RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive9

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Okay, 'fess up

Which one of you is running OscarJ? --Kels (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehee! --^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, I'm starting to wonder if one of you is PJR. The fancy dancing with creationists are religious/creationists aren't religious, non-creationist Christians aren't real Christians/they count when I'm arguing creationists are part of science, and creationists are persecuted by science/creationists are mainstream scientists is all hard to credit to a non-parodist. --Kels (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the current "Castro is dead" stuff on WIGO CP. When you're in a hole stop digging; especially if you started the hole in the first place. Like Andy, Phil has got himself into a position which he can't reasonably defend or validate so he blusters and quote mines. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oscar's way too boring and predictable. Sterile nude photograph 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One of you fuckers is OscarJ and when I find out who it is I'm going to kick you in the genitals. Yes, that's a threat. My boot. Your crotch. Wait for it. In the meantime, I'll enlist TK's help in getting checkuser data from PJR (*chortle*). 17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken 4 NephilimFree

I clicked the link Ken provided and listened to NephilimFree repeat himself over Ken's evolution "article" and watched him draw vague conclusions based on the supposed veiwing habits of atheists but found this one more disturbing. It's only 2:30mins long but it really goes a long way into understanding this mans mind. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so much disturbing as pathetic. How loudly can a man trumpet his own stupidity? No wonder Ken "admires" him (in a not so family-friendly way). --Kels (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

8 edits to add 437kb! That's Ken! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Say, I wonder how Philip feels about Ken using his wiki as a launchpad for shout-outs? And why he moved them from Andy's blog to Phil's, maybe he was smacked down at CP for it? --Kels (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do recall some conversation about the shout-outs from CP a while back. Kens abruptly stated this would be the last one as if Andy gave him a spanking. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell doesn't Newton Ken do his shout outs here? He's not blocked or anything. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What if Ken is NephilimFree?! They both like Jesus a lot, think they're real funny, like chess, and play with BB guns. Hmmm. 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Ken=N.Free has been decided unlikely. Ken, as N.Free, would have long ago touted his articles. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, ACE MCWICKED!!!11! 21:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather liked this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgliFHFU-3s response Hamster (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Genocide

God can't commit genocide. Why not? 'Cause he's GOD, that's why. Wankers! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Added link.

That conversation can only get better. - π 10:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's only genocide if it's evil and if it truly wipes out the entire group? And it's not genocide if the one doing it later writes a book saying that it was justified punishment (The Bible is the Word Of God, and the Word Of God says that God wiping out 99.999999% of all living beings was fine. History is written by the victor indeed...) and if he leaves two of each targeted kind alive? ...WHAT? --Sid (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's punishment. Drowning people because they are wicked is OK. I guess creationists don't do that whole "cruel and unusual thing." Or worldwide drowning is peachy nice and usual. Sterile nude photograph 14:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

pigs, chickens , cows were all EVIL INCARNATE and had to die ! oh, and baby ducks ! God was merciful in drowning everyone, except those that were crushed by debris , or hurled into the moon by the fountains of the deep (you shouldnt be surfing when God is having a fit ) He could have burned everyone to death under fiery lava. Its not genocide cause he left 8 people alive , and maybe some Nephilim on floating mats of vegetation. Hamster (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ho ho, Bradley!

So the common sense approach is now defined as "only allow the people who have been causing the problem to edit the article", eh? What an amusing little toad you are. --Kels (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That talk page is fabulous. I fell out of my chair when PJR "presumed" to turn Mick's statement into a tautology and then brushed it off for being circular reasoning. ħuman 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to walk away. But you know, when you don't give a shit about being blocked, and you realize what Philip really is, it becomes so much more entertaining. Sterile nude photograph 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we revert all our prior edits and leave him the website as it was without us. 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much work. I'm still up for walking away, though. It'd be more effective if we can get the usuals onboard, but that could be difficult. 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'm sure he'd actually love that. Philip's idea is "everything Philip says is right, and all other editors are there to support that assumption", with little Pancho running behind agreeing like some annoying, yappy little dog. I imagine he has no idea just how much of the concept of running a wiki he carries over from how Andy did it. --Kels (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Sorry for talking about myself too much, but I'm done with the haters. Sterile nude photograph 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

You know, despite my poor online debating skills, this entire thread is a majesty of creationist obfuscation. I am really quite shocked. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip is so absolutely desperate not to give any other evidence, largely because there is none. There are a bunch of legends and drawings that you need to kinda squint and look at on an angle to connect to dinosaurs, just so he can use them as "evidence" (a term he still doesn't understand) for the Great Flood he needs to prop up his fragile faith. --Kels (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at Conservapedia's dinosaur page? Its talk page is largely editor vs. Philip. It's a beauty. Sterile nude photograph 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a dirty gimp, dirty. Mmmmmm. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

When did aSoK start?

Isn't it almost aSoK's first birthday? If you build it, and after 12 months still no one has come, doesn't that mean it's about time to throw in the towel? How should we help PJR celebrate him being Mayor, Sheriff, Judge, Jury, Executioner and more or less sole resident of his ghost town? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

21st March. So he's still got a couple of months to bring the crowds in. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with PJR

NonStampCollector is always hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A work of art

I must say, I'm impressed. Philip's performance in this conversation, followed by giving Sally a "warning block" for the perceived insult (even though he regularly insults 95% of the scientific community himself) is a study in intellectual dishonesty and hell, just the regular sort of dishonesty. Oh sure, just about everything he puts on his blog "encyclopedia" is either lies or delusions, but there's something about that conversation that's especially impressive. Props to you, Philip! --Kels (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some creationists' statements about scientists are almost legally actionable. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip; judge, jury, executioner and victim too. Jaxe (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I love how CPalmer incorporated the phrase "transitional form" into his article on rocksteady music. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip's delusions, distortions and dishonesty are getting way out of hand. I mean, he's not even pretending to be Mr. Reasonable any more. Sterile nude photograph 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't take this and I don't know what to do other than just quit ASK. Atheists have no absolute basis for morality. No basis to assume creationists will be as dishonest as evolutionists. Logical fallacy. La la la. 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I regret having gotten lost over there for so long. I'm done. It's nice to be home, (here!), though. Sterile nude photograph 23:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He's kinda gone into liar overdrive over there lately, guess he'd finally had enough of having to deal with facts and rationality. Sancho's gotten more into his role as professional toady and enforcer, although he could probably do with more blocking, teach the bastards who's boss. --Kels (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

srsly is Philip having a breakdown ? Hamster (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort of a natural conclusion, I'd say. Trying to reconcile all that crazy creationist nonsense when people are constantly throwing the real world in your face has to be stressful. --Kels (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If that's how he wants it, I'm inclined to suggest we just go over there and start reverting every edit we ever made and roll that heap of shit back to the day it started as if none of us was ever there. 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know why you guys spend so much time "debating" with them. If you really wanted the site to fail then you could just never visit it. As we found out during the boycott they start getting itchy and come over here to talk. They aren't interested in creating a useful wiki, they just want to argue with evolutionists. Take that away and there's nothing left. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's watching the mental gymnastics that is interesting. I'm glad that Sterile and the others do what they do, or I wouldn't have my doses of humor. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Classic Philip at his best!

I found this great Philip quote CP - Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT).
Isn't that fantastic! Its so easy! Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Science is easy when you don't sweat the facts. --Kels (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

raaaaaaaaahhhhhhh aafoihoewfhiwougp hguhh aegiuhaegiuh aregg sg ergser ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff *brain implosion* Jaxe (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What does it even mean? Sterile nude photograph 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

he's got that one right, God can poof up an entire Hippo in the time it takes for a protein to assemble naturally ;), er assuming they do assemble naturally that is Hamster (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So wait...is this The Bible (by which they mean Creationists, because I don't remember anything in Genesis about proteins) making a scientific claim? What happened to the Bible being a book of history and thus not needing all that scientific falderal like "evidence" and "logic"? --Kels (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

God must be lazy where I am. I don't see no magically appearin' hippos. Sterile nude photograph 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

God may have LOST his power to magic up animals, because after creation week he doesnt seem to have done it again. Thats a bit sad really because when he started his murder spree ... er , at the great flood rather .. he had to get Noah to BUILD an ark and gather up all the animals. Since the flood was preumably built into the Earth at creation Gods power was certainly on the wane. Maybe he is actually dead or in a coma by now ? Hamster (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Rumor has it this God guy is omnipotent. I think he's just sitting on his couch watching reruns of American Idol. He's just forsaken us. Sterile nude photograph 23:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He's havin' a kip: prolly got the alarm clock set forRAPTURE ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You think he'd learn from his last genocidal rampage adjustment to the world's ecology. Sterile nude photograph 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's doesn't agree with what I think so it's gotta be wrong. How shall I weasel word it? I know: Looking into it more deeply, there's real problems with the edit.. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to PJR I finally understand why animals got to where they are today without leaving fossils behind as they ventured forth from the ark. Penguins and marsupials used to confuse the hell out of me. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And another one's gone. Purge! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd block you all for three seconds, but I can't remember your user names! ħuman 04:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Niiiice, I see he's protected Creation-evolution controversy again, even though nobody's edited it at all since it was last protected. Are we seeing the start of perpetual protection of pages to keep the dishonesty from being removed? --Kels (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't think so, If he (or Sancho) boots out everyone who obviously thinks they're mental defectives, then ther'll be no-one to protect it from. (I still think the main target should be the existence of gOD) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Sancho? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don Quixote's "squire". He goes along with all of his "lord's" looney ideas. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This site is degrading rapidly! If they block all the evilutionists, who will read all Philip's choo-choo train articles? Sterile nude photograph 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought poeple who were really into trains were weird. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wow. Words fail me. 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Although I am pleased that Bradley didn't try to substantiate his blocking of nasty theistic evolutionist SallyM for calling OscarJ "nasty" after Teh Terrible Asp liberated her from the creationist hoosegow. 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't yet, at least. One thing about Creationists, they'll try to defend the most indefensible shit. --Kels (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Always being right is a curse, I tell you. --Kels (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Will I get in trouble for this?

