphor. This is clear and precise, and damning evidence of his dishonesty. Defend him at your own peril. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can assume what you like about why I removed your rights but don't assume you had some sort of vested property right in them in the first place. The key to my analysis wasn't your alleged dissent (if coming over here to stir shit with with substanceless bullshit is even dissent), or even that you're a creationist (which genuinely surprised me in light of the scorn you deserve for that bit alone), but that you're dishonest douchebag who I don't trust with the tools we give sysops here. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 22:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an "enough". Someone mentioned to me wp:Anchoring, which neatly describes what PJR has been doing throughout this whole argument. He is hanging tenaciously upon his single quote, because it says what he wants it to, and he won't let it go. He simply cannot accept that people revise statements, and can be misrepresented. I think getting some sort of official statement from Guth regarding the statement, would be best though. A direct question such as: "Mr/Dr. Guth, it has been asserted by Philip J. Rayment that you believe that the big bang originated from nothing. This is based on a quote from you in the Discover magazine, volume XY, which states, 'blah'. Does this statement accurately represent your beliefs, and if it does not do you disclaim/revoke that statement?" Anything less won't convince PJR, and it's likely that he still would hold his belief. And all this just for a single concession of fact. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}}

Ace, I don't know what makes you think you started this thread. There's no proof for it. Sure, it looks like you started this thread but that's only because the Infinite Power of GOD wanted it to look that way. I'm afraid all your actions since then have been part of HIS ineffable plan. Your post on PJR's talk page was made to challenge his faith so that he could overcome the challenge and affirm his total faith in evidence-less bullshit. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip need not deny his faith nor agree that the big bang happened. All he need do is see that his argument for Alan Guth believing the universe comes from nothing holds no water and that he was wrong from the start. Ace^X-102 04:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip need....his faith....Alan Guth....was wrong from the start I'm so glad you agree with Philip now! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, so wrong... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You know I was taking the piss out of PJR there, right? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But PJR already KNOWS what Guth believes, as it was clearly stated in the magazine. And absent a better source for what Guth believes, we must take such a quote at face value. Oh, you have other sources? Well, this source still says what PJR believes, and as a result we have conflicting evidence, that must be compared against each other, and clearly he magazine article is more authoritative. What? I wasn't arguing that it wasn't his words, but the fact is that the magazine article says this, and I'm going to believe it no matter what else is there, because the magazine is true. ANCHOR AWAY!!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, what are you getting out of trying to debate these guys on the merits? Nothing valuable I'd imagine. They're liars. This cosmology discussion is old hat. Sure, PJR's going to new lengths to avoid admitting he's openly misrepresenting both the highly technical and idiomatic meaning of "nothing" and thus consequently misrepresenting a fundamental part of Guth's cosmology, but what's new? He did the same thing when presented with examples of Hebrew and OT scholars who didn't believe the Genesis account should be read literally. In that discussion he bottoming out on the kind of intentionally ignorant incredulity he has here: someone I want to have said what I wanted him to say sort of said something like it, so there. Whether it was well-informed or he even understood it be damned. In the hermeneutics discussion, the academics weren't doing Philip's very idiosyncratic brand of biblical literalism, which he utterly failed to even explain despite direct questions on key points, so they weren't entitled to the simple dignity of holding a principled position on whether the Genesis days were literal 24 hours days. Here, he's incapable of understanding the meaning of terms of art used in a technical manner that have been amply explained because they don't mesh with his "biblical cosmology" evangelism. It's also possible that he's lying about having read or listened to anything more than that Discover magazine quote glossing the the gigantic point that this "nothing" is actually a pretty darn special "nothing" if it's "nothing" at all. One wonders how Philip could ever honestly describe the "false vacuum" and "exotic matter" that are theorized to have expanded into everything in our universe as "nothing" without the same big caveats that Guth makes, but hey. Whatever. He's a very troubled guy. Just make your points without emotion so you can sanely leave a record of Philip and Bradley's methods on the talk pages and editing history of the wiki. And then move on. If you think you're going to convince creationists as deeply down the rabbit hole as these guys are of anything contrary to their worldview you're barking up the wrong tree. Better to concentrate on the possibility that a younger and more reasonable person will happen upon the site and be justifiably horrified at what the creationist belief system requires of adherents when taken to its extreme. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

*golf clap* You can't even change the guy's mind about the definition of a word that he doesn't like. So, like anything else has a chance. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And now....

what next...? Ace^X-102 22:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I pray to Goat_{The Goat be Praised.} for your safety. May your frustration not boil over. And good luck, against all hope. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

timely

This 00:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

“”Well, first off, it isn't "nothing", and it didn't "decide" anything. The Big Bang states that all of the matter and energy in the Universe (which is definitely something!) was, in the distant past, packed together in a very hot, dense state. And like any hot, dense thing, it expands. (Don't believe me? Go take a beach ball, inflate it most of the way in the morning, and leave it out in the Sun. See if it hasn't expanded by 2 PM.) It wasn't that "nothing" was turned into hydrogen and helium, either. It's that the building blocks of hydrogen and helium -- along with a whole bunch of other stuff -- were created in the Big Bang. We even understand how they assembled to create these light elements.

00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice. ħuman 05:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a meltdown

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

My block expires tonight. Look out for more question dodging, ignorance and mind twisting bullshit from PJR. Ace^X-102 02:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a skeptic by nature. I won't just take what is told me at face value, I need to actually test it myself. Plus, honestly, I thought I was better than all of you. ;) I still can't find the "K" key... I have to hit such a small target to press it now. :( It could be worse... I could have lost my middle-finger key. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want dihonesty, Philip continually argued with me over Inflation Theory without reading any of the supporting evidence I provided - yet still said I was wrong. Also he argued with me over the definition of Dark Energy without so much providing ANY support for his position while dismissing all of mine. Now that's dishonest. Ace^X-102 03:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, arguing those I could maybe see just being willfully ignorant. But for "falsifiable"? The definition that they attempt to give falsifiable means that nothing would be falsifiable unless it were falsified... because it would have to be physically possible to be falsified, and if it is, then it would be false. (Someone noted that they were confusing falsifiable with falsified... should have paid more attention.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That was Sterile, and he was wrong.Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, PJR (and now CPalmer) have asserted that things must be falsifiable in the real world to be falsifiable. This is wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So falsifiable, but not really = falsifiable :) Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Shit man, I have had four 1 month blocks since starting on aSK. I have never received anything less than a month actually. Ace^X-102 04:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Amongst all this fascinating self serving nonsense about honesty, it is meet to point out that this particular claim of Ace's has already been made and objectiviely falsified. Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Which claim of Ace's are you talking about? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The claim about never getting a block shorter than 1 month. Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's difficult to argue for my "incivility". I didn't go out with a blaze of epithets and curse words. (That was my first draft.) I've also admitted readily when I'm wrong, and kept a rational and civil tone. He just didn't like what my page said. Note particularly though the page for Teh Terrible Asp, whose red box is quite more prominent, and uncivil than my comment ever was. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd think after enough people end discussions with you by telling you that you're a lying, weaselly fuckwit you'd start to wonder "is it me?" The common factor in all your dysfunctional relationships is you, and all that. I have no idea why you guys still bother. It's impossible to have a real discussion with the master of tq. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfff... I totally bitch slapped PJR with the tq's... just take a look at my edits. (Towards the end there, it got nearly impossible to keep things together.) The problem is the dishonesty... I mean to argue against the definition of falsifiable, when it has been explained to you multiple times? That's what finally got me... you can nitpick my arguments to death, but after the numerous "I'm going to have to assume good-faith that you didn't mean to imply that I'm an idiot." and his absolute refusal to admit error... that's just fucked up in my book. But then, it would make a lot of sense if he had wp:Antisocial personality disorder or the more extensive wp:psychopathy. Those people don't end up with any aversion to arguing against the current facts, even though they just argued against the facts that they are now using. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation doesn't automatically equal agreement. We understand your definition just fine, but it is not the only definition and it is not the correct definition for this context.Tricksy (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there is one fucking definition of falsifiable, and you don't get to determine it, because it has already been established. You can bitch and whine all you want about it being a bad definition, but you can't just redefine it to whatever makes you happy. e.g. You can't call your food stuff "chocolate" just because it tastes like chocolate. It must meet the definition thereof. Accepting the widely established definition of "falsifiable" is the entry fee for science. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope; page one of my google search gave 3 distinct definitions in the 1st 3 links I followed. I was doing no redefining. The upshot was that for a theory (in contrast to a mathematical or logical statement) to be falsifiable, the falsifying situation must be at least possible. Tricksy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first link on my Google: to wikipedia, which defines it as: "the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false". Second is "freedictionary.com" with: "1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted. 2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science." and third is to merriam-webster, which shows "falsify". Fourth is skepticwiki with: ""Falsifiable" does not mean "false." For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in theory, for some observation to be made that is incompatible with the proposition" (emphasis added) Again. If you could falsify a scientific theory in reality, then that theory is already false. If I could make an apple fall up (not just throw it up, but it actually just fall up), then it would falsify our theory of gravity. As stated on aSK, I assert that anyone making the argument that something isn't falsifiable unless it can be done "in reality" (which means the theory is already false) then they are either an idiot or being dishonest. In PJR's case, I reject the former, because he's obviously intelligent. In your case, I can only affirm the former. You're either an idiot, or willfully stupid. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I now see where we have been arguing past each other. No time now, more on this at aSK later. Tricksy (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find I have never cursed at PJR and my last block was because I said he was dishonest for arguing against me without providing a single reference nor reading my ref's which supported my position. Ace^X-102 05:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Who fucking knows then... I mean, the ad hoc random way that they argue things, it's a wonder there is any logic at all behind their blocks. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My first block (1 month) was because I called Johnathan Sarfati a "moron" because he thought Evolution was a philosophy. Ace^X-102 05:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it kind of is... all scientific theories are grounded in science, which is grounded in philosophy. Is it a "life philosophy" a.k.a. a religion without the hockus pockus? Certainly not. I'll grant you that they play so many shell games with definitions, that it's impossible to know which one they're arguing with though. EQUIVOCATION YAY! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's Philip's de facto lie of choice. You want some real equivocation, go check out some of where he argues information theory with Sterile, or inflation theory with Ace. He doesn't actually need to know a damn thing about either topic, he just needs to twist the arguments enough that they agree with him. That's creationism in a nutshell, we have our answers and now reality must be made to fit. --Kels (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to that Kels, is that they always get to define their opponents positions. So Evolution, or Atheism is what they say it is not what those who support evolution or profess to be atheists say about themselves. Case in point, I noticed that an external link was added to the "Further reading/Evolutionary viewpont" (sic) section of the Evolution page which PJR removed Revert; linked article is not about evolution per se, but about what is supposedly misunderstood about it, and gets many things wrong.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Look just ahead of the statement that you quoted and you will see what I was talking about. No innuendo involved. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know where you are talking about. (You and Philip really need to learn to use diff-links when citing things. It would help enormously.) Actually, Eira pretty much sums up my position above (ie, the standard one), which I've explained oodles of times before. Innuendo refers to the absurd characterization of scientists at Objections to Evolution. Anyway, I'm away for a while and then will be busy; and I won't be back at ask until my self-imposed block expires. Even then, maybe not. Sterile oganesson 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to Eira's comment that (Someone noted that they were confusing falsifiable with falsified... should have paid more attention. By "innuendo" I thought you were referring to my comments here. If you want to discuss the content of the aSK article, feel free to do so when (if) you come back. Tricksy (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's getting difficult for me to justify having a conversation with people so insistent on mischaracterization, assertion with no evidence, an unwillingness to think critically and unwillingness to read something outstide their comfort zone. Aspie said it well. Sterile oganesson 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the folk at RW will miss you... (were you the one who refused to read Alien Intrusion or was that someone else?) Tricksy (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at what is available of Alien Instrusion at Google Books. All I see is an appeal to anecdotal evidence and popular culture, some sort of strange conflation between extraterrestrials and evolution, and something about UFOs are really demons or angels. Which is, er, not all that convincing of anything. You can find better sources than that. What science have you read lately? Sterile oganesson 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Demons 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, let me tidy that up. "an appeal to anecdotal evidence and popular culture, some sort of strange conflation between [bad thing] and evolution." Sterile, that is a Creation Science book. --Kels (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I remember, if there are aliens at other places in the universe, they probably came about by abiogenesis and evolved. Ergo, aliens are evil. Sterile oganesson 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of unmineralized Dinosaur fossils - another gem

