RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive8

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>, <7>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Ad hom

The comments here seem to be getting very ad hominem in their nature. Moronic twat, dishonest prick, etc.

Humourous piss-taking this ain't, IMHO. Ajkgordon 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So? This isn't a debate - this is commentary. Ace^McWicked 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dishonest prick" was commentary on a clear argument about how PJR was being dishonest - not a claim that because PJR is dishonest, he must be wrong. If you tried engaging PJR on something he disagrees with you about on AWK, you'd probably want to blow off some steam over here, too. ħuman 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yah, PJR inspires this in people. There's something about him. It's why I gave up posting on eWoK, too much increased blood pressure. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

All good points. Still... Ajkgordon 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I could have left out "prick" but he is still dishonest. He took my sentence and replied as if I had made two statements. That is a dishonest way to debate. Ace^McWicked 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*taps chin* I see Ajk's point and agree with it, but I can also understand the need to go "ARRRRGH! THAT GUY!" every now and then. In the end, I have no solution or magic recipe to solve the "post on aSK without dropping personal Cluster F-Bombs here" problem, so I will simply echo Jeeves there: This is why I stopped posting there (and eventually removed it from my bookmarks to even lurk less) - I don't want to resort to ad hom style (because I still want to believe that Phil's a nice and decent guy as long as you don't ever bring up anything religious), but every time I read Phil's "arguments" (...and the TQ template... grrrrrr...), I feel the urge to punch something. So... I try to stay away. Maybe this is the healthy approach here. All the "JDFKLDSHAFLKFHADSLFAH!!!!!11111!!eleven!" rants are just preaching to the choir, so maybe more people should just let it go. Muuuuch better for your nerves. --Sid 22:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

All the antics just make me laugh, but in any event there is no point in getting that wound up about poor debating tactics. If PJR and crew must be insulted, one should do it with a bit of style and creativity, so that the blow is felt. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree in general, this is, after all, just a wigo talk page - generally a place for blowing off steam. It's not an article. We aren't writing this on A Storehouse of Knowledge, we're just bantering. ħuman 05:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just a fucking talkpage. Who gives a rats how shit-kicking, ad hom tossing we become. As long we don't where it counts. Ace^McWicked 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it would be ad hom if we said: PJR is a moronic twat, so he therefore he is wrong. We know he is wrong from start because pretty much everything he says have be thoroughly proven wrong else where. What we are saying the way he is defending his incorrect position is making him act like a moronic twat. - π 06:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not ad hominem to "describe" an argument as moronic twatishism.^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

Agreed with 3.BoN and Human. An ad hominem refers to an argument, which we're not making. We're simply insulting them, which is pretty low brow, but honestly...what a huge, wet douche bag Phillip is. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your twat and raise you an arse.

There aren't words to express how big a douche PJR is making out of himself right now. I guess when can stop teaching English literature. After all, books only ever have one meaning. All you have to do is ask the author exactly what their work means, and you're golden. Jeez, what an arse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PJR is absolutely correct in that post, insofar as he is not making a ridiculous false analogy with DNA. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No he isn't, he's talking a complete load of old cobblers. Consider the simplest situation, where an author makes an accidental pun and doesn't notice. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is completely fallacious then to attribute the pun to a deliberate effort on the part of the author, as the manner is. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what the intent of the author is? It is there, concrete and demonstrable. The reader has derived something that the author didn't intend, but it never the less not a misreading of the work. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That is true. However, to say that the pun is part of the communication from the author to the reader (which is very often the whole aim of such analysis of literary works) is such a misreading. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. What PJR is claiming is that it is not possible, without error in the interpretation process, to come away with some meaning from a work that was not intended by the author. This is obviously not true as shown in the case of an unintended pun that, if it were pointed out, the author would also find amusing. More complex examples might include the deliberate ambiguity the staple diet of some authors. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right there; I was only saying he was correct insofar as one was trying to read a work as the author intended it to be read. You could call him on that: by being a creationist he is misinterpreting nature by misreading "design by catastrophic creation" into it. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the only correct interpretation of a book is that of the authors runs contrary to all current thought in literary criticism. That aside it does even follow over as an analogy in biology. The same DNA sequence and produce remarkable different results depending on the chemical environment it is in. Certain chemical environments will produce different rates of protein development, resulting in different structures being formed in tissue ect. - π 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Long as you're talking twattishness and intellectual dishonesty, does this qualify? Sure Philip, there's a raging debate within the legitimate scientific community as to whether Creatards are right after all, and the ENTIRE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY is wrong. Pull the other one now. And by "other one" I mean your head, and by "pull" I mean out of your ass. --Kels 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"If intended to bolster evolution, it's an argument ad populum." <-- THAT from the guy who felt the need to give the Creationist numbers a boost by redefining the often-used (not just on aSK) "Creation Scientist" to mean "a scientist who is also a creationist" (even when his work has nothing to do with Creationism)? Yeah, right. And I bet that if I felt like doing some light digging, I could even find him (or CMI, which practically dictates the how and why of his beliefs) holding up the "x thousand scientists are creationists!" line, but then he'll assure you that that's totally not an argument ad populum, nuh-uh. --Sid 20:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading Jeeve's unnecessary aggression over a trifling issue simply reinforces how pathetic RW is. The real passion of the internet should be directed on people who dare to think they are superior to others, while engaging in the most cringe inducing display of self importance and mockery. These swine slime their way into many barrels, but on RW it is particularly extreme. MarcusCicero 14:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gish Gallops to the finish

This is the biggest gish gallop I have ever seen. To be frank, I was lost on the second point "The thing that ensures that the Bible is correct is God. God is distinct from the Bible, so that is not circular at all." But without the Bible, you wouldn't have your knowledge of God, Philip. Jesus fuck. Ace^McWicked 12:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the entire post.....words escape me. So little integrity. I asked Philip once what evidence might convince him that the earth is older than the bible says or that evolution is fact. He replied that no one can assess what evidence could convince. My retort (before I was banned) would be that I can attest to what would convince me - fossils from different eons mixed together (humans + dino's for example) but Philip just obviously, no matter what, will find an argument against anything. So freaking dishonest with himself. Ace^McWicked 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear flying jerboa of doom. I got to this part: "On the contrary, it is you who is making an assumption (about what I know) without any evidence to base it on. See here for just one example of this not being without evidence." Now I can't read any further, I'm well and truly zointed.

He just doesn't understand what is meant by the word "evidence", I can think of no other explanation. I just hope a con artist never stops by his house. He'll remember to ask the question "Well, how do I know I can trust you?" and the con artist'll reply "Well, because I'm a trustworthy sort of chap" and that'll be enough for him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fucking hell. He defends himself quite well against a charge of circular logic at the start and then wheels it out big time 4 green text things latter, with the scripture are authoritative because they say so. The only person he is kidding is himself. - π 13:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is going on at ASK?

Nothing is going on at ASK. That's what. Jaxe 18:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Phil is having fun hacking the help pages for his wiki. It's going to be the best organised empty set ever seen on earth. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's that time again. Time to talk about shutting this WIGO down and never come to a conclusion. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's lovely, sort of like the old debates on CP when everyone was there, but in slow motion. --Kels 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You could, you know, not stalk and troll a group of Christians over the internet? MarcusCicero 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. Jaxe 17:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that the ridiculers inevitably end up ridiculing themselves in the process. a lá Jeeves. MarcusCicero 17:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And logically that also leads to à la Marcus Cicero (Pardon my accent.) Генгис^{Gum disease} 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not again.

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

 The Emperor Kneel before Zod!

Well they do say that all good comedy is self deprecating. Jaxe 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter MC: "Could you turn this into a radically different site to save me the work of starting my own, please?" --Kels 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

a lá? á là? à la? lalalala! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Irony alert

This encyclopædia is not Wikipedia, where it's seen as a virtue to include contrary arguments no matter how unsound. Rather, this encyclopædia seeks to be accurate, and need not include unsound arguments." Sterile ooze 12:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow he has turned in to Schlafly. - π 12:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Contrary and unsound. Well, I guess that describes creationism well enough. --Kels 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Took a bit longer than I expected, but I'm pretty sure I called it. --Gulik 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PJR's modesty

Phil removes a "now-redundant" reference to PJR . Which he's replaced with something that doesn't say what the quote said.^{(self promotion warning) I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Phil and Brad - separated at birth?

I'm guilty of still peeking at the Recent Changes on aSK, but whenever I do, I see Phil and Brad going all "Wow! I was just about to say the same!" or "Brilliant, I have nothing to add and fully agree!". Most recent example (which includes Phil doing this to Brad and Brad doing this to Phil) would be this talk page. They remind me a bit of Ezekiel and Ariel from Sinfest, actually...

So has aSK basically become "PJR/Brad BFF"-pedia? Or is there still anything of interest going on? --Sid 11:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The place is dead. DEAD. They're not even pretending to discuss things any more, they just revert anything resembling real science. Jaxe 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That was sort of Philip's plan for the place to start with. An echo chamber where people who want to misrepresent the science can pat each other on the back about how brilliant their rationalizations are. The whole "we welcome atheists/liberals to keep us honest" was just window dressing to keep up the "reasonable" facade. --Kels 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh Kels, I've copied that to my aSK user page. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PJR probably thinks the same thing of this Wiki. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're just trying to get me in trouble, Toast. And Listener, I don't really care what Philip and his imaginary friend (to say nothing of his imaginary science) think of this site. --Kels 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I laughed at that talk page. I guess they don't even need to pretend any more as it's mostly creationists. Sterile ooze 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Many editors here shy away from going among people with whom they have significant differences, and end up completely flying off the wall when they do. The only difference is that they do not feel the need to keep dissidents at bay with banhammers. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why bother arguing with Philip? There's no depth to what he argues beyond when he can click on at the CMI website and if he disagrees, he can just revert it. Who's going to fight the site owner? It's not a wiki in the collaborative sense any more (it probably never was). It's doesn't even do the discussion board function that well either. Part of that is because we get stuck in the ruts of the creationism-evolution debates (there are certain patterns of "creationist says X" then "evolution person says Y": you can almost predict what will be said). Philip will never bother to take the effort to read a scientific paper or even a well written Discover article or popular press book on biology or evolution and yet he considers himself an expert on the evolution-creationism "debate." He doesn't really incorporate anything new very well. And if someone challenges him on it, he hides behind the vagaries of "information" or "well-tunedness" or "God observing creation." It's dull.