Sancho Panza at aSK. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect so. Being factual, informative and to the point, it seems to go against the spirit of most other pages on the site.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Design and Sin

Just amazing. So against design and sin are the same thing, and yet somehow this only applies when gays do it. Philip lives in his own little world, doesn't he? --Kels (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I lost track of the sinful nature of BUTTSEXXX between a married man and woman. I suppose the bible calls that sodomy, or is that just Gays ? Hamster (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What confuses me is if men having anal sex with their wives (however many the Bible allows this week) is not against design and therefore not sinful, and men having anal sex with other men is against design and therefore sinful, then why were men designed in such a way that receiving anal sex feels much better for them than it does for women? That never made sense to me. --Kels (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That whole talk page is just amazing. I would have joined in, but I couldn't be bothered to come up with a "family friendly" way to aSK PJR if the only appropriate route to sexual pleasure is peepee on woowoo contact and what about oral sex (or whatever else that might be necessary to induce climax in teh lady)... but it was a fun read. I'm amazed that some of you guys can keep arguing with those twits. ħuman 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for Philips head to explode in any of the discussions underway. This one (design sipports anal sex) or Kitzmill v Dover wider implications , its fun though I expect a ban is coming Hamster (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything which is not compulsory is forbidden.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin, is that a Heinlein quote? It seems oddly familiar... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The origin is unclear; a similar line is in The Once and Future King. It's also been attributed to Murray Gell-Mann, in reference to subatomic particles.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar quote in Ayn Rand's Anthem: "Everything which is not permitted by law is forbidden." I do not think anyone reputable tries to say that Biblical law is like that. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First I read him to say that straight anal sex *is* against design, and therefore unwise because it's "detrimental" but isn't immoral. Then I see him saying the idea of a desire that "violates design" that isn't sinful is contradictory. How can something be sinful but not immoral. I realize I'm actually asking a pretty stupid question since he makes this shit up as he goes along and it's pretty easy to fall into a semantic trap like this when there's absolutely nothing consistent about your theory. What I'm really getting from all this is that PJR is definitely not into assplay. 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of assplay, are you getting anywhere wih Kendoll yet? I suggest inviting him on a camping holiday, or perhaps even a trip to Barcelona. ħuman 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I argued that the anus was in fact designed for buttsexx and that seemed to derail him a little. I was tempted to suggest he look up goatse but that would be unkind. Where do strapons fit in this discussion ? Hamster (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the prostate is a powerful argument in favour of gay buttsex (or straight "pegging"). That said, have met a number of gay and bisexual men who don't like anal at all, and never do it. So I guess Philip's gonna say something about oral sex being "against design", even though a penis fits in a mouth just as nicely as a banana fits in a hand. --Kels (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bannana is Natures Dildo - and it shows elements of design, the size, shape and its a pretty color. Hamster (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamster's post deserves a response. 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip changed his design statement. He didnt meaan physical design, he meant purpose. If the purpose of heterosexual design is procreation then oral and anal sex , dildos, strap on or other toys , not to mention condoms, diaphrams, spermacides, pills etc are all against design and must therefore be off-limits for any true christian. That leaves abstinance or pulling out before ejaculation. Abstinance may lead to dissatisfaction and the other might be considered the sin of Onan (?) It would be nice if he could keep his debates neatly organised :( Hamster (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Archivist

Phil sems to have taken on the role of archivist for his local godbotherers. No particular comment, but wouldn't this have been better on their site? (Perhaps he's just trying to bore us into ignoring him) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The sad thing is I can't figure why would anyone care other than the people who go to the conference. Sterile nude photograph 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Reasonable Strikes Back

Holy crap, but Philip's being a prick and a half with Horace. The really funny part of the whole thing is he seems to see himself as totally reasonable, and unable to understand why people keep deliberately misunderstanding all the perfectly sensible things he says. --Kels (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yessss....Horace goes down. Between P&B's authoritarianism and Ruy's cryptic messages ASK is getting fun to watch. I want Pi and Edgerunner to stop editing so it's just Phil and Ken talking nonsense to each other. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep it handy, indeed! Sterile nude photograph 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how Phil extends the block of Horace as though it actually mattered. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Horace? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just BRILLIANT!

Ken's response after my Fawlty Towers quote. Brilliant Ken, thanks for playing! Aceⁱ⁹ 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken's got a lot of strange going on lately. He even thinks I said he "needs" meds, when all I did was mention how weird he gets when he's off them! ħuman 11:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He does fit right in over at Phil's House O' Delusion. He thinks he's both an International Man of Mystery who's taunting us with Ineffable Truths, which meshes nicely with Phil actually believing that he's Mister Reasonable, and Bradley thinking he's the Fair and Even Handed Policeman. All rot, of course. --Kels (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe AlanE put it best in his "parthian shot" at CP: "You still have that mad hairy thing chained up in the backyard cackling and carrying on and talking to "gentlemen" all the time." Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I don't know what Ken looks like. I do, however, know where he lives and works. 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He works? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with Kenny using the term "scroungy looking" in every sentence? Is it a form of autism or OCD? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I get in trouble for armchair diagnosing him so I'll stop. He could be autistic, but all I really know is the high degree of deliberation that goes into crafting work that's still largely incoherent, repetitive, and written as if in crayon indicates something unusual is going on inside his brains. 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this font for Ken? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that his use of the picture of the wet cat made me lol. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip's analogies

He loves to "explain" things with unrelated and usually unsuited analogies - information anyone? Today's analogy explains radioactive dating with a hole in a water tank. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

added discussion of tank anaolgy to talk page . I can haz candy noe ? Hamster (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can haz two candies! ħuman 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the water tank analogy ro the talk page. Somehow the more I looked at it the less it seemed like a way to explain redioactive decay and dating. Hamster (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could just replace it with, "One has to be careful with extrapolation in science." Sterile nude photograph 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New boycott?

Suggested at talk wigo cp. ħuman 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

With three of our editors now begging for blocks, there will be no one left to carry out the boycott. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote in the affirmative of a boycott, but I've never looked at, let alone edited at, aSK. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No: when you can haz fun like this, it's worth editing once a week or so. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I has need of scorecard . I cant tell whos side Oscar and Horace is on.
THere are some good articles, a lot of Bands for some reason. If you want to edit some articles they need people , just stay away from evolution and religion. :) Hamster (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The band articles are from Aboriginal Noise, a.k.a. WesleyS. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a coordinated filibuster might be fun. Everybody make looooong comments on one article at once. Makes it hard to tq. Sterile nude photograph 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the bands (except for a few) are from FernoKlump, not me. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be fun to watch Ken yammer on about his CP crap [deleted] all by himself if there was a boycott. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Phillip know of http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ ? This could be a fun source to quote. Hamster (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who have signed the Moles Declaration are proscribed from inserting parody into aSK. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have to last a week. - π 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess you should have apologized to the idiot, then. --Kels (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

k, fergot, no landover baptist for aSK Hamster (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I remembered when we all signed that deceleration and had high hopes for aSK, it seems so long ago now. What happened? For me it when from writing "the bible says evolution is wrong" to Philip pretending that the science agrees that evolution is wrong. - π 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We could strikethrough our sigs on it. ħuman 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I like how he smoothly transitioned from "The Bible is infallible" to "Creationists are infallible". --Kels (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Creationist don't quote mine - even when you show him one. Hovind doesn't have to pay taxes. Ace's block for insulting Sarfati. The way he idolises these people worries me. - π 03:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I still find the creation-evolution controversy article to be disgusting. Sterile nude photograph 03:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You just got a 5,000 character reply thanking you for your comments, but they are rejected. - π 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a massive hit piece. Where are the dissertations on people like NephilimFree, VenomFangX, Ken etc etc. they are more guilty of the crimes PJR ascribes to "evolutionists". Aceⁱ⁹ 03:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... of the last 500 recent changes, of the edits Ken, Brad, Oscar and Philip make up 37% of the edits. Pi, Ace, Horace, Hamster, Human and I make up 42%. The other 21% contain other RW eds. It would be a lot quieter over there without us. Sterile nude photograph 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I got a 1 month block for calling Sarfati a moron and a 1 day block for repeatedly calling PJR a deluded idiot. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I called lowkey a dog...we'll see how that goes :D δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No can haz boycott noe - many peoples banned. New guy picking up the slack, who now has bare feets ? Hamster (talk)

Let the hamster have his fun. ħuman 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

not fun, blow site up, replace all pages with GODDIDIT Hamster (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

• - π 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Teh Terrible Asp
• Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Hamster (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think I done crash the site anyways. 200 word response and it blew up. Oops. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No

• ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

• Me. Whatever the mob of six decides. ħuman 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure it would make much difference, but whatever. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• If I can convince Philip that you can't find evidence for God-mucking-in-things, then I could continue. Getting him to acknowledge evolution is about impossible. So I will do as you all want. Sterile nude photograph 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Already boycotting

• Horace (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• No point editing over there anyway. You're all just feeding PJR's ego. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't visit ASK anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's 4+3+2 for vs 2+2 against so far? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Note how a large number of the voters here are not aSK contributors, and among those who are, several are blocked from the site. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to get at... That you won't honor the boycott? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will if a majority of our non-retired, non-blocked contributors there vote to boycott. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No one cares. Fuck you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, let's list ourselves, with our status there, and work from that? ħuman 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• ħuman - edits awk, not blocked
• ListenerX^TalkerX Edit aSK, not blocked.
• Editor at CP^{mały książe} 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC), infrequent editor, not blocked last time I checked
• Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} - Not blocked, hardly ever contribute, but believe strongly that we shouldn't bother editing over there at all.
• Horace (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) - Already blocked. The heading "Already boycotting" was intended as a (little) joke.

More bullshit

the first few bits about science class almost caused my fist to be introduced to the screen. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

and for fucks sake AGAIN! A simple fucking question unanswered "What observation would disprove supernatural intervention?" Aceⁱ⁹ 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing. He seems to think that "not lying" and "being vague so you can't be pinned down on a lie despite it being obvious" are the same thing. --Kels (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been hit pretty hard recently, his position is fairly untenable. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or did PJR actually drop his level of discourse to calling Sterile "out of order"? ħuman 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When PJR understands the correct answer to the "what observation..." question, we can all sit back and relax, for he will have discovered the limitations of science. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? "Science is based on philosophy". Umm, no it isn't. Philosophy is based on Philosophy. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, historically, yes it is. And science retains a philosophical approach that was articulated by the likes of Aristotle. But it's not a point that backs up PJR's argument that scientific presuppositions are equivalent to religious ones. Scientific presuppositions are things like accepting it as likely that the speed of light has remained constant or that the laws of physics are identical throughout the universe. These are, of course, based on evidence (despite what PJR says about history not being evidence) and sheer mathematics, whereas YEC presuppositions are things like God exists and the Bible is historically accurate - positions that are less than empirical. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well alright, one could argue that a scientific discovery starts with a hypothesis (which could be based on a philosophy), and the hypothesis becomes a theory when backed up by evidence. That's the weak link that ensures creationism will never be "science". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, creationism is a priori unscientific because of the integral supernatural elements, never mind the evidence. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"a Christian/creationist worldview is the basis of science" ???????????????????????? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's one of his bizarre little presuppositions. The "reasoning" goes something like you need Yahweh for the world to be orderly and therefore for scientific reasoning to be applicable, otherwise you have no basis for assuming anything about the world. It doesn't take a genius to see the manifold problems with this, just someone not as stupid as PJR. For one thing, if you can't assume the world is orderly, then you can't know anything about Yahweh, you have to start with that presupposition to learn anything about the world so the extra step in saying "god made it that way" is totally redundant. For another thing, where the fuck does anything ever written about Yahweh suggest that he created an orderly and regular world in which he never intervenes to fuck with the laws of nature? Oh, right, nowhere. And in lots of places the Bible says the exact opposite. Fucking morons. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is, "God made logic, so to deny God is to deny its basis." See presuppositionalism. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's even that well thought out. It seems more like "(CMI said) Christians made science so we OWN it, and you atheists can't have it", and then backfilling in reasons. --Kels (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the actual main source this time wasn't even CMI. It was some other guy who wrote an essay that basically went "I can't prove it, but I'm very sure." Should be in the archives, I'll look it up. --Sid (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is the WIGO:ASK section in question, with link to the article Philip linked to. --Sid (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Swap out "CMI said" to "some guy with no authority said", which is pretty much the same thing. Although did Andy also run along these lines, or am I imagining that? --Kels (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have said nothing of substance in your post!

