RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive7

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Shit

I just slashed my throat on asshole's talk page. [1] Oh well, it was fun, but it got really boring. ħuman 07:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That'll do it, Human. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You cut your face off despite your nose. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You get 2 hours for swearing at them and I get 1 month + 3 month probation for calling Sarfati a moron? What the fuck....Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Questioning the oracle of CMI is punishable by death in PJR world. Since he doesn't have a mind of his own and simply follows what CMI tells him to say, he's pretty heavily invested in it not being a crock of shit. Oh yeah, plus I'm now about 90% certain CPalmer is a parodist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Make that 100%. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he definitely went three words too far. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ace, please tell me that "cut your face off" bit is some clever wordplay I am unable to appreciate due to lack of sleep. 76.105.223.232 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

YOu've never heard the phrase "Cut your nose off to spite your face"? --Gulik (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ace was being "funny". Also, I am appalled that all I got was a "two hour while you sleep" block, when others have been blocked for fricking months. After all, I tole them to fuck themselves off and called them IDiots. What do I have to do to get any disrespect around there, anyway? ħuman 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ace wasnt being "funny", he was being damned hilarious! Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably something like this. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's totally why I never signed up over there. I'd never be able to manage sucking up to Philip for so long before just coming out and calling him a Liar for Jesus. As someone pointed out before, he's viciously ignorant, and willfully so. I could never understand why people thought he was so blamed reasonable. --Kels (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moar Hitler

Kenlopez tries to smear Darwin and the TOE whenever possible. Nothing new here. So, he tries to get Hitler's evolutionary racist statement - If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.] - into aSK's article on aSK:Adolf Hitler. When I looked beyond the secondary source which Ken stated for this quote, I found:

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. [...]

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

(Bold fonts mine). So, it's a religious racist statement...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

that's pretty funny. too bad he wasn't a true enough Christian to make a difference... ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, wouldn't the mingling of "superior" and "inferior" races be a good thing from a genetic diversity standpoint? Seems like he's arguing the opposite of evolution. --Kels (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the "Hitler pretended to be Christian" gibe. Could you argue that he pretended to be an "evolutionist [sic]", when in reality he just a racist? Poor Phil...the guy is so viciously stupid. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is quite ridiculous to propose that Hitler equated "superior" and "inferior" with "more fit" and "less fit," because if he had done so, he should not have argued for the persecution of the Jews, as he judged that the Jews were quite "fit" in the evolutionary sense: "There is probably no other people in the world who have so developed the instinct of self-preservation as the so-called 'chosen' people. The best proof of this statement is found in the simple fact that this race still exists." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, in terms of natural selection "fit" simply means lived to breed. An individual that is more fit was more successful in passing on its genetic material to the next generation than a less fit individual. There is no other definition. This is more or less the opposite of what the Nazis said about race. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck getting a quote saying "throughout hundreds of thousands of years" up on ASS. Their universe isn't anywhere near that old. ħuman 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

...Why do they have an article up called "Ask Adolf Hitler"? I was under the impression he wasn't answering many questions these days. --Gulik (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions are requested at ask: Tomás de Torquemada‎. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ah, ah. He was Catholic, not a real true Christian. Doesn't count. Godspeed (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive Archiving

Pi, thanks for spotting Kenlopez's acts of creative archiving! He must be rather annoyed that he can't delete pages at aSK... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a surprise

Apparently Philip supports the removal of tax-free status on churches. "Sunday School is not intended to be a neutral venue funded by Christian and non-Christian taxpayers, as government schools are." --Kels (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

At least he's consistent, which puts him one up on a lot of True Believers. --Gulik (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, except I don't think he took that into account when he said that. I think he believes churches don't receive help at all and are totally independent. --Kels (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The tax exemption of churches (i.e. religious bodies - not just the buildings) in the UK (dunno about elsewhere) has always annoyed me. Just because I believe some tripe, I'm entitled to dodge tax? Whacky! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, everyone is expected to pay for their discount, since it's on the public account. Canada is the same way, and I gather the US is. I'm making the assumption that Australia follows the British model the way Canada does. --Kels (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Phil's finally come up with his Evidence for God (taken 13 days). Think it's worth a side-by-side? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there goes my bit on cyclic universe models... ListenerX^TalkerX 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth a side-by-side. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gotta go afk for an hour or two: feel free at Evidence for God's existence ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I like how Philip's new technique is to say that anyone from here writes nothing of substance, yet his stuff is from God on high. Degrading wiki.Sterile angel 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How you can be substantial (substantive?) about anything that waffles on a premise of the bible being the basis for everything defeats me. I'm afraid that I lose my temper with him. Use the tq template on him: give him some of his own medicine. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Susan makes a joke, PJR accuses her - and all atheists - of having nothing but mockery to make their case. Meanwhile we (well, you guys) wrote a giant rebuttal on RW to every word he wrote. What a tool... ħuman 03:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Word soup

Below is a section of ask:talk:evidence for God's existence for any one who has overdosed on aSK & wants to keep away. Yes, it's my start but WTF?

== Cause ==

"This uncaused cause is consistent with Christian and some other religious views of a Creator, but inconsistent with atheistic views, which instead propose that the universe came into being from nothing."^{[previous in extremely annoying small green type]} That's an uncaused cause! Doesn't matter whether it's your "creator" or the universe - it's NOT DISTINGUISHABLE!

Which is more probable (you seem to be hooked on probable!) result of an uncaused cause:

that an amorphous and slowly degrading (over billions of years) blob of something should be the outcome;

or:

that a fully functional being with some motive (apparently self aggrandisement) for creating such a blob of something a fully functional universe with humanity at its metaphorical centre should be the outcome?

Give me a break! (I did write considerably more, but it wasn't polite, so I've scrubbed it before saving) [[User:Theresa Wilson]] 10:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The universe is not an uncaused cause. According to standard cosmology, it's uncaused, but not an uncaused cause, as God is. [[user:Philip J. Raymen]] 13:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference between an uncaused cause and something uncaused? One would think that anything uncaused which has some consequences is an uncaused cause... [[User:DiEb]] 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I haven't been clear on that. The "uncaused cause" has always been understood to be something that doesn't require a cause. The universe requires one, despite Big Bangers not having a cause for it. When I said that the universe is uncaused, I meant that this is what is claimed of it, not that the claim is correct. [[user:Philip J. Rayment]] 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Word soup! [[User:Theresa Wilson]] 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I have this correct...

P1. There is a set of objects E that exist

P2. For All x in E there is some y in E that causes x.

P3. God exists and is therefore a member of set E.

P4. For God, there exists no x in E that causes God.

This results in a contradiction that has to be resolved. Either...

C1. God does not exist as he does not fit the qualificaitons of the members of E.

C2. P2 is incorrect as objects can exist within E for which no y is in E that caused them.

C3. The definition of God is incorrect, he actually is a member of set E, and there exists some x in E that causes God.

But I may be completely wrong on this. HumanisticJones 17:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All powerful Atheismo help me, I've succumbed to SIWOTI syndrome and signed up at aSK over this one. Set logic disproves the existence of the Uncaused Cause or renders it not so special, QED bitches. HumanisticJones (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want none o' that jibba-jabba! For a start, why does the universe require a cause? Big Bang theory doesn't require one or dismiss one. And either way, so what? You can easily have a non-intelligent "Prime Mover" there, but it doesn't at all have to resemble the interventionist God of the Bible. This whole "uncaused cause" is how many pins can you stick in the ass of an angel territory.--Kels (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Added yours Mr. Jones. Eggsellent! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Teflpedia

Is this really appropriate at a learning resource for people who speak English as a second language? Pi 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it WIGO ASK? Could it not be "RationalWiki Exiles" or something? SuperJosh 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's so that the whole age can be updated here, then sporked over to RW when it's back up, then deleted here. Totnesmartin 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a resource for people who teach English as a second language. Lily The Pink 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tripe

how do you reason with tripe? Toast 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deceit?

Philip removes & reposts a long screed of his defending (inter alia) his £100 note rubbish, dropping some 2,033 bytes in the process. I can't tell what he's changed but stinks a bit to me. Toast 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And follows it up by spelling "Atheism" as "Athiesm" not once, not twice but three times in the same edit, despite it being correctly spelled in the correct way the word before. (OK so he was copy/pasting; still to spell one of his favourite (in a negative sense) words incorrectly! Toast 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Although he did find one of his favourite (in a positive way) words he'd spelled wrong. Toast 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(doesn't that name, Mariano, ring a Kennish bell in my memory) Toast 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In the screed aforementioned is this little gem:

"If someone is born, lives and dies having never even heard of the bible or god, can they still be a 'good' moral person...? No. Because they don't have the basis of morality! Your question assumes your POV is correct. And please don't assume that I'm saying that they will be totally evil people without any redeeming features. I'm not. In any case, there are very few who have never heard of God in some form. See cp:monotheism#Was monotheism mankind's original religion?. And God has given us all a conscience, although by itself that is not an infallible way of testing."

So if God's never been "revealed" to you: you're due for Hell? Toast 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mariano? He's that nut who keeps making anti-atheism and anti-evolution blogs that made a deal for linkbacks with Ken a while back in exchange for an article on a bunch of his blogs, which Mariano then edited and Ken covered it up. He's a loon. The whole "quote by this person, as quoted by this other person" is an attempt to make quote-mining look more legitimate while still obscuring the context of the original quote. I notice Philip's been doing a lot more of it lately, and he's getting more blatantly dishonest than he used to be. --Kels 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

{{tq|^{<hee! hee!>}he's getting more blatantly dishonest than he used to be}} he couldn't! Toast 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. He's always been dishonest. It's just now he's being more obvious about it, that's what I was getting at. I'm also impressed that he blatantly claims he didn't create the "evolution as progress" quote-mine solely to back up his "Hitler used evolution exactly as it was intended to be used" BS. Although someone pointed out on a blog I frequent that it's not so much lying as bullshitting, since a liar cares about the truth and lies knowing that, but a bullshitter doesn't care if it's true or not, nor what the truth is, he just wants to advance his goals by any means. That's what Philip does, and he does it often. --Kels 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides the deceit, Philip also seems to be running out of material. There's only so much summarizing of CMI before you run out of stuff.... Sterile 01:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the endless lazy reffing to CMI pisses me off. Lazy bastid (sorry Bob). Like on RW I relentlessly pursue "refs" that are to wikipedia - hey, if the fact is good, chase it to the source! Human 03:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Parodist?