There are things that outsiders do not like (or don't get) about RW (usually the tone, the inside jokes, and the focus on CP). Some of the skeptical stuff here is good, some is OK, some is not great. There is some good novel stuff here, and there is stuff that has been rehashed many times before. In my head, RW just kinda is. We have a certain audience, but I wouldn't say the whole wiki is meant for the general public, although we have some good public articles. Sterile ooze 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, one should favor using logic over using science when debating creationists. Also, only debate them to wind them up, rather than to convince them of anything. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Phil's not made his mind up

Fingers in ears And "La! la! la! I can't hear you!" Even if when someone creates life makes something alive, it won't mean anything to the likes of Phil: "If scientists were able to demonstrate that life can occur spontaneously, and if this is in conditions which feasibly occurred naturally, then the view that life occurred naturalistically would be stronger, but there would still not be any test that could be done to show that this did occur.". So stop trying! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So in summary: even if science proves that it could have happened, Goddidit is still better. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't his "Science can't prove anything about the past because that's history and can't be reproduced in exactly the same way!" stance grind down to "You are wrong because you don't have some old book that says that the Big Bang happened and that life evolved"? Short of time travel of some sort, is there any way Creationists could be convinced of anything that isn't written in The Bible? --Sid 00:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even then they would deny it. They don't call it fundamentalism for nothing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That "you can't prove history" thing is so, so so so, dumb. How does Philip think we convict criminals if hypotheses of past events cannot be tested? Jaxe 19:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ENCYCLOPEDIC! --Kels 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That whole "article" is Philip whining because he always get owned when he argues on the internet. Worth a side-by-side? - π 23:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Definiatly worth a side by side. I mentioned it here when he first posted it (back in the archives somewhere) but Human suggested we wait until the final touches are on it. I think it is ready now. Ace^McWicked 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree... we can always update if PJR polishes this turd more. ħuman 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Poe's law strikes home

That is all _& marmite^chat 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It does get hard to tell after a while whether they are your crazy beliefs or someone mocking you. Has anyone ever seen creationist "parody" before? It is usually so obvious, both in content and context, that you can't help feel sorry for them, due to their lack of talent and humour. - π 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I was awed at the majesty of Ken's creationist humour. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

SallyM must be a parodist, right? Sterile ooze 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, if so then both SallyM and CPalmer are Assfly emulating parodists. Maybe they're both the same person talking to themselves? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Impressive

Even for Philip, this one goes the extra mile in intellectual dishonesty. --Kels 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously removing his statement and then quote mining it, that is a new low of PJR. He is well on his way to Andyhood. - π 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He's gone absolutely whacky. He's getting near losing his temper on some of the edit comments. I love the way everything gets turned on its head so that the fault is with the opposition, not with him. _& marmite^chat 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he's being haunted by demons, myself. --Kels 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hee! _& marmite^chat 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear, and Bradley's getting worse and worse, too. This is the Alien Intrusion book he thinks rivals Sagan that I'm supposed to read. Sterile ooze 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. That guy looks as if he should be fronting a 70s comedy show. _& marmite^chat 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the fact that he thinks "I believe in God creating everything in six days, why do you think it's strange I believe in demons" to be some sort of reasonable defense. I don't think he quite sees the problem with believing in such things. --Kels 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan's going well with "Praise the Lord" interspersed at random in talk page edits. _& marmite^chat 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ug, ug, ug:

“”Bates contends that aliens are actually fallen angels who are not extraterrestrial in nature, but rather interdimensional. He said he is troubled by the idea of "benevolent ETs," that has been propagated in the UFO literature, and questioned how aliens could be abducting people for any helpful purpose. He noted that some people had been able to stop alien abductions from taking place (as described at alienresistance.org) by invoking the name of Christ. He suggested that this lends credence to the idea that the aliens are demonic in nature, and thus susceptible to invocations that run counter to them. He concluded that some Christians have been abducted, but those that adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible are not. Further, Bates believes that abductees are not being taken up into actual spaceships, but rather being "supplanted" with these images.

Bradley believes this stuff.Sterile ooze 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose he's right in a way. He believes one totally absurd claim, why should we be at all surprised he believes another? Hell, huge numbers of young earth creationists are also raging NWO conspiracy theorists. Large numbers of NWO conspiracy theorists think the reptilians dunnit. I suppose from there it's but a short hop, skip and jump to assuming the reptilians are in fact demons from the hell dimensions. Makes perfect sense. Landlord, mine's a Kool-Aid! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this true? I wouldn't be surprised, as conspiracy theorists typically pick and choose their beliefs from a wide array of the insane. Crystals, reptilians, demons, NWO, Microsoft! But I've not seen many YECs who went much further than "Satan, the Antichrist (Obama) and liberals are out to get us, and the scientists are all in collusion." 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading a bit of Rapture Ready, NWO is all the rage for the end of the worlders to believe in, and in fact rely on. These guys aren't just expecting the NWO, they're counting on it to fulfill prophecy. --Kels 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

All I wanted was to get blocked. Was that too much to ask? I'm officially done with aSK now. I've always kept one eye on the Recent Changes page to see if there was anything WIGO-worthy but now I won't be bothering. The dinosaur thing was just a way of having a little fun while pointing out how fucking stupid he is. I mean: dinosaurs co-existing with humans is perfectly accurate but humans riding dinosaurs is parody? Right, Phil. Go and bounce off your padded walls for a while. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I "tried" to get blocked. Epic fail on my part, I am stuck there for life :( ħuman 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While the link above is pretty contemptable, I can't say that riding dinosaurs is plausible. There are plenty of animals that we don't ride now, you have to domesticate them first and many creatures resist domestication - I imagine that dinosaurs would be the same (as awesome as it would be to ride a triceratops into battle). So he is in the right to say that this one is silly and parody-like (well, at least sillier than the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, which is pretty fruity to start with). 22:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But there were so many kinds of dinosaurs! Surely some would have been ridable like horses and donkeys, some tasty (and domesticatable) like cows and pigs, and some would have been "Adam's best friend"? ħuman 22:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I think the crazy lady has a point. Indigenous people ride elephants and use them for lifting/moving. With the rise of technology, there is less and less need to ride animals. I loved the argument about the size-to-potential power argument about eggs on the ark...almost makes sense. I can't believe Phil isn't more enthused. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When you're a creationist, I guess you have to try very hard not to think about the huge variety of dinosaurs that once existed, most of which used to occupy niches which are now the domain of mammals. That leads to wondering why Jebus would create all that redundancy in the first place, and then let nature filter his better creations from the worse. Pondering these things is bad for creationists. Well, I suppose all thinking is, really. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I should try to stear the conversation towards the tricerotorhino from the Herculoids. That might be going too far. Don't want to turn the crazy up to 11 too quickly. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Along for the ride

I rather like that those of us contributing to the dino talk page are just sorta going along with it as if we weren't debating crazyass ideas. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, to me, places like AWK and CP are kind of like writing fan fiction - you accept the premise in order to have some fun writing. It's the only relief form arguing with the IDiots. ħuman 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing about a wiki: it just doesn't work all that well when your editors don't take things seriously. Sterile ooze 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When a wiki crashes and no one is there...

does anyone give a fuck? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually did because the section above ("Along for the ride") made me want to check the dino talk page again to see if it's still about the "Did Jesus ride on dinos?" issue. Other than that... not really, no. *shrug* --Sid 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mei loves every wiki equally, so yes. Mei II 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this would explain a lot of people's positions. ^postate 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it's there to me, although there were some foully-named wandals in RC.... ħuman 01:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

'Twas gone for about 3 hours earlier. _& marmite^chat 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Eye of Darwin, toe of newt...

"If the quote is being used to show that Darwin thought it seemed absurd, then it is not out of context." Lovely, Philip. But wasn't the point of the quote in context that it only "seemed absurd" to someone who didn't understand evolution? Very much like someone not believing the earth revolves around the sun, since to someone who doesn't know science that seems "absurd" as well. Or, you know, dishonest Creationists (but I repeat myself) like yourself. --Kels 02:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See here _& marmite^chat 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would direct you to common sense. ħuman 03:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been reading creationists and didn't recognize the concept right off. --Kels 04:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

But even common sense is not that common, and often doesn't make sense. ħuman 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean common cents, right? Sterile ooze 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Those pennies would be fine, sure. Although, pounds carry more weight. ħuman 05:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they from heaven? --Kels 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, from Easterlings. ħuman 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining

Is Philip fucking serious? He's pretending to not know what quote mining is, exactly, and that Creationists don't do it in any case? What a blatant series of lies on the part of Mr. Reasonable. --Kels 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason he has always thought that "quote mining" is an evilutionist logical fallacy, little better than an ad hom. That's because he engages in it fluently. ħuman 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He's mad! _& marmite^chat 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I couldn't take it any more for a bit. He's a raving lunatic. Mr. Rayment: When your splitting hairs as to what "seems" means and what "out of context means," you've lost. Sterile ooze 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in ever going back. What with Phil: " Aha! you didn't answer point 37b of my mass quote above therefore you're wrong"; Dan: "Gays are bad!" and Palmer: "Bible quote ... Bible verse .. Bible quote"; I don't think they'll ever get reasonable. _& marmite^chat 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Bradley: "Look out for the aliens demons!" Although, I'm bummed I'm missing out on the dino conversation. Personally, I think the post-flood humans worked the pack dinosaurs to death (all the pairs of them), and that's why they went extinct. Sterile ooze 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Forgot the DEMONS! They should all be in a home for the terminally bewildered. _& marmite^chat 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Irony

Gee, Phil, maybe the irony has something to do with the fact that it's just folks with the "Biblical Worldview^tm" who make pages like this, this, and this, to say nothing of this lovely example, although CreationWiki has lots more. And oh look, your beloved CMI has published this handy little tome, I wonder what it contains? Seriously Philip, how often do you see "anti-creationists" as you put it doing shit like that? People use the charge of "quote mining" so much BECAUSE CREATIONISTS USE THEM TO LIE ALL THE DAMN TIME! --Kels 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He also doesn't seem to realize that the garish-green quotes of his are often quote mines. Sterile ooze 17:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS NO IRONY. THERE IS ONLY CREATIONIST TRUTH. Go about your business, citizens. --Kels 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone point PJR here? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

All honest mistakes, of course, except that not a single one are misquotes and what was the problem again? Oh yes, people are lying about so-called "quote mining" in order to persecute Christians, and by Christians I mean of course Creationists, because those are the only real Christians except when I'm trying to use population figures to show Christians are a majority and deserve to be in charge, then they can be counted. In conclusion, all the evidence points to exactly what's in the Bible. Now do you have anything of substance to discuss?--Kels 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck him!

I give up. _& marmite^chat 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And you were doing so well, too. --Kels 03:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He's fucking impossible. Ace^McWicked 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Time for another boycott? Without us his site will shrink to nothing in a few days. - π 03:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say time for another boycott, but I have never gone on A Shithouse of Knowledge. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to see him stomp around his empty echo chamber for a while. Without us to distracting him he could come up with some really crazy shit for his "articles". - π 04:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And I was having so much fun solving the dinosaur problem for him. Hell, I could have fixed the starlight thing next week. I'll go along with whatever you three decide. ħuman 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm never going there again! (I suspect I just might get a block) but as Pi says - it'll be fun to see what he does without distractions. Should be interesting although I suspect he'll concentrate on Trains and stuff so there won't be much lulz. _& marmite^chat 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had my taste of how infuriating he is to have a very simple discussion with. The man lacks the most basic intellectual honesty and hence nothing that occurs on his blog will be academically rigorous while he is so busy expressing such an irrational bias. I would support a lengthy boycott. 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought Philip was honest in the first place, so it's no loss to me. He and Bradley are very adept at rationalizing their delusions, and essentially rules-lawyering any charges laid against them and indeed, science itself. It's a little more interesting than CP to me overall, but not worth locking horns with them. That said, I'm not a big fan of boycotts, and would rather just let individuals decide whether they wanna play the game or not as they see fit. --Kels 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a yes from Asp. Does anyone want to present Philip with a formal complaint? - π 05:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you word one in a way that he won't read as "evolutionists don't have any real arguments, so they do things like this to cover that up"? --Kels 05:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He will read it as that any way. I was thinking more along the lines of him intentionally misrepresenting others opinions. - π 05:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on board. [1] PJR is intentionally intellectually dishonest. ħuman 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well lets get it going then. - π 05:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah boycott. Sorry about that recent edit of mine. No more till boycott over.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone goes over to put a banner on his/her page, put it on mine. I'm not unblocking myself to do that. Sterile ooze 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm onboard, and Sterile, I added it for you too. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that CPalmer's edited my comment from "PHILIP, YOU'RE A TOTAL TWAT!" to "PHILIP, [I don't like you]! ". No difference there at all. _& marmite^chat 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone on strike too, FWIW. Not that I was planning on editing again... –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet, the madness continues: "So 'quote mining' is merely an attempt to throw mud regarding the integrity of creationists on the justification that the quotes are out of context, without actually demonstrating any intent to deceive, and frequently without even showing any actual lack of context!" says Philip.

