RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive14

This is an archive page, last updated 12 June 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>

, (new)(back)

The trouble with ASK

This page is quite telling. Awc posts the first draft of a work in progress essay, and what do you know, our friend Maratrean immediately graces it with his invaluable input. And then PJR says "Given that Maratrean has commented, I might as well also", and tqs a bunch of it in his inimitable style.

The trouble is that so little happens on that site that some people are bound to just sit there watching recent changes, and then descend on anything new that gets posted. RW suffers from the same thing sometimes. Recent changes should be used sparingly by some people.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with a bit of input? He may choose to ignore it, he may choose to respond to it, including by changing his draft to address some of our concerns. Input on a draft may lead to a better end-product. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much that you gave your input there, as that PJR and others feel the need to reply to everything that's posted anywhere on the site.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Genetic Information Month at ASK

Just noticed the recent changes, or rather, the complete lack of changes. Just Awc, Sterile and Hamster drip feeding science to Philip, who consistently pukes it back up in their faces. Jaxe (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact the title is "For those who think they know what genetic information is ..." Sums PJR up in a nutshell...For those who think they know what genetic information is ...you don't...only Mega Mensa Genius I, Philip Rayment knows. Ace^ace 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's depressing. You're still having the same argument with him that I had probably over a year ago. Us: "Define information please." Him: "Have this irrelevant analogy!" Us: "Don't you understand what "define" means?" Him: "You know I don't." Us: "At least make a token effort." Him: "OK, here's my ignorant butchering of science that only advertises the fact that I know nothing."

Fuck PJR, he's hopeless. No amount of evidence, reasoning or bludgeoning is ever going to get him out of the Jebus-did-it rut. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he is completely hopeless. I wouldn't even trust that hapless idiot to tie my shoes. Before I knew what was happening I'd be wandering around with a couple of frying pans tied to my feet. Ace^ace 13:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Awc has ben doing the bulk lately, and his snark is increasing Hamster (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just slamming the low hanging fruit. And all we get back is NO, NO, NO, recipes, blah, blah, blah. sterile^talk 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

but the genetic code for a long hair dog is exactly like a recipe for banana pudding , is obvious , er, Hamster (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My head just exploded

[1] Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Irony.       Jaxe (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

PJR's latest what-the-fuckerry

gases don't have gravity or something.. Ace^ace 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

thi just in , Philip replies. Gases on earth expand. Will earths atmosphere leave into space ? stay tuned for the answer .. Hamster (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC) oh dear why!

{{tq}} is officially the only interesting thing about arSK. That guy's a lunatic. 04:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That is some phenomenal idiocy right there. Ace^ace 05:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah christ there's more and now he's particularly cunty. Jesus he really doesn't understand that there may be no discernible "purpose" in any case of natural selection and what is fit is merely what is selected for. And this shit about gas expanding unless it has a concentrated mass is precious! I love the unyielding implication that something like Jupiter with its entire structure being composed of gas or former gas now liquified or even metllicized (oh my another evolutionist just so story thats less plausible than creationist hokum and lies) was created by god out of whole cloth because he denies even the remotest possibility of any other mechanism. I can't wait to see what additional lies and nonsense that rolypoly Sarfati puts into his head. AWC is a professional physicist with a lot of time on his hands. This will be fun to watch. 14:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not be remotely surprised when he resorts to saying gravity is god "holding things together" and can therefore choose when to hold gas together. Jaxe (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just so odd to watch him do this again and again. He's a shockingly ignorant ideologue who's pushing an agenda that's not grounded in any empirical reality and that conflicts with everything we know to be true through reliable ways of knowing. He's literally got nothing more than assertions and swatting at hard facts or demonstrably superior theories that are actually capable of generating testable hypotheses, rather than being grounded in some essential way to goddidit. This gravity shit is one of those instances in which even someone with a high school science education can see that he's either way out of his league hanging his hat on misunderstanding some creationist tract or he's a fucking liar. I alternate between believing either as it suits me from day to day. 16:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip is arguing the definition of species with three people, trying to work out a jeans mass after the big bang, and still hasnt properly defined information. ssdd Hamster (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If I ever saw him adequately define information I'd jump right in. He's not even keeping to the standard creationist specific complexity shit, which is handily dealt with by real information specialists, let alone this CMI tripe about 5 types of information that are each totally ad hoc, depend on an individual discerning meaning, etc. I literally have no idea what he's talking about. He's got an "encyclopedia" article that's going to reflect his own incomprehensible understanding of something that made little sense in the first place. 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Watching Philip discuss stellar formation reminds me of the quote:

“”What is truly awe-inspiring about the museum is the task it sets itself: to rationalize a story, written 3,000 years ago, without allowing for any metaphoric or symbolic wiggle room. There’s no poetic license. This is a no-parable zone. It starts with the definitive answer, and all the questions have to be made to fit under it. That’s tough. Science has it a whole lot easier: It can change things. It can expand and hypothesize and tinker. Scientists have all this cool equipment and stuff. They’ve got all these “lenses” and things. They can see shit that’s invisible. And they stayed on at school past 14. Science has given itself millions of years, eons, to play with, but the righteous have got to get the whole lot in, home and dry, in less than 6,000 years, using just a pitchfork and a loud voice. It’s like playing speed chess against a computer and a thousand people with Nobel Prizes.[2]

Mind you, it's against four scientifically literate folks, but it's still like speed chess. sterile^talk 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(And now that I see how he conceptualizes math, I don't want him to quantify information. It's creepy.) sterile^talk 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is this "expansive pressure" shit he keeps spouting?! If I was being charitable I'd pretend he's referring to kinetic energy in a gas cloud, but I haven't seen any indication this is true. This last super strident response to Hamster is more than any reasonable discussant should have to bear. You brave souls over there need to give Philip a real basic physics lesson. He's using his own misunderstanding of the ideal gas law to draw an unwarranted conclusion about whatever he thinks the relative "strength" of the kinetic energy in a gas cloud is vs. its gravitational potential energy - when the very point of the discussion is that the Jean's equation describes the equilibrium state, not what his high school level fantasy tells him he should wave his hands at. 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not even going to bother responding to his universe from nothing bullshit anymore. Ace^ace 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh the WP article incorrectly refers to pressure and this pressure shit is where Philip starts going wrong. Force ≠ pressure. 03:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamster donned his special suit when jeans law got mentioned. I have learned some stuff from this I hadnt realized that someone in 1910 had worked out the maths of it :-) I do follow the maths but would not have worked it all out by myself. Still, when faced with an equation that is clearly saying expansion vs collapse you wonder why the comment on never stating gases expand. Philip seems disturbed that everyone is taking the same general attitude to his assertions. I do enjoy when Awc and Martin jump in , they seem very well educated and smart, Sterile too. Hamster (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest wut ? a subset contains more information than the full set.

thats right CAR has more information than VEHICLE. He says it HERE Hamster (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

He's sort-of correct in that, at least. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. If CAR is a proper subset of VEHICLE, then VEHICLE contains all the elements of CAR. Perhaps Phillip has confused sets with classes and is rambling about inheritance, where class CAR extends class VEHICLE. Ty^talk 12:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, he italicized meaningful, he must be right. sterile^talk 12:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are linguistic definitions in which the more specific term has more information; less ambiguity is more information. Red car > car > vehicle > thing, and so on. It doesn't lend itself to quantitative analysis, though, and it only applies to a particular context in which one 'set' is entirely contained within another. So it won't let you compare 'car' vs. 'bird', for example, or 'run' vs. 'walk', or 'red car' vs. 'yellow car', or 'doctor' vs. 'man'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's exciting to think that, if you can just get this kind of question sorted out, soon we'll be able to get to the bottom of whether evolution is really true or not.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• sob* it just keeps getting stranger *headdesk* I am taking a break to make my brain (such as it is) happy. AWC, sterile, martin its all yours , good luck Hamster (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kicker is even when he gets round to defining creationist information he's then going to have to prove that it must increase for evolution to work. My guess is that creationist information could drop off to zero and we wouldn't notice the difference. Jaxe (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone...

...understand what he's talking about any more? Mutations are unintentional, therefore can't gain information? sterile^talk 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to stump him remind him he's already agreed on his talk page (end of "Omphalism part b") that god can't cause anything to happen unintentionally. Jaxe (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean "any more" ;-)Hamster (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This creationist information thing is a perfect example of them assuming into existence what they've put at contest. And it's incredibly hard to follow even when the creationist is up on the arguments because it's 100% bullshit. It's time to just start going through the CMI creationist information articles and challenging him to put the definition in terms of things others have said that may be more coherent because he's been failing to say anything meaningful at all about the qualitative and quantitative analysis of his creationist information. I sincerely doubt anyone's been able to follow him for the 2+ years this bullshit has been going on. 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Even greater dishonesty