Yikes ! I have no words . Hamster (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty damning evidence. Ace^X-102 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just plain WOW.

A new evolutionist tactic! I've detected in evolutionists a tactic of seeming to give an answer, but, when pressed, claiming that the answer is only a partial answer. Evolution is supposed to explain life without God, but when pressed, evolutionists back away from explaining the origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis). Here, the Big Bang is supposed to explain how the universe began without God, but, when pressed, its proponents back away from explaining the very beginning, claiming that the Big Bang only explains what happened after it started. So although the explanation purports to explain how God is not required, when pressed on the details, they concede that the explanations are not really complete, and accuse the creationists of misrepresenting.
So much wrong here - Evolution doesn't say anything about God, only Philips god, and doesn't explain life only it's diversity. And he is forgetting science is an ongoing process and no one has all the answers because it's SCIENCE! A picture of the universe is of course incomplete! This is a perfect of example of a creationist misrepresenting, oh the irony (irony which will, of course, be totally lost on Philip. Ace^X-102 06:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would address this but I am trying to keep him on track and to avoid fragmenting my discussion with him so far. Ace^X-102 06:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should address this, since it seems to go right to the heart of the matter. Philip argues against the Big Bang because it goes against his interpretation of Genesis. Then he criticises your answers because they might possibly leave room for some kind of divine intervention, though clearly nothing like what Genesis describes. In other words, he's moved the goalposts from having to disprove literal Genesis (massive wide-open goal) to having to disprove any God, even Gods that bear no resemblance to Philip's God (very tricky to do if not impossible).-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my favourite part is where he tries to continue the dishonest meme (aka outright lie) that the purpose of evolution is to make a world without God. Which is nonsense on the face of it, but it's been popping up a fair amount lately. --Kels (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You should read up on the theory of evolution and its history, Kelseigh. Tricksy (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's "history" as the Bible is "history", right Igor? --Kels (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Igor was my computer(I made it from bits of dead PCs), but it died. Read a couple of biographies, even. Find out why the theory was proposed in the first place. Or just make up whatever suits you without reference to the facts. Oh wait... Tricksy (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm jumping in. Tricksy, Bradley, whatever, evolutionary thought began with several ancient Greek philosophers like Anaximander and Aristotle. I very much doubt that what the Greeks were writing in the 6th century BCE had much to do refuting the Jewish concept of a God (and as you know, Christianity wouldn't even begin until several centuries afterward). Lyra § talk 04:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Evolution was proposed by Alfred Wallace at the sametime as Darwin (Darwin got the credit in the end) and Wallace had no problem with religion. Ace^X-102 04:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyra Silvertongue, I specifically said "the theory of evolution" (refering to Darwinism (including neo-). Interestingly your Anaximander link says of his evolutionary thought, "Some authors have, rather anachronistically, seen in these scattered statements a proto-evolutionist theory." Faint praise indeed. Aristotle's Ladder of Life (if it is that to which you are referring" was about classification, not origin. Indeed there was ancient discourse regarding the origins of life (and lifeforms), which occurred alongside discource regarding athiesm and theism (and special creation versus naturalistic emergence).

Ace, Wallace also had no problem with the spirits of the dead providing his Special Revelation. IIRC he had subscribed to some weird variant of dualism, in which the mind was a spiritual creation, but the body arouse purely naturalistically. Actually, you are right that ARW had no problem with "religion" but he also had no problem without religion. Interesting that Darwin's main criticism of Wallace's theory was that in his opinion it could still be considered creation. Tricksy (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sick to fucking death now. Tricksy, your problem is not with evolution, you problem is that it conflicts with your beliefs. Evolution was a theory that was bound to be proposed regardless of religion or religious affiliation. The fact that evolution was proposed by many different people, pre and post Christianity, proves that it has nothing to do with denying god. Idiot.Ace^X-102 07:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, even if the dishonest "EVOLUSHUN IS ANTI-GOD, DARWINHITLER WANTED TO DESTROY FAITH" meme that his bunch push was true, it wouldn't matter. Science doesn't become true or false based on crap like that, and they know it. --Kels (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, your original comment is dubious at best and an outright falsehood at worst. Evolution simply doesn't preclude the existence of God. Chthonios (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you even read my original comment, since your comment is a complete mismatch. There is absolutely now way to categorise my original comment as a falsehood, since it makes no proposition. Also by "regardless" do you concede my later comments or simply ignore them? Tricksy (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a funny guy, Bradley. For an anti-science propagandist, I mean. --Kels (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of gods. It only describes how the diversity of life on our planet came about. Whoever "Tricksy" is probably needs to heed eir own advice, in spades. Tiatton of (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tricksy is Bradley "lowkey" from over here. Of course, Evolution say nothing about God. Only his god. If Bradley was just a regular christian then he'd have no problem but as a YEC everything that disagrees with his doctrine must be wrong. Ace^X-102 05:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems as if he's gettin' lonely over there. Only his fellow inmate of the asylum to agree with. - Oh and any demons that happen to call, of course. Nutter! 05:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bradley, if you are bored I'll debate any aspect of cosmology with you. It doesn't matter if you don't know anything about it because neither does Philip but it doesn't seem to stop him. Ace^X-102 05:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not bored. I prefer discussion to debate, as there are different aims (I posted something on this at my aSK talk page in response to Teh Nutty Asp's debate invitation). Apparently no-one read my whole sentence above (it really wasn't very long). It's also an intriguing juxtaposition (many would call it irony, but wrongly) that I wouldn't even interact with most of you Rats if you didn't come over to aSK, but I am consistently pounced just for even coming over here to iRW. (And there is also ToSuTher's obseesion with demons to puzzle over) Tricksy (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that in any reasonable world you & PJR (and indeed any creationist) would be under surveillance in a secure mental establishment. It is not possible to have debate or discussion with someone who believes that a load of fairy tales are the truth. (it was aSK that first brought up the absolutely laughable concept of demons, I just find it one of the more amusing things about the site) 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also not possible to have a (constructive) debate or discussion with intolerant, closed-minded people whose posts alternate between endless reassertion of their own beliefs and exasperated mockery.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there are only a handful of non-creationists who remotely give a shit about creationism, you should take what you can get. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also not possible to have a constructive debate or discussion with anyone who can't admit that they can misread and/or misunderstand shit. "NO!!! AI MUSS RASHUNALIZE MAI BAD REEDIN SKILZ!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

we are losing the battle!