PS Thanks, Crundy. Sterile ooze 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, it's starting to get nasty over there. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I like this bit of parody as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"...while invoking and endorsing accusations of lying made by TK..." Speaking of dishonesty. --Kels 01:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation by implication, with no actual fact to back you up. Still at it I see, Kels. Tricksy 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A demon made me do it. Say, maybe the demon actually removed where TK was mentioned in the actual post? I hear they're very tricky when not busy burying fake fossils. --Kels 02:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I thought we were having a boycott of ASK? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am proud to say I have been boycotting ASK ever since I found out how boring it was.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is far more boring in terms of watching power-hungry people and parodists run amok, but it is a more in-depth look at the debating tactics of a YEC fanatic. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One request, in keeping with the original "Moles decalaration", please refrain from "parting shots" in articles. Tricksy 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all of us signed said declaration.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I say instead of boycotting, we simply stick to adding more punk band articles. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Classic rock, more like. The highest up bands on their list of wanted pages are Cream, Dylan, the Yardbirds, MC5, Cheap Trick and the Melvins.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They need Yacht Rock like Michael McDonald, and lots of it. Re: NX -- I guess you can't force a strike on someone born to scab?! 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip totally misinterpreted the youtube openmindedness video. Sterile ooze 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Phil so impervious to logic that even QualiaSoup couldn't make him his intellectual bitch?? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that he did make Philip his intellectual bitch. Philip is just so doggedly devoted to his delusions, he doesn't realize it. --Kels 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this boycott was a good move. It's rather surreal to see the place essentially devolve into Bradley and Philip arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin over on Nx's talk page. They're so cute in their delusion that any of this is real, aren't they? --Kels 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am enjoying "the creationist are not misquoting out of context or lying or incompetent; they are just sloppy. Move on!" Way to go, Philip! Sterile ooze 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A new Ruy

Congratulations to Ruy Lopez, whose latest joke is actually funny.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no joke, no matter how funny, that a Conservative can't suck all the humour out of. Ruy DeMyer tries too hard. --Kels 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boycott? 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured the boycott was none of us would be going over there to contribute. Are we trying to prove some point about page counts, given Philip the Honest has never seemed to care about those? --Kels 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

as far as I'm concerned it just means not contributing. I still intend to laugh (or groan) immoderately at them _& marmite^chat 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, that was funny. And yeah, I think the boycott just means not editing. ħuman 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Effects of the boycott

A recent comment by Kels in the "Fuck him" section prompted me to take a quick look at how the boycott is influencing aSK. And I'm somewhat surprised by what I see.

I mean, yeah, sure, overall editing has gone down, along with the overall talkpage activity. Hardly surprising. What I did find surprising is that mainspace contribs are not going up. Philip is free to add all the "Evolutionists are evil Hitler-worshippers who burn Bibles and shoot poor, persecuted Creationists in their spare time!" spin he wants to articles, but when I only check out the mainspace^img over there, it's almost empty.

Actually, all of the November 9 edits are Publius being silly and Brad reverting (the article creation wasn't reverted there, but Oscar moved it to userspace on the 10th). And more than half of the November 10 edits are vandalism and reverts (including the Divine Action Hypothesis‎ cleanup).

But not to worry, this is a great thing, as CPalmer points out: "much quieter without those antagonists antagonising everyone. Long may the 'strike' continue!"

If you say so, man... if you say so... --Sid 03:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I closed that tab because I thought it was an article here. I almost added "stub" to it. Yeah, without us "antagonists", that place will encrust itself into dead pancake batter. ħuman 04:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm think Philip likes to have people against him to provoke and use his "logic" to beat down. Despite his whining about us not contributing to Main, I'm not convinced that he will, either. (And Oscar will just recategorize stuff.) Sterile ooze 13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, without our crowd distracting him all the time, will Ken start trying to establish a beachhead there? I can see Philip finally being forced to deal with it himself if he ever wants anyone to take his dog & pony show seriously. --Kels 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When has Philip whined about people not contributing to Main? Come to that, when has he contributed himself, apart from point-making stuff like Evolution/Creation Controversy? He obviously set up ASK as a fly-trap for people who disagree with him, so that he could carry on his boring, boring 'debates' without Andy Schlaf butting in and blocking everyone.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He's been prickly about it a couple of times lately, people just there to make "anti-creationist" comments and not contributing. But that's probably more him being defensive and trying to clutter up his comments than any actual desire to make an encyclopedia. --Kels 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets face it, PJR likes writing more site rules far more than he likes making site content. I've said it before, he's going to end up with the tidiest and best run empty site on the internet. I guess he just wanted to be emperor of somewhere, even if it's a ghost town. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing that they're creating articles that have absolutely no "Biblical worldview" angle. Do they imagine that anyone will ever look at aSK for such information? _& marmite^chat 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, what idiots they are! It would be like going to Rationalwiki for information on cats, or Lebanon, or Jon Stewart.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to slap a mission tag on most of the crap here. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference being that we don't claim to be an encyclopaedia, of course. _& marmite^chat 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So it's fine for us to write pointless articles that no one will read, because they're not even part of the point of our site? How does that follow?

ASK is trying to become a Christian (or YEC, or Biblical, whatever) alternative to Wikipedia, so of course they're going to make articles about all kinds of things - in fact, that's exactly what they should be doing. Yes, their goal is a long way off, but then again in the early days of the mighty Wikipedia, when 1% of the editors were Ed Poor, I doubt many people would have predicted it would take off the way it has. There's loads wrong with ASK, but it seems misplaced to blame them for trying in the first place.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think even Philip ever expects ASK to be as popular as Wikipedia, and I highly doubt it would ever be that popular. Wikipedia dominates the wiki-as-encyclopedia concept—no wiki has even come close to its popularity—and CreationWiki and, in a sense, CP take up the audience for a YEC wiki. The only audience I could see coming involved in ASK is the CMI crowd or a very specific creationist crowd. Despite its prominence here and a relatively high rate people believing in creationism in general, most are not interested enough to contribute to a pro-YEC wiki. So I just don't see it (and I suspect Philip doesn't suspect it either).

I have at times been critical of RW's article creep, but it would likely implode without it. It's difficult to come up with debunking articles all the time, and people need something to do. And, the social element plays a role in keeping the community together. So I think what we have is the best a post-conservapedian anti-anti-science person can hope for. Sterile ooze 11:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Any body who wants to can go through all the articles they wanted deleted for being off-mission and explain why on the talk page. However if you just drive-by template I'll be going along reverting afterwards. - π 11:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(UD and EC) I think there is a difference. I'd rather make sure that the {{wp}} template were on a "pointless" page here rather than the mission template or just deleting the article. It tells someone who happens to come across that page (not that it would be many) to go see Wikipedia rather than rely on the jerkass(es) that wrote the article here. There is never going to be any serious numbers of people going to aSK, or CP for that matter, for encyclopedic information on anything short of the batshit crazyness of the YEC movement. The difference is that they believe that some day they will be the new Wikipedia. In effect, our "pointless" articles are "on mission" in that they parody this belief. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 11:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not even trying anymore

Who couldn't have come up with this as a probable YEC answer? But, maybe Phil is right about something. Maybe we shouldn't accuse YECs of using Goddidit. It seems more correctly to say TheFalldidit. Thoughts? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I view it more as the Biblesaysso. Sterile ooze 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What Philip said is consistent with all the latest creationist "research". - π 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess what always surprises me, though it shouldn't, is how they never seem to realize how much that just sounds made up. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't our bodies have fallen apart by now? I guess they will eventually. So, I guess that since evolution is goo-to-you, creationism is you-to-goo. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was more boggling at this gem. You say you would read the Genesis account even if you didn't believe God wrote it? BullSHIT, Philip! That's the ONLY reason to read any of that as literal, it's because you think your own shot at heaven depends on it. --Kels 14:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a little silly. His absolutely certainty means that he can write those otherwise crazy statements without it seeming the least bit odd to him. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really...?

"J. Martínez" has joined aSK...

If it's really him, I hope to see more random-as-Hell art dumps and copy-pasted articles! :D --Sid 12:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see him and Ken start to contribute significantly, to see what Philip does against his peers without our crowd to run interference for him. --Kels 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen there. Nothing ever does happen. Ken is not going to be involved without us yammering on on his talk page. I'm not even really convinced that that is THE Mr. Martinez. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Ken wanted to turn ASK into his own personal link farm before folks started objecting. So I'd say him being distracted by the interactions on his talk page (which he clearly enjoys despite protests) kept him there, rather than just happily self-promoting and mirroring his quote-mine heavy crap over the rest of the wiki. --Kels 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the strike?

Why? Proxima Centauri 13:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

LERN 2 READ N00B!1!!5! --Kels 15:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CPalmer

CPalmer is finally exposed as a parodist. --Harold 17:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OscarJ has a strange definition of "parody," which appears to include "inconvenient facts that make the Wiki administrators look like idiots." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

huh?

Is Philip suggesting that God had lightbulbs before stars in this edit? --PsygremlinSiarad! 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

He powered it using the Baghdad battery. - π 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, if there could be cloning and ultra-advanced shipbuilding before the Flood, there's no reason God couldn't have created a light bulb BIG ENOUGH TO ILLUMINATE A PLANET. After all God the Bible clearly says so heavily implies can be interpreted to read gets pulled out of Philip's ass is meant to be taken literally on these matters, as it's a history book. --Kels 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that they never question anything from CP, but, oh no, the math articles come from RW; they must be questionable! Sterile ooze 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You get 2 out of 10 for reading comprehension. Coming from CP presented MORE of a problem than coming from RW, and then the problem was one of HOW TO ATTRIBUTE, and not the articles themselves. But who cares if it’s true? Every time one of you flings it, the rest hoot and screech and jump up & down. 167.123.240.35 04:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but, yeah, PJRs concern seemed to be about whether or not he could steal the copyright or not. And also, whether those articles started at CP or not. I don't see anyone "hoot and screech and jump up & down"ing here. Not one person. ħuman 04:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

4 out of 10 maybe for you. The concern was not PJR’s and it was about HOW TO ATTRIBUTE - the opposite of your accusation. At least false accusations of theft are a change from false accusations of dishonesty. Regarding the metaphor, true it doesn’t really apply to this discussion (at least not yet). It more typifies WIGO as a whole - some individual posts a WIGO (accuracy is not a consideration), others vote for it. 167.123.240.35 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You really can't get a joke, can you? I read the stuff on AWK. I joked about it here. I still claim "I don't see anyone "hoot and screech and jump up & down"ing here. Not one person." Or do you mean random IPs who are voting on our wigo AWK page? ħuman 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, who's accusing anyone of thieving? I view the articles as a donation to ASK. If you can show me where on this page the words thief, theft, thieving or thievery have been used or implied in reference to the new mathematics articles at ASK, I'd be happy to see it. (0/10 for being too cowardly to log in, Bradley.) Sterile ooze 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was one of the demons under Bradley's bed that made the accusation. --Kels 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I guess Human did use the word "steal." My bad. Still doesn't change that Philip is running a dishonest site. Sterile ooze 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki editors are making fun of us!