This is some of the worst dishonesty I have seen from PJR in a long time. Ace^ace 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

my favoritest phrase for a while is "Who made you the lord of the English language?" from Awc to PJR. Followed closely by "And another thing! ". I think Awc has made great consessions to PJR's worldview in his articles so its nice to see even he has reached some limit. Hamster (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well evolutionists deny that features appear half formed yet you're saying that there are fossil examples of forms intermediate to feathers and scales, which is a contradiction, therefore God. So there. 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that according to PJR all evolutionary theory and prediction ended with Darwin. Darwin said this, we don't find it, evolution is false. Ace^ace 19:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationists think of evolution (and usually science in general) in theological terms. If the almighty Darwin said it, then it's part of the Doctrine of Evolutionism^TM. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything with a feather is a bird. Anything without a feather is a dino. There is no transition. Evilution is false. Creationism is true. QED. sterile^talk 06:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Were reptiles scaled? Perhaps they had skin? Maybe they all had feathers? None of us know what dinosaurs really looked like outwardly. How is PJR so sure they were scaled? Because of the picture books? Or was it Jurassic Park? Ace^{Vote Ace for Mod!} 06:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

seriously, does something creep into his room at night and wipe his brain ? His latest wall of text is hard to understand if he paid any attention for the last couple of years. Hamster (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If he claims that proto-feathers are feathers, can I point out he's filled a gap with another gap? Otherwise, this function BS is pissing me off. sterile^talk 17:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pay attention, Hamster. He has dogma. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

can Phil be gently nudged into writing the Australian Academy of Science with whom he disagrees ? (Hamster not logged in ) 67.72.98.46 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, he made another gap to fill: [3] sterile^talk 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Our beliefs too radical for poor PJR's brain...

See here and here. I am going to pray for his soul, that he might see the light of our superior Christian truth. Restoration Christian Church (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Shorter Restoration Christian Church: PJR has been around the net long enough to know a troll when he sees one. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Short reformation theology: "I don't fucking care; you are a douchenozzle." - John Calvin. 03:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is highly amusing, given all the chatter that Protestants spew today about interpreting the Bible literally, that Calvinism started with a symbolic interpretation of a point that the church had thitherto always taken literally. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What, you mean this superior truth? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your "beliefs" are just as stupid as his. Piss off troll.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a common reason why people object to the idea of Jesus as gay or bisexual, or of his mother Mary as a lesbian, is due to their homophobia. Restoration Christian Church (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that Mary was in a "marriage of convenience" with Joseph. What is your view concerning Joseph's previous wife? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no definite proof he had a prior wife. I understand, this is commonly supposed by Roman Catholics who need a way to explain Jesus's "brothers" in the Gospels in light of their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. Another alternative solution proposed is that "brother" meant something more broader than full or half or step siblings, but also included e.g. cousins. By contrast Protestants tend to adopt the explanation that Mary had children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus. We don't endorse any of those views definitively, although we certainly insist that Mary never had sex with any man in her entire life, so that rules out the common Protestant explanation. But whether those "brothers" were cousins, or Joseph's children from a previous relationship, or adopted children, we teach no definitive opinion. St. Joseph, despite being a gay man, may well have had a prior wife with which we had a sexual relationship (even in our society, gay men and women having children by heterosexual relationships is not uncommon). While we teach that Mary never knew any man, we do not insist that Joseph never knew any woman, but we do insist that St. Joseph's primary orientation was homosexual. Restoration Christian Church (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that you insist Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were all homosexual, I'm getting the feeling that this is a joke church. It appears that there is a Restoration Christian Church but the website doesn't have anything on this interpretation. I would've expected you to link to the church's website by now. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not us. I suppose we don't have a very original name, that is a pity. Can you help us think of a better one? This is not a joke, we are trying to develop a form of Christianity which is more welcoming to GLBT people. Restoration Christian Church (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcionism might suit you well; then you only have to use your satanic redaction conspiracy theory to blot out 1 Corinthians 6 and a few other passages instead of dealing with the whole Old Testament. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We haven't made our minds up exactly what parts of the scriptures are divine and what parts are satanic. We think anything that teaches homophobia, slavery, misogyny, capital punishment, animal sacrifice, etc., is satanic in origin. But we don't need to throw out the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, that would be anti-Jewish and we are not anti-Jewish. Marcionism, while maybe not inherently antisemitic, definitely has antisemitic tendencies. Restoration Christian Church (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"The parts we dont like or completely contradict us are wrong and evil, but the parts we like are A-ok!" --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@Restoration, I think your ideas are probably always going to be much too radical for him, yes. I think you're lucky that all he did to you was call you tactless. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dying breaths