we are losing the battle against creation science. it seems that EVERY SINGLE argument we submit gets rebuffed by one of the sites users. the site is getting more and more users, and our quest to convert them to atheism is in dire jeopardy

its times like this I wish we could just feed them to the lions like we used to!PandaLover (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. Ace^X-102 01:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to come up with a straw man! maybe they won't see through the straw man and we can convert them to atheismPandaLover (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should confuse them first by misusing fallacies, like ad hominem and begging the question. --Kels (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a battle? Jaxe (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

YES! we are trying to convert the creationist users of ask to atheism, because we don't want them knowing and spreading God's word.PandaLover (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are users of ask? Jaxe (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

yea, they are all a small bunch of goody-goody Christians. Christians are so annoying, all they ever do is talk about love and peace and the Bible well they won't be so annoying when we convert them to atheism!PandaLover (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Audible gasp! How could we have let things get this out of hand? --Kels (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My lack of an absolute basis for morality made me eat babies, so I had less time to fight Christianity with all my heart. I'm sorry I have failed you. =( --Sid (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is by far the best Christian satire of atheists I've ever seen. I love you guys for playing a long. :) OBTW, ONOES! TEH XIANS AR TEH WINING! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Christian satire of Christianity is pretty funny too. =D --Kels (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Score one for Kels! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ZING! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG Your all right. Evilpollution sucks-a-toony. Yeah, God! Sterile oganesson 05:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

YEC

I hardly ever read ASoK anymore, normally after the first couple of PJR's green links my eyes start to bleed. However, I'm curious. Is the whole YEC thing based solely on Ussher's calculation and the assumption that because somebody wrote 'days; in the Bible, God also adheres to a 24 hour day (or a 40-hour working week.)? So all of this is actually based on the rantings of a nutty priest? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ussher came up with 4004 BC for creation week but I was reading some CMI or AIG nonsense which had a list of about a dozen YEC calculations and about 9 of them also came up with exactly 4004 BC. Considering that there were some pretty hefty assumptions about the ages of the Adam & Noah and when they actually had children, this is either a staggering coincidence or a severe case of a priori confirmation bias. Although Phillip would probably say it shows how accurate the bibble is. For some reason YECs insist that bibblical time is invariant - a day was 24 of our modern hours. However, the speed of light or other physical constants can change to fit in with distant starlight explanations. Генгис^marauding 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I hardly ever read ASoK anymore So you admit you haven't read the thing you criticizing? This is a fallacy.

normally after the first couple of PJR's green links my eyes start to bleed Another argumentum ad hominem, typical anti-creationist tactic.

I'm curious So the creationist world view does have at least some merit!

Is the whole YEC thing based solely on Ussher's calculation Yes and no.

and the assumption that because somebody wroye 'days; in the Bible That's not an assumption, he says it right there in the Bible!

rantings of a nutty priest More argumentum ad hominem. I'm banning you for a month for a breach of civility and being mean to creationists. Philip J. Rayment _{Also Jaxe (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)}

Yes, I saw the same thing. I think I got the jist of it as "oh, dates disagree, but never mind and LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY, the important thing is that ages for an old earth disagree, never mind they disagree within 1% compared to the YEC 20-30% just LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY!!!" ^narchist 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I found the link on WIGO:aSK as hilarious... "Hurry up guys, we need to make this stonehenge super quick, we're racing the Egyptians to build the objects of the world that people will think make it look old, for Jesus's Glory!" (Yes, I'm anachronistically using Jesus for 23rd century B.C. ... after all, it says in the Bible, "In the beginning, there was The Word, and The Word was... blah blah blah") --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Philip's brought the crazy today. So let's see, Stonehenge is only 4,000 years old, makers of laws don't have to follow them (even when acting within that frame of reference), everyone already agreed on 6,000 years when James Ussher came along, and anything dated older than the flood is wrong by definition. Seriously, this shit's hilarious. --Kels (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a comedy sites category. Sterile oganesson 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And it gets more humorous every minute. Sterile oganesson 13:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying that article. I've never really considered how YEC types manage to fit so much history in to 6000 odd years? He's tackled the problem of technological/cultural development by positing a kind of default set of knowledge that was given to mankind when it was created, but this doesn't address the population issue. The Noah family must have been breeding at a rate that would put bacteria to shame. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, to believe the Noah story to be true you also have to believe that significant proportions of the world's population actually regressed from the things Noah knew to how they lived in some cases up to the present day, but certainly until Europeans stumbled upon them. Their ancestor is allegedly a guy who knew about carpentry, agriculture, brewing, animal husbandry and weaving just from the details we have from the Bible. If he didn't know reading and writing, it must certainly have been developed in the several hundred years he supposedly went on to live. Yet apparently significant portions of the world went on not only to forget all this, but to forget they ever knew it. I could go on and on about the inconsistencies between implied and observable reality. The whole tale is so far beyond belief that one only has to start spinning out the implications to become impressed with the idea this could never have happened. That there are people who think it did depresses me when I think of the kind of incurious stupidity that implies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Noah and his sons must have been virile. Using a standard poulation growth of .75% there are 64 people building the tower of Bable and only 64 starting the Chinese dynasty. It takes a rate of almost 4.5% to get 1,800,000 in 280 years which gives just over 1,000 people at Babel.

It takes a certain base population to support certain levels of technology so for Noahs decendants to loose a lot is not that surprising. What seems odd is that they lost the history. I would have thought that such a massive event as a global flood would have been carried fairly accurately by everyone.

I dont suppose that the lack of evidence of a single male ancestor 4000 years ago would be evidence a flood never happened ? Hamster (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves, nice point. So, combining your comments with Hamster's - one must assume that Noah was some kind of polymath with balls the size of watermelons. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "curse" of Ham was seeing ALL THOSE TESTICLES and NEVER being able to get the image out of his head. Like a Biblical goatse - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Acts 7:56... "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." Sounds like a divine Goatse to me. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's reason to question just how big Noah's balls actually were. After all, the guy lived 900 odd years and he only managed to beget three sons. Maybe Ham's crime was to see just how small daddy's gonads really were. Makes about as much sense as any other explanation.

Really, the whole curse of Ham chapter is another reason why no one objectively assessing the Noah story should come away with the impression that what is being described is actual history. It's very clearly a tack-on that bears no narrative similarity to the rest of the story (little retrofits like Noah, a man of the soil... make that glaringly obvious.) It's very obviously one of those sorting of the classes stories that pop up in loads of primitive mythologies, to answer the question "Why are there lords, free men and slaves?" I wouldn't be surprised if historians have a fancy name for myths of that sort, since they crop up so frequently. Adding Canaan in there as slaves gives it that wonderful provincial air that reminds you that whoever composed and edited these stories had nothing to do with a god who created the universe. Again, I wonder how people can think they see answers in genesis without really reading what is in genesis. Boggles my mind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It baffles me that anyone over the age of 10 can honestly believe that the story of Noah is any less a fairy tale than the Easter Bunny. I want to believe that people like Bradley and Philip are only pretending they do for political purposes, and they're not really that infantile, but I know I'm probably overestimating them both. --Kels (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the Tower of Babel is as reported too. These people should be touring the comedy circuit. 21:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Urgh, Philip is just a revolting human. Ace^X-102 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You gotta admit his brand of presuppositionalism is particularly infuriating. Not only are you wrong because the bible says so, but because you're misstating the science, which is obviously consistent with the bible. Fuck yeah. 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how it feels to be so certain. To be unwaveringly right no matter what. Ace^X-102 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not even being arrogant in his own opinions either, it's taking CMI's crap and holding it up as inerrant truth. Plus whatever comes up in his ad hoc word games, like the whole "nothing" debate where he ends with "that's what I meant", an obvious lie. Whatever Bradley gets out of being a toady to a fraud like that, it can't be worth the deal. --Kels (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What is it with evolution denialists and the weasel program? I mean, it's not that hard. Sterile oganesson 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know this has been mentioned before...

...but I'd love to see a PJR quote generator. Is there anyway of doing on that will randomly cut up and requote the proceeding text with Phillips opinion of it? Ace^X-102 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

you need a TQiser that misses the major point first, then generate the reply Hamster (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it would have to be quite an intelligent quote machine. Ace^X-102 04:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He's every bit as idiosyncratic as Schlafly. Let me take a run at it this week. 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Good work Nutsack. Ace^X-102 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this as a chance to learn how to write smarter templates. It should randomly tq half a sentence here and there, and since he never really says anything but in response it needn't have the strict structure the Schlafly template does. Gotta figure out how to make a template count words and sentences. 05:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And it needs to randomly italicise words like meaning and information. Ace^X-102 05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PJR's godspeed of sorts is "Another fact free claim". It doesn't matter how factual it is, or even if it's a logical sequitur of the conversation.