By not logging in I am just acknowledging that I am not part of this community. I don't quite see how "cowardice" is involved, as I wasn't trying to hide anything. Maybe that's why my cowardice score was so low :). BTW I like the graphic, but Human's suggestion of stealing is hardly "making fun" (or if it is it is in pretty poor taste). 167.123.240.35 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are a part of the community if you are posting multiple comments and engaging in conversation, just as the pro-evolution editors are part of the ASK community. In fact, one could say there is a sort of CP-ASK-RW-Wikisynergy continuum of a community. Which WIGO item do you find inaccurate and how so? Sterile ooze 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Button of Mei

For starters, are any other non-vandal editors getting reverted without comment or discussion? My edits are apparently fair-game for such treatment, but I have not seen it happening to others. So I guess I am not the only one that does not consider me part of this community. One can make comments and engage in conversation without being part of the community to whom they are commenting or with whom they are conversing. I agree with you about the continuum, but not all members are "across" all the continuum. Most of WIGO is mocking, but also most of it is juvenile mocking. In the September to November so far, I see two or three at most that are not simple derision. I tried addressing the most blatant inaccuracies as they came up, but I have given up. RW as a community does not care to be accurate. I bear no malice (I just checked my pockets to be sure), but I know that I am not of RW 167.123.240.35 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. It's generally frowned upon to add to someone's wigo in a way that changes the entire tone. Anyone'd be reverted if they did that. See also: Jinx.
2. Not all of us agree with wigoAsk or find it funny. This isn't a "everyone at RW laughs at everyone at Ask" situation. All generalisations are wrong. All groups are nonexistant. -- =w= 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. That's a terrible misinterpretation. People don't "own" wigos anymore than any other edit on a wiki, and it leads to crappy wigos not getting improved.

2. True, of course.

1. I didn't mean people should own them, I just think its reads bad (and is unfunny) when a wigo starts arguing with itself in the middle. Hence, "Bradley wishes to say".

2. Bring me pretzels. And wine. -- =w= 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. ah, ok. Better to completely rewrite a crappy wigo than to append fixups.

2. pretzels delivered, with one coating of pure Escherian logic. Would you also like some cheez with the whine? ħuman 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Or affix pickups.

2. Now I want jelly instead. -- =w= 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mint or grape? Mei is insatiable... ħuman 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blueberry. Please do not case aspersions on Mei's satiety. -- =w= 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And I just discovered you like apricot. Perhaps I will send jellyfish? I hear they are tasty! ħuman 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jellyfish! I haven't tried jellyfish. But I'll try anything with apricot in it. -- =w= 06:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apricot jellyfish it is, then. Enjoy! ħuman 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OM NOM NOM NOM. >:3 -- =w= 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Keeping busy

Hehe, I see Oscar went on a cat-add frenzy on the 15th to try and make it look like a lot is actually going on over there. If you ignore minor edits and his "etymology" additions then there really isn't much else to see. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Demon-Haunted Sysop

You realize, Bradley, that "RatWiki" finds the demon link unsurprising in uneducated or deluded people mistaking natural or unusual phenomenon as something they're not.b But I guess it really isn't a big shock in Creationists. --Kels 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well get cracking on changing your article then. 167.123.240.35 02:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? It seems pretty clear, the blaming of things on "demons" has nothing to do with real entities, it's the fashion of the day. If superstitious anti-science folks like, I dunno, you, still insist on the ancient explanation of "demons", it doesn't make them any more real. Although these days you're more likely to be made fun of, and rightly so. --Kels 02:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole topic of "alien visitations" and sleep paralysis is very well covered in The Science of Discworld 2. It is also compared to the greyghosts of Korea and other such localised phenomena. - π 02:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shoes and dishonour

Don't know if anyone's still watching ASK, but the absence of stimulating debate from RationalWiki people is having a strange effect. At the moment a discussion about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has degenerated into bickering about shoe customs in feudal Japan.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WIGO it if it is worth reading. - π 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To many diffs really, it's a bit of a meandering discussion. You're not missing a great deal to be honest.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What, ask isn't thriving once the evolutionist influence is diminished? Shocking! Sterile ooze 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mileage

Philip gets loads of it from that bogus science is based on Christianity "argument". Which really isn't an argument at all, since it backs up a grand totality of nothing. Seriously, even if it were true that some of the concept of science grew out of the religion (or any religion it seems, since early sciences in China had more to to with Confucianism), that doesn't mean Christianity is scientific. And especially not Creationism, which has little to do with science at all. --Kels 14:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just loved "For evidence of my "baseless" claim, see here. It provides that basis. A list of papers is not an argument." Neither is a link to cretins.com, you chump. ħuman 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a stepping stone to launch arguments that he knows are too weak/crazy to fly without backup. For a more obvious example of such a layered approach, see how Andy established his "Liberal [noun]" articles and then used them to back up his talk page post and essays, and then the essays became sources for smaller articles, and those smaller articles became the sources for major articles.

Oh, but if you want some serious lulz, go read the linked Bumbulis article on the Science article Philip mentions:

"My hypothesis is that the Christian world view was crucial, perhaps even necessary, for the birth of modern science. I realize I cannot prove this, but since I set out not as a mathematician, interested in certainties and proofs, this is irrelevant. Instead, I set out as a sleuth, and I find many clues that converge to support my belief."

And even when you ignore how he completely downplays any advances by other cultures, you're left with arguments like this:

"Thus, there was nothing odd, as far as the Chinese were concerned, in attributing the political failure of a prince to the fact that human sacrifices took place at his burial."

Apparently, the Chinese were only able to determine someone's political success long after his death. Or alternatively, China was ruled by zombies. Small wonder that they had no science (other than things like "watch/map the movement of stars and make predictions", which sounds like... I dunno... ASTRONOMY?)! --Sid 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's hilarious, right in the intro, Bumbulis basically says that the article isn't useful at all for what Philip wants it to be. Nice intellectual honesty there, Philip. Sure, it'll convince Bradley, but that's kinda low-hanging fruit these days. --Kels 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tektonics

Man, I had almost forgotten that Philip also regards Robert Turkel J.P. Holding the sleeping dragon of self-promotion Conservapedia as a Good Source. --Sid 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CMI is a band-aid for any unsupported assertion, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is trash. Gee, Philip, you still have problems with evaluating sources and outright distortion. Sterile ooze 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Animals on the ark and their information

Some troll hit up the CP Noah's ark debate talk page with the observation that there are over 2,000,000 known species. Of course, in light of teh syunce of baraminology, we know that the number was closer to 55,000. Can you believe 2,000,000 species popped up with a strictly decreasing amount of information? It's pretty amazing. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, certainly. After all, people back then lived to be 900 years old, Adam had perfect scientific/encyclopedic knowledge, and antediluvian civilizations had been highly advanced (but not advanced enough to build boats...). If that's the level HUMANS had been at (compared to today's humans, a tragic product of loss of information and all that), just imagine what animals back then had been like! --Sid 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Before dogs were all sorts of sizes; now German shepherds are big and poodles are small. The German shepherds lost the "make little dog" information and the poodles lost the "make little dog" information. (Bedamned the actual sequencing data.) It's soooo easy. Sterile ooze 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the whole sequencing thing. In years past, Phil could screech "They already had the ability!!!", but now, it's a little less possible. It's a good thing he's willfully ignorant about the whole mess. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very simple - the arkimals had all the DNA on board in a couple hundred critters to devolve into the variety we see today. There were a couple cuddly lolcats which had all the DNA required to make lions, tigers, and, dare I say it, cheetahs. One or two bacteria and virii had all the required information to devolve into the infectious and useful splendor we see today (sorry, Dr. Lenski...). The "path" from those supercritters to today's menagerie was always one of losing information, or suppressing or activating genes that already existed. It works great as long as you think of DNA as a spoken language... ħuman 22:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It never gets old to me. The DNA language consisting of 4 letters, when rearranged and duplicated can't possibly add new information, just like we can't add new information to the English language. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think everything was descended from one divine Goat that had all the information: ATCTAC... Sterile ooze 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I once asked PJR about bird flu and how it went from chickens and gained the ability to infect humans also. No no, says PJR, it lost specificity. I countered and asked him if it lost specificity to chickens but then mutated again to only be able to infect humans and not chickens then it has gained new specificity. No answer. Ace^McWicked 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't argued that Noah took Ligers and Eleppopotamii on board and that's how the information was "lost", when those creatures miraculously split. --PsygremlinSprich! 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some enzymes have a very loose activation site on purpose, such as the ones that "eat up" toxins in your body. It's good in that case to have a "lack of specificity," which is more creationist we-don't-know-what-the-fuckery. Sterile ooze 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rationality

Looking at this comment of Philip's, it drew me back to the discussion that was happening over at the Silver Ravenwolf page about rationality in religion (at least I think it was that article). Reading the comment, it reminded me of one thing that I actually do think is rational about paganism. Despite the goofy shit a lot of pagans (especially the "crystals and light" variety) believe, the core beliefs start with the actual world around them. For Creationists like Philip, it starts and ends with the Bible, which takes precedence over the actual world around them. That's "God's creation" that's being ignored in favour of some book, and if there's a point of disagreement, well, it's the world that's wrong. Thus, at least on that score, waaaaay more rational. Of course, it also highlights why Philip (and little Bradley) aren't really "Christians", per se, but "Bibleists". Seeing as that's what they actually show the most worship for. --Kels 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make the same point in my first essay, but I think it was misinterpreted or got lost in the shuffle. (The word is "bibliolaters" rather than "Bibleists," I should think.) ListenerX^TalkerX 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, "bibliolaters" may be correct, but it sounds horrible. Plus, at first glance it seems to suggest any book, rather than that specific one. --Kels 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't actually start and end with the Bible. The Bible only trumps the world when they a) consider it important, and b) can't possibly explain it away. If it truly started and ended with the Bible, they would classify bats as birds, deny heliocentrism, etc. You can see how the PJR sort of creationist has massively changed its claims over the decades (even centuries). First extinction was impossible. Then it could be caused by man only. Then it was so obviously attested that they couldn't deny it was true. Evolution was impossible, but then microevolution was possible, and now some sort of weird speciation within "baramins" occurs. Why? Because they can only deny so much evidence. They ignore virtually all of it, but some stuff is so obvious that they have to switch from ignore to rationalize. Why do they spend so much time on creation "science"? Because the natural world must conform to God's word; it can't be wrong, only the evolutionists.