Somebody, please, tell me Dan's a parodist. No-one really thinks like that, surely. Especially the "Praise the Lord!" stuck in the middle! Toast 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see him being all that much different from Ken. Certainly a monomaniac, focused mainly on this whole homosexuality thing, and supported by a church who encourages his rather twisted view on reality. --Kels 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he's even looking at reality. No, sadly there are people who believe whatever fits their comfort zone; it's just that Dan's comfort zone involves hating other people for not conforming to bronze age sheep-herders' fairy tales. Totnesmartin 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If you take the traditional word for it that Moses wrote the early parts of the Bible, then it's Iron Age. But if you go with actual, you know, scholarship, then it's after even the Iron Age ended. Oh, and from what I was reading this week, the creation story was actually adapted from Babylonian literary sources, while the stuff about Abraham and so on were from oral traditions. Not sure that means much, but there you have it. --Kels 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a pet theory that Cain and Abel dates back to conflicts between hunters and herders, and Esau and Jacob between herders and farmers - with the contending tribes in each case being personified as brothers. If so (and it's only something I thought up years ago) that's ooooold... Totnesmartin 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one thing I was told about yesterday was that the literal "this is how God created the world" wouldn't have been important at all to the original writers, what they'd have done is take an existing legend that people knew about and rewrite parts in order to assert the primacy of their God. In this case, the point wasn't so much "creation took six days" as much as a bold statement of monotheism. The story was just a template, and it would have been recognized as such. Which, of course, means that Creationists totally miss the point of Genesis 1, but who's really surprised? --Kels 22:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point is what they do best. Totnesmartin 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"bronze age sheep-herders" BLASHPHEMY!!! We all know they were goat herders. Copper-age goatherds. Human 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I like to think that the goat-herders worshipped Baal. Totnesmartin 07:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice one

Whoever you are, Pascal Toast 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is so awesome. Sterile 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. And probably accurate, sadly enough. I do like how he uses "exegisis" to mean "justify my bullshit". --Kels 02:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. (adding) Ooh, and Pi pricked Ruy's finger... Human 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I blame PJR for this

I'm sitting here watching the ashes last test, but this year I can't help viewing it as creationism vs. sanity rather than a game of cricket. Damn you PJR for ruining my favourite sport :D --Jeeves 10:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old English cricket team... or as we call it... South Africa 'B'. --psygremlin 10:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been reading the Guardian OBO, haven't you? :D --Jeeves 10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sitting here in Oz with my fingers and everything else crossed. (At least thers's no New Zealanders in our team.) This could be a good game to win! RagTop 11:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in OZ but a new zealander. So all I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA.....Oh yeah, and what the fuck is wrong with Ponting's face? hahahahahahaha. Ace McWicked 06:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a match on somewhere I hadn't heard about? (Actually it's spelled "croquet".) We play on the lawn on Sundays after church: the Lord of the Manor and the Bishop come round for a game. Note: while Oxford and Cambridge universities have croquet teams, Hull doesn't. Another note: the MacRobertson International Croquet Shield is currently held by Great Britain. Toast 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In other news: England won some burned bits of wood yesterday, I understand. Toast 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hull 4 London 1. IIRC. Hey, Toast, you know England used to run the world, right? One day the US will have "used to run the world" and I hope we degrade into obsolescence as well as the one empire that survived de-empirization. Human 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Human, you've just outed yourself as a Housemartins' fan... which means that I love you forever. And well done to Trott, always nice to see a yellow turncoat scumbag local boy do well. -- Psy_Whut? 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On Radio4 yesterday they did a piece about how the Ozzie meeja was covering the cricket - I paraphrase a little - "Well people didn't think we'd cover this story but we're going to be up front and face the facts, the Australian under-21 ladies netball team beat New Zealand in the final of the World Youth Netball Championship. Well done girls!" Genghis Khant 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Publius

I hadn't seen him on RW for quite a while; is he still there? Phantom Hoover 10:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not right now! :-( Toast 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm always everywhere. Publius 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hee

Bradley's been reading someone's user page. Wonder whose he means. Toast 01:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I knew what you were talking about, until I checked that first diff :) 167.123.240.35 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (LowKey)

My fault: two lowkey stupidities in such a short time. OK now. Toast 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? The other diff wasn’t even my post! (GregL’s IIRC) Interesting that you assume “offensive user pages” refers to yours, though. 167.123.240.35 05:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I get it. Still, the proposed policy I was working under has been undergoing democratic debate for quite some time, and incorporated suggestions from “both sides of the fence”. 167.123.240.35 05:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it coulda been my user page. Although, as a boy, I get two free passes to the little PJR room wherein we write our names. No durty gerlz alloud! Human 05:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Batten down the hatches! Rampage a-comin'

Look out, Philip's re-blocked Toast, criticized Human for unilateralism (WTF does he think he's doing?), and told me that the statistical not meaningful information is not important for his criticism of the PP article. Is ASK's Night of the Blunt Knives coming? Sterile 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Slacktivist

I can just hear little Philip stamping his widdle foot as he types this. Aww, did Slack hurt your feelings by stating what an idiot you and your fellow dining room tables are? --Kels 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I was gonna call the section "Tripe". [2] yup, same link. What amused me so much was that he actually deleted me calling some tripe of his tripe on its talk page, and yet here his only argument is "What a load of ignorant insulting tripe!" I challenged him to say something substantive in a rebuttal article. Dining room tabling moron! Human 04:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip is only annoyed because the latest Left Behind Friday was so short. I feel his pain. pink 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

New User

I see Lumenos has joined ASK. Toast 21:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That ought to be fun...

On another note, how come I am still not blocked there? I'd swear I went on a drunken rampage across the site last night (well, this morning), fixing some of the dumber things they say in articles. Today I check RC, no orange boxes, no warnings that I can see anywhere... and yet our dear Toast with marmite is on a forced holiday for weeks yet to come... Human 18:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dare I hope...

...that I've finally bludgeoned PJR in to submission of his ridiculous mischaracterisation of secular humanism? I'm so sick of his whole "you're all religious, so I'm not alone in being nuts" schtick. He'd so blur the distinction that we might as well not have separate words for religion and philosophy. As if it wasn't bad enough to have him wholesale butchering science, he has to start on old mother tongue too. --Jeeves 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip is an jerk. Sterile 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he is. I don't know why he didn't block me last night. He's a schtup. (that's a word I made up) Human 04:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was an onomatopoeia for sexual intercourse? I know at one time it was. --Kels 05:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I stoled it for meaning a YECdiot with his head up his poopie hole. Same onomotapeeeeia, different hole. Human 05:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be onomotasheee... Sorry, I forgot we're over at Bob's place. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Onomatopoeia? Phantom Hoover 07:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to embarack hooman by correcting his vowels. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 07:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably his objective is to show that we are acting on faith just as much as he is. It's interesting that this is in some ways similar to the argument which is being made at Pseudoskeptic article at wikisynergy.--Bob M 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are eerie similarities. I just wrote to Philip that perhaps scientific explanations of life origins were more grounded in reality because they are based on observations of the natural world, and then wrote pretty much the same thing at WS. Sterile 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Human, you wish you made up schtup. You and your liberal vandal site claptrap. Nutty Roux 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Jaxe

wish I could edit. Although all I'd write would be: 2nice one ~~~~" Toast 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure I can find the mental energy to reply to "An unconscious robot using trial and error would wear out before it had tried even an extremely tiny fraction of the possible combinations". Jaxe (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

When block finishes.....

I am going to give PJR a fucking hell of an ear bashing. He blocked me for a month for calling Sarfati a moron but others have called PJR and his ilk ignorant and fuckign IDiots with no come uppance. Also, the guy is cooked. Creation DOES NOT fit the evidence better and how you INTERPERATE evidence is completely irrelevant. I am going to earn myself a lifetime ban. Fucking hell. 3 days...3 days...Ace McWicked 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree but you also pee on them. Human 05:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to drink and type, you need a spell checker first. --Jeeves 08:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Love it Ace Saved here for posterity. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait to see his response. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DNA doesn't follow the laws of chemistry

I'm involved now, but what in the world is Philip talking about that DNA doesn't follow the laws of chemistry? Does he really believe that? Sterile 12:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand why you all keep editing at aSK. At CP, Andy uses a simple one line putdown to show that he's an idiot. PJR shows his idiocy more thoroughly and point by point. SuspectedReplicant 12:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't follow the laws of chemistry because it is a machine designed by God. I thought that was obvious, you can tell it was designed by looking at it and comparing it to a watch. Pi 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Using "enzymes" isn't chemical - it's magical therefore GODDIDIT! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, a watchmaker argument. Not seen that before. Jaxe (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikisphere

So do we move this? If so can you also include all subpages. - π 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a while 'til all the move stuff's died down? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, toast's correct there, let the dust settle. But, the proposition is to keep track of wikis except CP on a "new" WIGO Wikisphere, and merge the content of WIGO AWK and WIGO 4R into it. I'd say, move this one, and just copy any dusty 4R stuff in, if we care. We'll need to edit a few places, of course. Should we make a todo list here of what changes have to be made? ħuman 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I start a discussion on the main page talk, as it sounds like it might involve a few pages. - π 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's try to do this all in one place, and that's a better one, I guess. ħuman 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip "Thy name is fuckwit" Rayment

So I make a rather intelligent and interesting comment on PJR's talk page and my reward? Block and "no comment". What a fucking wanker. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 08:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He blocked you for saying Sarfati is a moron again! He must have a massive man crush on him to ignore you insulting him and yet blocks for Sarfati. - π 08:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's very defensive of all his creationist buddies at CMI. I wonder if he even knows what he's blocking people for any more. Wasn't the original idea to defend the precious minds of the many non-existent kiddies that come to learn from the collected wisdom of aSoK? Now, he's more or less just banhammering for the sake of it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip is a profoundly dishonest guy when it comes to his cherished "worldview", and is willing to make shit up and ignore his own intelligence and critical thinking in order to swallow whole whatever fetid crap CMI feeds him. Why? All in the service of not being wrong. Because not having that Invisible Sky Daddy (tm) that he's invested so much into would cost him way too dearly. But that's true of Creationists in general, isn't it? --Kels (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand the why of it. It all seems so profoundly unnecessary. Why go through the hassle of isolating yourself from and denying the evidence to such a great extent? You can perfectly happily be a Christian without being a young earther. I just have a really hard time imagining that anyone finds any of the young earth arguments convincing, and he has to work so hard convincing himself that every scientist comes to a different conclusion because of their "worldview." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It must take a monumental effort for to deny so so much. And continue to do so every single time new evidence for evolution and an old earth is presented. And then to fool himself into thinking that its a big conspiracy, atheism is a religion/worldview et al. Why doesnt his head explode? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked, during the The Great Exodus‎, why people kept trying to engage PJR and was told it was for teh lulz. The guy is clearly never going to admit that he's wrong, so I have to ask again: why? SuspectedReplicant (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The same reason we do most of what we do? A strange, pseudo-intellectual masturbation. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And I get that. But at least a good wank gives one some pleasure. Winding up PDR just increases blood pressure! SuspectedReplicant (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A little more... Ace's original comment was a bit of a rant reasonably-written, formatted worse than a dog's dinner and something that should cause even PJR to pause for a moment and think. But no! Fuck off Get thee hence! It's not lulz if you spend vastly more time than the other guy for vastly less effect. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was a good rant, but fuck the formatting. I am looking forward to see if he also blocks who ever it was for calling Dawkins a moron. Someone please put the pressure on, I want to see if he's as dishonest as I think he is. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 23:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can block the person who called Dawkins a moron. Shall I hie me hence? ħuman 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I decided to get myself blocked instead. ħuman 04:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good rant. It was well worth reading and once I had pasted it into a text editor, I could read it. I'll post something on aSK later, but please... next time you're gonna rant, please at least pay lip service to some readability principles instead of posting an 1100 words rant as one paragraph! SuspectedReplicant (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of us should block TE for calling Dawkins a moron. That'll make Philip and Bradley look even more foolish than they do now. Sterile angel 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I want Philip to do it - it has been brought to his attention already. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(UI) I blocked Pi and TE both for calling a "prominent scientist" a moron. I, um, also, er, edited PJR's talk page in a less than cautious way. Let's face it, I called him a moron. It should be added to the drop down block reasons... it's a pandemic! ħuman 04:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I called the owner of the site a "fucking IDiot", and all I got was this pretty WIGO". I can't believe I got away with that. One can only wonder where his respect or whatever it is for me comes from. ħuman 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well he certainly didn't get it from me. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Or anyone here, indeed. The only reason I survive here is the incredible laxity of the "guidelines" and my prolific edit rate. Other than that, my only claim to usefulness is to be an ass over at aWK and not get blocked. Maybe it's because I was so nice to him for three days when he started PJRwiki? ħuman 08:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturalistic explanations (NE) vs. supernaturalistic explanations (SNE)