But Phil, over and over and over and over and over again you have been provided with substance and every little piece has been dismissed by you. There isn't much left buddy. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why you need PJR's patented transubstantiation miracle. Through the magic of stupidity and credulity, the substance of science can be turned in to the substance of creationism. Praise Creation Ministries International! And send money. Lots of money. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"We use the same evidence" has about as much substance as a silent fart, and about as pleasant. Note there's no effort to explain what evidence he's talking about. Just some airy-fairy hand-wavey "well, it supports us more", when of course no specific bit of evidence actually does. Geology doesn't support a global flood, neither do fossils, "kinds" is just "species" with a fancy hat, genetic data doesn't support special creation, etc., etc. --Kels (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip redoing Creation vs Evolution

is he taking all the arguments into account , reviewing science and correcting the article - of course not , he restoring his points and slapping "citation needed" tags on the worst of his unsupported allegations. That of course makes everything fine :( Hamster (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing WIGO aSK

A while back it was suggested that we broaden the focus of WIGO aSK to a more general WIGO about Wikis. Please comment on the main page talk here. - π

Or, if you prefer, bring the discussion here, since this will be the most affected page. This came up while we were on holiday at Bob's fine teflonwiki, so I don't remember how many of the dedicated AWKers were part of the discussion. ħuman

I've no problem with that. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

I'd like to see the response of the more dedicated AWKers (not to say GK's opinion doesn't count!), if they "approve", we should do this - IMO, anyway. Sterile? Kels? BobM? Who else? ħuman

I'm not active there (other than acting stupid every now and then), nor here, but I'd like WIGO ASK to stay. ASK offers me more lulz nowadays than CP. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?}

To make this more sticky just three tildes ~~~. Also if you thinks aSK is better you can vote for it on the poll at RationalWiki:To do list.

One suggestion is we could have it set so that the logos or favicon appears next to each WIGO so we can see which site it is at a glance. What other wikis are people interested in watching? - π

I don't think there are any others any more. Wiki4CAM is dead, as is WikiSynergy. Metapedia is too vile to be funny, Creationwiki too exclusive and WikiIndex too boring. I think we should just stick to aSoK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site}

I still suspect 80%+ would be about aSK, it is more if something funny happens on a Wiki that is not CP, it would be nice to have a place to put it. Say Ed on any WikiMedia project, or Lumenous in what ever the hell he does, plus there are idiots all over wikia, splintering and starting their own wikis over arguments. - π

I agree with Pi-man. It would be mostly aWK but give a place for other wiki-stuff. There really aren't too many characters on aWK to generate a steady stream of lulz. Mostly it's just PJR so if we can pad it out with other stuff then that would be to the good. As for a favicon a small ark or Michelangelo's gOD finger might do until Philip becomes creative. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

You could always do what I did at TP and just scale down the logo. Mindless bastard Hoover! 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WS is not dead, it's being revived. Should be "visible" to non-sysops again "soon". So anyway, yeah, the "new" WIGO Wikisphere would still have all the aWK gems, such as they are, but would also be spiced up with anything interesting that happens on other wikis. The favicon idea is a good one, as long as they all have them. Oh, also WP shenanigans (like, by editor #188) could be reported on the new WIGO. Essentially it would be a renaming and expansion of this one, I suspect, perhaps with a new poll ID and a database merge of the old one. ħuman

Oh, and instead of no timestamps, how about an instruction to pibot like pibot|sticky=yes to prevent archiving? ħuman 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it so it won't archive any thing with (Sticky) in the title, once I workout how to make it case insensitive I will upload it to the bot server. - π 00:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is all good. - π 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At least an excellent new feature came out of this discussion! ħuman 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anything happen at aSK any more? Where have all the WIGOs gone? - π 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There was a flurry of baraminological stuff last week, but Philip appears to be up to building up the features of his wiki such that the ten editors can have a pretty wiki, lots of templates, and rules. Sterile nude photograph 01:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence the idea of merging wigo awk into a wigowikis page. Awk really isn't that interesting. ħuman 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's always a tradeoff between ASK and CP. Now that CP is in full swing with the Bible Retranslation and TK's return and the liberal alert bot, ASK is deemed to suffer. Let's see how things settle at CP. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Before fucking with WIGO ASK, why not try stating a WIGO wikis page and seeing if it actually garners any posts at all. I have a suspicion that it's going to just be the crickets template. There seems little point in changing this WIGO when it's going to be just aSoK by any other name. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find aSK a lot more interesting than CP these days. CP, for all its insanity, is the same damn thing it always was, and after a while it just gets boring. TK is an ass, Andy has delusions of grandeur and stubbornly sticks with some course of action that makes him look like an idiot, Jinx insults people, JM violates copyright, Ken is Ken, etc. I can understand respecting the classics, but I never was that much on reruns. At least aSK is playing their lunacy with a different style. --Kels 16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we unsticky this? WIGOASK has its own small but dedicated following, and it's doesn't seem to be heading toward being incorporated with anything else. Sterile nude photograph 02:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I just unstickied it. ħuman 01:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Vegetation mats

Just spotted this. Remind me, isn't this a concept that creationists use when talking about how animals got to Australia after the Flood or something? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an explanation of how seeds survived. I saw that too. Also, in Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth he talks about tortises etc floating to The Galápagos via similar methods. Plenty of creationist fodder there....Aceⁱ⁹ 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent news! Along with 'hand-waving' and 'waters of the deep', 'floating mats of vegetation' is one of my favourite creationist expressions.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What? You mean they weren't launched to Australia by volcanoes? But I read it on Conservapedia! What's the world coming to if Conservapedia isn't trusworthy? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too. A true classic (even if it was taken out again for being "unlikely", I think)! =D --Sid (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Site problems?

The last day or two I've been getting a lot of "Firefox can't find the server at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info" responses. Got through once yesterday, no luck at all today. Is it just me? ħuman 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's collapsed under the sheer weight of lying stupidity. I'm just getting an OpenDNS message right now, not the best sign. --Kels (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably something to do with unreliability of nuclear decay. The electrons aren't flowing through the wires properly. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just tried it and also got the same screen Human got. Dunno since when it's been like that, though - I very rarely even visit the place anymore. This site currently also says it's down. --Sid (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just get a "Page cannot be found - Unknown error -1" it broke :( , Its too much to hope that Phillip had a change of heart and is doing a mass delete Hamster (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the page I get, which seems somewhat unusual. --Kels (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I get 'DNS error - cannot find server' in Chrome using google public DNS. Jaxe (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe God struck him down for telling lies in his name? --Kels (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

More likely it has been the rapture and Phil, being the only true Christian is up there getting a pat on the back. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen Bradley around here either, maybe he's been called up too? He might have been in a state of rapture, thinking of blocking people for being mean to St. Philip. --Kels (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I still reckon that, due to its inherent unreliabilty, all the carbon 14 in his body has suddenly broken down into Nitrogen 14. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

God communicated with him, told him to shut ASK down. Sterile nude photograph 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(unident) I got Unable to determine IP address from host name for www.astorehouseofknowledge.info. Do you suppose Philip forgot to renew his domain name thingy majig? - π 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this what happens when someone's nameserver shits out? 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It needs to look up the database to find the website's IP address. This is why you need a reliable nameserver. - π 02:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And a reasonably reliable debit card, perhaps? Can someone email him and whine about this, since we haven't actually decided to boycott his blog yet? ħuman 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

his domain expires in March 2010 si he should be ok there. Maybe his server, being a device of science , commited suicide in support of the boycott. An australian friend cant get there either Hamster (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The DNSserver keeps spitting back unable to process your enquiry. - π 04:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering.....

If perhaps Phil actually pulled it down for the time being to reasses his strategy. I mean, we have been hitting him pretty hard on multiple fronts...Aceⁱ⁹ 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting your DNS server to disconnect you is a pretty drastic way to do that. Especially considering it is a wiki, he could just lock it from editing for everyone. - π 06:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

a 404 error would be more common. Ping doesnt work either , the DNS lookup fails. It will take a while for the DNS to propogate after the problem is fixed. Hamster (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ain't no thang. Bradley didn't mention anything sinister going on so I'm sure our favorite creationists will be back soon. 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's natural selection weeding out the weakest. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

support email fom whois support@emis.com.au ^{— Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs}

? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, I find it thoroughly amusing that PJR accuses us of never mounting a proper argument and topppling straw-men while all the time turning a blind eye to Ken's antics. Just because he supports your worldview, Phil, doesn't make him anyless wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell, turning a blind eye to his own tactics. --Kels (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We could check in with Philip at Wikipedia, although I don't know if he checks there much. Sterile nude photograph 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A little birdy told me the disk PJR's wiki lived on at the server farm had "severe file system errors" and had to be rebuilt. There may be some data loss. 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's lousy hosting if they don't have triple redundancy to protect their customers' data... ħuman 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The part where Philip admitted he didn't know an observation that would disprove supernatural involvement better not disappear. That took months to get out of him. Sterile nude photograph 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but what if the data loss erased it and only it? Surely that would be a sign of supernatural involvement. Kinda like God saying "n/m I'm here, no worries" =P --Sid (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck! It's gone. Sterile nude photograph 12:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC I wrote this before hearing about the birdy.) PS I suspect he'll be back in some form. I suspect it will still be aSK. On Wikipedia he got out because of evilutionist bias. On CP, it was personalities. He's argued with PZ Meyers, but I suspect that after awhile, he got pig-piled-on and left. Mostely, he seems to have a thing for pushing YEC in the face of evolution supporters, so I can't imagine he'll disappear entirely. It must be a disappointment for him to not get a large following and downright resistance on his own wiki. Nonetheless, I doubt he'd just give up on aSK as he's put a lot of effort into it, and he seems into wiki-ing. (If you are putting in semantic wiki templates, you're way into it.) Sterile nude photograph 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It does surprise me that he's had so much trouble recruiting like-minded people. It's been going a year, and it's still just him and Bradley who really subscribe to the site's dominant view. I know creationists are a minority, but really - there would probably have been more than two takers if he'd gone with his other main interest and made it NarrowGaugeRailwaysPedia instead.