The point to my ramble is that their approach, despite their axioms, is not particularly "rational". To a certain extent, I see your point, and agree that it works for pretty much anyone. People create at least somewhat consistent systems from starting assumptions, but PJR et al's starting assumptions are blurry as hell. They pick and choose which bits of the Bible are literal, and what they actually mean (as so many people have established). They pick which ones are scientifically definitive, mostly at random, but always leaving out what obviously is untrue, but was scientifically definitive before the natural world crushed them. The same is true of moral progress trumping the Bible, or they'd be avidly defending slavery and abominable misogyny at every turn. 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how people frequently refer to themselves in the third person. Is he just saying that to be adversarial? He just seems like such an angry little man. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Fair enough. In that case, I'd amend it to "starts and ends with expedient, cherry-picked parts of the Bible with the observation that if he could get away without making those concessions, he'd happily do so. --Kels 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's that very cherry picking which always interests me to no end, and leads me to almost interrogate the diverse set of Christians I know, trying to get at "what exactly is your metric for deciding what in the Bible is true?" No two agree, but it seems connected with the fundamental tenants of their particular flavours of religion. Why is PJR so convinced that Genesis must be absolutely true? Virtually all Christians and Jews have thought it metaphor for ages, but he's convinced it must be true. 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I kinda get the whole "Jesus washed away the sins of Adam, and if there was no Adam than what was Jesus doing there" angle, but it doesn't sell very well since the whole sin of Adam thing makes no sense if you take it literally. It takes justifications such as "federal head of humanity" and so forth to even justify it as any more than a typical "here's why there's birth, death and suffering in the world" myth. Otherwise, I think it's more tribalism than anything. Philip threw in his lot with the Creationist/CMI crowd, therefore he has to defend whatever silly crap is part of their identification. --Kels 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As Christopher Hitches put it, the doctrine of "vicarious redemption" is utterly immoral. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Law of Biogenesis

Yes Philip, we know that CMI has an article on Law of Biogenesis, but that doesn't mean they know what the hell they're talking about. In fact, it pretty much guarantees they don't. --Kels 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood that one. The observation that life comes from life says nothing about the ultimate origin of life. In fact, one can pretty much assume if there wasn't life and then there was, it came from non-life. It says nothing about whether Goddidit or not. Sterile ooze 03:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Goddidit depends on life coming from non-life with the help of a being that breaks every natural law ever observed. Including the Law of Biogenesis that actually talks about fully-formed, modern life like maggots and mice, not primitive, self-replicating RNA strands. --Kels 04:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but real Goddidit implies God can be above such laws. So he can create life from non-life without life coming from non-life? Contradiction? No! COS GODDIDIT!! ^postate 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

do you discount completely the idea that there IS no beginning because of an instance of time travel ? Hamster 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a ontological paradox. Sterile ooze 13:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blasted strike

Ed @ is so right about this. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear fuck these people do actually think like that. ^postate 13:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just love how he quote mines a review of a book. He can't even be bothered to actually buy and read the fucking book, even when the book is likely to support his preconceived notions, since learning something might cause him pain. If CMI has a canned quote for him to regurgitate, that's good enough for him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil doesn't think, he regurgitates. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I rather like CPalmer's "time wasters" comment. After all, uncritically copying lies from CMI is much more efficient. --Kels 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing

Yes, yes, we get many WIGOs saying nothing is occurring. But behold: [2]. No mainspace edits in an entire 24 hour period. Ouch. 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the last day all eleven edits were to Talk:evolution, seriously even without us there all Philip wants to do is debate. - π 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That said, I'm glad he does. I love reading stuff like what Timsh is posting. Philip, well, there's only so much dishonesty you can read before it gets dull. --Kels 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... that's quite incredible. Even the spambots can't be arsed to edit aSK. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the strike to end before I write some articles on demons... I have been playing too much SMT lately. EC'ED twice--Thanatos 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, go watch Umineko no Naku Koro ni first, too. The demons there are...not quite the way they're normally depicted. :D (Also, the anime is almost relevant to this site, as the main plot is someone arguing with a witch that the murders she's bragging about committing could have been done without recourse to the supernatural.) --Gulik 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like beating my head against a wall when debating with Philip.--TimS 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not debating with Philip. You're debating with CMI. Philip's just the conduit. --Kels 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If/When the strike ends, there maybe a floodgate of edits. Sterile ooze 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's in preparation that Philip promoted our very favourite wanna-be censor. --Kels 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I guess the advantage of running a site no one uses is that you can act unilaterally and "with the consensus of active senior members" at the same time.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lying about liars

LOL, Philip! Of course CMI lies. It's all they do, misrepresent and lie about science. Evidence for Special Creation? Lies. Law of Biogenesis being a "law" at all and applying to primitive proto-life? Misrepresentation. Baraminology? Window dressing. Increase in "information" (whatever that means) being impossible? Lies. And on and on and on, it's on every damn page on the site. But you won't see them as lies because they back up your Bible worship. CMI says it. Philip believes it. That settles it. Truth be damned. --Kels 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, and if you like examples, here's a couple:

• Turning sand into rock by microbes, therefore geology is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old! Huzzah! Unless, of course, you actually look deeper and find that these microbes are a newly developed technology and therefore could not be responsible for sedimentary rock worldwide. Misrepresentation, a form of lying.
• Mutations are evolution's end start right off the bat with the usual "mutations are always negative" BS. Well, I'll let someone who's not an idiot explain. Misrepresentation and lies, whee!
• Explaining the "Fourth Day", which is basically twisting and fancy-dancing to explain away the starlight problem via time dilation. Essentially pulling it out of their collective asses and claiming it's science. Presenting baseless fiction as fact, isn't that...lying?

There you go, as random as possible (go to the article list, run the mouse wheel a bit and select an article with eyes closed) a selection of articles, and you know what? There's two things in common. In all three cases (and, indeed, in every single article I've seen on the site), science is misrepresented and lied about, and you need to go elsewhere to get actual facts. But they're Biblical Creationists, so that's all Philip needs, right? --Kels 16:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in that carbonsmart article that suggests that the "microbes" (bacteria) are a "newly developed technology". Using them in solutions to form calcite cement is the new "biotechnology". Calcite forms, wait for it, naturally, and therefore could be responsible for a great deal of rock formation.

You criticise the CMI article for making extremely well referenced and supported claims, but offer no counter claims. I guess you figure your audience is so captive that no-one will call you on it. You also link a typically poor TOA article. The very first example of neutral mutations is the long debunked peppered moth fraud. Birds don't eat peppered moths on tree-trunks because actually living peppered moths aren't there to be eaten by them. The birds have little trouble finding dead ones that "researchers" have stuck to the trees, though.

Your third comment is another empty attack. You attack creationists for using standard equations of relativity to solve a problem! Maybe you would prefer that no-one attempted to solve it so you can cry "head-in-sand" or some such. Humphreys' model uses one changed assumption. The rest is standard relativistic fare. Maybe you consider the Big Bang to twisting and fancy-dancing. Or do you know of a firm solution to the horizon problem?

I followed the links and checked your factoids. I saw no misrepresentations of science in the links, or lies. I do see that reality doesn't match your statements, though. 118.208.31.151 11:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Tricksy, are you missing us over there?

• Please provide an example of the rate of deposition of calcium carbonate by microbes that would explain the size of the geologic layer forming in 40 days. (Or is that part of the time dilation?)
• The peppered moths would seem to be an example of "microevolution." I thought that you guys didn't have a problem with that. Even if the hypothesis to explain the data were incorrect (you have not provided a good reference as to why they are "fraudulent"), it would be a good example of science correcting itself, probably performed by scientists, and it would not falsify evolution. Are you denying natural selection? (To be fair, CMI does say that creationist shouldn't use that all mutations are detrimental anymore, but just changed the goal posts to the nebulous "information." Care to define for us Bradley? Give some creationist measurements?)
• You do not give the citation to the primary creationist literature in which the relativity effect is derived, which is here. In there, it gives some well known relativiistic equations and derivations, but fails to give any physical evidence to support his hypothesis. And the author even quips, "As I have mentioned in several publications,^31,32 two Bible verses lead me to believe that there was a second space-stretching and time dilation episode sometime during the year of the Genesis Flood." That is, there was a time dilation because the Bible says so, except it doesn't, so there was a time dilation, because science explains thing and it contradicts the Bible. Please submit the physical evidence that supports the time dilation.
• Are both the time dilation and the microbe-deposit valid? It would seem a little odd to propose both. Each would seem to compensate for the flood timeline by making apparently slow processes occur faster, and hence would muck up the other hypothesis. Which do you propose is correct?

Same shit, different day. Sterile ooze 14:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cripes Bradley, take your freakin' meds, I hear they keep the demons away. The microbes appear in nature, to be sure. But do the naturally occurring microbes create things that can be mistaken for sedimentary rock, given we can see how sedimentary rock forms in the modern day and the article I linked says they most notably occur in coral reefs? I note even the CMI article has the escape hatch that they can form sediment "in the right circumstances" but doesn't tell us what those circumstances are. They must be awfully common if they've produced enough rock to look like billions of years. What are they, exactly? Does CMI say?

I never mentioned Peppered Moths in the first place, but for your benefit here's some more information on peppered moths. You're welcome.

Sterile already covered the "fourth day time dilation" nonsense already. Although I love how you slam the Big Bang theory despite it coming about after following the physical evidence, things like redshift, background radiation, and so on. Meanwhile, the "fourth day time dilation" dodge came about because those things have to be explained away to maintain the conclusion that comes from (a certain reading of) the Bible. But such after the fact justifications are pretty much the reason for sites like CMI and its imitators, like aSK. Of course you don't see misrepresentation, since you already agree with the conclusion. If CMI said the moon was made of green cheese, the sky was purple and Bradley had six arms, and had a Bible verse to go with it, you'd start buying coats with extra arms. --Kels 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sterile, do you want me to point out inaccuracies or not? Make up your mind, and just say which.

Kels, you sure seem obsessed with demons. 167.123.240.35 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Of all the fictional things that the deluded and stupid believe in, they're one of my favourites. --Kels 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from being hilariously funny, they're just another way of evading personal responsibility: "It wasn't I who did it; it was a demon." If you idiots would only admit that morality isn't dependent on supernatural beings but is a matter of personal choice and inbuilt (evolutionary) behaviour, then we'd all get along better. Oh no, of course if there wasn't a gOD to hand out "commandments" then we'd all be free to murder and rape, wouldn't we? In cognito 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

“”[F]iction masquerading as truth always offends me.

—Philip J. Rayment

Answer the questions: Evidence all around? It's up to you to say which: I'm not making such idiotic assertions with no evidence. Otherwise, any person who says that there is an element of truth to this BS is either willfully ignorant or willfully misleading his/her audience into believing there might be some truth to YEC. Sterile ooze 03:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [PS: How many computers are you using to vote?]

You weren’t, but Kels was. You just interjected when I called Kels on it. Voting, I vote once when I see new WIGO. Sometimes, that is. Sometimes I don’t bother voting. I do share an IP address with several thousand other people, though. 167.123.240.35 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, you've basically claimed that the CMI was right about the sedimentary rock thing which I questioned, and then went off on irrelevancies about peppered moths, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. So I'm not exactly seeing a powerhouse of correcting misrepresentation here. Although nice dodge of Sterile's questions, really makes me trust your credentials as a misrepresentation-corrector. --Kels 12:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Peppered moths were the first example in YOUR link YOU provided with YOUR comment on mutations. Did you forget that already? Or did you not read the article you linked? Nevertheless if you now wish to claim that the information you cited is irrelevant, I will take your word for it.

2. I refuse to entertain new argumentation until you actually address (not simply mock, or dismiss, or change the subject, but ADDRESS) my initial objections to your comments. For instance, you claimed that the reason that microbes could not account for sedimentary rock worldwide is because they are new technology. That claim is not made in your reference, and when I challenged it you simply made other claims about other reasons. You have not addressed your initial false claims that bacteria are new technology and that that is why they couldn't form the rock. 118.208.31.151 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, been forced to argue here because no-one wants to talk to you on your debating site? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bradley, you are the one who seems to be obsessed with the peppered moths. It is still just one case,and we still await the evidence of fraudulence, especially since additional work has been done in the last decade. Furthermore, do you think natural selection works? Do you "believe" in microevolution? What is your alternative hypothesis? Sterile ooze 16:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, Sterile, Philip is so gonna pwn you for that. Oh, that's right, we don't have the "small green text" template here, so he can't make you look like a frog. Or algae. In absentia 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess we do! I "improved" it, and added the "doc" template. Very cool, that "doc" template. In absentia 04:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradley-- If you say that "WIGO’s use of pseudo-quotes is slyly dishonest", then I challenge you to get Philip admit to the dishonesty about the "absurd in the highest degree" quote. The creationists are using it as a sly argument to authority and not explaining the context in which Darwin used it. You can't have it both ways. Sterile ooze 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to ignore aSK?