And it needs to randomly italicise words like meaning and information. Another fact-free claim. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A reply generator would be easier. All it would have to do is respond to anything he posts with, "No you idiot, what the fuck is wrong with you?" That's certainly my first reaction to most of the anti-reality crap he spews. --Kels (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip turns me into an automaton. I just end up replying with "IRRELEVANT" to every post. He truly has a knack for ignoring whatever the topic of discussion is and homing in on some IRRELEVANT detail. Jaxe (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He is a complete mutant. Ace^X-102 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Says it all, really. --Kels (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some other things that Philip does:

• Make a reference to seeing another article (information, evolution, genetic information, creation-evolution controversy)
• Invoke a logical fallacy (straw man, ad hominem, non sequitir being favorites), that may or may not have anything to do with what he's quoted. In fact, many of his straw men claims are straw men.
• Whine about "ridicule and vilification."
• The obvious themes: falsifiability, information, meaningful information (italicized, especially if it's the second time he's used it), big bang from nothing.
• And sort of innuendo about secular scientists (invoke the views of them, their "religion," they can get it right, but it's often wrong, naturalistic assumptions).
• A few "anti-creationists" never hurt.
• Invoke a horrible word analogy.
• Whatever was just said about creationism, say, "Evolution doesn't either."
• Creation scientists are scientists.
• If a question was asked, use a question in response.
• Mention the word "evidence" without giving any or really refuting any.

Sterile oganesson 03:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Does anyone else get a twinge at Philip "CMI said it, I believe it, that settles it" Rayment starting up a "Research" namespace? --Kels (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I laughed really hard. Hamster (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What? Who's doing the "research" and what does it consist of? What's the point of research when your starting assumption is the correctness and inerrancy of the bible? 17:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man

Oh, man. If Philip does a tq reply to this, the size and insanity of the post may bring about the end of the internet.--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tis truly magnificent! 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It'll be TL;DR for him though. 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly, all he has to do is say "Jesus" and drop a random link to CMI, and that'll take care of it. --Kels (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A huge long long flippant answer that doesnt address the topic because he is right. Ace^X-102 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR doesn't exist for him. In fact, that post is perfect. Do you realize how obfuscated discussion will become? Do you see how easy it will be for him to dismiss most of it because of some poorly chosen words? There is so much to ignore. There is so much to harp on. Do you have any idea how sidetracked other conversations will become? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To trip Philip up you need to ask him a direct question, like "What does M-Theory mean to you?" He cant answer until you tell him what it means to you. He cant actually state a position himself. Ace^X-102 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing about Philip, he's got his Bible, he's got his CMI, but he doesn't actually understand much of anything, including the Bible itself. He's 100% reactionary, following what he's been taught (inerrancy, special creation, etc.) and combining that with an astounding arrogance (belief that he understand evolution/science/archology/everything better than those he's "debating") and an apparent belief that a few word games override any need for honesty, intellectual or otherwise. Seriously, the only thing he's really any good at is the trains, he really should stick to those rather than loudly advertising how little he understands about the real world. --Kels (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to burst ya bubble there Kels but my brother in Melborne, at the behest of Phil's train planning, says PJR has a lot to answer for. Ace^X-102 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So he's a fraud all the way around. That's actually impressive. --Kels (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ever since I found out that PJR works with the railways, I've associated this song with him. Dunno why. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas Bradley will always be this song in my imagination. What a pair. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He may tq the least important sentence of every paragraph. Oh, and Ace is right about the question thing. In fact, it's best if your post is only the question, because he can ignore it if there's anything around it. Sterile oganesson 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He's remarkably skilled at not answering the question even then. I must have asked him how to quantify his "information" about a million times before I finally got sick of his evasions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And may I be the first to say it's somewhat disturbing how accurately this conversation has described his subsequent twisting and dodging. I still think he should go into comedy. --Kels (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

He's replied. May Dog have mercy upon our souls. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So much text, to say so little. --Kels (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's no longer worth reading. All I see is the same shit we all find infuriating. If the place weren't such a nothing backwater on the internet I'd advocate spending more time there because everytime Philip does something like this is discredits creationists everywhere. But there's no audience and no good reason to waste much time there. I've been having more fun infiltrating a few baptist church bible study groups here to show presuppositional apologetic's lack of persuasive power. 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

you can see though from the size of the original post , just how much was skipped in the TQ and replies. :)

philip in discussion with Ace uses www.cosmologystatement.org as a source. Its an interesting document but one of the guys, Sir Hermann Bondi, died in 2005, so list is a bit dated. Any bets on how long it takes for Quanttheory to become less polite ? Hamster (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's, uh, amusing taht Philip's edit summary is, "Replying to a (so-far) fair debater." I wonder if he realizes how much he brings on himself. sterile oganesson 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NuttyRoux, could you give us some more info on this? Like a page or something describing what exactly you're doing? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the reply the very first paragraph has a duplicated "superior to", and later, he uses "your are". I've heard of misusing "you're" and "your" for each other, but I've never heard of someone combining the two into some sort of hybrid überfail. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

AHHH!!! PJR's second response is reverting to the exact same shenanigans that make me want to claw out my eyes and bludgeon people to death. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ok EIRA, step away from the computer, it can't take any more hits ! lol Hamster (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh you better believe I did... I got like four paragraphs in, and I was all "ok, fuck this noise." lol --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What's interesting is the narratives he's trying to sell there. Christianity made science, so still should be in charge of it. Most non-Creationist scientists are motivated by bitterness and hatred towards religion, so should not be trusted. For some reason it's all tied to evolution, which is of course provably wrong (although he won't provide proof). God of the gaps. All stuff we've seen before, but it's interesting to see it laid out so clearly. --Kels (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, does Philip have a mental disorder that prevents him from arguing honestly? Seriously, most normal people would be embarrassed to write shit like that. --Kels (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the jargon of the psychology profession I believe that they call it acute religiosity. Генгис^marauding 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources - really ? UFO's are Demons !

Is this book, Bates, Gary, Alien Intrusion, Master Books, 2004, really the best source for Earths axial tilt, gravity and orbit being evidence for God ? Hamster (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out the obsession with it. Nor have I ever understood why they think the fine tuning argument is a good one. sterile oganesson 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Typeset in a sci-fi font for extra credibility, I see. A grim warning against letting your guard down. Let one nutty belief creep in, and next thing you know you think the alien demons are coming to probe your soul. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

website http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html , see the Creation Ministries International at the bottom of the page Remember this guy is the CEO of CMI. Hamster (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then he's clearly right about everything. Nothing from CMI could ever be wrong. *nods* --Kels (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

help ! call a excorcist ? kels channelling Phillip ! 67.72.98.45 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall a quote from Asimov about UFOs at some point. I can't seem to find it, however, he was asked if he believed in UFOs. He responded something like this: Are there things in the sky that we cannot explain? Most definitely. However, do I think every one of them is harboring an extra-terrestrial being? It seems the most unlikeliest of possibilities. (I'm paraphrasing, if someone can find the real quote it would be great.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of Alien Invasion is that if there were real extraterrestrials, then they probably arose from evolution and humans aren't special. Hence, they must not exist, but aliens have visited and abducted people. Hence, the aliens that people have seen must be demons. And they, er, have evidence, like how the aliens have backed off when people pray. That's the source that Bradley loves to quote and Philip is using. sterile oganesson 10:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Eira, it may surprise you but the book actually agrees with Asimov's statement (and may even quote it, IIRC).

Sterile, your understanding of Alien Invasion is just about as wrong as it can get, which shows that you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this book. Yet despite not even knowing its propositions, you continue to critique it. Also, if I love to quote it, you should be able to give a few examples of me quoting it. I think I may have once, but that would be about it. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)(Bradley; still waiting for the Rational to start)

just about as wrong as it can get, which shows that you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this book. Yet despite not even knowing its propositions, you continue to critique it. Just like Philip and his cosmology eh? Ace^X-102 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and (Bradley; still waiting for the Rational to start) What a fucking crock of shit man, you are berating Sterile for doing something the PJR has been doing for months. He has been quoting a magazine cover over Guth's own book simply because it says what he wants it to say. When are you going to get rational about that? Ace^X-102 01:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ace, chalk and cheese, really. Nevertheless, I haven't commented for a few reasons. Firstly I haven't read enough of the subject material to add anything useful. Secondly I see far too mcuh of Rat "disagreement=dishonesty" whining to intentionally wade into more of it. Nthly the whole argument is over a one line talk page comment. There are others, but I am out of time, and this is not the place for it. 118.208.60.206 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit Bradley, you accused Sterile of not even knowing its propositions, you continue to critique it which Philip has done unending in my conversation with him. It's not chalk and cheese, its the same fucking thing so take your head out of your masters ass. Ace^X-102 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

UFO's are Demons? Not at all. We all know that flying saucers are really, yeah, you got it...time machines! DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, OK, I'm wrong about the praying part. MY BAD! Otherwise, my statement seems well supported by the text of Alien Intrusion:

“”If life evolved on the earth, it would be reasonable to presume that life evolved elsewhere in the universe as well. Some leading scientists take this idea further. They suggest that, since such ET beings may be older or more evolved than we are, and therefore more advanced and intelligent, they could have created life on the earth. Perhaps even just humans — or at least seeded the planet to kick-start evolution.