I figure that I am just spinning my wheels here. But, I'm trying to figure out Phil. Is he avoiding the questions? Yes, but for what reason? It's like he never actually wants to get to his "endgame". It's more like he'd rather maintain a persecution complex. Thoughts? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The notion of a SNE best fitting the facts is perplexing. I simply cannot figure out how a magician did something (or how something in my sotry book could have happend), therefore... ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can always think of a better SNE so fit the facts. Your imagination is the limit with hypotheticals. Jaxe 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One can always pluck a new SNE out of the air, which has been done; no SNE has endured in the manner that the NEs have. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Phil implies that SNEs can be rated (I guess that's as good a word as any). I suppose that he would rate his SNEs highest. He just doesn't explain why. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He does not need to; he presupposes that they are highest. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand that once you allow the supernatural to explain one thing, you've opened Pandora's box. At that point, why not Last Thursdayism? It fits the facts perfectly, it just isn't a useful explanation for anything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but all other supernatural explanations don't "fit the facts" the way the Bible does. Never mind that there's no way you could derive the Bible from facts. It's like meaningful information, he knows it when he sees it, and doesn't need to explain it to anyone. --Kels 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you start pushing him for "facts" there he would probably give you the recent creation and the Deluge, both of which also fit with just about every pagan mythology. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd never get Philip to admit the fact staring him in the face. That based on the evidence we now have (and have had for generations), there's no possible way anyone could reasonably assume a gigantic, world-wide flood happened. It would have been possible to do so with the limited evidence of about 500 BC or so, when the big stuff in Genesis got lifted from the Sumerians, but it's doubtful even they though it was a literal event. --Kels 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you try to talk about how the Deluge is an impossible event, they respond by positing ever more alterations to the laws of physics to accommodate it, until at last they have contradicted their own assumptions that the evidence of the creation is plainly seen. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you accept the whole idea that the earth in 10,000 years old; that a miraculous flood occurred with animals being sent by god to an ark which floated round the world, and then accept that all the animals somehow expanded around the whole world from the middle east - then accepting that all the details were fixed by miracles as well is no big trick.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The other day I found a bird lying injured outside the library. I guess I could have assumed that it got there supernaturally and left it at that, since that explanation "fits the facts" just fine. But I know that the library has big windows, that big windows can appear to be nice empty sky to a bird due to reflections, and that birds can get hurt by flying into glass, so I had a pretty good reason to believe that the bird arrived in its state by accidentally flying into the window pane. I also know that organisms reproduce, that reproduction occurs with mutations, that some mutations can be beneficial, that natural selection occurs, that reproductive isolation can lead to speciation, and that life in the past was different from what it is now. So evolution seems like a pretty damn good idea to me. But the creationists want me to accept a supernatural explanation because it "fits the facts" just as well? Sorry, that's not convincing.--El Presidente 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You fool. God sees every bird that falls, you know, so that bird was there for a reason! Atheism doesn't provide reasons for anything, and by atheism I mean evolution, which includes the Big Bang for some reason, which I understand to be an explosion of some sort. --Kels 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So, does anyone think that I might have a realistic chance of getting a reply or can I just expect more rephrasing of how SNEs aren't allowed? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? Of course the latter, with a side order of the only SNEs that fit the evidence have to do with the specific version of the Christian God that Philip believes in. --Kels 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My approach

Most of the discussions that I notice on aSK are variations on a theme. That being that a point is brought up and is argued in circles. It probably then leads to several tangents. There really is no surprise to what Phil or Bradley's response will end up looking like. Every response is generally the same response as any other.
I was wondering if my approach was possibly a better one. I say concede a point to Phil or Bradley and then ask them what we can expect. I think that Phil's responses to the NE vs. SNE topic have been very telling in that they have said nothing. I am beginning to think that Phil doesn't really believe that ID and/or creationism will every supplant evolution and that he simply wishes to maintain a persecution complex. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 11:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That actually is an interesting thought. So what you're suggesting is that YEC's like Philip don't actually believe in Ken's hype that evolution on the internets (and real life) are on the run, or ever will be. He actually expects the situation to continue indefinitely, and what he's trying to do is not win per se but fight a holding action so his fringe minority will remain into the foreseeable future, holding a never-ending pity party with the quasi-elite belief that they are the only ones who truly understand God. --Kels 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're never going to convince PJR in reasoned debate. He's created for himself a nice hermetically sealed environment in to which no light can penetrate. I suggest a different approach. Humiliate him at every opportunity, expose how little of the world he actually knows. It is possible he may one day get sick of being pig ignorant on more or less every topic, and set out to actually learn something beyond what CMI force feeds him. At that point the battle is pretty much won, young earth creationism can't stand exposure to the facts. I'm fairly certain if he's going to be convinced, he's going to have to convince himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Phil can be convinced. That's not my intent. My thought is that if they can't explain their position after a certain point or points have been conceded, then why bother arguing the points?

Not that I believe that there was any realistic chance that Kitzmiller could have gone any other way, but the trial actually happened and there were only two (to one extent or another) possible outcomes. So, my question to Phil was - if the trial had gone the other way, then what? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting theoretical question. I shudder to think the state the US might be in now if ID was not recognised as the obvious beard for creationism that it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel certain that they realize that they have no chance. That is why I have focused on the persecution complex idea so much. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about Philip, at least. He tends to put things into a certain corner and then get stuck there. Bradley is a little more open. The point you bring up about the perpetual persecution complex is probably true. I don't know if we've just seen everything Philip has for the us (he may just be busy). I'm also not sure if his goal is to convince people that he is right or to defend creationism, and there is a subtle difference there. Sterile angel 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

His current dancing around the questions does not fill me with hope that he will actually ever address the questions directly. Yeah, he could finally answer, but it certainly seems as though he's not interested.

I'd have to say that he seems to be on the defend creationism side. However, if you're not trying to convince people that you are right, then why bother to defend creationism (or at least to the extent that he does)? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit of perspective

Nothing actively going on over there, just sort of a rant I guess. Yesterday, in my Animation Design class, we briefly went over a history of perspective. It's actually a very recent concept, and most civilizations right up the the Renaissance didn't have it. This is despite the fact that perspective itself is very simple and intuitive. Things further away are smaller. Everything recedes to the horizon. Things overlap the things behind them. And that's really the basics. And yet, there was no such thing in ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, right through middle ages Europe. In fact it wasn't until this piece in 1427 that mathematical perspective was used at all in art. And it was a sensation, people flocked to see it and couldn't believe the arch wasn't carved into the wall. Things were quickly studied and codified, and all the rules we use today came from that period.

So when I heard all this, I immediately was reminded of Philip and Bradley admonishing people for suggesting that Noah couldn't possibly have the technology to build a ship the size of the Ark, which would survive even slightly stormy weather let alone a global deluge. They accuse people of claiming ancient people were stupid, and that since they weren't stupid, they must have been able to build such a boat, even though there's no evidence anyone has ever made such a thing. But it's the exact same thing as perspective, isn't it? The ancients weren't stupid. Look at all the Romans accomplished. Egyptians, too. And any number of other civilizations before and since. And yet...they knew nothing of something as simple and direct as perspective. It's not calling them stupid. It's saying that the observations that people make every single day, hell every single moment your eyes are open, were not codified, and we have evidence that they weren't.

I dunno. It's nothing earth-shattering, and it doesn't take much to spot how dishonest Philip and Bradley are with stuff like this, and the depth of their poor-faith arguments, but the parallel really struck me and I felt the need to share. That's really about it. --Kels 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, to put it in one sentence, the smart people of today stand on the shoulders of the giants who did the codification. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tangential thought: engineers don't use perspective except for in special sketches (usually in architecture). Technical drawing is drawn "flat", the parallel lines of sight never intersect. And, yes, Kels, it was a true revolution in the field of art. ħuman 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspective was something of a rediscovery. Classical cultures were actually pretty good at drawing from life, but then Christians came along and insisted on smashing up everything pagan, and we got another 800 years of crap drawings. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was artistry no question, and very good artistry, but an awful lot of it up to that point didn't use depth, scale and foreshadowing in a consistent way. Sculpture, on the other hand, was amazing. --Kels 00:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, 3-D art was amazing but as it was based on real things it had to be good to, ah, be good.

If one thinks about it, save for the odd cave drawing most of the "art" of the ancients (as well as the pre-ancients) was 3-D "art". Arrowheads, (while not representative of anything in nature, except, perhaps a sharpened stick, albeit harder and maor! durable), and other such tools were "art" per se. The 2-D arts didn't get a good start until well after the establishment of stable agrarian societies had sprung up. (We should also acknowledge though I ain't gettin' into it here, that writin' is also a 2-D "art" that codified the oral traditions stories that led to orthodoxy [and heresy] of the local gods and demons, and the requirements of each.)

When one lobs off an entire dimension to create a representation of a 3-D object there aren't really any "rules"; so too the artists' intentions must be thought of afore we "judge", as it was that the subject was maor! important than the likeness. Art, to a large degree, didn't exist for its own sake but was used as a propaganda machine for the masses, like most propaganda it bore but little resemblance to the actual person or object thus depicted.

Only when it became "necessary" to art did drawing incorporate the "rules" mostly because it sold better than the old stuff.

The rules held sway for nearly 500 years before our decadence "allowed" us to experiment with throwing the rules away (Picasso et al) or embracing them like never afore, (Escher) to create something in 2-D that can never exist in 3-D space.

16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Well, the point I was making up there was that saying that the concept of mathematical perspective was unknown to the ancients (even as recent as the middle ages) is by no means an insult, but rather just a simple statement. It's not something that had been understood and applied. And that made me think the same thing in relation to Noah's alleged shipbuilding skills. That's really about it. --Kels 03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethics question for those with no objective basis for their morality:

This has happened to me on more than one occasion - in researching some point of contention on CP or ASK, I have directed a polite email query to one of the principals cited by one side or the other, and received a gracious reply. In general, I find that folks are happy to respond to a neutrally worded question that indicates that the questioner has a decent grasp of the underlying issue(s). I did not ask whether the individual could be quoted in a public forum, nor did I identify myself as anything other than an interested private party so I feel uneasy about posting the resulting responses. In the interest of full disclosure, several individuals have responded to initial questions but not to follow-up questions - but as they were under no obligation to answer in the first place, and since additional questions may have set off 'someone is looking for help with their paper' or 'stalker weirdo' alarms, I absolutely don't hold that against the respondents. Also, we're not talking about celebrities or politicians here - just individuals who have attained a high degree of respectability in their individual fields.

So, what's the ethical thing to do? I've asked this question before on an unrelated matter, but the zeitgeist changes over time so I thought I'd test the waters again. In the future, to salve my conscience, should my initial email contact include something like 'I may use your response to prove somebody wrong on the Internet?' --Martin Arrowsmith 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This might fall under the category of moral copyright, actually; if the person does not agree with the point you are trying to prove, that might be considered distortion of their words. (Caveat lector: I know little to nothing about copyright law.) ListenerX^TalkerX 01:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More like ASK sez: "JohnRoe hates freebles" so I ask JohnRoe "how do you feel about freebles?" and he replies "It's been years since my work with freebles, (some personal anecdote), but I remember them as being really neat." I then ask whether he ever hated freebles in the past, and he doesn't respond. What is the appropriate response to the ASK claim that JohnRoe hates freebles?--Martin Arrowsmith 02:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask them to document the claim first. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. John Bartlett is unhelpful. I feel your pain. 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fractals don't happen by themselves."