As the boycott has shown, the only interesting stuff to come out of aSK is the responses to our questions and debates over there. Is it worth just leaving them alone now? We have an interest in CP because Andy is actually fucking up kid's heads, whereas all PJR is doing is constant PRATT arguments to us. Why bother? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm liking how they have to come here now. A vehement need to defend ridiculous ideas. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In a logical and objective way, ignoring them would be the best thing to do. I'm not sure I could though. I just find the lunacy absolutely fascinating. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think people who want to talk to them can, we just get rid of WIGO:aSK and add any particularly stupid edits to WIGO:Clog / World? I just don't think they deserve our attention any more. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly to have a WIGO devoted to it, when most if not all of the users seem to have found it via RW in the first place. There are hardly any WIGOs any more anyway - all this page does is provide a convenient page for Bradley to voice his objections.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If and when Kels agrees, I think that makes all of us who even remotely care about ASoK. I've been wanting to consolidate the WIGO for a while. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it a few days, lest we rush into stuff. Sterile ooze 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep this WIGO page; we CP spinoffs should give each other some acknowledgment. Also, giving Bradley a convenient place to mouth off is not, to my mind, an unwelcome proposition; it keeps his eyes off the rest of the Wiki and provides the rest of us with good laughs. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You're just saying that to spite me, you fucking asshole. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not even cross my mind when I said it. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always on your mind you mother fucking liar. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) At the end of the day, the only interesting stuff that happens there is a result of us poking them, therefore we're actually just WIGOing ourselves in a roundabout way. Why bother? At least with CP you just have to watch for 5 minutes to get some seriously awesome insanity. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to ignore them permanently.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think they are that important in the grand scheme of things without us. By all means add some laughs on the other WIGO sites about them but I think we are drawing attention to a group who don't deserve it. If you actually do want to piss them off then we've proved that the best way is cut off the attention. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care all that much, honestly. If you wanna roll it into WIGO...what, exactly? Wikis? Religon? Intellectually dishonest websites? I dunno, whatever. I'm certainly not around enough to be all that important in the grand scheme. Although I will note, it doesn't really cost us any effort to keep it either. --Kels 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WIGO clogs. Kels is also correct in that it's "free" - however, we do have it on the main page, as if it "matters" in some way beyond six of us arguing with PJR from time to time. The discussion can always end up at talk:aWK instead of here, I'm sure Bradley can figure that out. I'm for rolling this up and clogging awk. Have been for a while. In absentia 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. There just isn't enough to keep this one going. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 05:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to keep it separate is that this WIGO page has a narrower audience. We know the "cast of characters" over at aSK, and this knowledge finds its way into the WIGOs; at WIGO:Clogs, readers might be confused by a reference to "PJR." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that at all. There's no reason to assume that people only read WIGO:Clogs and no other area of the site. Besides, if "PJR" appears, the link in each WIGO will point to a page with an expansion of his name on it. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I say we leave this till after Thanksgiving or something to let the few (if any) other people who care weigh in. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Is it my imagination or did Philip just make the copyright worse than it was before? Sterile ooze 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Better. Contributors now retain copyright. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What if more than one person contributes to the article? Who owns owns the copyright? Sterile ooze 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Each user retains the copyright to his own contributions but has granted aSK the "right to alter" them, "as is normal for a Wiki." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't know much about copyright, but how can something be copyrighted but alterable? Is "normal for a Wiki" is defined in Australian copyright law. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Sterile ooze 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is very different from a license like CC-BY-SA, except that the license is only granted to aSK. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not even close, because PJR is basically a moron with delusions of competence. He doesn't understand that aSoK is not a legal entity that can hold copyright or be the subject of a license grant. Copyleft licenses make a grant to each individual recipient of the work to be able to read/redistribute/modify the work as they see fit, and without that grant it is impossible to work collaboratively. PJR is failing epically at trying to craft something that gives him (er, wait, I mean aSoK) exclusive control while still allowing other people to edit. It wouldn't be impossible to do that, but you actually have to have some grounding in copyright law before you start. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, whose grasp of copyright law does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, a mentally challenged lawyer!... ħuman 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Inspiring

"Mad as spoons" is now one of my favourite phrases. Although that may have something to do with me spending a good deal of the weekend reading the archives of Scary Go Round.

And is it me, or have I got a promotion to "main excuse for not dealing with criticisms from RW or anyone with a membership here"? --Kels 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad sure has it in for you, you dishonest bitch! PEPPERED MOTHS! PEPPERED MOTHS!. Ace^McWicked 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are peppered moths a variety of demon or angel? I always forget how they're baraminologically categorized. --Kels 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They're dinosaurs, obviously. (It's "Mad as a spoon) _& marmite^chat 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairies. To quote Shakespeare:

“”Corrupt, corrupt, and tainted in desire! About him, fairies; sing a scornful rhyme; And, as you trip, still pinch him to your time. Fie on sinful fantasy! Fie on lust and luxury! Lust is but a bloody fire, Kindled with unchaste desire, Fed in heart, whose flames aspire As thoughts do blow them, higher and higher. Pinch him, fairies, mutually; Pinch him for his villany; Pinch him, and burn him, and turn him about, Till candles and starlight and moonshine be out.

—Merry Wives of Windsor Act 5, scene 5

(Yeah, there's no relevance; but it's fun! Sterile ooze 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so close to something important

Philip gets so tantalizingly near reality at times, it's a bit frustrating when he then dives back into the depths of delusion. Like here, aside from the fact that he undoubtedly sees the religions of various cultures as being sheer fiction that share all the aspects he attributes to the Bible when he claims that the Bible is separate from fiction, there's the "cats and dogs" example. From the reading I've done over the past little while (and chatting with a Presbyterian minister), it seems that the Eden and Creation stories were adapted from Babylonian stories with changes made so their lessons supported the new monotheistic religion they were for, because of what Philip himself suggested. Because the people reading them at the time would be quite familiar with the metaphors. Not to mention, they'd be familiar with using an existing story to make an entirely new point, which I gather was pretty common at the time. And yet...instead of following that thought through it's back to "talking snakes were real because Biblesaysso" and "the Bible is literally true (except some bits) because it says you'll go to hHell if you don't do what it says". Disappointing, really. --Kels 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"tax" debate

It's all very well for PJR to use the example of parties debating their tax policies, but surely the voters would at some point read those policies for themselves and make their minds up? --PsygremlinParla! 20:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A better "tax analogy" would probably be a country saying their tax system has the same basis for the tax system as a second country although both have some different regulations about it, and then getting commentary from a citizen of the second country who didn't know much about the tax system of the first. Essentially, it's kinda relevant-ish, but not useful at all. --Kels 20:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"My fictional character is the same as yours!" "No it's not!". The whole analogy, like most cretards' analogies, is useless. With tax systems "the facts" - that is, "reality" can be examined to test the claims. ħuman 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Down?

For everyone or just me? Now might be a good time to de-WIGO it? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Down for me also. Ace^McWicked 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Down all day, far as I can see. And I thought we decided to take it out of the WiGO list and front page a while ago? I'd like the page to stay here, but no point having half the site linking to it. --Kels 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor PJR, we're his only readers and even we're abandoning him. Ah well, one dumbshitpedia down, only about a million more to go. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

perhaps he pulled the plug for good. Ace^McWicked 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's one way to avoid answering your points. --Kels 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame because I wanted to know more about how snakes can talk. Ace^McWicked 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That whole thing about snakes makes me laugh. --Kels 01:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And when he suggested that the bible can be taken as factual as newspapers can. Ace^McWicked 02:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Three words: Demon-possessed snake. Sterile ooze 02:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is back..... Ace^McWicked 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I'm getting everywhere nine seconds too late! Yup. Cap'n, the ship, she is once more afloat! ħuman 02:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(<---)Holy fucking shit! I never would have known this was down on my own! Maybe you guys should get together with Proxima Centauri and send out email newsletters whenever you can't access a site for five seconds! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Moron, it was down for hours. Most of the day. Whatever. Your PC joke is funny, though. "Oh, I couldn't access CP... it's down!!!! Oh, yeah, my modem crashed..." ħuman 04:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

End the strike

Is it time to officially end it as everyone is just ignoring it now? - π 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I'm still on strike, but just as I approved the strike motion, I approve the unstrike motion. ħuman 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I approve the unstrike motion too. Like CP, ASK is just too much fun to abandon forever. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't give a damn: you can't have a discussion with the demon fanciers & iron age worshippers anyhow. _& marmite^chat 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. I'm not rushing back over. Sterile ooze 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now let us take killing this lame mainpage-reffed article seriously. At least, let's remove it from the main page and the wigo links? ħuman 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Ain't main page material. Not a big enough or broad enough fish. Sterile ooze 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A.S.A.P. _& marmite^chat 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's opinion are we still waiting on? I don't mean to rush the process, I am serious. Who hasn't chimed in on this yet? I'd like to see it 8/8 or whatever, rather than 6/8 and who knows who else cares? ħuman 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm all for removing any reference to those attention seeking retards. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, ditch'em. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the strike is concerned, I don't much care either way. If we want to end it I've got no problem with that. But debating over there is somewhat of a waste of CPU time.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Were you waiting for me? Please go right ahead. Генгис^{Gum disease} 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So ... Is it over? There may be an announcement here somewhere, but I'm tool dim to see it.--Bob^{Not Jim} 13:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Debating at aSK

Bob, I can't imagine that you ever had any illusions that debating at aSK would be anything other than a waste of time. For myself, I find it fascinating. I love to watch the crazy. I love the mental gymnastics. I love to watch them jump through ever shrinking hoops. That's what it has always been about for me. It was never about changing minds. I gave up on that a long time ago as a virtual impossibility. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in the end it's just such a waste of time. Yes, watching the contortions and the self delusion can be fun, but in the end your effort is for naught. .... Well, OK, I will give it something. It's sometimes useful having to articulate your point of view at a very basic level as this can help to clarify things in your own mind.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil hits the big time

A entry in FSTDT --PsygremlinTal! 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed this out to him yet? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments that creationist shouldn't use

I figure that this is as good a place as any to put this, though it might be better for the Saloon Bar. The various creationists sites offer lists of arguments that creationists should not use. As if that wasn't the first best indicator that creationism is bunk, I was just wondering what everyone thought might be listed next as an argument that creationists shouldn't use? I was kind of thinking that someone will work on the "information" angle to a point where they toss that on the list. The whole "information" thing does seem a bit nebulous (just as they want it), so it might be able to go the distance though. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Linking anything to do with nazis / hitler to evolution on those lists? That should be number one. It just makes laughing stocks out of them. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it as people like PJR are in lock step with whatever the list says. It would be great if the list was on a wiki page. It would be interesting to see the revision history as different "banned" arguments are added. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't we create one? With a commentary on each point. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that on PJRblogwiki, PJR wrote in his controversy article, "It is therefore notable that creationist groups Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis have published a list of arguments that creationists should not use,[reference to CMI, duh] whereas there is no known such equivalent list published by the evolutionist side." He thinks it's good. Sterile ooze 13:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just found a great list of bad arguments! --Kels 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ur funny :) ħuman 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made an article with arguments that should not be used in support of evolution, so PJR can no longer say that we do not have one. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronoun trouble