In fact, he should just do that. He should try to make ASK the resource for Australian narrow-gauge railways on the web.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

...and SoCal ska/punk bands. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 16:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

and the Belgrave Heights Convention!!! Don't forget about Belgrave Heights! EVER.^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Belgrave Heighs Convention would be a dandy name for a SoCal ska/punk band. --Kels (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed PJR to aSK him why it's down. ħuman 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any response or did he forward it up the chain to the man in charge? Jaxe (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

perhaps if Phil has to restore it himself, he has chosen to wait for the weekend. I have no idea how long a restore takes for a website. I had one but it backed up to a single dvd. Hopefully something will happen by later tonight. Hamster (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He replied "The little birdy was correct. I'll add, however, that they have to restore the server "templates" then the data, and they've been doing the templates for over a day so far, as best as I can gather. How much longer after that's completed the data will take I have no idea, but I had presumed that it would be all up an running again by now." So, yeah, incompetent hosting, and he's probably as frustrated as we are. Hope he doesn't mind me quoting him verbatim. ħuman 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resurrrection

I see that Asok is back up.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like PJR has a Week that Never Was on his hands. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He is twice as good a Conservapedia, he has lost two weeks. I am glad we have once daily backups. - π 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I weep for the lost Ska & Punk stuff, What will the belgrave heights commission do for archives now? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a "story". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You get what you pay for. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I like how he mentions registrations, as if the world came knocking. Sterile nude photograph 12:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see he's cheerfully gone ahead and started re-creating all the lies and smears that got lost before the crash. Nice to see he has priorities. --Kels (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see what's on Philip's watchlist, the bold here. Sterile nude photograph 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of that stuff is now "Poofed" , radioactive decay for sure, he should have a McCarthy type list 'editors I must keep an eye on ' Hamster (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His watchlist is probably like mine: just things I've edited. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If our recently blocked pals' transgressions against those valiant CMI truthtellers were lost to the internet, I wonder if they're still blocked. NO DIFF NO BLOCK, bitches. 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be both Logical and reasonable perhaps even rational, therefore not going to happen. I wonder if he remembered to put them back in ? Hamster (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Man, I just took a look at the current state of the Creation-Evolution Controversy article. Seriously, that'd fit right in at CP right next to the Obama smear job libel transparent hit piece well documented encyclopedia article. Does he even pretend to want to be taken seriously any more, or is this one big troll to get people to argue on the talk page? Certainly he seemed to enjoy the latter a while back, even though he's gotten pretty nasty lately. --Kels (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is that we & PJR agree that there's no controversy but each know the other's batshit crazy. With all the evidence he's got going for him, how can he be wrong? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry you poor deluded bakery item , but I has seen the LIGHT (say Hallelujah! ) There is no evolution, simply ADAPTION within KINDS. Evilution simply leads you (and your jam and butter) from the ways of the LORD Baby Jebus, and makes him cry. There would be almost no decay in 4000 years (since the flood , and the rain would mess up C14 so I dont need to write Radioactive Decay again *Yay* Hamster (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) the walls of my new room are clean and very soft. its nice .

Nutty has a good point - and not only will the offending diffs be gone, but the blocks themselves should have vanished. ħuman 23:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Horace and I can "fix" cr-ev controversy again. If I want. Actually, I want to see how long traffic can remain dead. 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to worry. It'll still be the charming pseudo-intellectual cesspit it is now no matter how long you wait. --Kels (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Human design/purpose Phillip responds :)

WE are all asexual until married , and then its a sin not to do it like bunnies . see it HERE I feel a facepalm/headdesk coming Hamster (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no! Sterile nude photograph 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember, love is a decision. You can turn it on and off at will! Loving your wife (or husband, presumably) is an order! I suddenly feel bad for Mrs. Rayment. --Kels (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I would imagine they have been together for quite an number of years and he does love her. He just can't see how it could be any other way for any one else. - π 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

God told him to love her, apparently. It's a really bizarre way of thinking about the topic. --Kels (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is God - better: the Bible - who tells him what is good and what is bad. If he wasn't for the Bible, he'll probably be killing people left and right. Absolute morality and such. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I must have stopped just short of the last line, that is a little weird now you mention it. - π 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's asexual in a non-biological sense. I mean, really, he does know about the birds and the bees, right? Sterile nude photograph 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering what his views on sex within marrige but for the express purpose of enjoyment and not children. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One could smack him with 1 Corinthians 7: Marriage not to be entered into except to satisfy carnal lusts so as "to avoid fornication." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't someone try that and he just went off on how Paul was actually married at one point? --Kels (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes no difference; St. Paul is addressing himself to the unmarried and widows, and besides any marriage of his occurred in his Filthy Anti-Christian Sinner days, so is obviously excused. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Jesus invented marriage. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't say it was valid, just said that was Philip's response. Presumably dealing with a tangentially related issue to avoid dealing with the main one. --Kels (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, that'll maintain an even, fair and factual tone in the article. --Kels (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I can't read the reason for that HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!. ASK down again? Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Same problem... SJ ^Debaser 11:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Down here too. Double server fail? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor Phil, he only got the site up and running yesterday. SJ ^Debaser 11:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's working now Hamster (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Bradley's a funny guy. Although Philip gets in a few zingers ("This article already has some contributions by others.") as well. Hilarious! --Kels (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those talk pages make me want to smack my head against a wall (especially the part about marriage being part of the human design), but that "has some contributions by others" part somehow reminded me of CP's Evolution article (mostly the early 2007 era) and the epic CP Dawkins clusterfuck ("It's not protected! Feel free to edit! Just don't remove any of my crazy assertions!"). The latter especially comes close because of the active discussion on the talk page (as opposed to Ken's strategy of ignoring any protest until it becomes absolutely unbearable... and then just handwaving some strawman and a non sequitur into existence) which used up everybody's energy and achieved absolutely nothing because Andy's opinion dictates reality on CP, not vice versa. But in both cases, they could still claim that it was the result of true wiki collaboration because other people had made edits. God, it's a good thing that I stopped following aSK and only read CP for the lulz. Otherwise, this shit would actually make me mad. *rubs temples* --Sid (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Philips mind is like a choo-choo :)

One track, from here to there with limited stops. *headdesk**headdesk* Hamster (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He's truly an idiot. Sterile nude photograph 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not an idiot, he is brainwashed. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CMI used Brainwash. It's super effective! --Kels (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? [1] Birds have feathers by definition and they can fly. Other things can fly. Therefore there's no common descent. Sterile nude photograph 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For almost his entire life he has had it shoved down his throat. He knows nothing else. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CALL THE PAPERS ! EVOLUTION DISPROVED ! Hamster (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar structures evolving independently in similar niches disproves evolution! ħuman 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I think it's less an issue that he's been brainwashed to believe this stuff, it's that he takes it several steps further and pushes this stuff, to the point of actively making up his own rationalizations rather than simply parroting CMI (although he does that too). I'd say Bradley is more the run-of-the-mill Creationist dupe, minor authoritarian streak and all. --Kels (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the brainwashed concept, and I will concede "idiot" isn't the right word. I think it's the willful self deception that bothers me, and that he's pawning that off on the world. Sterile nude photograph 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the willful self deception however its deeper than that. If he is laying awake at night questioning his faith/thinking about it or reading something that undeniably refutes his position he'll retreat, not into self deception, but into in to his faith, picking up and bible and using it to solidify the fortress he has built/has had built around his intellect. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you take the bible as literal truth because you believe God wrote it, is it faith, self deception or something else? Therein lies a bit of the problem. He thinks of it as evidence (divine revelation, how could it not be true?), and not faith. To be honest if he said he believed in creationism on faith, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the belief end of things. (The blatant character attack and moral superiority, on the other hand....) Sterile nude photograph 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are all vastly underestimating the effects of ignorance. It took a ton of scientific observation to debunk flood geology, and even today, most laymen have to trust the scientists on any related matter. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance doesn't cut it with Phil though as he is obviously well read (in his reading anyway) and knows how to use the internet to an intermediate degree. All the information is there for him and he is obviously not ignorant of it. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Read in creationism or in science? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't ignorant of the science, he just doesn't believe it. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He says himself that he has not had any science education past high-school. This has deprived him of vital instruction in logic and the philosophy of science (some of which is learned by process and cannot be obtained through reading alone), as well as leaving him ignorant enough of evolution science to dismiss it. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had any science eduction since high school either. But like Phil, I can (and did) just teach myself. He isn't ignorant - he only knows what he has taught himself to believe. That's not ignorance - the material is there for him to find any day and he does read things that challenge his religious indoctrination. He just cannot see past it. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did mainly maths and geography at college. I do try to research and read what I can. I ask questions on the talk.origins newsgroup and generally get an answer or link I can understand. I would like Phillip better if he simply proclaimed his belief in God rather than trying to explain it by odd science. I dont understand how a christian that believes his faith, can stand up and say "mankind was designed by , er, well, some intelligence, and we cant identify him". Thats false witness in the sect I was raised in and would not be tolerated. It also seems dishonest to say Designer rather than creator, but I suppose designer can fit into science where an intelligent creator would not. Hamster (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(UNINDENT) @Hamster: That is why creationists like PJR are much opposed to intelligent-design; they want to name the Intelligent Designer.