—Bates, Alien Intrusion

“”As we have seen the evidence for alien intervention in human affairs has escalated to a new level in recent years. Today, the most controversial aspect of UFOlogy is the claim that people are actually being abducted by aliens. Research polls, such as the Roper poll, suggests that as many as four million American citizens, from all walks of life, claim to have been kidnapped against their will and subjected to medical and examination procedures aboard alien spacecraft, along with bizarre sexual encounters. This phenomenon is occurring all over the world, and if true, it is a far cry from the benign and friendly contacts that have been claimed in previous years. Have the aliens suddenly turned nasty, or is it that we just don't understand their culture and methodology?

—Bates, Alien Intrusion

“”As we saw in the last chapter, fallen angels under the leadership of Satan (that is, the enemies of God banished from heaven) have been attempting to deceive as many as they can about both the past and the future. The “gospel according to ET” has involved rewriting the Bible’s history of the universe and then offering an alternative view of mankind’s hope for the future. It appears to be part of a climactic battle being waged over the future of mankind.

—Bates, Alien Intrusion

I'm not sure what I'm missing. sterile oganesson 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks not so much like "missing" as inverted/reversed. For instance you said that according to the book IF ET's are real THEN they must have evolved THEN humans are mediocre THEREFORE ET's are not real. In the quote you gave to support that Bates said IF evolution happens THEN ET's are a reasonable expectation and IF ET's are real THEN they could be older more advanced than humans THEREFORE ET's could be the "creators" of humans. Different starting points, different inductive paths and different conclusions. What you did miss is why evolution is part of the issue at all (it wasn't Bates that invoked it). I can lay out the actual logic Bates uses, but I am out of time, and would like to re-check it so that I state his actual logic rather than my current recollection of it. Can you wait a couple of days? I would also probably post it somewhere on aSK rather than here. 118.208.60.206 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really busy as well, so take your time. sterile oganesson 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Back to getting errors again "500" & "out of memory" among others. 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just getting blank pages :( 67.72.98.45 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably better off that way. 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

pat on the back, questions, thoughts

Ace really has been putting PJR's dishonesty on a platter with the whole inflation theory thing. Question for Ace: Where do you see this going? I don't even remember the outcome of my "debate" about PJR's denialism of scholarship on day-age creationism. IIRC, he never really admitted anything, he just kind of backed off. Recruiting the opinions of trusted members (mostly CPalmer) was a big help. Question for everyone else: Do you think PJR lies to himself or just everyone else? Brad's disconnect about the whole thing is pretty classic. The whole fundamentalist wiki thing kind of reminds me of the Stanford prison experiment. One quote from the WP article (which I'm hacking up and paraphrasing a bit) rings particularly true for the behavior we see on such wikis:

“”Fundamentalist wikis demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people who are trying to legitimize an ideology.

They also beautifully illustrate cognitive dissonance and the power of authority. Take that to the bank and smoke it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole aSK thing drives me so crazy because of how blatantly dishonest PJR is. I simply am unable to evaluate if he's lying to himself or just the public. Reading the source material for the debate makes me want to kill people like him. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just splutter incoherently at his obtuseness and dishonesty. Makes you want to grab him by the collar and shake him until he's unconscious. 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really intended to go anywhere but now I am just drawing it all out to see how far it'll go. Just note Philip's style, disagreement without any reference to why he disagrees. He just disagrees until such a time as you have presented an overwhelming case at which point he can say he meant that all along and you are still, somehow, wrong. Just look at how I have asked him several times to tell me how I am wrong or to state what he thinks so I can see how it differs with the evidence I have presented. He can't do it because to state his own version opens him up for other people to attack - all he can do is attack others without having to make a claim himself. It's exceedingly dishonest and extremely hypocritical when you consider the things he says about his opponents. And I must say I found this incredibly offensive. Ace^X-102 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also the fact that he's clearly bluffing a lot. He knows, like Stephen Colbert, in his gut, but he doesn't actually know enough about any of these subjects to put forward an actual, reasoned position. He just knows you're wrong because you stand opposite CMI the Bible. --Kels (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the starting point is always that the Bible is true, and anything that contradicts it is false or irrelevant. sterile oganesson 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually WIGO?

I'm the welterweight bumfighting champion, and I approve of aSoK.

If it's not too much to ask... noting again as above, that I cannot hawk on aSK without homicidal ideation, it would be nice if people would post WIGOs on the juicy good stuff, like Ace serving PJR up John the Baptist style... At least so I can get in a few good looks without being carried off to crazy farm land. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The shit is just too drawn out and nuanced anymore. It's hard to write them. There are no gems like we find on CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just peek at recent changes and see whos doing what, then read some of the diffs. I do wonder if some of the editors are really Phillip under a different name. Hamster (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of time that sometimes lapses, Philip's apparent association with CMI, and the pedantic and nasty nature of some of the more sciency posts, I wonder if Jonathan Sarfati is ghost writing some of Philip's posts. They're both nasty cunts. 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hamster - that's a puzzling thing to say considering only Bradley and CPalmer edit with any frequency without disagreeing with nearly everything Philip says. The rest of us, you included, are getting blocked or otherwise treated like unworthy proles. 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk talk talk

I see that on RC, besides JY23 adding some stuff about cage fighting, every edit is a talk-page entry. Going back to 1st Sep. The site is growing rapidly. I wonder how long before 90/10 becomes policy at ASoK? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It'll never happen. Philip likes arguing, and I think he justifies his existence (and his YECism) by "winning" arguments. sterile oganesson 12:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I don't think Bradley understands what trolling is. --Kels (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GAH!!! EIRA SMASH!!! Seriously though... yeah, PJR just loves to argue... there's no getting around it. I was thinking that if they implement a 90/10 rule, they would have to kick out EVERYONE, because PJR argues with everyone at some point. And arguing through the edit comments gets very tiresome (I know from experience.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Lowkey Real ?

Lowkey has posted something HERE on people testifying to a personal relationship with God. Does this actually make any sense at all ? Hamster (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're someone who believes children's fairy tales are as real as the daily paper, then it makes lots of sense. I can never figure out how someone as clearly bright as him takes this silliness seriously, mind. --Kels (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, David Gates, great pop sensibility. As an aside, back then I had pretty much that haircut (or hair not cut) and horizontally-striped T shirts... Damn, the 70s were fun! ħuman 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh mee-YOW, girlfriend!

Is FTM another name for trolling? --Kels (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, give 'im a break. It's his own statement. What I can't figure out is how Philip can say he doesn't have an aversion to science in a section devoted to asking him about a scientific matter to which her refuses to answer. sterile oganesson 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

...on a wiki, hell even the same page, as he's totally avoided reading science when presented to him. --Kels (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FTM=For The Moment. FYI :) . I made the statement before seeing Sterile's restart. If Sterile had moved on, I wasn't about to re-inflame the argument so I self-reverted. 118.208.60.206 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh... FYI? Naw, I'm teasing. Thanks for explaining FTM. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow , there are no words ..

Philip states "I removed the sentence which included "the mere fact that we can see objects a distance of 13 billion light years aways means that the universe must be at least 13 billion years old." because it's simply not true. Objects can be further away in light years than their age measured in years. " HERE He is correct though , younger objects can be further away but would we see them ? (headdesk) Hamster (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we wouldn't see them. By the way, can someone please, please take him up on this one? I'd love to see his response. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Every creationist answer to the starlight problem is awful, and I mean worse than their usual level of BS. The only half-way plausible answer they give is the Omphalos hypothesis, which no one believes any more because it's basically just Goddidit (well, except that I believed it when I was an idiotBaptist). --Quantheory (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

this has to be in an archive at aSK. round and round and round and round we go... hahahaha Hamster (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since the visible objects in the universe are traveling away from us, they naturally will be further away in actuality than they are in light years. For instance, a star is say, 10 light years away, and is traveling away at say... 1,000,000th the speed of light. Then once the light arrives here, the object would appear to be 10 light years away, but in actuality will be 10.000001 light years away. Of course, this difference is nowhere near possible to explain what he's suggesting. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also circumstances where the expansion of space-time can cause objects to be farther away than they appear (so far as I am aware this is readily accounted for when dating astronomical events; of course this expansion is the reason for Hubble's red shift). Doesn't really matter for the purposes of debating Phil though. There are visible objects within our own galaxy coming towards us that are more than 6,000 light years away, which is all that's necessary to count against YEC. --Quantheory (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The universe is fine-tuned! sterile oganesson 10:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway, all of this stuff happened in the past, therefore it's history and it's impossible for science to have any say in the matter. So we turn to the only reliable history book anywhere, the Bible. --Kels (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just visited the timeline again

As of today, this is every important event the aSK timeline gives between 1950 and 2000:

1. 1950 - 1953. Korean War.
2. 1954. The first silicon transistor is built.
3. 1955. Jonas Salk introduces the first safe polio vaccine.
4. Approx. 1955 - 1975. Vietnam War.
5. 1969. Neil Armstrong is the first person on the moon.
6. 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court legalizes abortion in the United States.
7. 1974. Introduction of CAT scan in hospitals.
8. 1979. The WHO certifies the eradication of smallpox.
9. 1991. The Soviet Union is dissolved.