Mainspace contributions have all but dried up since the start of the year. Just a slow sad trickle of pointless edits. In fact for the last 3 weeks the only mainspace non-minor edits were to "Alleged problems in the Bible" by Awc. LowKey deleted some of the more embarrassing bits. How Awc is still going, despite clearly not agreeing with PJR on anything at all, is beyond me. Jaxe (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is PJR ok? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

His last long absence was when his wife was ill. Hopefully it's not a recurrence of that. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. His last edit was 9 days ago. Maybe he's just taking a break or on holiday or something. Maybe God told him to stop being so stubborn and to just accept reality. Jaxe (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

apart from Awc is anyone actually editing ? Awc is just polite to PJR (mostly) Hamster (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Last mainspace non-minor non-Awc contribution was three weeks ago when "George W. Bush‎" and "Government cheese‎" were edited. Jaxe (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this was pretty much predicted long ago, although the numbers were off because of the ambiguities of extrapolation and the spammers. sterile^talk 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to believe it might be over. I guess I always knew it would end like this. Maybe we could put together a retrospective about Phillip? Did he learn anything? Did he ever concede any points? Did we actually teach him anything? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I trounced him on an arcane point in Norse mythology once; he was relying on a creationist source that had been, to put it mildly, poorly researched. That was a victory for the books. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I thrashed him in that cosmology discussion we had (which took a year) but he sees it as a victory no doubt. Ace^Moderator 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

He thinks everything's a victory. He can't be convinced that he's ever wrong or mistaken. Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

He did at one point admit that he couldn't think of an observation that would falsify the intervention of the supernatural in everyday, humanly affairs, but it "was lost to the server crash." Otherwise, no new meaningful information changed his mind. sterile^talk 04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ "no new meaningful information". Ajkgordon (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When we weren't looking, Philip wrote, "As far as I'm concerned, this site is not dead." I'm not sure the wiki agrees with him. sterile^talk 04:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

salvage ?

Are there any articles on aSoK that are worth saving ? Some of the talk pages make fun reading but tend to repeat fairly often Hamster (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the talkpages are quite impressive in that they are good insights into the mind of a creationist. Ace^Moderator 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I see aSoK is dead

I went to check in on aSoK, but I guess it's life extinct now. The only thing going on is Demons is so much Rayment's bitch that he's still desperately trying to keep the place clean even though his master has abandoned it. When the domain expires, I guess that'll be the end of aSoK forever. Anyone up for a "No new information... ever" party in the rubble? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Jeeves, despite your own apparent desperate obsession with demons I'm not particularly focussed on them. You need to learn some sense of proportion in other matters also. Spending an accumulated five or so minutes a day expunging spam is hardly "desperately trying to keep the place clean." 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See, being an adult believer in demons is like being an adult believer in Santa Claus. Once you admit to it, you have to expect ridicule forever. Even if you stop believing you'll probably never live it down. The fact that you can take that Alien Intrusion book, with its kitsch Roswell type setting, seriously is just an icing on the cake. But I guess whatever the holy CMI turns out is gospel, eh? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you don't need to explain that. I understand full well your paranoid bigotry. Sophistry doesn't make you right, though. Here you are, compounding your error. It's kind of fun to watch you try though, in a pitiful kind of way. LowKey (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah. The guy who believes demons are coming to anal probe rednecks called me paranoid. I can die happy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wronger and wronger. You have so far demonstrated that you don't know what I believe, when I believed it, why I believed it or whom I believed. If you won't or can't understand what I have already stated then there seems to be little point trying to explain more to you In other news, you still haven't justified characterising 5 minutes a day as "desperate". Never let the truth stand in the way of a RatWiki meme. LowKey (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, Demons, spare me. In the time I've spent poking at Conservapedia and aSoK I've had crystal skulls from you, Atlantean origins from PJR, the Loch Ness monster from Chuckarse, not to mention my very favourite CP moment ever, the antediluvian cloning labs. Talking to you people is like reading the Fortean Times after it has had its tongue and both cheeks forcibly amputated. While Alien Intrusion might doubt the anal probing, the central thesis that some alien sightings are real and but they're demons rather than ETs is so fucking crazy any hyperbole I add on top is just gilding the lily for comic effect. Your only purpose is to serve as an object lesson to sane people as to the perils of letting down your guard to unsupported notions, if you don't arrest the slide you're soon believing bigger and bigger absurdities. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I said above that You have so far demonstrated that you don't know what I believe, when I believed it, why I believed it or whom I believed. You haven't changed that. You are not conversing with people (plural), you are conversing with me (an individual). Don't imagine that you know what I think based on what someone else told you that they think. You still haven't shown how "desperate" is anything better than a mischaracterisation on your part. You are using incoherent sentences. Hint: one thought per sentence, and finish one sentence before you start the next. LowKey (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Demons. How about this then. Do you or do you not agree with Gary Bates when he says the thing that is wrong with the UFO literature is that there isn't enough demonology in it? Seems to me that if you wanted to call Bates out for the kook that he is, you've had plenty of chances. Instead, you actually promoted him as a useful source of information. This guy is in operational control of CMI, and he's batshit insane. Do you actually recognise that what he says about aliens and demons is bullshit?