@Ace: "But like Phil, I can (and did) just teach myself." You did not teach yourself those things that can only be learned by process. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your aspersions on my intellectual prowess. You know not of what you speak. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"He says himself that he has not had any science education past high-school." I think that one got lost in the black hole of no good backup. ħuman 06:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"...thanks for your aspersions on my intellectual prowess." I was not questioning your intellectual abilities. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Que low throated grumbling. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What a psuedoscientific douche bag... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"It took a ton of scientific observation to debunk flood geology" - well, not really, sorta. True there is a ton of evidence that refutes "flood geology", but FG was only "invented" as the hand-wavy YEC explanation for that very evidence. Go back a couple-three hundred years and there was barely such a science as geology, let alone "flood geology". Just a minor quibble. ħuman 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not strictly accurate; before Hutton et al. put forth uniformitarian "Plutonism," the prevailing opinion was the catastrophic "Neptunism," mostly based on the work of Niels Stensen, who laid the groundwork for geology but was also working from some flawed premises, such as that basalt was a sedimentary rock. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is CMI a reference source on radiometric dating or a book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Dennis R. Petersen ? hmmmm, when i say ? *headdesk*. Not content with doing an analogy of "radioactive decay is like a leaky water tank *headdesk* he adds this bull . Just blowing off some steam here , nothing to see , move along now :) Hamster (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought this amusing, not wigo worthy though

Philip was asked "what falsifies design..... a scientific theory MUST be falsifiable ?" Agreed. But we are talking about what happened in the past. That is, we are talking about history (or prehistory if you prefer), and generally history is not falsifiable (in a scientific sense) (hence not science). HEREHamster (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He STILL keeps pushing this "It isn't science doesn't matter! It's in the past!" stuff? Guh. But when Creation Science makes claims about the past (like, uh... Creation Week, the Flood, starlight and the speed of light), that's totally okay and scientific? Yep, here's Philip, having his cake and eating it, too. It's not enough to just elevate Creationism to the same level as other science, he must also demote science to pure history. --Sid (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Creationists seem to think that scientists can only make statements about present-day events and are not supposed to try and figure out "what happened" in the past. The best example to refute this, of course, is forensic science: figuring out what happened in the absence of a witness. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote over there, all observations are in the past once you obtain them. Oh, I looked at the thermometer. Now I looked away, so I can't use the data as they were from the past. Stupid. Sterile nude photograph 18:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to events happening before rather than at the time the experiments are made. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Listiner, you are wrong about forensics. Even though we can infer the past through things like forensics it still doesn't trump the first hand observation as detailed in the Bible. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no certainty about it, as with anything else in science, but the creationist position is that even inference of that sort is unscientific. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The most confusing bit for me is that the only "person" to have observed creation is god himself. How do we know this? Its in the Bible! Yet somehow PJR does not see this as circular at all. I have tried to pin him down on it in the past but he is too slippery. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemme guess: The good old deflection onto stuff that the Bible "predicted", followed by Correctness By Association ("If x items out of y are true, then all y items should be considered true until proven wrong")? (And considering just how much weird stuff God does in the OT, I'd classify him as an unreliable narrator anyway...) --Sid (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil seems to be at his wit's end

He kinda flew off the handle here. Sure, the Bible doesn't say to pre-heat your oven to 350 degress or anything, but it reads a lot like a recipe to me. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave him the lowdown. He just doesn't like you. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought that I was at best a C-list "anti-creationist" as it were. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He is becoming a real grouch, rising to comments he would certainly have ignored in the past.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, speaking of fundamentally dishonest. He's not even trying to cover it in faux-reasonableness now, is he? --Kels (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was a bit more paranoid I would suspect that Phillip pulled the site down deliberately to make a lot of talk pages go away, but lets stay with the "it was a disk failure on a crappy web host that charges extra for Raid disks" Hamster (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Transitions

I just adore this answer from Philip. It's so classically him, you know? I especially like how not only does he know that this is for sure not a transitional form solely from a pop science article, but he can also divine why the researchers said it was. He's not accusing them of dishonesty and deception and massively unethical behaviour, but you know, that's totally what they were doing *wink* *wink* because all humans (save Creationists, one assumes) are like that. Good thing you're here, Philip, or we may have actually fallen for the lies of those people who have studied the subject all their lives and have their findings looked over with a fine toothed comb. --Kels (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not accusing anyone of corruption nor deceit nor sloppiness, just normal human frailty. We tend to see what we want to see." My head just exploded. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So when are we going to build the PJR quote generator? "ad hominem! therefore creationism is true!" ħuman 05:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wear a knit cap (tassle optional) your head can explode in comfort and style. The knot pulls it all back into place. I use a pad on my forehead so the *headdesk* is soft Hamster (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a happy hat myself. I will take your advice. ħuman 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Watching them try to write the isotope and radioactive decay articles is amusing. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Huw seems like the kinda dude that might have a fez. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I never realized that scientists (archeologists and palentologists) were lying and deceitful people who pulled preconceived dates out of their asses hats until I read ASK, while CREATION SCIENTISTS (yes them) stand as honest workers at the very forefront of modern science ! 8| Hamster (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dan

Is being equally misogenistic on CP & aSK simultaneously. Is that what's meant by double teaming?^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misogyny and visceral homophobia always seem to go together for some unknown reason... ListenerX^TalkerX 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not unknown. The cause is believing that ancient customs and traditions have some relevance to modern life. And the root cause of that belief is religion, or at least that there was some wisdom or "other ways of knowing" available to the ancients that we don't have access to now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I said visceral homophobia. Religion does not create that, merely gives it "intellectual justification." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Or latent homosexuality, just saying. - π 12:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves, you're overstating the effect of religion. There are plenty of homophobic and misogynistic atheists as well, and even among the religious it tends to be more of an excuse than a cause.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there? I've never met any. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. I would imagine a tiny minority of Friday night gay-bashings are actually inspired by religion.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're equating stupidity or mob mentality and atheism there, Kriss. Just because something's not inspired by religion it doesn't follow that it's in any way inspired by atheism. It's just the out of my group = fair game mentality (which is implicit in many religions) & it's not seen as bad as picking on someone for the colour of their skin or country of origin. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Kriss just implied that neither religion nor atheism has much to do with people's decisions to bash each other over sexual differences...which is fair, though some brands of fundamentalism do directly state that women are subservient, etc. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. No one is homophobic because they are an atheist either. All groups have their fair share of bigots who just hate anyone they see as different, or weak.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent) Dan's going for the batshit number 2 (to Philip award. How the F^%&$ing hELL does he credit this claptrap? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

er Toast, if yer a woman you should be modest , and subservient , please do that now. Dan1212 says so , would he lie ? Hamster (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, what is Daniel1212's stand on women driving. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

women driving is fine , as long as they give way to any men driving , and only drive to where the men in the car want to go in the shortest route, I think they get a dispensation for guys under 13 or so, as the maternal figure Hamster (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ban all women drivers. Golf clubs are for men only! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Grrrrrr! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

concur, you never want a woman to get in the habit of striking balls with a club ;) Hamster (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Golf! Ugh! Golf clubs used on men - well- no, on humanitarian grounds (and it (golf) keeps them out of the pub on Sunday Lunchtime). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sleight of hand

Now there's a clever bit of dishonest misdirection on Philip's part. So he brings up this bogus survey, and is asked how many of those (supposed) 100k scientists are actually biologists, and he hops on his creationism horse for a quick Gish Gallop. So far, so depressingly predictable. But when the questioner asks him to stick to the point, he agrees, and picks a totally different point from his gallop to pick up on. Ah, bait and switch, such a classic. --Kels (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that I'm not using the existence of those 5% to argue for creation. Rather, I'm using the existence of those 5% to rebut the anti-creationist argument that essentially all scientists support evolution." I'm not arguing for the creationists; no, I arguing the same thing but against the evilutionists. Actually, I think ASK right now is Philip realizing he has few people to talk to. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 12:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He is getting a bit on the shrill side, isn't he? I like how Jaxe is sticking doggedly to the point, despite Philip's best efforts to shift to what he wishes the point was. I wonder if Bradley will ban him for calling Phillip "childish" now? --Kels (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We shall see. To be honest, I'm not really playing along any more. I'm tired of Philip's provoking us to respond, and in doing so, I think it gives him what he wants. For the moment, at least, I'm staying away from editing. I don't really think of it as a boycott, just that there is little to respond to that Philip hasn't shoveled out before. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's developing an interesting style, I'd say. Someone brings up a point, he does a Gish Gallop, picks a point he likes better and claims that was the original discussion. Pretty stubborn about it, too. --Kels (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "moving the goalposts" appears to be his phrase of the week and yet redirection appears to be his strategy, in all irony. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On aWK, Troll Feeds You! ħuman 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Philip freaks me out. Who does he think is coming for the Christians? Does he realize that they are still the most common religious affiliation in the world, and that might be a bit offensive to Holocaust survivors? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he thinks they'd sympathize with the plight of the poor, persecuted Creationists. I'm equally sure they probably wouldn't see it the same way. --Kels (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

He's more delusional than I ever thought. That's Ken levels of delusion right there. Poor persecuted creationists, so put upon by all that evil truth and evidence. I'm sure we'll be shipping them off to death camps soon, because we can't stand having to point and laugh at them so much. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Impossible challenge

10,000,000 points to anyone who can have a discussion with Philip that actually ends (and not by him blocking you). His last-wordism is amazing these days.

ajkgordon: OK, fine, we'll agree to disagree then.

Philip: OK, fine No it is not fine. we'll agree But I don't agree with you! to disagree Your argument is inconsistent - typical of evolutionists. Do you agree or disagree? What is your evidence? then You still haven't said when 'then' is!

-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty awesome discussion. Phillip is just there to not be wrong. He has the kind of weak faith that facts can shake. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I like how weak his belief in "different interpretations of the evidence" is. He just can't believe anyone can honestly have a different interpretation than his, so AK must be dishonest, dissembling, etc. --Kels (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got totally bored with him. He is the epitome of blind stupidity. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sally always hammered him on interpretation. Turns out, only PJR knows when and how to interpret. He's batting 1000. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it's not the same evidence, it's the same data. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not even most of that. There's a lot they don't even look at, a lot they reject because it doesn't fit the narrative, and a lot they make up because it does. --Kels (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I recall trouncing him at one point on Norse mythology. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Site Down Again?