Nothing happened in the 80s at all, and there were only two major wars. --Quantheory (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I tossed in what I could remember , the 80s is a bit of a non-event for me , spent it working :( Hamster (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But don't you know? On aSK, adding information that's more accurate then Genesis accurate is considered wandalism! --Quantheory (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

just anything before 2240 BC cause of the big flood. Sterile didnt do too well with some of his additions Hamster (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My history's a little weak, but I'm fairly certain more was going on ca. 2240 BC around the world. I also can't figure out Noah's kids had enough children that travelled to from Turkey to Egypt to start a major construction project in a mere few hundred years. sterile oganesson 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

can't figure out Noah's kids had enough children <grin> Do we need to have "the talk"? 118.208.60.206 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I always knew Roger Daltrey was so much more than just a singer. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Impressive, in the negative sense

Seriously, Philip, are you six? The only difference between the two posts was ten words that you proceeded to prove right. --Kels (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how in his fit pitching, he accuses Sterile of slander, when Sterile used words indicating a statement of opinion: "seem to". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit tired of Mr. "Reasonable." sterile oganesson 10:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reminding him any time that he claims something is defamatory that expressing negative opinions about someone else is not defamatory. "If you're upset that I said something negative about you, then I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion. However, unless I'm making a statement of fact, it is simply not defamatory." Also interesting, is that grossly profane statements are automatically considered statements of opinion... which is why PJR is a fuck sack of shit. :) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for the rational to start. I thought Kels had maxed out on talking nonsense, and then I read Eira's contribution. 167.123.240.35 (talk)

Dude, defamation requires a statement of fact. It is a well known and well established fact of law that defamation cannot occur without a statement of fact. So, um... where did I talk nonsense? Go crawl back in your cave troll. Just because you don't agree with us, and/or just because we're being openly offensive to you, does not make us irrational. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a childish comment, Igor, but at least it gave you a chance to push your bullshit "irrational Kels" meme. Maybe folks would take you more seriously if you weren't propping up someone like Philip. But then, you'd still be pushing fairy tales as if they were science, so probably not. --Kels (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

<venting>What an asshole!<venting/> sterile oganesson 18:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

again?

I could have sworn that radiometric dating has been explained to Phillip numerous times, yet here he is, showing no understanding at all asking why there are lower limits on measuring the amount decay of any given isotope. May his god help him. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, PJR acts like he doesn't understand it, but then purposes the precise reason why it is there... not precise enough... the noise being due to all the error factors. He perchance just can't add two and two together without someone holding his hand? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PJR may not understand, but I know Andrew Snelling does. This article PJR dotes on is a total disgrace. It's kind of sad to watch these professional liars exploit the dumb sheep. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Lord may be his shepherd, but CMI's holding the shears. --Kels (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

have people noticed some of Philips comments recently ? He is admitting to macroevolution and billions of years for the age of the Universe. Its very strange. Hamster (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sick joke? Jaxe (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the WIGO for this? I want to see! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Theory of Evolution - er What !

"do you equate old-earth view as pro-evolution ? I dont see how radiometric dating is pro-evolutionary ? What about old earth creationists ? I'm not referring to biological evolution, but to what has been termed the Grand Theory of Evolution, which includes the evolution of galaxies, stars, the solar system, etc. " full discussion HERE Hamster (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always amusing to watch Philip try to discuss science he doesn't understand (which seems to be all of it) and get subsequently pwned for it. --Kels (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is because other than high school science project pretty much all of science disagrees with the "creation worldview". By lumping everything he disagrees with into one single theory, he can pretend that it is all built on a house of cards and all he has to do is remove one card and it all falls down. It is a strawman small enough he feels he can topple. - π 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's especially pathetic when he can't even topple the strawman that he himself built. I mean, I'm as rank a layperson as there is when it comes to radiometric dating, and even I can see that he's incredibly off base here. --Kels (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No my dear, you are a rank laylady (lay). So there. 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A google of "Grand Theory of Evolution" only brings up creationist resources. But since they are scientists it is a scientific term. Ace^X-102 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We should haz snartikle. I added link to the One of Spades' comment. ħuman 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious

Hmm, makes one wonder what all this is about? --Kels (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the removal of Ken's paranoid blathering about hifi speakers and stuff. That was on ASoK wasn't it? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It probably has been done under the pretense of removing his name, however I also notice that the incident of him being provably wrong about the shortage of women in China has also been deleted. - π 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious overkill if you ask me. I didn't quite follow Ken's talk page, but I guess the last few days of complete madness are gone now. Olé! Olé! Olé! --Sid (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I remember trying to get him to understand about the women in China. What do you do with someone who uses as a source something which disproves him with its very title, and who continues to use it after this is pointed out? Ken was seriously off his rocker in those few days. EddyP (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That was the last thing he posted, after that he mysteriously disappeared requesting his account be deleted. I wouldn't surprise me if he popped up again now that the evidence is gone. - π 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For a guy who's making noise like he wants to start legal trouble and THEN taunts people that as a former debt collector he's invisible, Ken has got to be one of the fucking dumbest people I've ever seen fumble his way around the internet. And PJR really has no sense of decency if it took more than a month of people asking him to remove some of that shit and only apparently did it because Ken asked, not because more reasonable people were giving him real specific reasons to be concerned. Cunt. 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip will support anyone, no matter how inane, if they're a creationist. If not, he won't give them a break. We've seen this in action a number of times. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

True calling?

Looks as if Phil's found his destined calling: back to the railways. Good, 'cause he was really getting on my nerves elsewhere. 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's not being tedious and irrelevant on one topic it's on another one that's equally uninteresting. 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have said it before, people who are that into trains are always a little strange and have odd ideas. Ace^Drumcode 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see him go. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just what he does to idle away the time until a nasty evolutionist drops by with some insulting anti-creation ideology (AKA "science" *scoff*) for him to give an oh so reasonable response that completely ignores the points that were made. If his trains are anything like his conversations they'll all derail or get lost in dark abandoned tunnels. Jaxe (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Philip can't admit that ASK is a personal wiki and nothing else is beyond me. sterile oganesson 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

Let's bring the old PJR back but on the new subject of rail transport. I'm sure something will set that crazy fucker off into TQ madness...Monorails? Maglev? Whatever gauge he doesn't prefer? I'd like to see if he's just as ignorant and acerbic. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noooo. Leave it the way it is for as long as possible. It's a dead wiki without us taking the bait and arguing facts with a biblical presuppositionalist, who by his nature is incapable of being concerned with whether reality gets adequately explained by the evidence. And I think the record on talk pages, which frankly are the only interesting place on that website, communicates clearly enough that Philip and his cronies aren't honest people. The articles themselves are short and of generally poor quality, consisting largely of regurgitated CMI materials that people inclined to read that shit uncritically will have already found at AiG or CMI anyhow. I'd love to see Philip shut the thing down because, unlike Andy, he works for a living and seems less likely to spend however much the site costs to keep up month after month. 20:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nutty.sterile oganesson 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nutty. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Slutty One. ħuman 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the current topic (apart from teh railways) is "Angels"; goes well with the demons. 11:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And giants. Hopefully next will be pixies and imps.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. This kind of shit sets their public image back further than their dishonest debate ever could. Nobody but a fundie loon cares whether angels have functional dicks. 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work. There's always one of you who can't help themselves and makes a sock and continues to argue with PJR. Next time, humor me and argue over the costs and benefits of magnetic levitation instead. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Irony. 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note Train hobby becomes train habit. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on what?