I guess snow flakes are all individually hand crafted by enslaved midgets at the northpole then? [3]

No by angels, as they gently fall from heaven. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

God must shape the shoreline everyday as the tide washes in and out. Sterile angel 12:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution reverts

Apparently there is a huge edit war over adding the claims Expelled makes (ID proponents are censored) to the Evolution article, going on between Oscar and Jaxe (who?). Just letting you know. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like little Oscar is gettin' a bit uppity. --Kels 05:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I hit a saw spot. Philip is now threatening to block me unless I apologise, not noticing I'm already blocked (not that I'd apologise anyway).[4] Jaxe 13:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

TimS

Haven't seen him for months. Where is he? EddyP 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he jumped ship after seeing another conservative wiki starting to go down the drain--Tabris 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Domains

For the record, I informed PJR that it would be a good idea to register the .com and .net (at least) versions of his domain, and he still has not. I vote we register them and point them here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I go, I just wanted to note that I've always wondered this as well, and agree that someone should teach him a little lesson and register it for a few months. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Spare him; the poor fellow has enough to contend with keeping reality off his Wiki. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Craig

This^img is awesome. I presume they let a little parody slide on aSK? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, someone removed the awesomeness. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just beautiful

This post by Philip is more of the usual dancing we've come to expect, but one part of that made me laugh aloud. It's his comment that "Creationists don't dispute that new species can form," when he's already made painfully clear that he doesn't believe one species can turn into another, no matter how much time passes. i.e., the "kind" barrier. So Creationists believe species can form, but not out of anything that already exists. So they must pop into existence, like a crocoduck. --Kels 01:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That you are still getting this concept wrong despite repeated explanations does not bode well for your ability to critique creationism in any credible way. Philip's being saying this same thing for years now, and you still attribute to him (along with YECs in general) the exact opposite of what he (along with YECs in general) has been saying. Tricksy 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And that Phil is getting every biological concept he dabbles in wrong bodes what? ħuman 03:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Being lectured by a Creationist about credibility makes me laugh long and hard. Say, when snakes lost their ability to talk human languages, was that a loss of meaningful information? What if they weren't saying anything important? --Kels 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dismissal and changing the subject. Do I take that as a tacit acknowledgement that you either don't understand or are happy to misrepresent the YEC position? Tricksy 03:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Replace species with baramin in the above to make it more accurate. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean when Kels uses it, but not in her quote of Philip, than that sentence would indeed then be more accurate. But then the whole post becomes meaningless. Tricksy 05:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A serious question: how can you claim that the "YEC position" is being misrepresented? By this I mean, whose position is the YEC position? Because everything you and Philip claim "creationists don't actually claim or believe," I've been presented with over the years, all the way from "evolution never occurs" to "micro != macro" and from "no beneficial" to "some beneficial" and so on. Where can I get the list of the current "YEC positions on matters of evolution"? Is there a body that arbitrates or synthesizes from debates? 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By "the YEC position" I mean the position of YEC's in general as I know it (being a YEC, knowing YEC's and keeping up to date with YEC organisations). I don't doubt that there are other minority positions. Actually, a resource on what is not part of the mainstream YEC position is (you're going to hate this) CMI. They (and AiG IIRC) list arguments that YEC's should not use. As per the current topic fixity of species is a feature of some OEC proponent's arguments, but not any YEC orgs that I know of. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tricksy / talk / contribs}

There are plenty of evidentialist YECs with whom CMI has no truck. Also, YEC and mainstream do not belong in the same sentence. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See, you have a serious problem here, because what you call "in general" is not "in general." I seriously doubt you can call anything a "mainstream YEC position," because, quite simply, there's a reason CMI had to make that list: the vast majority of creationists know absolutely nothing about the scientific discipline, and are simply repeating talking points, whether gathered from laughable people like Ray Comfort or from CMI two decades back. Also, I like the phrase "keeping up to date." This explains the incongruities perfectly. Many got their talking points from CMI before they revised their list of deceptions to remove the most atrocious affronts to logic. And why is revision going on, when there's obviously no research being conducted? 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dismissal is all the YEC "argument" is worth, sadly. And if the subject is credibility, I'd say believing in the literal truth of a walking, talking snake that understands and speaks human language (but lost that ability, is it suppressed in hox genes like leg formation is?) goes pretty much to the heart of it. Hell, I grew up in a time and area where (Anglican) religion was common, there were churches everywhere, and people came into classrooms in session to distribute Bibles, and I knew it was clear before grade five that it wasn't any more credible than The Wizard of Oz. The Ark? A story. The Garden of Eden? A story. The Tower of Babel? A story. Nothing that anyone with a grain of sense would think actually happened that way, and the evidence backs that up, in spades. Sorry, but dismissal and ridicule are what the YEC position has earned, nothing more. --Kels 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what drives me nuts about philip...

"Evolutionists try to keep the debate from being heard" Jesus Philip, how many times must it be spelt out to you! THERE IS NO DEBATE!! It has been settled long ago and every argument from creationists has been refuted! Sure there are holes in evolution but the "god of gaps" is never a conclusive nor debatable argument. Fuck. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. First you make Philip's point for him. Then you hurl some elephants. Then you invoke your own "god of the gaps" to attack an argument we don't make. Tricksy 03:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You people are weird. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tricksy 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The theory of evolution started in the scientific community and got accepted there before it was ever taught in schools. On the other hand creationism started among the public, creationists have taken their case first to the public, and creationists wish to compel schools to teach creationism despite it being beyond the scientific pale. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"...creationists wish to compel schools to teach creationism..." Who? The creationist orgs that I know of specifically speak against compelling schools to teach creationism. Tricksy 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So what this "teach the controvesy" and "Creationism is being censored" and Kitzmiller and the Texas board of education nonsense? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You must not know too many creationists, then... ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the “creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing,” as well as explaining the earth’s geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood" (WP:Creationism) The Dover schoolboard mandated presenting ID as an alternative "theory." Polls repeatedly show that American creationists want it taught in school[5]. Edwards v. Aguillard was spawned by a bill requiring the teaching of creationism in Louisiana. In 2005 the Kansas Board of Education altered science standards to put creationism in the curriculum. Nooo, no one is trying to compel schools to teach creationism. 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought evolution was supposed to have started in the oceans! (I blame Gary Larson for the mental images I am experiencing). Actually, check your (ancient) history. Evolution as a concept started in philosophical circles. Tricksy 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All scientific prinicples start off philosophically, its called thinking, wondering about the environment, making a hypothesis based on it and seeing if there is any evidence. Einstein didn't just put pen to paper to see what came out. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I suppose next you will be trotting out the old "evolution as pagan mythology" comedy routine? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, you dont teach students the "controversy", scientific ideas are debated by scientists and not students. Students are taught the best and most up to date principles. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Students are taught current and historical models, and (if the system works) the gaps in and/or criticisms of the currently accepted model. Of course that is assuming that education is about teaching the next generation how to think, rather than what to think. Tricksy 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there are gaps in evolution (as I mentioned above) but you dont just throw an answer in (like god). You search for evidence and god is not evidence. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Education is about teaching the next generation how to think not what to think. That's exactly why Evolution is the generally accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth rather than the bronze-age myth dreamt up by some middle-eastern goat-herders which was taught beforehand. A handful of respected scientists do have issues with aspects of Evolution but they definitely don't plump for a 6000-year-old-goddidit explanation. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for channeling Toast for us, GK. Where the hell is she, anyway? ħuman 06:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, logged in with wrong account. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Engage creationist goggles! Education is about teaching the next generation how what to think not what how to think. That's exactly why Evolution is the generally accepted indoctrinated scientific atheistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth rather than the bronze-age myth dreamt up by some middle-eastern goat-herders which was taught beforehand word of God. A handful of respected dogmatic scientists do have issues with aspects of Evolution but they definitely don't plump for a 6000-year-old-goddidit explanation accept truth. 06:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, my favorite ask-idiocy now is that Coyne is not an expert on what Coyne said; no Behe is an expert on what Coyne said. Quote mine much?) Sterile angel 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm about done with ASK.

What's the point? They whine about evolutionary "confirmation bias" but refuse to acknowledge their own. They cheery pick evidence and yet put their fingers in their ears (or over their eyes) and ignore what they are uncomfortable with. They are insistent at character attacks against Dawkins, but fail to acknowledge the sliminess of Behe. What's the point? Sterile angel 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughs. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, don't give up hope! I'm sure that with just a few more citations you will convince Philip and Bradley that they have been wrong all along (and thus invalidate the whole reason for the site to exist in the first place).--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 15:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just adore Bradley's comment here. "I was amused by all the confirmation bias, until I found something that confirmed my biases. Then I was convinced." --Kels 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you've misunderstood that sooo much. It was the confirmation bias and speculation of Meyers that continued until the weight of comments prompted the "okay it might have been something he ate" comment. Granted, I realise that phrased it ambiguously (not intentionally). But you eagerness to grab the wrong end of the stick here almost matches Sterile's in citing the article in the first place. I was actually a little disappointed. Sterile built it up to be something special - an example too good to pass up - and it turned out to be based on a tabloid article that got Meyers all worked up without even basic fact-checking. My only pre-conception was that I as going to read an article about a snake with a leg, along with some (not purely hypothetical) explanation for this. Did nobody think of x-raying or taking samples from the leg and the body? Or even maybe taking a close-up photo or two? I guess there's no need when you can fill in all that missing data from your imagination. Tricksy 01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And the creationist explanation for when a suppressed gene is turned back on is what again? Is that a loss of a loss of meaningful information? Sterile angel 01:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The creationist explanation would be that a suppressed gene is no longer suppressed. If it was suppressed, it was never lost. One cannot gain something that one always had (or lose its loss, if it was never lost). Tricksy 02:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But why, then, was it suppressed in the first place? If it was meaningful, then why did God suppress it? That is by definition, loss, and the re-un-suppression is gain. (Or does it only work if it's expressed? Again, just trying to figure out what you guys mean since you can't define it yourselves.) Sterile angel 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Do you really expect us to have any argument whatsoever that will convince a creationist that evolution is fact? The evidence is there, in plain view for anyone who is interested. They are not interested, and they never will be. The whole point of us posting on such sites is to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of other readers of their sites. The owners will never be convinced. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been known to happen; Glenn Morton renounced creationism, almost being crucified for his efforts. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a link a while back in the saloon bar (Warning - I'm going to be pretty vague here) to a YouTube video of some Canadian hosting a debate between a creationist and a guy from a Canadian university who was a lecturer on the scientific method or evolution or something. Anyway he (that's the lecturer guy) said that he used to be a YECreationist until he realised the evidence pointed to the opposite. So yeah, it does happen. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution schmevolution

The creationist crap depends entirely on the "evidence for god's existence". Until they've shown something in that department that isn't the fine tuned universe, the bible or hearsay testimonials, it can be safely ignored as the gobbledegook that it is.
(I'm still here H. It's just that pegging away on this phone is slow. New CPU fitting to computer Monday/Tuesday - much pound sterling for poor pensioners to find but managed it at last)
On a related point has anyone ever come up with a reason for this "God" of theirs wanting to do all this creating and stuff? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they think if they can find one chink in Fortress Evolution's walls, then all their YECtupidity is automatically somehow proven. Also, I will now go leave a faint odor on your talk page. ħuman 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I like this one. So the problem is a lack of evidence, and no he's not going to read a book that's actually full of evidence, because that author's previous book on a totally different topic was criticized by people who have a stake in the matter, therefore his current book about something he's spent his life studying can't be trusted. Gotcha, Philip. Pull the other one. --Kels 16:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to engage in a bit of quote-mining because it's so much fun! "I've just read [some of PJR's arguments on AWK], and [they're] riddled with poor analogies, condescending remarks and labels, and straw-man arguments." ħuman 22:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The lack of engagement toward anything that might cause cognitive dissonance is appalling. Sterile angel 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler Talk

Bob M is absolutely killing me on ask:Talk:Adolf Hitler. One of the best cornerings I've seen in a while. "I only believe what I want to believe" is what Phil's position came down to. Brilliant. Well done, Bob. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigotry and other nastiness

"Jaxe, I've had enough of this arrogant nonsense. Either back up that claim of "manufacturing martyrs" or retract it and apologise for it. Otherwise you will be blocked for making false allegations."[6]

As above, PJR isn't even trying anymore.

"Tossing a bag of bigoted web-pages at me does not constitute a defence of your actions, so you will be blocked as warned."[7]

The "bigoted" sites?