Also, you keep hammering on this "desperate" thing. Don't you think there's desperation in attempting to bail out that sinking ship? Even if you only spend 5 minutes a day at it, what's the purpose? aSoK is not now, nor will it ever be, an encyclopaedia. Nobody, not even you, is contributing to it. What you're doing is like going in to the forest and trying to grub up all the weeds. Let the bloody thing return to nature already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let it go, Jeeves. ASK is Philip's project, not Bradley's; there's not point in rubbing his nose in it. And I suspect he knows what you think of Alien Intrusion. This accomplishes nothing. sterile^talk 06:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I'm sure he does know. But wouldn't you like, just once, for one of these guys to admit that yes, Gary Bates is stoned off his rocker on Jesus juice, or that yes, what Andrew Snelling does isn't research but thinly veiled apologetics dressed up in a lab coat? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

C.f., backfire effect. I suspect no one's mind has been changed. sterile^talk 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My scripts have been advertising random shit there for almost a month now. Eventually, I'll break Bradley's spirit and ASK can die the death it deserves. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So, nevernormalsally, are you fessing up to spamming RW? That should make you popular. LowKey (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, thems jokes. But srsly, wtf is up with your captcha? Simple arithmetic??? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if it was a joke or an empty boast. I haven't looked at the capture in a while, but I think some change was made that stopped a previous spam outbreak. LowKey (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Philip has said aSK is not dead, and he will return to editing. Even Awc appears to have given up, unless he waits for Philips return Hamster (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still there as well, but I guess nobody cares.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

you are doing wonderfully at whack-a-mole with the vandals/new users ;-) I see Awc and sterile are throwing a few comments in as well. Hamster (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Posterity

Since it's finally dead, should we be at all concerned with preserving ASK? Some of us spent a lot of time preaching to the deaf, and it would be a shame to see the place horribly overrun and shutdown because of a shitty captcha. Is there anything we can do to help? A MW upgrade? Something? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bradley, the Colonel and I all suggested things to Philip, but if he's done something, it's either not working or not obvious. sterile^talk 16:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

the user creation logs don't show a lot of users being made so it doesnt look like an automated attack. The problem could be relieved short term by simply closing user creation. Perhaps a script to block and delete user pages ? Hamster (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be worth preserving? It's literally just hundreds and hundreds of pages of Philip sticking his head in the sand and denying any and all science that disagrees with him. Who in their right mind would ever read all that?

It's of no use to anyone except for maybe as a casestudy for psychologists specialising in denialism. Jaxe (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a useful resource to see just how far a creationist will go in order to deny, well, everything. Ace^Moderator 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. LowKey (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so coy, Brad. Remember when we debated whether or not dark energy exsited? Considering it must exist (Because Dark enery is a term to explain the observed expansion of the universe) I think my comment stands. Not to mentionn PJR deny things of which he admits he has no knowledge about and didn't think he needed knowledge about it to refute it. Which is, of course, laughable. Ace^Moderator 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> at least the BON got it. It was a joke. You said we deny everything; I denied it. The reference that was in the edit summary was a sort-of hint (admittedly a little convoluted). "No, it isn't" is the response to "This isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!" I hate explaining jokes. LowKey (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

and there it is ;-) 67.72.98.45 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see it kind of "under glass". A beautifully preserved, spectacularly failed creationist brainfart. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if you've got a particularly fond memory of a PJR WTF? moment then pull it out and archive it in your user space. Otherwise there really isn't anything worth salvaging from the rubble. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sundry Asok stuff

aSK Guard Dog svages AWC, perhaps the only remaining author ;)

PJR continues to battle both the english language (what is normal) and the force of gravity in Episode 96354 of Gases Expand !