Looks like the DNS problem is back again - and it's not just me –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that Jesus would be able to keep things like this from happening, right? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The speed of light has obviously varied and rendered the second law invalid, thus obscuring the truth from us non-believers. Apart from which: we don't understand information so are unworthy. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a great way to destroy an already ailing wiki. Let's hope no content was lost again! Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Or that all content was lost. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

wasn't it last wednesday that it crashed ? server must not like hump day Hamster (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Bradley coming over here and to CP broke the poor man's heart, and he discontinued the wiki in his grief. --Kels (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The bizarro irony of the situation is it's now redirecting to CPanel®. Does Andy know? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's up Tricksy (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bradley. ħuman 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the progression of Bradley

It's that time again. ASK is looking like a dried up old whore. Bradley's off looking for company and it looks like he's landed back at CP. I'm a little bit disappointed he didn't stop by here first. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

...is it over? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

He did, actually. Check here. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to burst bubbles, but I do drop in on a number of wikis for minor editing. With the rats away I actually managed to get in some (minor) content editing on aSK. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The rats. Ok. In any event, it looks like PJR likes "winning" arguments against said rats in his own unique and troubling way more than writing articles about trains and Australian churches. 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did mean to capitalise that; "Rats" <> "rats"; sorry for any offense. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally rodent-friendly in any case. Mustelids are good, too. --Kels (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bradley bitches a lot about how us Rats prevent a lot of good work being done over there. So...why isn't he actually doing any? --Kels (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? Oh that's right, you don't need actual facts for your assertions. ^{— Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs} 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever told you how childish this whole "I won't log in because then I'd be supporting you" jazz is? Can I be the first? --Kels (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong, because you apparently didn't bother to check WHY I don't log in. "Support" isn't the issue. After all I created the account when I didn't support RW, and used the account when I didn't support RW. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. "By not logging in I am just acknowledging that I am not part of this community." Wow, that's even more petty. Way to go. --Kels (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's petty to acknowledge, but I agree that the exclusion is petty. At least you checked your facts, but I would suggest doing so before asserting them.167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you still haven't pointed out my many complaints about Rats preventing a lot of good work. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, though I find it puzzling that you'd take the position RW editors do the opposite of prevent a lot of good work on aSK. Is that what you're saying? This conversation is a little meta for me. 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No I am not saying that. Some RW editors do good work at aSK, others don't. Some create a distraction, some don't. I was originally commenting on my own tendency to get drawn into the distracting an ultimately unproductive discussions carried on by Rats. Like this one frinstance :) I just didn't take to Kels twisting of that. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone is wrong on the internet, after all. (Come to bed!) Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not about to go searching through your edit history. So I'll retract it. Just as well, I'd not want to invest a lot of effort in a stagnating pseudoscience wiki either. --Kels (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MoonHoaxWiki 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Moon Hoaxes, you know. There's loads of new material on important Biblical Worldview^tm topics such as Linux, American dollars and wigs (but not Whigs). Notice how Philip pretty much abandoned his Creation-Evolution Smear Job article the moment he stopped having someone to argue with? --Kels (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, he's the first to tell us when they're back on line (see section below) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

courtesy is now indictable? I was asked what was happening, so I left a VERY brief message when it was resolved. ^{— Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs} 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Bradley, why don't you go do some "good editing" rather than picking a fight here? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph (PS: You don't like my orbital article? I'm quite fond of it!)

"good edits" without RW-ians about at ASK

Firstly, you seem to be working from Kels' misrepresentation rather than my actual comment. Secondly, notice the section heading (which I did not create) has my name and the section makes comments about me. Since when does asserting a right of reply equate to picking a fight? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does this "right to reply" come from? I hear people talk about it, but I have never seen it written down any where. - π 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever.... don't care.... how about "Gee, Bradly, why don't you go do some 'good editing' rather than responding here?" Happy? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That right there is part of why I don't log in, BTW. You're happy to talk about me, but when I have something to say about it I am invited to leave. Petty. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you support Philip, who freely calls people a bigot, who has his slime ball article about cr-ev controversy, you should expect such treatment. If you want to discuss the ideas about evolution and creationism, that's one thing. But if you are to defend ASK, you shouldn't expect much sympathy here. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC) PS If you don't want us to talk about you, perhaps you shouldn't talk about us. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 03:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC) PPS Who said, "please leave."? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1. So if I agree with someone over something, I have no right to expect fair treatment over anything? Now that's bigoted.
2. I didn't start the RW conversation on my talk page, either, and in any event...
3. I was not saying you couldn't comment about me and...
4. I did not tell RWians that they couldn't discuss/defend RW on my talkpage.
5. You said "why don't you go". 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Sterile, he said "why don't you go do some 'good editing' rather than responding here?" which is a question, not a direction to leave the site. - π 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call it a direction, but an invitation (you wouldn't be misrepresenting me, would you?). "Why don't you..." questions are usually rhetorical, meaning "You should..." The "Gee," at the start strengthens it. Also, if it was simply a question he wanted answered, then why would he say "whatever.... don't care" when he recast it? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He still didn't say why don't you leave, he invited you to do some good editing. Would you like to do some good editing? - π 04:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that "Go do X instead of doing Y here" doesn't involve leaving here, particularly given the context above. If Sterile says he wasn't suggest I edit elsewhere, then fine. I have been doing some good editing, thanks. Not all at aSK, and not all even on-wiki, but I do what I can with the time I have. These conversations don't take much time because they aren't article-style. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bradley, why do you hang around here in preference to your haven(s) of insanity where you can talk about demons, boats carrying the world's animals and talking snakes without fear of contradiction. Is it just that it's lonely there without us? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I give up. Everyone, stop misrepresenting Bradley. Except you can't. He'll twist it so you are. Perhaps you should quit ASK: you do realize all persons in "power" will be criticized. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the first thing they teach 'em at Bibble skool: how to martyrise yourself. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 04:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bradley, as a suggestion, why don't you do some good editing, which would be productive, rather than having this conversation with us here, which is unproductive? Also, please consider that the tone in your head, or in the head of someone that is conversing with you, will not likely translate to written words in a wiki. Assume good faith until it's clear otherwise. As a suggestion, of course. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility page

[2] Not that anyone from here is editing anyrhing at aSK. There will be a Moon Hoax article soon though :) Hamster (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite funny to read this ("If the Umpire gives the offender opportunity to retract and apologise, then that is what should be done. A refusal to do so constitutes a further breach, of failing to follow an Umpire's instructions.") after reading Ed's edit to the CP Contributor's Guide about apologizing - though in both cases, official policy merely followed established enforcement. --Sid (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Moon Hoax page-to-be, I do appreciate Philip's flirting with irony. It adds a nice, light tone to the proceedings. --Kels (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"First, any article on this site is open to editing by others." - PFFFFFFFBWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA-*falls off chair*-HAAAAAA! --Sid (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip really doesn't get it. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. He only says that when he's trying to drive that weirdo off. I wonder how he'll treat my article about storefront churches in Chicago that are former liquor stores or vice versa. 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this is a prelude to Philip appointing (or anointing) some new umpires. Any bets?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who, though? Awk only has about 8 editors, not counting the moonspam guy. ħuman 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd take that bet. There's literally no more activity than PJR can handle since he's Instigator Prime with the endless endless "debates" in his own style, particularly now that most RW editors are gone from aWK. 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tims and PJR were made Umpires yesterday Hamster (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If no one's editing ask, no one's reading it either. Save your money, Philip! Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's like the army of Oz. All generals, and one lowly private so the others will have someone to order about. --Kels (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip is doing a computer programming article now. :( Hamster (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

egad. So not content with butchering real science, he's butchering computer science now too? Please stop pjr, bwfore I come and beat you with the cluebat. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think programming may be our only common ground with Philip. Perhaps through the rigorously logical language of computers we can communicate with him. Jaxe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So, Bradley, if you're still here....

... what do you think of Philip's creation-evolution controversy article? True? Fair? Accurate? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Up until all the edits that you and Horace did, I thought it was true and accurate, but a little imbalanced. I really haven't looked at it since then. I thought the approach as Philip laid out at the top of the talk page was good. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A "little" imbalanced? Philip even says in his top of the page thingy from "the author" ("edited mercilessly" and collaborative wiki ethos bedamned), "Yes, there is an imbalance, but that's because the imbalance is very real, and I think I've documented it reasonably well."

The creation-evolution controversy article is really bad. The lack of an attempt to provide any balance, and to characterize those who support evolution as immoral and always fallacious, makes it a screed, not an article. The lack of any creationist strategies shows that, as well. (One would think the creationist would be adding that, not the evolution proponents!) Really, one paragraph on history, but screens full about "strategies"? The article lacks good sources, fails to support weaselly statements (and Philip refuses to remove them), has statements for which the representativeness is questionable, blurs the meaning of quotes, etc. And yet, Philip has yet to provide one bit of "evidence" apart from the Bible for 6000-year old creation, the flood etc., anywhere on his wiki, and fails to realize that the involvement of the supernatural is a statement of faith, not evidence. (I'd be far more fine with Philip if he said he believed God was involved in generating life on faith.)

I think we could write an interesting article about whether it's really possible to have a wiki that has open registration that serves as an openly biased and ideological encyclopedia based on CP and ASK. Such a wiki probably will always require a heavily hierarchical structure (ASK has that!) and significant numbers of editors (or, as at CP, highly wiki-obsessive sysops, perhaps) that buy in to the ideology (which ASK sorely lacks). I think ASK suffers from many other problems that CP has as well: Philip is involved in certain articles to the point of excluding all other editors (creation-evolution controversy, of course). It's not unlike what Ken does on CP, just without locking and blocking. I think most of us here realized that editing at ASK in a sense makes Philip "stronger" (or allows him to justify his biases, and not examine them), and have decided it's a waste of time. Oh, we'll still watch and occasionally drop in, but I'd be curious to see what happens if you have all-supportive editors. Right now, ASK is most unimpressive in its improvement of content. Yes, there are limited editors, but Philip isn't responding to talk pages as much (although I have no idea what's going on in his personal life).

Oh, well. I have considered ASK more than I really wanted to this week. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 13:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'strategies' section should be cut out and made into a few separate articles. They could be called 'Evolutionist style', 'Evolutionist tricks', 'Evolutionist deceit'...-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That article should be one sentence long: "There is no controversy, creationism is bunk." ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That strategy is in the article :) 167.123.240.35 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sterile, I was not referring to the imbalance in the way the sides "deal with" the controversy (which I think is what Philip was talking about), which is quite real. I was referring to the fact that the creationist side is less detailed than the anti-creationist side. I never did like "strategies" as the descriptor, and I think I did make an alternative suggestion in the early days of the article. I pretty much disagree with the whole rest of you post above, but I will have to re-read the article keeping your post in mind before I can really make more specific comment. One thing, though. Weasel words; I don't think it means what you think it means. In fact I think it pretty much means the opposite of what I think you think it means, based on what you labelled "weasel words" in that article. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] and [4]. Really, it's not that hard, Bradley. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet the words you called "weasel" don't fit that definition, and the words you used as replacements do! 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You did read both WP articles, right? The word "claim" appears 58 times in the cr-ev article. And, gee, they are all in the evolutionist strategies section. Just saying. "Often" six times, with no indication of how often or a reliable citation. "Some anti-creationists" with no indication of how many. How can we know that it's truly representative? Suppression is used in a legal context, when it's known to be illegal.

Really, there's no point in rehashing this. I am not working on the article. See the PS below. Perhaps you are interested as a person who is making "good edits," but I am not.