This comment of Phil's entertains me: "Only this [comments on peer-reviewed papers being taken as merely commentary] is frequently not the case..." Since Philip quite famously doesn't bother to read any science that's not on CMI, how the hell does he know that? The rest is irredeemably silly too, of course, especially the hilarious line about cats, but that one struck me as especially funny after his dealings with Sterile and Ace. --Kels (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that place still on line? Wow. ħuman 05:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am staying with "quantum physics doesnt really allow complete cats to appear" ,lately we have been discusing a letter of protest about big-bang theory and why even New Scientist wouldnt publish it. Hamster (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Members rally

All arSK "members" please consider putting up a vote for Ace so we can get him memberized while he's still blocked for a month. There are more than enough RW members to get this to happen today. You go now. 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote for Ace! i⁹ 19:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? --Kels (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that PJR will probably rescind that policy if it gets too badly abused, I suggest that it not be wasted in this instance. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Do you really care? Are you hard up for membership? i⁹ 02:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? sterile oganesson 10:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the main benefit is it gets you past captcha. Also, you get to vote on membership. ħuman 02:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

O would vite often for Ace , but I am not a member myself Hamster (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then, why not? A would vote eirly for a medium sized rodent, and I am in fact a highly respected Senile Member of the Lumenity in Question. ħuman 05:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote for Hamster too: he's been in it to win it for a long time. 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have always assumed that Philip would prefer this Hamster to crawl off and die rather than be a member of his site :) its nice to feel so wanted :) Hamster (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cosmology and Philip

The man has such a poor and deficient grasp of cosmology its embarrassing. When I tried to tell him how poor his grasp was he merely said "no it isn't". Urgh. i⁹ 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

tmtq;dr 02:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Also, how did we get him to write in green ink? ħuman 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't really have a firm grasp on anything, does he? It's more fun for me to not bother with what he says, but to watch the actual smart people on the site demolish him, again and again, without him realizing he's made to look a right idiot. --Kels (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Teh science is hard for teh creationists to understand. sterile oganesson 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if his grasp of cosmology was strong, the argument that the Big Bang model has some holes in it therefore young earth creationism is true is just stupid. No, not stupid. Intellectually barren. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fucking sanctimonious presupper liar. Just stop talking to him already. 12:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What a huge ass-faggot

"As the owner of this web-site, I am under no obligation (other than keeping commitments I have made) to allow others to use this site to express their views, but I am generally happy to allow this, as long as it remains civil and fair." Pff... yeah, express their views, but the second anyone is critical of you, you claim it's uncivil or unfair. Then you ban the person and revert the text... I really hate how much of a shit-eating cocksucker PJR is... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use epithets which smack of homophobia.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what Lily said. I appreciate your anger and frustration, but using words like 'faggot' as an insult is a no-no. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Psy and Lily. I didn't want to come off as the local politically correct homo, but I really hate the use of "gay" and "faggot" as generic insults. MDB (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Faggot" maybe crossing the line, but we need to take "fag" back. Too good to be lost. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Besides, when I was packed off to boarding school, they still had the 'fag' system in place. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For us poor Yanks, what does it mean in the boarding school sense? MDB (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As a junior, you were basically a skivvy for a senior - make his bed, polish shoes, carry books to school, wash clothes, that sort of thing. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

US usage of fag is a diminutive of faggot. In the UK, besides being a cigarette, fag is used to mean something that is onerous or tiresome and I think this is where the public school nomenclature came from.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See this. --Quantheory (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When I hear the term "fag" in the boarding-school sense, I always think of a passage from Roald Dahl's Boy: "Some fags have cold bottoms and some have hot ones. I only use hot-bottomed fags to heat my bog seat. I won't forget you." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one, LX. Ace^{word up} 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds super gay. 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Don't make me come over there. MDB (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But seriously why is Philip completely unwilling or unable to describe what he does believe? And why is he pretending not to know the central philosophical underpinning of CMI and many others' Genesis literalism and innerency? 13:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As soon as he defines his stance in concrete terms then he gives people a fixed target. By being nebulous he remains an elusive will-o-the-wisp.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the biggest issue I had with him during the whole cosmology debate. He refused to state what he knew on the subject in direct terms because in doing so he'd have to lay down an unmovable position for me to attack. All he can do is remain aloof which gives him the ability to attack everyone elses position. It smacks of bad faith. Ace^{word up} 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What's strange is he says he doesn't know much about several people who are pivotal thinkers in the neo-Calvinist movement that spawned the contemporary inerrancy nonsense that informs much of what many creationists, including CMI, say they're doing. CMI directly refers to Van Til and others numerous occasions on its website. I'm stumped. I'd rather not credit the possibility that Philip is a very unsophisticated fideist, but I've been asking him for some insight into his apologetic for a year and haven't gotten anything but hand waving, denials, and him engaging in the grossest kind of intellectual fraud. I guess I'll move on. 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

He bites off more than he can chew in most areas. However, as far as theology goes, I think creationism was more influenced by the dispensational theology of the 19th century, which is millennial and also draws an allegory between the lifespan of the world and the creation week. This means that to make the math work out, the world has to have existed for exactly six thousand years before the Millennium starts. This is in contrast to orthodox theology, which says that we are currently in the Millennium, and is not so dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's ass backwards. Dispensational theology is at odds with creationism. Not the other way around. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How? Dispensationalists have constructed elaborate theories that view periods of history as "dispensations;" central to these theories is the premise that the Bible is historically accurate. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken. Has Phillip ever commented on covenant theology? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept that there are multiple theological reasons for the grasping biblical inerrantism over there. One of them has to be at least an either uninformed version of presupping or PJR's telling a strange story. The constant references to "worldview" are a dead giveaway to Van Til, Bahsen, et al. Perhaps he's distancing himself from the other natural consequence of presupping - Dominionism. Several of the prominent presupp bigwigs form the 70's through present were Rushdooney's students. I haven't been paying enough attention. Does PJR look like he's a dominionist at all? 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. Dominionists are legalists who pretend that they are not (their theology makes as little of the New Testament as possible, hence their relative lack of evangelism), and hold very strongly to the denominational traditions of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. PJR appears instead to be of the non-denominational evangelical camp, which goes in more for antinomianism and the normative principle. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought Philip's standard line was that he didn't think the Bible was true for any theological reason, but because he finds what it says to be independently verifiable - starting with historical dates which are corroborated by other sources, and then going on to scientific and other subjects. Of course, few other people agree. But in a way it is more sensible than the various -isms discussed above, in that it's based on a wrong interpretation of facts rather than a deliberate aversion to them.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

LX: "This is in contrast to orthodox theology, which says that we are currently in the Millennium" Does it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches are amillennial, as are all the major Protestant confessional documents. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So they are. How interesting.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not all that interesting. The prevailing view is primarily that the millennium isn't very important, and secondarily that if there is one at all, it's figurative and we're already in it. It's only the cranks who believe in rapture, tribulation and all that. And even they need to twist all the literature on the subject quite drastically, since it's clear that the authors of much of the New Testament were expecting the Second Coming imminently, certainly not after thousands of years. That includes St Paul and John the Divine.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not put it thus. Amillennials do hold the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20:2 to be figurative, but that is not to say that the millennium "isn't very important" to amillennials. Indeed, if we are in the millennium, that means that Jesus has the devil hogtied and is firmly in charge of the world, thus enabling the Christian to engage with it without fear of accidentally serving King Satan. This is why cranks tend toward millennialism; it gives them a convenient theological excuse for their rejection of mainstream society (and for mainstream society's rejection of them). ListenerX^TalkerX 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

An apology

I would like to apologize to anyone who was upset by the use of slang for homosexuals and homosexual conduct as an insult. I am unfortunately a product of the culture that I live in, and thus revert to cursing, and profanity that is widespread within my culture. For example, I still say "Jesus Christ," "God damn it", and "Oh my God" even though I have eschewed such Christian religious ideas as childish wishful thinking. I did not, nor do I continue to intend a disrespect towards gay people, or anyone in the LGBT community with my comments, and would willingly and openly support a change in the cultural construction of profanities (I hear the Quebecois have a nice atheist-aligning profanity system) that will not include slang for homosexuals or homosexual conduct. Feel free to continue to denigrate me for calling people faggots, and cocksuckers. Anyone doing so deserve it, and it's the only way our culture will change profanity construction. ... I thank you for your time. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't concern me in the the slightest and in fact, to be frank, I don't know why anyone should care. Its the context that is important. Ace^{word up} 00:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop being such a poof. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me, at least, "accept" your heartfelt and well-reasoned apology on behalf on anyone I am authorized to accept it on behalf of. You can feel free to continue to ostracize the scatophagic community, though. ħuman 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I've wanted to rescue the term "faggotry" from the entire homosexual thing. It's a great word to get your tongue around and you can really spit with it, and to me seems to convey this whiny, uber-serious but not self-aware prattishness that just describes certain people very, very well. It's hard to describe, but I'd say most of the contributors to the Metal-Archives forums probably would fall under that. I think it's nice to apologise for the gaff, but I don't think it's right that someone needs to be hauled over coals for it. They're words. And while they have established meaning, ultimately they mean what you mean at the time, and if you want to denigrate someone with the word "faggot" but have no homophobic intent, what else can people ask? It's not like anyone has a right to be protected from offense. ^narchist 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a bunch of sticks or a meat and offal dish is an insult? Dude, the reason "fag" is used as an insult is pure homophobia. Get a clue, you're embarrassing yourself. ħuman 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Pure homophobia? What utter fucking garbage. Ace^{word up} 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of intent, it's a very stinging word to many gays, being a word associated with the bigotry and the closet and bullying and open disgust. I'm not going to pout about it, but realize that if you use that word a lot of people will have a very intense gut reaction due to its history of use, and will have trouble seeing past it to your actual point. Right now it's the gay equivalent of "nigger". It's not going to become disassociated from prejudice (at least in the US) for a very long time. --Quantheory (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, to call it homophobia is ridiculous (I apologise in advance for any offence caused by my statements - I am speaking bluntly in the name of discussion). Ace^{word up} 05:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that'What's up my nigga' is common and non-put down by whitey and blacks disproves the harshities og the 50s use. It's faggit btw.--208.54.7.136 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. So I can walk my white pasty ass into Bedford Stuy and expect to high five the locals on their stoops with "my nigga" and get out alive? Maybe, maybe. But only if I have a silver tongue. "what's up my nigga" only crosses racial lines in very small intersections of society. Mostly, it embarasses me, and if I used it in the wrong place and time, I'd expect to DIE for it. Moron. ħuman 07:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, my point was that people are going to react to their experience with the word regardless of the intent of the person using it (which is difficult to divine anyway). "Fag" may have more diverse usage outside of North America, but a lot of people who grew up in the US are likely to associate it entirely with people like Clint McCance or the dumbass gay-bashing teenagers they had to share high school with. (The fact that "faggot" is turning into a general insult against males is not evidence against this; "that's so gay" is also an insult, but in both cases the insult is bolstered by the idea that gay people are inferior, and most people are still on some level aware of that.) Regardless of how you want such comments to be to be taken, if you use "fag" or "faggot" as an insult in a place frequented by 'merikans, some people are going to take it as homophobia (and are going to be quite justified in doing so based on their previous life experiences). If that doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. But you realize, your internal definition of a word is not special and has no bearing on what people understand you to be saying. --Quantheory (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, Ace, I can take it when Nutty calls me "my nigga" in pmail. I know he's not a racist, far from it, and it's private. I could care less if you called me "my fag cocksucker". But to use such language in general as an insult is far beyond the pale. To call someone a "fag" in American English (whatever the hell bastardized crap that is) in an insulting manner is just fucking wrong. It's homophobic - they are using being gay as a derogatory term. And that just isn't cool. Unless they want to be known as a gay-hating asshole, which the OP of this section does not want to be, as far as I can tell. Now let's go smoke some cardboard soaked in ether... ħuman 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I messed up Ace discussing "fag" and some BoN dragging "nigga" into this. So sorry Ace to have mixed you up witht he lame anon. ħuman 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Double whoops, Ace went there below. ħuman 07:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