fairly harmless users all get banned as soon as they create an account. Perhaps the guard dog blocks could be hidden on recent changes ? Hamster (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Philip needs to do all the work to maintain his wiki. Too many people have covered his butt for too long. And who wants to look at Johston556Ringer casino-coolness.com ads? A storehouse of spam is kinda dull. sterile^talk 05:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's cute to see him enforcing all his petty rules when there's nobody there for him to lord it over. I think he likes having wiki-powah far more than he likes having a wiki. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what happens when the stubbornly arrogant paints himself into a corner of the internet. I just wish Awc would bail. (And the Colonel, too, but mostly Awc.) sterile^talk 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Who even knows what that Col Sanders thinks he's doing on any of these sites. Writing articles about hamburgers on a fundie creationist wiki seems like a huge fucking waste of time, but ok. 00:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

He should be writing about chicken. sterile^talk 04:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Awc is really getting testy. sterile^talk 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What did we learn

I learnt Philip is incapable of learning. His farewell to Awc (and therefore to ASK since there's no-one else left unless you count spambots) contained all the same misconceptions he started out with, despite being corrected on them a thousand times. Jaxe (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The realities of the backfire effect and how long deep learning takes to sink in. And a lot about evolution, information theory, denialism, and rhetoric. That and if you want a fisker to answer, just say one thing. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"It is a Christian worldview that allows us to do science" haha. What. FSTDT submission. Jaxe (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just don't engage with him for too long. I've been waiting for the thunderous sound of silence for a long time. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 04:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I love his latest reply to MaxFletcher, coupled with a warning. --Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

wesleys helping ? not really

"# (Block log); 22:42 . . WesleyS (Talk | contribs) blocked KayleyVelasco753 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Probable spammer, request review on your user talk page if not)

1. (Block log); 22:41 . . WesleyS (Talk | contribs) blocked CadeMunday494 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Probable spammer, request review on your user talk page if not)"

asking a person to use a talk page you appear to have blocked them from is just mean.

oh, and Philip, you havent yet unlocked the message page where people can post without registering. Maybe an oversight ? Hamster (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Right but, who cares? It's a silly place filled with lies. Why are we talking about it? 01:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize I'd blocked those probable spambots so harshly. The blocks have been amended accordingly. Happy now?!? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As it is written , so let it be done. Hamster (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Teh Asp's last salvo was pretty funny. Sometimes I think a lot of the nutjobs we deal with are simply being contrarian. Phillip couldn't bring himself admit/concede the smallest and most simple of observations. It's almost like disagreement is a compulsion. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but Philip is rarely wrong, OU. Didn't you know? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-opening a can of worms

It's been discussed before but I do think it is worth preserving parts of ASK - certainly some of the talk pages. As has been said before it does give an insight into a creationist mind very different from that of Assfly, and I think having an example of this different form of complete wingnuttery is both on mission and relevant to wider discussion on RW.

Selectively archiving some of the "best of PJR" pages on RW won't take much in the way of resources, and would go a way toward making RW a repository for exposing and dissecting the serious types of anti-science crazy out there - in much the same way as RW members and allies have done with Conservaleaks. Why the resistance to doing the same for ASK? -- 23:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. Ace^Moderator 23:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Does capturebot look here? Is that the best route? I would think some of the best things are something from nothing, evidence for god's exisitence, the creation v. evolution controversy, info/genetic info, some of danny's bigoted stuff. Maybe some more. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole nothing conversation is here in its entirety. Ace^Moderator 05:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The info stuff wouldn't be hard to do, because it's confined to so few pages. (I only have a small snippet here.) I don't even remember where other things are, like the second law of thermodynamics converation we had. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll port some of the info stuff later in the week as I can say I'm responsible for it. I'm not sure what else I want to port over if there's no clear use for it and no one to take responsibility for it. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds good, but I don' think it will work. At least not very well. With all the TQ'ing, everything gets so bloated and drawn out. You can get a gold nugget from Andy in five minutes. With PJR, you have to mine for 3 days. Some of the stuff is valuable, but it's tl;dr (or too confusing, i.e. spread across multiple main/talk/user pages). It'd have to be a damn good, concise example because no one is going to want to read 5 pages to chuckle at a prick who used to have a wiki no one ever heard of. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There could be a creationist rhetoric page or essay, although it would be better served with more prominent creationists' rhetoric. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 04:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Filter

The naming filter makes for interesting reading. Philip knows some strong words, and yet he choses to trump us with logic instead! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)