[8][9][10][11][12][13]

So now simply not being a YECIDiot is cause for accusations of bigotry. ħuman 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the last 7 days, you get 368 entries in recent changes at ASK. (You don't get to 500.) There's 49% on talk pages, 21% on user talk pages, 19% on actual articles (mind you there was an edit war in there), 6% on user pages, and the rest on other (block, special pages, template and template talk, upload, user creation and rights). Sterile angel 00:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're wearing him down. I was just about to create a page on goosebumps (the vestigial skin thing, not the horror novels for kids) before I got blocked, oh well, his loss! Jaxe 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... It's just so painful. He's become so nasty. Ignorance begets anger. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 03:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Earth

I see there's a debate going on on CPalmer's page about Old Earth Creation. Whilst it's funny to see Philip clinging to his "but it says days it can't be anything else!" stance, I love his last edit comment: "claiming that there was a long time before the days has too many problems". Yeah, sure Philip - at least it doesn't create problems like God putting earth in a time warp to explain away the starlight problem. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 04:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PJR has hit "twisted knickers" stage. That is all. ħuman 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing that always gets me is that no one ever asks the more basic question of why does it take an omnipotent god six days to do anything? It shouldn't even take six Planck times. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a trick to fool stupid atheists and scientists. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point why did gOD want to do it at all? Was it lonely? It was on his own so wasn't showing off. It is omnipotent so didn't need to prove anything to itself. It is not bounded by time so knew what would happen. Why? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And why did he create people with the power to irritate him so much that he can't stand to be around them, except for some weird reason after they believe he killed himself as part of a strange, incestuous blood ritual. So many questions, no answers that don't boil down to "because he felt like it."

Of course, I think the most interesting question is what did Yahweh do with the rest of the Elohim? The heavenly constabulary ought to dig up his patio. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

God made males and females because the Biblesaysso. Silly evolutionists: there's no reason to have males and females otherwise. Sterile angel 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

tq'ing

can all you active ask'ers do me a solid and start tq'ing his entire posts within a single use of the template? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I could be less bored to do so, yeah, I'd do it... ħuman 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And, oh yeah, I tried that once, trouble is, he almost always uses it, and it doesn't "nest" properly. So it would have to be a post of his that doesn't use "tq". That, or we fix the template to generate ever-tinier, greener text... ħuman 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's almost worth going back over there to figure out how to do that. Sterile angel 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably an issue of how it's "tagged" - if it says font size:0.8, that won't "pile up", needs to be a "small" tag. And somewhere in it there's a tag that closes the "outer" use as well. Is there a way to nest the color tags so it gets greener (or lighter and lighter grey?). And, yes, it would be worth it. ħuman 21:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I copied it over as "tq from awk" so we can improve it.

It's almost worth going back over there Indeed. ħuman 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I betcha there's an easy way to do this that my tiny brain isn't comprehending. Although embedded tq's do seem to give a smaller text, who knows how to change the color? Sterile angel 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I saw this (tq from awk) & thought that someone was getting a bit clever. Sadly disappointed! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Some smart shite All you do is this ad hominem, ad hominem...

More intelligent arguments Your opinion is of no value...

Frustrated brainicles Just because you're wrong you claim I'm obtuse - Fake PJR

The above is for testing purposes. ħuman 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Some smart shite All you do is this ad hominem, ad hominem... - Keep on adding, you're bound to get the answer eventually.

More intelligent arguments Your opinion is of no value... - Take it back and apologize or get outta mah sandbox!

Frustrated brainicles Just because you're wrong you claim I'm obtuse - Fake PJR - Phillip, I'm sure you didn't mean to, but I think you got your cerebrum caught in the points again. ħuman 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just put equal signs (=) in everything. That'll be fun. Sterile angel 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since that borks his template. Although he has a hack to fix it. ħuman 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, make another quote template that says the exact same thing as tq except the color, say tqq. Then you could do {{tqq|jlajflafdjl {{tq|24234234}} }} and it should alternate colors. Sterile angel 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of such, a new template. Think we could get away with it? Can we run under cover of that hilarious new editor? Build it here first? ħuman 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, make another quote template that says the exact same thing as tq except the color, say tqq. Then you could do {{tqq|jlajflafdjl {{tq|24234234}} }} and it should alternate colors. Sterile angel 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I was thinking of such, a new template. Think we could get away with it? Can we run under cover of that hilarious new editor? Build it here first? ħuman 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Do you think he'll notice? Sterile angel 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of such, a new template. Think we could get away with it? Can we run under cover of that hilarious new editor? Build it here first?

I particularly like the white option I put in and the yellow is horrifying. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think they'd like my little yellow boxes over there as much as you guys like them here?

-- Deadpool And now I'm better at doing whatever it is Wolverine does!

Actually, it should be fairly easy to make it such that {{tq|blah}}functions as Philip expected, but {{tq|1|blah}} does something different. Sterile angel 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Or {{tq|blah|sane=yes}}. Time stupid Hoover! 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK.

Mei is If invoked normally, there is no difference from the old version.

Mei is However, if the sane parameter is given, it defaults to some other text; I've made it cquote because I'm lazy.

Mei is The advantage of this is that it allows the addition of further numerical parameters, like this:

Any good? Time stupid Hoover! 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nutty Roux/tqbb 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The coming genetic apocalypse

Oh, the huge manatee! The catastrophic devolution stuff is weird enough (I guess it's the effect of The Fall^tm), but how bad is it when even a non-scientist like me is going GENETICS DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT at just about everything he says? --Kels 13:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just can't stand to read the tq. What the fuck is wrong with him that he thinks that helps? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Argh, even the first sentence is bitterly ironic. This is the man whose whole information bit he can only explain by (terrible) analogy. Must. Restrain. Self. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also like that when something can't possibly be wrong but there's no evidence for it he starts italicizing words. I love that. Sterile angel 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The tq template was the final thing that drove me to not even lurk there anymore. What's especially bad that the reply follows seamlessly in the same line. --Sid 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn I love The Fall. 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Must... resist... Picard Facepalm... He decided to completely miss the point that I was making about arguing from analogies and jumps right back into arguing at the analogy (my 3 sentence fragments of ignore the analogy and lets get to the point being met with "No lets damn well keep pestering the analogy"). Then the half-ass rejection of the whole point, that things can exist in a present irreducible form while have a past scaffolding, by saying "Oh I accept it for most things, but its impossible if evolutiondidit". And oh my poor offspring who will have just the same number of mutations as I got. They are doomed! Doomed I tell you! And I don't even want to get started on rejecting statistically

I want to respond so badly, but that damn tq thing... he takes a coherent argument, separates it into component sentences, and attacks each individual sentence with a gish gallop of points. Finding a way to respond to that while remaining in on topic is like walking down a wide road in the middle of nowhere, stopping every 5 steps to crack yourself in the eye with a hammer... and the road is a million miles long... and the hammer is made of wank (to borrow from his fellow Aussie Yahtzee). Can he not right a reasoned reply to someone's whole argument and put it in a standard paragraph form or is he doing this on purpose just to aggravate anyone trying to start a debate?

69.15.110.98 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Yahtzee an expatriate Brit? Time stupid Hoover! 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Must... resist... Picard Facepalm... He decided to completely miss the point that I was making about arguing from analogies and jumps right back into arguing at the analogy (my 3 sentence fragments of ignore the analogy and lets get to the point being met with "No lets damn well keep pestering the analogy"). Then the half-ass rejection of the whole point, that things can exist in a present irreducible form while have a past scaffolding, by saying "Oh I accept it for most things, but its impossible if evolutiondidit". And oh my poor offspring who will have just the same number of mutations as I got. They are doomed! Doomed I tell you! And I don't even want to get started on rejecting statistically. I want to respond so badly, but that damn tq thing... he takes a coherent argument, separates it into component sentences, and attacks each individual sentence with a gish gallop of points. Finding a way to respond to that while remaining in on topic is like walking down a wide road in the middle of nowhere, stopping every 5 steps to crack yourself in the eye with a hammer... and the road is a million miles long... and the hammer is made of wank (to borrow from his fellow Aussie Yahtzee). Can he not right a reasoned reply to someone's whole argument and put it in a standard paragraph form or is he doing this on purpose just to aggravate anyone trying to start a debate? unfortunately, the only way to defeat a Gish Gallop is with diligence. Godspeed. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

aSK, summed up nicely

I just peeked into an article from the Recent Changes and re-realized why I gave up editing aSK's mainspace not long after its beginning:

Quote mining is similar if not identical to quoting out of context, but is used as an accusation by evolutionists against their critics in particular. Evolutionists claim that quote mining is "frequently engaged in by creationists",^{[note 1]} yet their claims do not stand up to scrutiny.^[1]

With "Note 1" reading "Evolutionists consider intelligent design to be a form of creationism, so would be including ID proponents in this."

And, brace yourself, the footnote at the end reading: "See Quote-mining on CreationWiki."

OH, REALLY? CREATIONWIKI? GOSH, WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE, PHILIP! A CREATION SITE FUCKING AGREES WITH YOUR CLAIM THAT IT'S WRONG THAT CREATIONISTS QUOTEMINE? IMAGINE MY FUCKING SURPRISE!

But hey, it's after midnight, so my brain was kinda switched off already, and I foolishly thought for a moment that since it's a semi-open wiki, I could, I dunno... remove that part, challenge it on the talk page, or include the "evolutionist" side of the story since biased sources seem to be fine and dandy.

However, my brain came back online when I tried to remember my login password, and I remembered that aSK is so trusworthy that they don't allow claims that contradict The Biblical Worldview.

And then I remembered that back then, I actually considered that to be a step upwards compared to CP since Philip at least openly says that he's being a dishonest ass.

What's the Trope name again? Ah yeah: I need a freaking drink.

And even as the curtain is lowered on this post, a quiet voice inside of me asks "Dude, why the fuck did you even bother to check back into that place?"... --Sid 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Dude, why the fuck did you even bother to check back into that place?" because someone's wrong on the internet? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the reason I'm nauseated is there is a point when self delusion passes into public deception, and Philip has crossed that line too many times for me. Actually, in terms of references, I'm still appalled by atheism in which footnote 7 references to ASK's morality article and PJR as a source (the Dahmer quote), and footnote 3, in which a debate in which two "evolutionists" (Dawkins being one) are discussing morality and how evolution leads to the perception of a moral vacuum. It's a two-line quote mine, and yet is supposedly holds up the entire statement, "Atheism itself provides no basis for morality." Sterile angel 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mh, Philip's odd "Evolution is atheism, atheism is evolution" stance (and all its implications, such as the "Christianity is not compatible with evolution" remark from the Pope Philip WIGO) gave me headaches, too. And the quotemines don't help - I gave up trying to understand Philip's internal reasoning (read: the one that supposedly goes beyond "If the source agrees with me, it's reliable") for what is an acceptable quote source and what is not.