Not to mention, Ken DeMyer isn't a typical female name. --Kels 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but when he doesn't forget to act cagey (or at least as cagey as someone as braindamaged as him can act), he denies being Ken DeMyer too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The international man (or maybe woman) of mystery act is hilarious, given how bad he is at it. Although his (with Philip as accomplice, I see) completely unearned smug sense of superiority is pretty annoying. Philip's got the same thing here, for instance, since he seems to think he's utterly trouncing Ace and practically doing a victory lap, when in fact the majority of the people reading are shaking their heads, wondering how he can be such a tool. --Kels 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never been a good internet debater. I have the intelligence and the right ideas but I just have difficulty with arguing via this medium - that said, I don't believe that Philip is even reading what I have written. Not only does he have the preconceptioon that he is right he also has the preconception that he has already won. Ace^{Of Spades} 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's dangerous to interact with Ken. Self-loathing, obsessive-compulsive closet case with an hard on for certain users. The guy could find you and if he's off his meds, maybe he will. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I aint worried, we have a whole system of checks to keep people like Ken out of the country. Ace^{Of Spades} 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL SNAKE

Man, Philip just keeps getting better and better. Back to the old "Bible is a history book" dodge he usually uses to get out of having to back up scientific claims made based on it. --Kels 16:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand it. I thought I would debate Bradley because

he seems slightly more reasonable but his response was smarmy. I'm still considering what to do. It's likely going to be debating anywhere but AWK becuase that place makes me a little sick to my stomach. Is there something wrong with PJR that his debate strategy has devolved into "nuh uh!!!" and some quote mining? Or is my memory of him at CP a little off? 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The way he's got ASK set up, he's a lot more open to debate and criticism from people who aren't looking over their shoulder for Andy or TK to permaban them for saying the wrong thing. So he's getting it a lot more full-force than he used to at CP and he seems to be getting increasingly touchy about the opposition. He was a bit more amiable about this stuff when the site opened, as was Bradley. --Kels 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Philip. My debate with him is whether or not Genesis is metaphorical and he is using Gensis as evidence that isn't. It is totally circular. Ace^McWicked 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I loved how he said that despite it being entirely possible someone looked at snakes and made up a reason for how they got that way, it was obviously true because snakes did talk at one point and now they don't. How does he know, when there's no physical evidence at all? HIS HISTORY BOOK, THE BIBLE SAID SO! Is there a rounder word than circular? --Kels 19:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Obtuse? 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Spherical? I am formulating a response to him which I'll post later. I want to know if he also believes Kipling's "How the Leopard Got its Spots". Ace^{Of Spades} 19:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbolic? It doesn't actually work in context, but it makes you sound very clever. Professor Moriarty 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I still have no idea when we're supposed to read the bible literally or metaphorically and PJR's adherence to the fiction that snakes once spoke isn't helping. So, snakes talked because the bible says so. The bible is a reliable source because it was ghostwritten by god. God exists according to any number of unsatisfying proofs, including that the bible says so, which as a "proof" in and of itself is just downright intellectually dishonest instead merely sloppy. What more is there to talk about? I just don't see how discussions at AWK manage to turn into such a stomach churning wall of shit-spattered text when the discussions are relatively simple (it's the tp template). We need to break this down to basics and get PJR to commit to a proof for the existence of god. Any of this other stuff is just poking him with a stick. 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite quote in the "Evidence for God's Existence" "article" is "Evidence from the Bible overlaps with evidence for the Bible. Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant because God is its ultimate author, and there are a number of reasons for considering the Bible to be what it claims to be." Just a little circular, no? Sterile ooze 21:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I like watching Phil and Brad devolve. They used to be polite and have a good attitude. Now they're plain assholes. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if people here tried being nice to them, they would not feel the need to fight fire with fire. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's it. Nice to them means agreeing. Anything else is an affront. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me an instance when I haven't been nice to PJR. Ace^{Of Spades} 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace, here you are calling him "totally bananas." Here you are trying to plumb the depths of his mind and explaining to him that he is a coward who does not want to see his most cherished beliefs shattered. And here you are dropping by LowKey's talk-page for the purpose of calling LowKey names.

Neveruse, the advocates of political correctness have made a somewhat successful attempt to have it decreed that if person A behaves to person B in a manner that is not to person B's pleasure in all particulars, person A is not being nice to person B. Creationists and right-wingers have taken that and run with it, as they (rightly) see it as a useful tool to silence dissent. It is not, however, the conventional definition. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Listiner - The first instance I didn't call him any names - I advised him that it is bananas to think he is being persecuted. I didn't state he was bananas.

Again in the second instance I never called him a coward, I implied that he can't accept evolution because he can't accept he is wrong which is cowardly. Again I didn't call him any names and I was reacting to his outrage at me while ignoring other, more vicious attacks against him so my position was justified.

As to LowKey - he is a sarcastic troll jumped into a conversation I was having with PJR in order to make a sarcastic comment. I called him out and have publically stated I don't want to address him again. Ace^{of Spades} 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First instance: You said to PJR, "You have to be totally bananas" in order to take a position that PJR had just taken. To my mind, that is calling him "totally bananas."

Second instance: You did not say the word "coward," but it is a reasonable implication. Also, it does not matter how justified your position was, as this is a question of form more than one of substance.

Third instance: Two wrongs do not make a right. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Mr. Reasonable. Perhaps I should abuse you next time? Ace^{of Spades}

Perhaps, although it will not help to convince me of anything. When I edited at aSK, I tried to be nice, and when I could not convince anyone, I got lots of good WIGO material. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spherical logic is: L = 4π(bullshit²)

Say, something just occurred to me. Philip's arguing that the snake got punished by turning it into modern snakes, and it's true because it describes something getting turned into a modern snake, or something along those lines. But isn't the snake supposed to be Satan? The same Satan who's making wagers with God over Job, having tea with Jesus, and dispatching demons to prey on Bradley later on? He didn't seem to have been a modern snake in those episodes, so did he not actually get punished? So who got turned into a modern snake, anyhow? Was that not Satan in the first place? --Kels 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tq

Am I the only one who enjoys the fact that Philip uses that annoying template on its talkpage when discussing how it should appear? - π 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it's hilarious too. ħuman 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think the font should be 88% the original size, not 90%, and blue, so that the red-green colorblind people can detect when they are quoted out of context, too. Sterile ooze 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone told them that it's not the template but the fucking use Philip makes of it that's the bone of contention? (can't be arsed to read the page - they're all mad) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we tell Philip not to be dishonest, that sort of removes the point of the whole site, don't you think? --Kels 05:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blame me for the green; I put it in to replace a dark shade of gray that was all but indistinguishable from the ordinary black text. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I thought I did that. Maybe I did the dark grey, though. Tonight I made it 100%, black, and bold. Awk is f'ing lame. ħuman 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not need to get your knickers in a twist over the template. If you have a problem with the way PJR uses it, raise it to his face. (And now that it is in use all over the place, the Wiki's database might have trouble swallowing numerous changes to the template.) ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

His poor wiki can swallow my twisted knickers any time. I think it is, has, was, and is perpetually being raised to his face. He just ignores the 'plaints. ħuman 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just love the whole thing. He's such an ass. Any normal, non-ass person would stop using the template if someone asked them not to. He's become so confrontational now that he will fight to the death for even the most inconsequential beliefs. Brad's subservience is also hilarious. I wonder if they've met and if any..."awkward" moments arose. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fundies repeat the darndest things...

And we all thought the idiocy that made him famous was a PJR original. Turns out he was cribbing from the junior encyclopaedia of space creation for kids by the beloved CMI. How disappointing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does it take an omnipotent deity "days" to do anything? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Showmanship? Yahweh is obviously the smug, self-satisfied Derren Brown of deities. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We've replaced the contents of PJR's head with a mirror of CMI. Let's see if he notices. --Kels 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

why did God rest ? did he get tired ? Hamster 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[Yawn]... ħuman 06:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some new whoppers

I liked this one, "The views of atheism are largely defined by the teaching of leading atheists...But atheism has no such "holy book", so what is taught by leading atheists is atheism." Really, Philip? Really? I also like how he thinks the Undue Weight policy on WP is supposed to be there to let Creationism play on a level field with evolution, but it's being perverted. And I'm not even gonna get into this comment, you lot can read it yourselves. --Kels 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, yes. I had no idea how not to believe in gods before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris taught me. It's not something you can learn on your own. Seriously, projecting much there Phil? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? Who "teaches" atheism? Comment on or discuss, yes but teach? I nearly commented there but ... ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In my teens I professed to being agnostic. It was only when I started going to mass with a Catholic girlfriend at uni that I really became an atheist. Генгис^{Gum disease} 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess he's talking about atheism as a movement, as opposed to atheism as simply not believing in God. Like the way you could call yourself a Christian and just read what Jesus said and try to follow it, but most Christians also go to church, take communion, celebrate Easter and so on. Is that a sensible distinction? Does anyone here consider themselves part of an Atheism movement?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there is one: perhaps there should be? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think atheists are big joiners. I won't join the national secular society because they're more for atheism than they are secularity, even though I totally agree with them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I lapsed from the NSS a year ago. The newsletter was mainly "Cool! We got on TV!" and I was left with a feeling of "Well... now what?" –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a card-carrying member of the AHA and you should be too. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were an American or a humanist, I'm sure they could count on my support. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should be both. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly to the point but: I found this somewhere yonks ago & thought it typifies most atheists that I know. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for the philosophy of being beastly to humanists? I want to be one of those. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Humanism. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably more to the point, I would suspect many creationists are big authority followers. Sterile ooze 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip "CMI said it, I believe it, that settles it" Rayment? A big authority follower? Say it ain't so! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim is the MAN!