PS I'm not inclined to discuss this too much longer (although I will, since I did ask the question), especially if you don't get it. I've explained in detail what the problems with the article were, even if they were lost to the abyss. It's apparent that there is no good-faith effort on Philip's part to try to balance the article or even include others' comments. Until that happens, it's a dead issue in my head. But you (and Philip) should know you are not helping your cause; it makes you look pretty bad. (And I'm sure it's "just" me or "just" the Rats. Right.) Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Goose bumps

The new battlelines in the evolution-creation controversy. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot there was no evolution so an evolutionery explanation is just wrong hehehehehhehehe 199.242.176.67 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah, they finally found it. Jaxe (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been keeping up, what is a reg 6 violation? - π 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is approaching Ed stub status :( who knew it was such an issue Hamster (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regulation 6[5]. In summary: Don't explain where biological features came from because it makes creationists look stupid if they can't think of anything. Jaxe (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to look it up myself, but here it is:

• Information about origins—both creationary and evolutionary views—is not to be included in articles about empirical science (biology, geology, etc.) nor in articles about living things (birds, fish, etc.) unless there is a special reason to do so, such as the topic being a key piece of evidence used to support or deny one of those views.
  This does not preclude those views being discussed in topics about those views or in topics where they are specially relevant.

This strikes me as kinda weird because it creates a YEC encyclopedia that won't mention any origin information for animals and such. Oh yeah, except for those special cases that prove YEC or disprove evolution in Philip's CMI's eyes, I guess. --Sid (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That article was really crying out for the crickets template. I guess that wouldn't fly on philwiki though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip doesn't understand circular arguments or begging the question. Or assuming the answer, as he does in his case.Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 15:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that after I told Bradley I was going to prove to him that PJR is a liar. Hi Bradley. 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip doesn't understand most arguments beyond the point where he can twist them to back up his YEC nonsense. This "circular argument" silliness is a prime example, although it reminds me a lot of Andy's attempts to use his critics' tactics against them (and failing utterly). --Kels (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually still not quite sure what to make of him. He seems constitutionally incapable of turning to anything but a creationist source first, but this and his puzzling debate style beg the question of whether he's in some temporary state of self-deception, stupid, or a liar. I'm inclined to believe he's a liar, though that will entail a project of doing nothing but exposing him as a liar on his wiki that's a waste of time. 17:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

the pdf he linked to refers to THIS which is not quite what Philip seems to understand Hamster (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I've got a Darwin's point: I's vestigial! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have prefered folding ears, and the ability to wiggle them cutely, than erectable body hair. Just saying if God was just putting stuff in because he could there were better things than goosebumps. I have never looked at a woman , and said , gee her skin is covered with bumps , and the hair at the back of her neck is sticking out, damn, she hot for me !! Hamster (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I also wiggle my ears can. Amusing most it is when small child in (e.g.) supermarket bemused can be. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that according to Philip's version of YEC, our eyes and ears should no longer function. After all, the information has been corrupted and blind and deaf people have had kids. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just like with everything else he's got a just-so story that's only compelling to him. 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: You mean "raises the question." See begging the question. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 18:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to get Phil's reaction to this? Dunno what it means for the "information" and ID aspects. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fall = downgrade?

Just noticed this: The Fall of Man refers to the downgrade of Adam and Eve^{(my emphasis)}. Is it just me or does that word seem a little - aaah ... trivial? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's like what the Guarniad just did to their online crosswords. ħuman 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

yup, the fall of man, resulting in the ultimate destruction of man, the world and the universe is EXACTLY like removing the cd=changer option from your new car 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, God was running a little low on cash flow, so the Humans got the pink slip to cut down on operating costs for the Garden. Simple, really. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's downsizing, which happens during the flood. Luckily Noah floated his company in time to save humanity, thus proving the superiority of capitalism. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

since Noah conserved the human race, does that make him a conservative ? Hamster (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But that would make him the first, so "preservative" surely? --PsygremlinParlez! 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Delusional at best.

Here, where PJR asserts the possibility that someone not wanting to debate him any further because he has completely derailed the conversation is because he has outwitted and out debated them with his stunning insights. Reminds me of Ken "No one has identified a single error in the article beginning with E!" De Myer. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's really been cranking up the "delusional creationist wank" lately whenever anyone wanders onto those talk pages. And yet, when there's nobody to argue with he doesn't bother editing the articles at all. Funny, that. --Kels (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle: 'you resort to [...] mythology (there was no such thing as the "dark ages" [...]'. No further comment necessary. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the gravity discussion was great. Hamster (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Except that the Garden of Eden is not a myth!" Sorry for reporting my own stuff, but it's just so funny! And, yes, the gravity discussion is bona! 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

That totally made me laugh. Hey Phil, I totally knew Adam & Eve was a bedtime story when I was TEN! Seriously, you and The Demon Haunted Bradley slay me! --Kels (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You got it late, Kels. With me it was about the same time as Rapunzel & her hair and the three billy goats gruff. (but slightly before Santa) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm guessing as to the age. I do know that in Grade Five I refused a copy of the New Testament (in public!) because "I don't believe in that". Santa I figure took a little longer, since Santa seemed to have an effect on the real world (presents!) whereas Adam & StEve were as insubstantial as the Brementown Musicians. And half as likely. --Kels (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that he's planning on writing a bit about genetic recombination. Wonder what he'll even include that will support his viewpoint and not the theory of evolution. --Sean^talk 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

he is going to add viral insertion of genes , once he understood what the comment was about. He has an interesting definition of mutation though, or maybe its me :) Hamster (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about you, but I'm finding it funny as hell that a guy who doesn't understand science at all, and is willing to toss it out the window the moment it disagrees with his quaint book of fairy tales, has the last word on a hard science article. --Kels (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point of aWK then. Evolution isn't hard science according to the Biblical Worldview at all. PJR need only refer to the bible and stick his fingers in his ears to win this one. 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there was a lot of enjoyable stupid packed into that one section. My favorite comment after skimming: "And you're acting like a lost parrot with amnesia." ħuman 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cue Bradley coming over here (but not logging in) to scold us for misrepresenting the site. --Kels (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to misrepresent him first, or make some criticism about an ask article he cares about first. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

why is it that the moment Philip starts editing evolution , a crowd arrives to argue with him ? its kinda spooky. Hamster (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I like how it has slipped into the micro/macro thing. PJR reminds me of an old politician that doesn't get the fact that we live in an era of video tape, YouTube, internets, and such. He says things like creationists don't use the terms micro/macroevolution. I think he meant to say that creationists don't use the terms any more. When confronted he just goes into la, la, la, I can't hear you mode. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it hilarious that he trots that excuse out, and yet has no idea why it invalidates his Creation-Evolution Smear Job? Although I do notice he's gotten a lot nastier than he used to be. This is downright catty. --Kels (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That site isn't hilarious. It's disgusting. The "reason" for avoiding the term is something he's never stated clearly but is apparently the sine qua non of being a "leading creationist" notwithstanding the presence of the term ALL over the sites he stooges for. This is a no true Scotsman through and through and he'll never admit that he changes the criteria for being a "leading creationist" ad hoc to reinforce just that every time this discussion comes up, to the extent he's ever articulated what a "leading creationist" even is. I tire of his cesspit. 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless 'leading creationists' are the majority of creationists it really doesn't matter what they're up to, apparently no-one is following them. Jaxe (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotta laugh to keep from crying, Nutty. As far as "leading creationists" goes, I suppose it's some attempt to pretend there's some respectability by imitating scientific consensus. But since there's no actual evidence for Creationism, it's all pretty much ad hoc and the "leading creationists" don't really lead anything but a small group of shills. Running a website full of lies and calling it CMI isn't the same as a bunch of evolutionary biologists actually working in the field and uncovering evidence, as much as Philip wants to pretend it is. --Kels (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding postmodern

Philip, you are the evidence. --Kels (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He'll be accusing people of accusing him of being Philip J. Rayment next. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was there at aSK....

I was there at aSK , replying again to Phillip, when what should fly past but a small flying monkey in a cute little hat. Then a rabbit with stopwatch hopped by and some strange man in a tophat offered me tea. A girl in Red slippers started singing , sounded a lot like Lisa Minnelli. I think I will go lay down for a while now Hamster (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you going to get Liza's autograph? --Kels (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The creationist mindset in a nutshell

"I have seen a quote from an evolutionist that basically says that the order doesn't match the evolutionary order as well as generally understood either."

Nuff said, really. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip J Rayment is a total idiot

Discuss. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip thinks any response will do in an argument. I think soon he'll just start smashing his head on the keyboard and being honestly impressed by the result. Jaxe (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you're comment that made me write this, Jaxe. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

has he said something particularly bad ? or just his usual . I questioned some of his latest arguments HEREHamster (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing particularly new. Just worn me down with his ineffable stupidity. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On consideration: his stupidity is very "F" able as in WTFable. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I got banned for calling him silly. Oh well, at least I will get some work done today instead of face palming constantly. Jaxe (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. He's an idiot. That's why I no longer read his little website--or CP--I only have so much time left on this planet, and I ain't gonna spend it reading idiocy. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

how did a creation vs evolution debate wind up in that poor fella Moon Hoax talk page ? Hamster (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure but they're excellent company for each other. The Lucho guy's beeen chucked off everywhere but there & WikiSynergy. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Given your insulting tone in this post ("you silly person", "You're very confused aren't you? Perhaps if you hadn't exploded the discussion into nonsense yet again", " you're just trying to derail the discussion some more") on top of other posts, I'm declaring that a Civility breach and giving you a one-day block accordingly. Learn to discuss respectfully or don't bother discussing. Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Has he finally cracked or is this transparent bullying? 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I began to write: "Silly person: one who believes in the ramblings of an iron age priesthood ..." etc. but got bored. The man is an idiot! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He's really gone off the deep end lately, hasn't he? Not that he hadn't been heading that way for a while, although I'm surprised he didn't get Bradley to do the blocking instead and let him pretend to have his hands clean. I do get a giggle about his references to "evidence", since he doesn't even know what the evidence is. All he knows is a carefully selected set of facts, lovingly rogered up with butt "massaged" by CMI. So yeah, he probably thinks that's all there is. --Kels (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The last time he was this unhinged his wife was having some health issues...I would certainly hope this isn't a reoccurrence of life-stress invading the all important wikiworld and if it is then I would hope that things would sort themselves out and the life-stressors would go away of their own accord or by PJR's God. CЯacke® 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any physicists in the house who could take a look at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html? It's been years since I did math like this. I can see that the assumptions are kooky and self-serving but I need insight into the rest of his methodology. Halp? Maybe side by side this mess? 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's something on it here: [6]

I especially liked this line: "Indeed, it is my position that Humphreys' theory cannot be confirmed, since it predicts at once every possible observed field, and is therefore useless for predicting anything." Jaxe (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I started reading and got confused :( he seems to calculate the initial magnetic field strength based on the planet being pure water, and keeps that field even after God transmutes the water to rock etc. I didnt see an explanation for that step . Hamster (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That confused me too. Thanks for the TO link Jaxe. I don't know why I thought this was something new needing it's own wheel to be reinvented. 17:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's very much like the c-decay problem; just because you can fit something to a function doesn't tell you anything, especially with no explanation behind it. That is, what about the Earth's magnetic field makes it change? It's a huge gap. It's dumb. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be a physicist. A prediction made right there in this rambling nonsense is wrong. Specifically, "2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value." We now know this is simply not true. From Mariner to Messenger the magnetic field did not change significantly. I guess the good doctor needs to revise his "theory." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

pfft! "A few percent" is now smaller than 1.8? Redardless, there goes your "Creationism isn't science because it makes no predictions" nonsense. ^{— Unsigned, by: 167.123.240.35 / talk / contribs}