The bigger thing that irks me is the mix of laziness and apparent deceit I see in the footnotes of Philip and most CP sysops, which makes it much harder to believe that they tried to edit Wikipedia in good faith. The "no basis for morality" footnote is an excellent example. It links to a tiny quote snippet on a CMI page dedicated to hosting only that one quote snippet. How long would that stand on Wikipedia? Five seconds? Four? The interview is available online and easy to find by just googling for part of the quote, so I have to assume that Philip either was so lazy that he didn't bother to improve the reliability of his project by googling a copy of the primary source... or that he doesn't want people to read the big picture of what Dawkins actually said/meant. Even Ken's habit of randomly linking to random abstracts of medical journals to "prove" something or other about Gay Bowel Syndrome has more merit than this - and that's saying something. --Sid 08:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I often wonder what Philip would be like if he was intellectually honest, but then he wouldn't be a creationist any more. --Kels 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No man, come on Kels. If he was intellectually honest his entire world would collapse. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 13:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

Is there no topic in the world that Ken will not madly try to avoid dealing with? Writing paragraphs? Really? --Kels 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken's writing is obviously perfect, and people ridicule it only because they can find no flaw in the magnificent content. A search engine starting with G lists a certain article starting with e from a site starting with C on a page starting with s, which definitely proves that people are impressed by Ken's skills which need no improvement. --Sid 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that will be last time I visit ASK. It's not just that it's the Ken and Phil (Diddyman?) show, it's just that there's so much stupid going on. I also don't know why people keep on engaging with K & P. yes, it might be fun to discuss issues with them, but at the end of the day, all you're going to get is Philip repeating 'Godidit' ad nauseum and Ken spouting his usual drivel instead of actually saying anything. I think it's time for u to walk away from this and let it die a natural death. It's virtually only RW people keeping it going anyway and we're giving Ken the attention he craves. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 11:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious Phil? Really?

this is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read. He must be channeling Schlafly with this. He throws the term "anti-creationist" around with paranoid abandon. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the above link would make a good side-by-side article, whadya think? Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 14:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would, but shall we let it "settle down" first? At least give PJR time to correct some of the horrible grammar? ħuman 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, he's they've gone from stupid to insane. Dishonesty rules and that bloody tq thing is unreal - great for galloping Gishlike but nothing else. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ever since Darwin, evolution has been supported with theological arguments, and this continues today....Dawkins, for instance, has argued that the human eye is wired backwards, something that a good engineer would not do.[ref] In doing so, he is making an argument about what an intelligent designer would or would not do. It is a theological argument, not a scientific one." That's the supposed argument for evolution. What an idiot. Sterile angel 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

*drags fingernails over keyboard* Must... not... react... to... troll... Must... not... rant... about... blatant... double... standards... GRRRRRRGH... --Sid 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is fucking outrageous. He seems to think Creationism being mentioned in passing as a crackpot idea in a New Scientist magazine qualifies as "controversy". Oh yeah, @human, give it some time yeah but it'll make a good side by side. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I read Pascal's edit summary (from an otherwise absolutely unconstructive edit war), and I have to say that I find it quite convincing. The way Philip instantly laid out the rules for his article on the talk page, it takes eitorial control to the level of... well... an essay, at least in the CP sense: "Feel free to contribute, as long as you don't argue against my conclusion." --Sid 12:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of CUR and felidae article. "It is collaborative but I am in charge". Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 19:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dammit

I hate Opposite Day:

“”That is an atheistic myth. Christianity is solidly based on evidence. It's the religion of evolution that's based on blind faith.

--Kels 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but the raw statement is soooo true! Christianity is not a myth, like you atheists say it is, there is lots of scientific evidence to back it! Conservative Punk 20:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Christianity is solidly based on evidence." <-- Errrrr, so why should Christians believe and have faith again? --Sid 20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we Christians think about complicated things like evolution when we can just blindly follow a (count 'em - one!) book that has, probably, been mis-translated over the centuries and filled with personal bias? It's much easier to believe than to think!Conservative Punk 20:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If Darwin were so smert, howcome he's dead? Intellectual checkmate, athiests! --GTac 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen Jesus or Elvis around much lately either. --Gulik 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Jesus' next album. --Kels 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Kendoll

Here's a fun little game. Read this and see if you can spot the evidence being presented. This is what passes for scholarship in PJR's little world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How does "It is futile to expect continued fruits of the scientific enterprise while undermining the roots in biblical Christianity." follow from any of that? - π 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PJR seems to forget that 1600 years of Christianity had contributed nothing to science, and it was only once the religion was rationalized (ie the Reformation), that some support for science emerged (eg the Royal Society, to keep superstition down), that it had been left to the Muslims to advance sci. and tech. for centuries, and more than anything, that the sci. rev. took place as Europeans outgrew their mancrush for the ancients and believed they could be improved upon in the new golden age of Louis XIV et al. 03:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do future generations of scientist owe everything to our superstitions and biases? Do we to the superstitions and biases of Newton or Bacon? If it is true that science owes its existence to Christianity, we need no more keep Christianity around that to keep the scaffolding used to put up a tower. PJR seems to think we should leave it up since the building owes that scaffold its existence. HumanisticJones 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And they obviously forget that the scientific method as we know it now was pioneered in the Islamic world hundreds of years before that. And if it wasn't for the fact that Islam subsequently went bat-shit crazy and became an all encompassing religion, they'd be ruling the world by now. Also, as most of that seems to be "Christianity inspired the scientists", what about other things that have acted as inspiration? If I dedicate my thesis to Tolkein saying that Lord of the Rings inspired me, does that make Mordor a real place? No, no it doesn't. ^{d hominem} 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't really expect more. PJR is a perfect exemplar of the sort of Christian who is utterly disdainful of all scholarship, history, and self-education, except when it can be twisted to support his preconceptions. 17th century Protestant Christianity as a catalyst for science is a very interesting thesis, though it only works in selective cases and ignores a wide swath of evidence, but PJR is not interested in the history, or the evidence, or the problem of accounting for 1.5 millenia of failure. 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Last night I was determined to make an article on the "Christianity invented science" topic, but was somewhat thwarted by The Ultimate Proof of Creation book, which as I understand it is the exemplar tome in making the "Christianity is essential to everything" argument, not being available in the UK. I'll probably buy the Rodney Stark book, which in any case will lead to slightly less embarrassing recommendations on my amazon account, and may make a start by debunking the PJR stuff. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is an "atheopath"? ħuman 18:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, what the fuck is a "Churchian" and who the hell does Safarti think he is to go and make up words like he's George fucking Orwell or Anthony goddamned Burgess? The Foxhole Atheist 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fave line: "The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500". Yeah, like that hadn't been invented in China several millenia prior to that. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks Marco Polo! Where would we be if you hadn't said "Hey, fuck church. I'm going to go see what's down the Silk Road instead." and then come back with all of your kickass souvenirs? The Foxhole Atheist 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kendoll shot the food.

Apparently, our beloved Kendoll needs .5 to 1.5K in order to afford 1 to 3 healing potions that restore 2D6 health per month. He expects to be back to full health by early 2010, barring ambush by 1D3 homosexuals and evolutionists. Shorter: Kendoll is very weird. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken is like the village idiot, no matter how much you laugh at him and his silly antics, ultimately you can't help feeling sorry for him. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why he posted that at the end of an unrelated thread on his talk page rather than addressing PJR directly. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was supposed to be related, he's saying he won't be taking part in any debates because he needs all his "laserlike focus" to earn cash. Knowing Kendoll, he's just bullshitting to try and avoid actually having to have a rational discussion. Not that I don't think he has health issues, they just aren't issues that can be addressed for 1.5K dollars. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I really hate doing this, but I can't help but point out that if American went to single payer, the system Ken and his peeps are trying so hard to prevent, he wouldn't need to attach him lazerbeam focus to making money, he would just go to the doctor and get some treatment...... I hate myself for exploiting someone's sickness for political reasons.... I need to go get drunk now. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did mention it at the end of a "debate" about health care reform, so the connection pretty much makes itself. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jeeves - Someone tell Ken the cloth golem in the high tower of sorcery has blue potions (cure critical). Andrus sometimes carries arcane leggings (+10 mana regen factor) and the knight in the pyramid has some blue steel leggings that are +10 hitpoint regen. But I think Ken's real problem is that, as a mage, his constitution is naturally very low, so he'll also need to pick up some ornate wedding rings, a moth-eaten cape, and a crown of divinity. 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Nutty. He just needs a quiet spot to hole up with his largely defensive +3 magical beanbag and a Tome of Comfort and he'll be right as rain in time for next Sunday's sermon. The Foxhole Atheist 20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all he needs is 4cc's of mouse blood, a fresh egg, and two sticks to perform the Rite of Ashk-Ente backwards and repel Death from him. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's either 4ccs of mouse blood or the fresh egg. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager suggests you should use both, to be sure. --Kels 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cripes, is nobody gonna say it? Guess I'll have to. IT TAKES MANY DOLLARZ TO CHARGE HIS LAYZOR! --Kels 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it that costs that much that isn't covered by medical insurance? Female hormone therapy, breast augmentation and laser hair removal? Ooh, maybe that's where he got his laser inspiration from. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's some sort of woo-woo medicine he's going to waste his money on. So no wonder his insurance won't cover it. Whatever he imagines is wrong with him, unless it's entirely psychosomatic, almost certainly won't be cured by Feb. 2010, and he'll be out a grand. This is your brain on religion, kids. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

{{User:Deadpool/comment|Deadpool needs health badly! Really though, Ken plays a mage. In real life he has no mana bar. It's merely an invention of the genre. I suppose his blood supply could be roughly analogous to a health bar. It's possible he could lose that in a quantifiable manner.}}

Considering he used the term "allopathic" to refer to CWM it shows he's already brainwashed by the homeopaths and the like as well as religion. You do get people with brains that are like bullshit sponges. As long as something is a bit mystical or alternative, it goes straight in and stays there. I hope for his sake whatever condition he has it's self limiting and not life-threatening. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up "Integrative Medicine" and it looks like a combination of actual medicine and woo. Sort of like a homeopath who takes Aspirin. It is interesting that a lot of what he reveals about his problems have to do with sleep loss and obsession with hours of productivity. Although did anyone else notice that the one thing he used as an example of varying insurance coverage was sex changes? --Kels 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, perhaps if he did become "Edina" then he'd stop being such an uptight wanker. And Andy could get freaky with him too (For the antidote to that poisonous mental image, send $100 to Crundy, PO Box 1, UK) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

If, as Philip seems to believe, Hitler was an inevitable outgrowth of "Darwinism", and that there's a worldwide governmental and scientific conspiracy to keep alternatives to "Darwinism" out of schools and research departments, then why aren't we overrun with modern Hitlers? Why haven't we had hundreds, if not thousands of them? Why isn't every country led by one? This "Darwinism" must be pretty weak sauce. --Kels 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Again with the distortion (if not outright misrepresentation). Philip has explicitly stated more than once that he does not believe in any such conspiracy. I have not seen any post from PJR that the Shoah was an inevitable outgrowth of Darwinism. An outgrowth, yes; a logical one, yes; and one consistent with Darwinism (I have seen Philip state that), but not an inevitable one. Tricksy 00:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So the defense is that Philip is telling a completely different set of lies and misrepresentations than I mentioned. Fair enough. Although the "he's not claiming a conspiracy" thing is a hard sell given this lovely essay article, pretty much entirely his own writing. --Kels 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not offering a defence. There was no need for a defence. You made false claims, and I pointed it out. Any requirement for a defense is on your part. So you are saying "conspiracy" is a lie and "no conspiracy" is a different lie. Likewise "inevitable" is a lie and "not inevitable" is a different lie. To summarise; nonsense. There is no mention anywhere in that article of a conspiracy of collusion, so you back up your false accusations with another false accusation. Fortunately for you there is no intellectual accountability here as RW. Tricksy 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said that the two different positions on Hitler were both lies, that he was an inevitable result and that he was a logical result. As for the conspiracy thing, plausible deniability only works if it's plausible. --Kels 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you've done this before; make an egregious and false accusation and when challenged you fall back on "well he's still wrong somehow" as if that justifies the original false accusation. Tricksy 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are a base, ignorant fool. Watch as the Darwinist Obama applies his National Socialist schemes of Universal Healthcare and weakly supporting gay rights. Watch as he indoctrinates our children with Nazi propaganda about "working hard" and "reaching goals." Do you know who else offered cash for clunkers? That's right, Hitler. Kashenfürklunkeren was a key Nazi plan in the 1930s to rescue the ailing VW, right before kristallnacht.

First they came for the creationists, but I didn't speak, because I had a brain.

Then they came for the race-bating windbags, but I didn't speak, because I was really sick of those guys

Then they came for me, and made me senator, and I married a really hot supermodel heiress and won the Nobel Prize.

I think you see the point there. Lots of minihitlers, mostly democrats, deathpanels, Obamacare. 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First they came for the creationists, but I didn't speak, because I had a brain.