using being gay as a derogatory term =/= homophobia. Ace^{word up} 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Otherwise what else is it? ħuman 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, go through my talkpage archives and see the amount of times Nutty has addressed me as nigga (or some variant thereof) and go bitch at him. And speaking of bitch, aint that derogatory to woman also? Ace^{word up} 06:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Or me for that matter, at least privately. You know what I do when Nutty goes all "nigga" on me? I stay quiet until he says something else. Maybe it's ok for you white bitches to pretend you're down with the n****rs and call each other "bro" and "nigga" but you know what? It is is incredibly insulting to many of our friends here and elsewhere. ħuman 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a fag =/= gay-hating asshole. I don't give a fuck about sexual orientation. Ace^{word up} 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But that is how it was used: fag = derogatory. How would you interpret it, especially given the apology? What, in this context, do you thing "fag" meant? Sticks? Sausage? Homosexual? Cigarette? Junior boy in public school? ħuman 06:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"using being gay as a derogatory term =/= homophobia" OK, I was kind of just clarifying before, but now you've lost me. Is there a way to use being gay as a derogatory term that doesn't automatically imply that it's bad to be gay? Regularly calling someone you know "nigga", you may have noticed, isn't generally using it as a derogatory term (I think it's tacky, but that's a personal aesthetic consideration.) In fact, the point of these weird "reclaiming" deals to take back words like "nigga" and "queer" and more recently "fag" is that if people use them in a positive or neutral way they stop being insults (this has actually worked quite well with queer; it's still considered quite horrible as an insult, but to use it in a positive/neutral way is increasingly OK). And "bitch", when used as a verb, has been dysphemism treadmilled away from referring to women (like "jerk" and "that sucks" don't usually conjure up explicit images of sexual acts). (I guess as a noun it's more complicated; there are some usages that are misogynist.)

None of these really applies to "nigga" used as an actual insult or to "faggot". In Amer. Eng., "faggot" can be accurately translated as "Fuck you, you pansy-ass queer".

You're getting all defensive about being a "gay-hating asshole", but the allegation is that using being gay as an insult is an inherently anti-gay statement. It's not an allegation about your personal moral convictions. --Quantheory (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to read it again, but I think Q Theory might have said it well. ħuman 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I use many bad words and not one of them reflects upon my personal views of any subset of society. To call me a homophobe because I call someone a fag is to call me sexist for calling human a bitch. Ace^{word up} 07:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have got lost in translation here - I don't think anyone called Ace a homophobe. I just think he got caught on the awkward corner of a difficult discussion. Wait, did you call someone a "fag"? What did you mean by that? ħuman 08:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll call you a fag and what I mean by that is the same as calling you cunt, fuckface or asshole. Although each has a slightly different meaning. Cunt and asshole are quite similar and are more describing a long term behavioural pattern, fuckface implies a single incident or short-term cunt behaviour wherein a fag is more a jolly "ho ho ho you fag" without any sexual implication. So if someone were take offence I'd explain that I wasn't making aspersions upon there sexual preference and to calm down and have a beer. Ace^{word up} 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just got back in. Can barely see straight. What's this about me doing what now? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns102=1&ns103=1&ns104=1&ns105=1&ns106=1&ns107=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&ns110=1&ns111=1&redirs=1&search=nigga&fulltext=Search 08:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ace is losing me again. I was trying to say that this is not about whether or not he's being a homophobe (I don't think he is one). I think he somehow interpreted that as me calling him a homophobe. *shrug* Out of random curiosity, who's not sober besides me? --Quantheory (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fucking pissed and pissed off about a number of things and certain fresh fruit suppliers. You call these bananas yellow, fucker? Ace^{word up} 08:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And I am supposed to be at a party but lost the address, don't have the number and am now stuck with some whinging boogey-bums who keep humming and rocking. Ace^{word up} 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The brass tacks

The real crux of the matter (the above matter) is that I view the entire human race - gay straight white black male female wheelchair club-footed bad breath - with the same disdain, melancholy and equalness. I am the Grand Equaliser. So there. Ace^{word up} 08:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Brass tacks: In American English, women are insulted by impugning their chastity. (Bitch, slut, whore, etc) Men are insulted by implying homosexuality. (Fag, cocksucker, gaywad, etc) This is our (my?) culture... if I were talking about some crazy insane woman scribbling shit all over the walls of aSK, I would string together a set of epithets that all imply that she has no moral qualms about sleeping with hojillions of men. I'd say how she's a "crazy cumguzzling slut." Also, "cumdumpster" may get involved. This is how insults work in American culture. No one would call me sexist for using this well established, and widespread insult mechanics against women (being a woman myself) and in fact, being a slut is becoming much more acceptable in modern times. I regret that there are people who feel frustrated that homosexual conduct and epithets are used to insult males, but that's just the way things go around here. The Quebequois use words like "baptize" "[baptismal] font", and other various Catholic institutions, articles, and activities to insult each other due to a prior deep-seated hatred against the Catholic Church repressing them. So, while they use words like "shit" with the same offensive value of "defecation" (namely, essentially none) yet suggesting that one should be baptized to accept the saving grace of jesus suddenly becomes a string of profanities. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not very convincing. I do find it objectionable that you would describe somebody as a "cumdumpster" or a "cocksucker" as a general pejorative. If your culture is so disparaging towards women & homosexuals, are you obliged to buy into that unquestioningly? "It's not me being homophobic; it's just my culture"? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please offer a non-offensive alternative generative method for profane epithets. Hint: it doesn't exist... it will always disparage some group or another. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"I'd say how she's a "crazy cumguzzling slut." Also, "cumdumpster" may get involved. This is how insults work in American culture. No one would call me sexist for using this well established, and widespread insult mechanics against women (being a woman myself) and in fact, being a slut is becoming much more acceptable in modern times."

Fuck off, you dipshit. I don't find that compelling at all. I know quite a lot of people who would consider that sexist (Slut-bashing doesn't count if it's from a woman? On what fucking planet, shithole?). You seem to be saying "this is how everyone else I know does it, and I'm lack the energy/creativity/empathy to work around that". Is it a justification? Uh, I guess. Would it improve my opinion of you? No, you're still a clueless asshat.

"a non-offensive alternative generative method for profane epithets"

The point is not that your profane epithets are "offensive". (Isn't that the fucking point of profanity?) The point is that you're knowingly insulting a whole bunch of other people in the process (who you "claim" to have no problem with, you ignorant fraud). Or are you such an imbecile that you can't even grasp the collateral damage?

Besides, if you can't get behind a goddamn religious abstraction, if you're too much of a jerk-off or an idiot to pull something off the dysphemism treadmill, or you're the type of shit-puking fuckwad that's never heard of incoherent profane nonsense, then maybe you should just watch your fucking language. --Quantheory (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"shit-puking" could potentially be upsetting to coprophagous bulimics... Also, why should we hold "fuck" and "shit" to be profane? They are natural human activities, that pretty much everyone does, or will do. One could argue that using "fuck" as a bad word contributes to the denigrated nature of sex in the United States. And with all the work that "Everybody poops" has been trying to make so that people stop feeling bad/guilty that they take shits. Naturally, I don't intend to upset homosexuals or women, or anything, but seriously, when you're provoked to a profanity strewn rage, you can't really blame them for what comes out of their mouth... especially getting on their case for lacking creativity... sorry that I lack all creativity when I'm crazy upset. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"when you're provoked to a profanity strewn rage, you can't really blame them for what comes out of their mouth." Sure, angry people are no longer responsible for their actions. Any words spoken in anger are OK. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)