Learned sir, since you've volunteered to step up to bat on behalf of Humphrey, could you please provide more detail on this issue, and full refutations for the link Jaxe provided? Seeing as you're an expert on physics (sorry, Creation Physics) and all. --Kels (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was stepping up to defend basic maths and rationality. Jeeves quotes a predicted 1.8% decrease and rebuts it with a "did not change significantly"; the two are not mutually exclusive. I also recall reading a few articles on Messenger that stated that the dipole moment was within a "few percent" of the '75 measurements. Compare "few percent" with "1.8%" and please explain how 1.8 is more than a few. Btw, It's Humphrey's, and a surname. I have stopped bothering with TOA, since it's claims are mostly unsupported, misrepresentative or plain inaccurate. 118.208.32.88 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course saying something general like the claims on TOA are mostly unsupported, misrepresentative or plain inaccurate when your buddies Humphreys and Wieland get a proper handling makes perfect sense. Don't look at NAiG either. It's another place that tells the truth about your liar pals. Spongy blood vessels and intact blood cells! 13:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, who cares? An empirical fit is interesting, but with no physical explanation, it's .... well an empirical correlation. And I still fail to see how this is consistent with creationism. Just because a creationistdoneit, doesn't make it evidence. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I still have to get back to Philip about that. Still don't understand how this provides evidence for creationism. Empirical relationships are SOOOO boring without an explanation. What was Humphrey's confidence interval, anyway? Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 11:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me beat you with the cluebat, LowKey. Do feel free to try again when you realise what decade this is, though. You fucking idiot. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and don't poke him. He gets very upset if apply reason to Humphreys' twaddle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember one time I read one of the papers PJR linked to about physics. Apparently Phil didn't bother reading it because he was on a tirade about how miracles weren't needed and the author came out and said that his theory wouldn't work within the framework of "time-invariant physics". Of course I knew, but I had to ask Phil what that meant. Hilarity ensued. Good times, back then...before PJR turned into a complete asshole. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering (or not) Nutty, what's a physicist gonna be able to do to shed light on "Let us assume that God created the Sun, Moon, and planets as water, which He then transformed." ħuman 00:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That was Hamster. 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it was already addressed after I pasted it in. But the quote is from teh cretinist. ħuman 03:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that came from the guy doing the magnetic field study. He said the magnetic field strength worked out to be the dipole of pure water. a friend of mine who is a physics teacher at a college said "fuck all" when I asked him about what he would do to evaluate the claim. Hamster (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Love the way this thread developed from the header & the word "Discuss") ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

People are happy to oblige to you, Madame. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"God is not 'magical'; that is, He doesn't achieve His goals by invoking foreign powers through incantations." [7] So there evilutionists! Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, God's the foreign power other people invoke with their spells intercessatory prayers. --Kels (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it to him before. The way his god is described, it is using magic by the common definition of that word. He doesn't seem to realise that part of not being a Christian is not buying in to the terminology that goes with it. He seems to think that we owe him some sort of phony pseudo respect such that we have to use what the "Christian" definition of words, rather than the definition you'd find in a dictionary. It's just not going to happen, any more than if I was talking to rasta, I'd start saying "I and I" rather than "me." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moan Moon hoax ...

... done gone. Lucho found out that everyone didn't agree with him so went off in a huff. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It was supposed to be funny LX, but ....^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fun

Roll up! Roll up! Come see Oscar v Asp in the CRAP Olympics. Just Recent changes will do.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Oh, crap. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Upset

I'm rather upset that this was removed by phil:

<ad hom>
→
Why we fall about laughing:
"And no, Genesis is not a load of nonsense. It's accurate history."^{[my emphasis]}
Absolute TRIPE, Philip, anyone who believes that is mentally challenged! There are fairies at the bottom of our garden, mermaids in the oceans, the Pharaohs are living in the afterlife with their courts and a black cat crossing your path means danger. Grow up! No, don't bother, you're beyond help.
←
</ad hom>
signed by someone or other

Just because it was an ad hom!   ^Contribs_Talk 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not even close to an ad hom. It's just an abuse. He thinks he can call it an ad hom if he doesn't like the way it makes him feel, though an abusive tone doesn't of itself entail a logical fallacy in the form of "you're an asshole therefore you're wrong." I think you made a fine point. They're all fucking nutters. 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Asp is definitely in the right here, and has justified his position several times. Which means PJR will side with Oscar because he's a Creationist. Remember, I called it. --Kels (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OscarJ purging people's comments of a single word that the owner of the site doesn't find objectionable is not vandalism because he's an umpire. "Crap" is a breach of policy because OscarJ finds it objectionable. You heard me. 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For a wiki with a huge rules-to-editors ratio, they certainly can't figure out how to be consistent about them. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They're as consistent as PJR wants them to be. They're right. You're wrong. PJR debait reel gud. 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

HAH! --Kels (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

'kinell!

But of course you are just spouting your own baseless opinion that YECs want to ignore scientific evidence. You can only say that by being totally ignorant of all the articles and book by YECs addressing scientific evidence. Similar applies to the "acceptance of science within religion", at least insofar as YECs are concerned. YECs fully accept science—they founded it.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(He makes me want to kick something!!!!)   ^Contribs_Talk 13:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you arguing with him? He is so far down the path of deluded that only a major shock will ever knock him out of it. - π 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, but I just have the feeling that his crap shouldn't go uncountered! If it does he'll think he's right! (and to the point, so might anyone happening on his silly webshite by accident)   ^Contribs_Talk 13:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He still thinks he is right when he is countered. - π 13:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I find so troubling about about PJR. This is a guy who has the gall to blithely claim that science was invented by YECers, which on its own is hard to even understand since YEC wasn't an organized movement and if anything was a kind of unchallenged and unstated plank of the Catholic Church, when it was precisely because scientists were able to excuse themselves from the church's negative attention that anything got done.

On a related note, we just got a thrilling explanation from PJR about the status of ID as science. See, it's science because you can run an experiment to look for things that were designed by an unknown designer. And this makes it science because it's just like archeology, looking at refrigerators, and SETI (I like how he pops SETI in there to legitimize looking for god through a microscope if the atheists are looking to the sky for aliens). And then of course it's the atheistic evolutionists who are guilty of special pleading by excepting ID from good science like archeology and looking at refrigerators. 13:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

he has a small point. One of my books on the History of Science in Europe (italy etc) does say that because the Church accepted that God was consistant you could investigate aspects of his creation. Its a huge distance from an endorsement of the scientific method though. Of course Philip has said that Archeologists investigating an old human settlement really dont know anything about its creators, just like investigating God. (I am sure he gets teh stupid in bulk cans) Hamster (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the whole "science can't say anything at all about the past, but witnesses are always right (unless they disagree with Genesis)" business that really blows my mind. No matter that there's absolutely no basis for it beyond "someone on CMI said it", nothing, but nothing will dislodge that from his brain. No amount of explanation why he's totally in the wrong will sway him, it's his bedrock defense against rationality, and it never fails to make me go WTF. I doubt anyone but him and Bradley (for whom he can do no wrong, the little authoritarian darling) buy it for a moment, fortunately. --Kels (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bradley!

He's apparently showing he's got a mind of his own. He's just edited something that was earlier removed by the chief Genesis apologist^{(that's a polite way of saying total idiot, btw)}.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not impressed. All he did was sweep the issue under the rug, where it'll then be jumped on and declared a non-issue. --Kels (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. (Must get a smiley for that)   ^Contribs_Talk 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. "Bradley has a mind of his own" should have tipped me off. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Theresa

and she was trying so hard to be good , fixing my spelling and everything. Helping wih new articles. A devoted askian if you ask me . Hamster (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We must all be vigilant against thoughtcrime, comrade. --Kels (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wheee! Theresa maded an article John Woodmorappe. Wheee!

Poor Jaxe , banhammered again - is there an award for persistance ?

Poor Jaxe seems to have gotton hisself banhammered for a WEEK from ASK. I nominate him for an award. Hamster (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm behaving just within the bounds: no calling people idiots even though they are and that my edits there obviously show it. (Martial arts indeed, Hamster!)   ^Contribs_Talk 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequently filter in my head when I'm typing at ASK. It's so frustrating. Šţěŗĭļė nude photograph 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

every creationist website NEEDS an ultimate Fighting section, with individual biographies of the contestants. and pages on every Cessna aircraft that ever existed :) Hamster was invited to participate in tha aSK aviation project. I am soo proud. Hamster (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they go over the site and delete a bunch of non-mission stuff a while back? --Kels (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Got bored of playing their silly games. "Evilutionists are the bad guys! boooo! Creationists are heroes! hoooray!" Jaxe (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pity

After watching this for the first time, I feel myself overcome by feeling so sorry for Philip and Bradley for deliberately closing themselves off from such wonders. Both choose to stand foresquare against science, instead just putting on faked-up trappings that look kinda science-ish, and think that's the real thing. But the real thing is so much bigger and more amazing than their cardboard God, it's so terribly pitiful to see them scrabbling in the dirt when the rest of us are looking to the skies. --Kels (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for this, only double. Post hoc rationalizations of ancient myth is not admirable. Finding the wonder and glory of reality is. --Kels (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I too fell pity for them a few days ago. I started reading a book about the region I live in. While mainly about art and tourist attractions, it started with long descriptions of the region's geology, and continued with its prehistory and history. Only reading those pages I realized the extent of their closing themselves off the world, and of what they are, deliberately, missing. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

“”Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? That they existed at the time is part of the evolutionary/long-age viewpoint. This is begging the question, a logical fallacy.

But you know, they weren't really eye-witnesses to lack of a global flood, since they didn't appear in the Bible, the only ancient book that doesn't contain factual errors. --Kels (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I liked a comment asking why the Sumerians and their beer brewing while God was creating the world. Not an event you would really miss , even if they were drunk. Hamster (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't see how you can pity Phil and Brad. On the contrary. Rejoice for them. After all, they (YECs) invented science. It belongs to them, not to the Dawkins's and the Sagans who are mere fly-by-night flim-flam men. The real scientists of this world don't need a fancy YouTube video. I speak of the Jonathan Sarfatis and the Duane Gishes! Phil and Brad will never ever see it any other way. They're happy. Be happy for them. --Horace (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)