Then they came for the race-bating windbags, but I didn't speak, because I was really sick of those guys

Then they came for me, and made me senator, and I married a really hot supermodel heiress and won the Nobel Prize.

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've said it here before: Saying that "Darwinism" (whatever that is) is responsible for Nazism or eugenics is like saying chemistry is responsible for a nation's drug problems and nuclear physics is responsible for Hiroshima. Sterile angel 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, tough guy, tell that to Philip's face and try to stay fashionable! ħuman 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK.... Sterile angel 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That hitler talk page is a mess. I'll have to wait for a more appropriate time to intercede. Sterile angel 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Hitler caught onto the growing popularity in the post-industrial revolution world of "science" as a rather ill-defined concept, poorly understood by himself and the public alike, but generally seen as something bringing humanity forward, making our lives healthier, happier and more productive. So he cobbled together a hodgepodge of the stuff that was catching people's imagination and pushed it hard. But it didn't have a hell of a lot to do with the content of any of that science, and if anything the metaphors he chose for pushing anti-semitism (which was already present back in Philip's halcyon days when all scientists were "creationists") were more about the overall scientific groundswell rather than evolution in particular. --Kels 01:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since he's actually told me directly he does in fact think there is a conspiracy in science to suppress Christianity, I'm with Kels on this one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? You have some that Philip actually posits a "worldwide governmental and scientific conspiracy"? Tricksy 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the "scientists won't accept or publish ID or creationist papers" conspiracy? That's one of my favorites. Sterile angel 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it! Common behaviour equals a conspiracy! As in "in summer, picnickers conspire to sit in the shade". No conspiracy, just a common desire to avoid getting burned. Tricksy 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, a logical, consistent, but not inevitable outgrowth. Like a cause-and-effect relationship, but not really? Is that part of the Biblical worldview to heavily imply a cause-and-effect relationship but not "mean it"? Ever hear of innuendo? And you guys are arrogant enough to say atheism doesn't profess a moral compass. Whine to someone who cares. Sterile angel

(OD)Sterile, still waiting on that evidence... Tricksy 23:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Er.... What evidence? I'm still waiting on the criteria for diving organisms into kinds. Sterile angel 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that PJR directly said that there is a worldwide governmental and scientific conspiracy. Tricksy 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Teachers, scientists, and others who have tried to teach alternatives, or those who have tried to point out problems with science, or even those who have said that students should learn about alternatives, have been sacked, demoted, prevented from teaching, denied tenure, and publicly ridiculed. And students who don't believe in evolution have been threatened with failing if not actually denied their qualifications." [14] Jaxe 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"What your quote of Behe's statement overlooks is that journals will not allow pro-ID papers, simply because they are ID. It's quite disingenuous to say "ID is not published in peer-reviewed journals" when those peer-reviewed journals won't allow ID to be published."[15] Sterile angel 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, there's the Conservapedia article "Supression of alternatives to evolution." Philip wrote most of that; up until this point, it's all his, and despite Ken, it's mostly his now. Sterile angel 01:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to this kind of claim earlier. As there is nothing new here I will simply repeat... "Oh, I get it! Common behaviour equals a conspiracy! As in "in summer, picnickers conspire to sit in the shade". No conspiracy, just a common desire to avoid getting burned." I.e. none of that is an actual claim of a conspiracy (which has been pointed out more than once before). It has been stated that PJR seems to believe in a worldwide governmental and scientific conspiracy to keep alternatives to "Darwinism" out of schools and research departments. I challenged that and the response is that Philip has directly claimed a conspiracy in science (i.e. a claim of evidence for at least part of the original claim). I challenged that and have not yet received a response that supports the assertion. Hint: What you need to support a claim that Philip said there is a conspiracy is some sort of quote from Philip saying "conspiracy". Tricksy 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah I am a little narky. Call it Mondayitis. Or Shirley. Tricksy 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Phil has taught you well. Retreat to semantics, Bradley. Retreat and never look back. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, yes. Philip has described a conspiracy in great detail, but since he didn't actually use the word "conspiracy" then that means he's not talking about one. As I said before, plausible deniability only works if it's plausible. --Kels 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) Nope, no retreating. I challenged, the response was unsatisfactory, so I continue to challenge. I hardly think it is merely semantics that when someone says "X claims Y" they should be expected to show an actual example of X saying Y (rather than X saying something that they choose to believe probably implies Y). You know, words are funny that way - they have discrete meanings. Also, you would probably find (should you care to actually rely on facts instead of your own assumptions) that my discussion style is pretty much unchanged since before I even new PJR existed. And Kels, you still have it wrong. Philip has described common actions, and has specifically said that this does not actually amount to a conspiracy (and explained it). So PJR has said "Not a conspiracy" and you have said "PJR seems to believe in a conspiracy". Like I said, there is no intellectual accountability here. It doesn't matter if you make no sense, as long as you're attacking a creationist. Tricksy 03:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What a total vaginal syringe bulb. These scientists aren't conspiring, they are simply in agreement to perform wrongful actions. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's not a conspiracy in a formal sense, Philip does think conspiratorially; perhaps a persecution complex would be a better term: Evolutionists as a group oppress creationists as a group. I might add if rejection of creationist papers is as common as the picnickers, then provide the evidence that (1) they are submitting papers, and lots of them; (2) the papers are legitimate science; and (3) the papers are being rejected by scientific editorial boards. Sterile angel 03:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone else has noticed....

.....but PJR is increasingly using "anti-creationists" over "secular scientists" and "evolutionsists". The parallels with Andy are become stronger. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ain't a scientist & I have no evolutionist qualification (does anyone?) but I'm definitely an anti-creationist, so I suppose he's justified with me & my ilk anyhoo. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not anti-creationist, unless they lie, dissemble, partake of willfull ignorance, and misrepresent the facts....well shit, I guess I am anti-creationist. (especially that moron Safarti!) --Kels 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps being in charge has just taught him the power of mild manipulation. ^{d hominem} 10:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder if Tricksy is a source of our "red votes" here. Sterile angel 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could be a source of some red, but my votes are mostly neutral. Sometimes red/down. Very occasionally green/up (once or twice). I only get 1 vote, so if there are more than 1 non-up votes you know for sure it's not just me. I know the prevailing attitude here, so I see no purpose in attempting manipulate the WIGO votes (as opposed to simply expressing my own vote). I have a hard time taking the actual incidents WIGOed too seriously at WIGO because of the breathtaking misrepresentations of the WIGO posts. Tricksy 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"...because of the breathtaking misrepresentations of the WIGO posts". Such as..? Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 08:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been calling the most blatant ones as I see them. If you weren't listening then, it's not my responsibility to catch you up. Look at the page history for this talk page or my contribs or something. Tricksy 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna chime in a couple posts ago... so what if Brad votes them down? It's his prerogative. He also argues cases on the talk page when he wants to. I think that sort of thing is "begged for" on our main page - "please come debate us" - "we welcome...". So we disagree? What are we gonna do, censor our friend Tricksy? Come on peeps, he's playing our game on our field, give him some damn respect for that, at least. ħuman 09:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, what gives this site some life is the diversity of views and the discussions which arise therefrom. I regret the fact that Ken no longer argues his points here but at least there is interaction on his aWoK page, while RobS is good for a laugh in a way that TK wasn't. At least Tricksy comes here and argues his(?) case so is one of us and fully entitled to his vote. It is too easy to get into an intellectual rut and the likes of AKjeldsen and Lurker used to serve as antidotes to that. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sterile angel 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Fair enough" is what we try to do, at our best, I think. ħuman 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me

But it gives me such a giggle when Philip uses made-up bullshit words like "baraminological" as if they were real science terms. --Kels 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the field of Creationology it is a perfectly reaosnable term. I bet Philip has a degree in Truthology also. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just aSKed him for the names of some prominent baraminologists. ħuman 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You never heard of the Baraminology Study Group? Sterile angel 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just linked the BSG in the aSK article. In particular, Sterile, this seems to lay out some clear criteria for baramin divisions. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for? Tricksy 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not read this page, but I've looked at some stuff like it before, more Charles Todd Wood's stuff. (To be fair, not in that much detail.) At minimum the problem is that although you can call something a baramin, that does not establish a discontinuity between baramins. That is, there is a disconnect between the models and actually showing genetic lineage or lack of lineage. (Put another way: Creation scientists admit the problems with the hybridization method, and "baraminic distance" blurs a clear sense of what belongs to what. I also find it disappointing the amount of necessary reference to the Bible to figure out baramins. Also, the use of genetic data, an obvious tool for determining relationships that even creationist acknowledge, would be far more powerful. (Increasing numbers of genomes are published every day. Of course, that would probably be problematic as genetic similarity is both evidence for a baramin but at some point would have to show the discontinuity, a conundrum for creation scientists to solve, in my opinion.) Sterile angel 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(Although I'm a bit busy lately, and I'm not sure if I'm in the mood to discuss it or look more into it if I don't have time to cultivate the discussion. Sterile angel 02:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Okay, I think I generally agree with you there. That is, baraminology should be able to both group and separate. I did read an article on snakes which applied 10 questions on discontinuity. The first two were, "Does the Bible claim discontinuity," and, "Does the Bible imply discontinuity." I don't think that is necessarily an over-reliance, and recall that these people have concluded that the Bible is histocially accurate and can be used as a reliable source. I do think some genomic work is called for, but I am not funding any research so I am not really entitled to insist. :) Tricksy 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I may not be at my best, but I went to that BSG link and all I saw was word salad. Do these people need a lesson in writing paragraphs? Also, since baraminology is based on the Bible, how hard can it be? Read It, recite It. All we want is a clear definition and a list of extant baramins. ħuman 03:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Random link at awesome wiki we should rip a new defecatory orifice: "Dr. Bryan Dawson has an M.S. in mathematics from Pittsburgh State and a Ph.D. in mathematics from University of North Texas. Dr. Dawson served as the editor for a journal of the Kappa Mu Epsilon national mathematics honor society, where he published more than 15 papers." Why does his math expertise make him a biologist? ħuman 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did you already forget that terms like "biologist" or "mathematician" are liberal evolutionist terms invented just to marginalize research that contradicts the atheistic worldview? The man is a scientist and a Creationist. That means he's a Creation Scientist and thus fully qualified to do any kind of Creation Science. --Sid 09:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Second random link: "Stones & Bones A handy 42-page booklet that covers a wide range of questions in the evolution vs. creation debate. From radiometric dating to puzzling questions (Where did Cain get his wife?), this book is ideally suited for home and church studies, and also makes a great witnessing tool." This is fun. ħuman 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, their favicon is an awesome upside-down Darwin fish with legs thing. ħuman 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Random three: awesome article!! These people are IDiots. ħuman 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I ♥ the upside-down-Darwinfish. Sterile angel 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

me too. Please to grab, I am incompetent at such... ħuman 03:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I finded it! ħuman 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"God created the Loblolly Pine on the 3rd day of creation along with dry land and the rest of the plants." I love this site! It's comedy without any reference to reality, the best kind indeed! ħuman 03:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time there with a creationist sock. Good times. Ashcraft, you so crazy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting here late, but I don't see what the problem is. Baraminological is a prefectly cromulent word. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did he say what I think he said (more or less)?

Did Phil just explain (in his own way) why science should be limited to natural explanations only? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF, Philip?