Ready for a tq blitz? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how evolutionists aren't allowed to assume any descent because of common features of fossils, but baraminologists are allowed to assume groupings of kinds because of common features. Creation science is so much fun! 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm much fonder of the fact that Philip believes God could support animal testing. --Kels (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoof, Phil's reply is a doozy. So much dishonesty in one place, is there a critical mass for such things? --Kels (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Henry

Is this guy a sock of Ace? If not then I guess he's some kind of massive alcoholic. Check his new page edits. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he drinks meths he won't be making edits like that for very long. At least not without a screenreader, anyway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. Meths is a mixture of methanol and ethanol. Methanol causes blindness, but the antidote for it is ethanol. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eve honey, I'm home

As I replied here to Phil here, I didn't really pick up on Adam doing any work let alone some work in my straightforward literal reading of Genesis. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop! You guys are cracking me up too much! Sterile ooze 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Priceless. I'd really like to know how Phil knows the work wasn't that hard. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole conversation cracks me up. Philip takes this so seriously, too. Of course, this is what Creationism is there to protect, because if Adam wasn't literally there (and it's necessary to have a six-day creation to put him there) then the "sinful nature of man" isn't literal either, and how can you sell salvation that way? --Kels (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PJR should learn to listen to theologians who actually know beans about Bible history. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel bad for the plants that were created before the sun. Sterile ooze 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But, but. There was magical god light there first, to show us that astrology is bad. CMI said it, so it must be true. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how it's speculation only when we do it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why God confined Himself to "days" before he created the sun. I also wonder how that worked in terms of heating the earth, and in terms of placing the sun in the middle of the planets after they must have been veering off in space. Such a strange system, really. I guess I have to come back to ask at some point.... Sterile ooze 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut the boy some slack, clearly the whole process took a lot out of him. Heck, he was so tuckered out by the end of Day 6 that he forgot to turn the security system on, and whoops! In comes snake/Satan. Which leaves the question, if Satan was the snake, and the snake was cursed by God to become the modern snake (a state of affairs your typical snake seems pretty happy with), then why is there still humanoid Satan? --Kels (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Satan is everywhere! ħuman 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was Elvis? --Kels (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That was what I was channelling, yes. ħuman 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Secular sources

Don't you love how Philip (ab)uses the term? "You can't argue against me, because your side said it!" Hey Philip, you do realize Sally's not an atheist, right? --Kels (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

She's not a Scotsman, either.... Sterile ooze 15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Domain

Well, I warned him. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rationalwiki.info is hardly any better.--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to be home

I just spent like a half hour or so in PJR's Awkland, and it so so refreshing to come home. Arguing with friends like LX is so much more fun than reading self-important egotistical authoritarian fundamentalist garbage. ħuman 05:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your half-hour romp has gotten you a one-second block and a demand to apologize for calling Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati "lawbreakers." I hope you are happy about this. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have rapped PJR on his virtual knuckles with my steel ruler of irony on your behalf. Won't somebody please think of the children? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I only meant to say Hovind wuz a crimminyal. My correction at A Storehouse of Railway Trivia may have failed to contain the requisite "apology", though. ħuman 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If Philip honestly could tell that he didn't think you meant to say "his" instead of "their," then he's an idiot. If he did think so, then, well, he's block-happy. Sterile ooze 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But there is also the problem that he typed "behinds" when he meant to type "behind." And that he blasphemed CMI brass by calling them liars. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After making the mistake of "their", of course I typed "behinds". And, yeah, "crooks and liars". ħuman 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"... his disrespect for the law is not mentioned"

"plus he is probably unwise to not keep views on taxation separate to his creationism". RW still telling lies, I see. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That refers only to his views, not to his actions based on those views. One cannot, in general, disrespect U.S. law by holding a certain view. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course one can, since disrepect is a view and not an action (except in Manglish, and maybe possibly Mercan). He quite specifically disrepects the law in his view. Even if it said "contravention" (now that's an action) the WIGO would still be disengenuous because that is obviously what is being referred to in the statement that I quoted. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (logging in is for members).

Thomas Jefferson once said that the scope of the law "reaches actions only, and not opinions," meaning you show respect for the law by obeying it rather than by supporting it. Hovind would not have disrespected (in the 2nd sense) the law had he paid his taxes properly despite his views on the matter. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you’re splitting hairs, but like I said “Even if …” 167.123.240.35 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But then surely he would have made a stronger condemnation than just saying, "It was unwise; it made creationists look bad"? I thought he was referring to Hovind's discrediting creationism by mixing it up with New World Order conspiracy theories, rather than to his criminality. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ken, you do entertain.......

Just fucking hilarious. That is all. Ahahahahaha har de har ho ho ho. Ace^{of Spades} 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Shame he's struggling to pay for his health care. Now, if only someone could push for universal healthcare without being labeled a commie tool of the NWO. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how PJR explained to him (next diff) that our standards would prevent us publishing his address or photo. If it is indeed us he is talking to. ħuman 22:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He is so child like, its really amusing to me. Ace^{of Spades} 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken or Philip? --Kels (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both but for diiferent reasons. Ace^{of Spades} 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I really begin(!) to wonder at the mental health of this guy. I'm starting to feel a little (but only a little) guilty at RW's attitude to him: he's obviously a penny short of the shilling and should probably be in supervised accommodation (assuming that he isn't already). It's a bit of a barrel:fish:shoot situation. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's more like a sixpence short of a nickel... ħuman 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been of the persuasion that Ken is a little too crazy to fuck with for a while. I feel like RW exacerbates his delusions of grandeur, makes fun of his OCD and I really think his obsessions with various members of our community could become dangerous. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm with you 100% there. Nothing he says makes sense (whether public or in private email), he's totally incapable of remotely concise writing, he has remarkable obsessions with the most nonsensical things, and seems to live only to boost search engine ratings while telling us about it, when no one cares. It ceases to be amusing when you realize someone is actually loopy. When he tried to initiate me into his secret SEO club while hiding under aliases, I realized he probably needs real help. 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Horace, SallyM & Timsh

[3], [4] & [5]. Don't ya just luv em? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm loving SallyM lately. Perfect blend of fawning and snarky. She's smart and a good writer. Who is she? 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but she's good. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to take her at face value. A non-literalist Christian who found ASK somehow, and was rather stunned at Philip's intellectual dishonesty, not to mention his hubris. I like her comment about CMI a lot. --Kels (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been fun to read, but I fear she's making her way to the door. Another one bites the dust, and Phil doesn't even begin to understand. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly true, but to be expected. If Philip were capable of understanding, or admitting error where the Bible is concerned, then he wouldn't have started ASK in the first place. It's from CMI's site to Philip's eyes, and that's all he needs for infallability. --Kels (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, snap. "you conveniently ignore the second half of that passage; bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Not spending all your time shadowboxing Darwin and Dawkins." ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant

PhilKey live in their own little world, don't they? --Kels (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a world in which apparently only their idea of god exists. How could evolution be coupled to non-belief in gods, when there are thousands of scientists that combine belief with doing decent science? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also love Bradley's...original definition of "irrelevant". Apparently things that had nothing to do with the case and weren't brought before the judge are relevant to reporting on what happened and what was decided. But then, most of his "worldview" is based on fantasy anyhow, I guess I should expect that. --Kels (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Translations and Article of the Decade

Man, Ken's just going nuts with the delusions over there, isn't he? The idea that CP could be translated into any other language is hilarious because the translator would have to be implicitly trusted by Andy to the tiniest detail. Can you imagine Andy letting language he doesn't understand get put on his blog? Why, there could be PARODY in there! Too funny. And the idea of having an Article of the Decade on either site is similarly batty, and even a loon like PJR can see that. --Kels (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that the CBP is not full of cursing in Greek on the comments on the side? - π 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovely Koreans

Oh, man. That's just Ed-level creepy coming from you, Ken. Hold on...you've insinuated you might be a female, wouldn't that suggest you're one of those lesbians you hate so much? --Kels (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder where this lovely Koreans thing sprang from. Its a whole new angle for Ken. Ace^{of Spades} 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, it would actually do my heart good to find that Ken was a secret dorama fan, it would humanize him a lot. But probably no such luck, he's so obsessed with his narrow range of topics he's probably just found some Korean singer or something on an apologetics website. --Kels (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sally vs Oscar

Pretty funny. I guess maybe she should have known that's how subsequent references are cited, but Oscar probably shouldn't have been such a dick to begin with. I was really surprised because I thought Oscar was one of the more level-headed editors there, not one to curl up in a ball and revert to the ol' persecution complex. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Oscar's got a history of being pretty obtuse over articles like this (and, I think, this actual article). Enough so to make me wonder if there's not some subtle parody over there, although he could well be the real thing. He did start out by being a dick there, though, and it's funny to see him continue posting after Sally's wall o' evidence. --Kels (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OscarJ would try anyone's patience - he has a predilection for ideological reversions and seems to be incapable of discussing these kinds of things on the merits. Why did I just waste 20 minutes addressing an absolutely fucking stupid and irrelevant quote in an article nobody would expect to be anything but a hatchet job? I don't know. 21:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait...are you Sally or Teh Asp? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PJR. 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew it! --Kels (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten to the point where I'm too afraid to hang my socks out to dry, in case someone goes through the logs and looks at all the times I argued with myself or pimped my own parody. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for a week, and ASK gets kinda interesting..... Sterile ooze

Should it scare me that I know more about intelligent design than Philip? Sterile ooze 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. Trains are about the only thing that he doesn't get most of his knowledge from CMI about. So CMI says ID is okey-dokey, and we all know that's because ID is a cover for exactly the sort of Creationism they push, then it's okey-dokey. No need to actually understand it. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste evangelism

Since WIGO:CP is relatively quiet right now (especially after the enormous Ed Poor rampage of last week), I decided to poke around a bit. Among other things, I briefly checked Ed's Wikipedia talk page and saw that someone had poked Ed about the notability of wp:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (which he apparently edited in the past or something, I didn't bother to check). From there, I checked the talk page (where people discussed NPOV) and found a link to a book which reminded me of our gripes with aSK/CP, The Biblical Worldview and "Instant Argument, Just Copypaste" CMI pages such as this (which is linked from this list of similar pages).

The book in question is "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America (Volume 1: History and Controversies)" and the link provides handy search shortcuts to the pages in question.

First, on page 145:

“”Some [countercult organizations], like Saints Alive or the Utah Lighthouse, concentrate on one or two religions—in these two cases, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Others, like Ankerberg and Weldon, attack any religious group they consider at variance with their particular brand of of evangelical Christianity—which countercult apologists all but invariably refer to as "biblical Christianity."

And then on page 153/154, describing these "How to answer [POV that doesn't agree with mine]" soundbite lists:

“”Others, however, offer little more than cut-and-paste evangelism and do not require even the least understanding from those who would use them. [...] In Slick's version of reactive countercult evangelism, potential apologists need not even understand what they are saying, let alone comprehend the questions to which they have been asked to respond. Rather, their "evangelism" requires them to do nothing more than cut, paste, and repost the prepackaged responses provided by Slick. They become "instant experts" in the very worst tradition of the World Wide Web.

Really reminded me of the soundbite frenzy we (well, mostly you since I rarely dive into such things) sometimes run into. The people who are/were more involved in aSK debates might think of Philip, and especially first-generation RW members will remember Ken's quotemine orgies straight from quotation archive pages. Especially of the parts where people then question beyond the immediate content of the soundbite (questions like "Did you ever read anything from this book/article other than the quote you just copypasted from CMI/aIG/etc.?" come to mind).

Disclaimer 1: It's way late here, so there may be typos (or in the worst case, line-jumps, etc.) in the quotes. If you find something, please feel free to fix it in the quotes in my post.

Disclaimer 2: I'm mostly posting this as a drive-by comment for others to consider, so please don't e-mail me with something like "You evolutionists do it, too, so you have no right to complain!" (or worse, the "Quotemine" redefinition tango: "This is actually a technique used by evolutionists who then accuse valid Creationist arguments of being c&p evangelism!"). I honestly don't have the time, interest or nerves to enter some sort of justification debate about this. If you want to debate/comment, please do it here. I'm sure you will find someone more versed in the evo/creation debate who will eagerly reply.

Disclaimer 3: No, I did not read the book (as is obvious from my description of how I found these quotes), which some might find slightly ironic in this context. ;) --Sid (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It would surprise me very little to find huge chunks of that CMI list on ASK. Seems just Philip's speed, especially given he starts from the assumption that CMI is right, so therefore no need to dig deeper. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible, I guess. I currently just know of that one case (that Dawkins "no morality" quote page, which is used as a ref in their Atheism article), but if you got time, you can check the list to see what else you find. :P --Sid (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PJR makes extensive use of CMI's quotemine both in articles and talk page conversations, plus he mines CMI's articles themselves for quotes. He's not a terribly good quote miner, though. He's too honest. He actually cites the quote mine, not the original source. Out of interest, is there an atheist quote mine somewhere? Or are atheist too classy for that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. --Kels (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the skeptics annotated bible used that way. ħuman 22:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)