Okay, petulant threat against Jaxe is confusing, since not only can't I find any instance where Jaxe actually calls him "an idiot with the brain of a three-year old", a half hour has passed since he posted that and he actually hasn't blocked him either. Nothing seems to be deleted, and I don't think Philip uses oversight, so is he hallucinating or something? Not that I disagree with the assessment or anything... --Kels 12:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was a revelation from God telling Phil what Jaxe was thinking? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

:) I think he was making a point about the difference between the message intended and the message read. In other words if all that is important is the received meaning (as Jaxe claimed) then it would be alright for Philip to block Jaxe for a month based on a meaning that Jaxe didn't intend. I think Jaxe probably understood it that way, as that user made no mention of it. Tricksy 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just don't go calling Sarfati an idiot with the brain of a three year old. Or any other names for that matter. Except "genius" or "intellectual heavyweight". Ace^McWicked 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ace, I didn't know you cared about AWK!? ħuman 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, Bradley said all that, but the message I received was "Philip is an intellectually dishonest berk who can only manage through fallacious arguments, and for some reason probably related to religion I'm sticking up for him." Information theory is fun! --Kels 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't chess-grand-master-who-is-better-than-deep-blue-comma-deep-thought-comma-and-that-ZX-spectrum-chess-game-that-always-beat-me-as-a-kid-combined also an option for the names of the holy Sarfati? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs more reverence and majesty. --Kels 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Psst, Tricksy. It still ain't got nothing to do with genetics....) Sterile angel 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This should be interesting

Bradley is pulling together the questions I had put on my user page at ASK, along with responses that have come up in different places across ASK. It's still a work in progress so please don't jump all over it while it's a draft. I'd like him to have the maximum amount of latitude in putting up the best responses from faith to these questions before they are responded to in kind.
I'm finding some of the answers problematic already, so I can understand the temptation to respond immediately, but I like the idea of what he's trying to do. People like me aren't agnostic because of a single issue, but for many, and it would be great for ASK to eventually have a single, focused page where these questions can be collected and debated in a single location. --SpinyNorman 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam, Africans, etc.

Cut to Debate:Adam and Africans at 04:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

TWAT

Philip J. Rayment‎‎ is a moronic, moronically self deluded, moronic twat. (And he's a twat of moronic proportions) ^{His sidekick is also a moronic twat (anyone with: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." and: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" on their user page is proclaiming the fact)} That is all. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You've only just worked all this out? Sheesh, get with the times. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What are "moronic proportions"? Also do feminists not have a problem with using synonyms for the vulva as terms of abuse?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen his latest crap? Who's a feminist? " ...a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, synonymous with the word twit - 'You are a real twat and a half' (often used in the UK)" [WP] ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He must be barmy if he thinks anyone is going to read all that, particularly with the hated TQ template messing everything up.

Re the T-word, I've re-read my post and it looks a bit ill-advised on second inspection. I have heard people objecting to its use as an insult on those grounds.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That there tree of teh knowledge of good & evil also taught writing - who'd have thought it!: "... the second one (Genesis 2:4b to Genesis 5:1) being written by Adam. Indeed, this one specifically states that it is the written record of Adam....". ^{[twat] I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Toast, try to utilize a diversity of adjectives and adverbs in your insults; if you cannot think straight enough to do this, cool it first, then post. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with repeating words for emphasis during an insult? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of those gags in comedies where the character cannot locate an appropriate simile or metaphor. Blackadder: "The grave opens before me like ... a big hole in the ground." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, we NEED someone to deliver an equally long reply. With one TQ for each of his replies. Just to showcase how utterly retarded it is. This is getting WAY out of hand, and I'm so not buying whatever Phil's reasoning for using them is. His replies had been long in the past, but TQ almost doubles the bytecount and easily triples the overall length on the page. Not to mention the flow! Graahhhhhhh! (Gah, good thing I removed aSK from my favorites. Phil's antics give me worse headaches than Andy and TK combined.) Oh, and I finally recalled what the TQ-style reminds me of: Ozy and Millie (not the first time this webcomic has come up on RW) --Sid 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just do not take the bait when he JAQs off. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how effective the Gish Gallop is. No one is going to respond to all of this (or even read it) and Phil will focus on anything you don't respond to, thinking he's made some sort of point. Since there are so many points, Phil can simply ignore many of the ones that actually have been addressed. And if all else fails, just keep galloping until people just leave your crazy ass alone. Victory. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He is trying the same on me on his talk page but I am going to ignore his bullshit and focus on one particular point. That is the point of meteor craters. He stated that yes, all the meteor craters we see today must have been after the flood as the flood would have washed away the evidence. So all these meteors hit the earth in the 4000 years? Hmmmmmm why isn't everything dead? I am really going to take him to task. Ace^McWicked 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Ace. If you ignore too much, he'll just ignore back, and you'll get into a vicious cycle of quid pro quo, in what I like to call the Gish Canter. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) When facing a Gish Gallop, I always try to be as laconic as possible and focus on the original point, or at least keep it whittled down to just one or two points from the last response. PJR has never called me on this, and if he had done so, I would have responded by calling him on the Gallop. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. Stick it to him. That central American meteor crater, the one that some people think is the one that did for the dinosaurs. If that had been 4000 or less years ago, someone would have noticed. We'd still be noticing now, in fact. Seriously, what a prick. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind just that Jeeves - check this bastard out. This combined with the central America one and the 50 others I'll put to Philip later today is enough to wipe everything out. Seriously, the earth would not have recovered yet if such a catastrophe happened. Ace^McWicked 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So, these bits of rock that put some of Jupiter's moons to shame were slamming in to the Earth at alarmingly regular intervals, but no one noticed or cared. You've got to hand it to young earth creationists, there's no depths of stupidity they won't plumb. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the Deccan plateau and doubtless other similar events that haven't been noticed. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And all this provoked towards the one who was essentially the "good guy" of Conservapedia... shame. Must be due to being outside the shadow of the uber-twats of CP. ^{d hominem} 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Being the "good guy" at CP is like being Harold Shipman in a hospital staffed chiefly with clones of Josef Mengele. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my point. But I like that totally unsubtle way of putting it. ^{d hominem} 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only did no one seem to notice all those meteor impacts but this seems to have slipped under the radar also. Ace^McWicked 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if the answer to the volcano/meteor issue will be:

"Yes, there is evidence that these events happened, just like there is evidence that they happened after The Flood (for which there is also evidence). However, we are obviously still here, so something or maybe someone took care that the effect of these things only did extremely limited damage. But doing so would need, oh, I don't know... divine power maybe, hm? Thank you for giving us yet more evidence that God exists! Oh, and those meteors and stuff only impacted to eradicate villages or cities that were 100% full of sinners, just like Sodom and Gomorrah."

Crap, I think I just gave myself a headache with this crazy argument. --Sid 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a word for the dreadful anticipation of forthcoming schadenfreude, because there ought to be. That's totally what I'm feeling about the answer to this particular question. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I will presenting PJR with such questioning in about 3 hours when I get home so we'll see. Ace^McWicked 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupid template is stupid

During this conversation, Philip rather deceitfully (not to mention hilariously!) uses his quote template to take a full sentence and break it into two pieces. He then answers one half and calls the other half a non-sequiter! Just wow. Ace^McWicked 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he ignored the important part of something I had posted on the baraminology page, and I still need to call him on it. The intellectually dishonesty (yes, Tricksy, that is what it is) is disgusting. Sterile angel 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically what he did was take a sentence like say "I have two apples" and broken it down as:

I have.. - you have what?

two apples - non-sequiter! I win!

Dishonest prick. Ace^McWicked 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I agree with these claims about the "dishonesty" (I don't), but if they were true (they're not) then this would be like climbing out of the sewer and complaining that the gutter is dirty. Tricksy 05:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tricksy give up on analogies, I have highlighted the flaw in them before. What dishonesty have you noticed that needs correcting? - π 05:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said to someone else around here, I have highlighted some at the time that I saw them. If you paid no attention it is not my job to find it for you now. Also, check any random WIGO. Tricksy 06:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Us pointing and laughing is not dishonest; it is not nice, but we never pretended to be. - π 06:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well no that wouldn't be dishonest, but that is not what "you" are doing. Tricksy 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bradley, how is Philip so blinkered by his moron creationist buddies that he'll defend Hovinds crimes because of "motive"? His is a criminal - no two ways about it. Ace^McWicked 05:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can imaging how far we would get applying that logic to ohter individuals, who happened to be anti-creationist. Tricksy 06:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit Bradley. If Dawkins, Sagan, Hawking, Darwin, whomever was convicted of the same crime then they take their medicine. Guilty no mattter what the motive. Ace^McWicked 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the correct term for creationists is reality denialists. - π 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just said somewhere on AWK, 400 years ago everyone was YEC - because all of our history was seemingly only 4-10,000 years old. Then came the scientific revolution, and we kept discovering things that could only be explained by a 4.5 billion year-old Earth and and 13-odd billion year old universe. The details are mostly worked out. Those who deny them are, to me, utterly confused, and I don't know why. ħuman 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) For a very recent example of intellectual dishonesty at RW, look at Aces first two posts in this section. He completely misrepresents his own sentence and how Philip quoted it. The sentence was two entirely self consistent clauses connected by an "and". Philip quoted the separate clauses separately, and addressed a different issue with each. I think I am done. It is too frustrating trying to have meaningful communication with so many practictioners of concrete thinking. Tricksy 10:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The post that I refer to is below. What Philip tq'ed is in bold, what I consider the most important part of this is in italics. Philip brushed it off with "Yes, but this is a problem with the nature of the evidence, not with the criteria. Mainstream scientists have the same issues, plus very rubbery criteria." That is utter bullshit because of what I wrote after it—there is no problem with the nature of the evidence, and the creationists have no criteria or evidence to validate a discontinuity with any certainty. Furthermore, mainstream biologists have so much evidence from fossils and genetics there is no doubt that common descent is valid. As such, ignoring that is intellectual dishonesty: You cannot selectively and purposefully ignore evidence.

Furthermore, the information article which amounts to a play on word to disprove evolution despite there is no experiment to confirm it, is also intellectual dishonesty. "Meaningful information" is not falsifiable, and if the creationist does say the there is an increase information, all of a sudden it's designed with no evidence for design or an increase in information. It's rhetoric, not evidence, and again, it's intellectually dishonest: there is no content to it, and yet it makes a strong statement.

ASK is an intellectually dishonest site.

---

Perhaps you need to brush up on the baraminological literature. The article that Bradley referred me to (on the Baraminology Study Group page—the experts) says that "A statistical measure has been developed called Baraminic Distance (BD). A positive correlation of BD is interpreted as evidence of continuity of two organisms." This BD is used as an "additive" criterion for establishing holobaramins. Baraminic distance is a mathematical measure of morphological similarities between organisms. Archaeopteryx and birds have many morphological similarities, and ought to have a high correlation for is BD, just as Felidae has a high correlation of BD. So it would seem that you are contradicting current concepts in baraminology with your statement.

You also have to be more careful about what you say about Gould. The rapidity of punctuated equilibrium is over hundreds of thousands of years. It is one of many mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, evolutionary biologists do use morphological similarity, it's just a matter of degree. There's no way around that. Again, baraminology has yet to define a clear sense a degree of lack of similarity that serves at a cut off.

Even baraminologists acknowledge that hybridization is a problematic measure of discontinuity if, as you state, there can be members of the same holobaramin that cannot form a hybrid. That is, the logical statement that "if you can form a hybrid between two organisms, then they share a common ancestor" is probably fine, but the implied "if you can not form a hybrid between two organisms, they do not share a common ancestor" is problematic (essentially denying the antecedent of the previous statement). The second paper (the one I cite above, written by Wood, the prominent baraminologist) reinforces this problem: "Marsh's hybridization criterion could classify two species in the same baramin, but there was no proposed method to test whether two species belonged to different baramins." This is, in fact, why bararminologists started using BD and other statistical measures.

I find your trees disappointing. While conceptually, it gets the point across, it would be far more powerful with the limbs identified and backed with data. Sterile 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Sterile angel 13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you might not get an answer. Tricksy has just deleted his userpage, talk page, and blocked himself for 3 months. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean we can't count on more rationalizations of Philip's dishonesty outright lies while claiming it's calling out us being dishonest? What a horrible shame. --Kels 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)