User talk:Sterile/Archive2

You know

Even though I have no shown without a shadow of a doubt that PJR, and CMI, are incorrect he still won't back down - I guarantee. CMI can't be incorrect. Ace^X-102 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, other websites than creaton.com are scary.... They might, like, challenge your long held beliefs. Yeah, it's a bit disturbing; Philip is very much on the fringe. Sterile computer 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I read CMI every fucking day man and its fucking gibberish. But it tries to be so damned sciency. If it were personified it'd be me at age 10 with my first chemistry set. Ace^X-102 12:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I try only to look at ID and creationist sites once a week. They just piss me off and I can't take any more than that once a week. You have to question the lies they peddle followed by the "we have absolute morals" BS. I guess it makes them feel good. Sterile computer 12:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

information with meaning. meaningful information. Ace^X-102 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thing about Philip, I think he actually believes that word games make good arguments. The impression I've always gotten is if he can find a flaw in the prose to exploit, then he's managed to get a hold on the actual reality of it, and is somehow pulling away the armor around evolutionary theory by doing so. It's all very postmodern. --Kels (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I always become a Ken when dealing with PJR, I have to continually modify my post because I always find small semantic errors that he'd pounce on. Ace^X-102 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with Philip, however, is the tq'ing thing. Some of it is expediency—it's hard to respond to long posts—but most of it is just saying "not-uh." On the other hand, it's very much in the style of CMI, pick and nag. Sterile computer 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PJR can't answer a question until you give him enough to implement his argument stratergy. A single sentence won't do - he needs a paragraph with some slightly vague sentances to argue. Ace^X-102 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed subject

Sterile: You point out others hypocrisy but can't see you own. Ace is right to be disgusted
PJR: My claim of hypocrisy was justified
Sterile: So was Ace's
PJR: No, Ace's incivility was unjustified
I am hoping your next comment is something along the lines of "I though we were talking about hypocrisy?" Nice try at changing the subject Phil. i⁹ 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG are you guys using the vandal site to organize attacks on Bible-believing Christians? Pity the fools... ħuman 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

oOOOoo...this sounds like fun. I'll get right on that!

sterile computer 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fonts

It has something to do with the fonts...Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. ChemDraw uses Arial. I would've thought it'd convert. Tried Inkscape, too. Not sure what to do. sterile computer 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, I'm working on it. If I use rsvg-convert on the server it works, don't know why it doesn't when MW does it. -- Nx / talk 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Nx / talk 21:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How? The subscript 3 at the end isn't right, my anal-chemist-sense tells me. sterile computer 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the SVG source, I think something's wrong with it, but I see you fixed it. -- Nx / talk 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I think I'll remake in ChemDraw when I get a chance. The subscript still isn't right, and it doesn't revert right to one of the versions that does for some reason. sterile computer 21:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ne'er mind. Clear disk cache does it. sterile computer 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish

Don't expect a rational response, its all gibberish over there. PJR is the most intellectually dishonest man I have ever had the distaste of engaging. Worse so than Andy. After spending a year debating cosmology with him I think my health is suffering - a slow rot as entered my typing fingers plus I believe some kind parasitic leech has attached itself to my hippocampus causing me outbreaks of rage. Time to enter a period of convalescence. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I've been pretty much done for awhile. I'm not even sure why I wrote what I did. He really is disgusting, as I discovered with the information stuff. Sorta a New Year's resolution. I'm not sure how Awc-ward guy stands him. sterile computer 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What a reprehensible cunt. Never mind the fact he has no idea what he is talking about and is trying to defend a throwaway comment, with no backing, that he read in a book once but I know exactly when the Planck Epoch was and what followed (two other brief epochs as the laws of physics seperate), what I was trying to get into his thick skull is that this period was probably when the universe was already in equiblirium and that for anyone to state, with such sureity as Hartnett, exactly what happened in this period is currently impossible with our level of technology. The very fact of the matter is creationists can't come up with a better solution without invoking god and the observational evidence shows the universe must have been homogenous before inflation. God damn fucking morons. Ace McAwesome 02:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've called him a liar now. I'm sure he'll block me, but I justified it with your quotes. sterile computer 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While I dont think I have ever seen PJR outright lie he is extremely dishonest. I mean, for fucks sake, he told me straight up he doesn't feel he needs to read any material because he thinks arguing with his own (uneducatied and flawed) reasoning is in fact a solid argument - regardless of topic. Ace McAwesome 22:48, 15 January 2011

That's sort of a creationist standard. Coming up with "logical" tricks that make it look like there's some problem with deep time, or evolution, or whatever science disagrees with their fairy tales this week, then that's taken as a given. So they build a whole edifice on rhetorical tricks, little dishonesties, and "logic" games. Philip's part of a grand tradition, if a slimy one. --Kels (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was amusing. Not sure if I want to go back at the moment. sterile computer 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir

I admire your tenacity. At this point it's like kicking a retarded corpse, only slightly less objectionable and morose. But yeah. You're a pro. I blocked myself last month so I wouldn't be tempted to start cutting apart these ridiculous faith/evidence claims. This lie he tells must bring him some amount of comfort, though I really cannot imagine how satisfying it is. It's been 15+ years since I took predicate/sentential logic in college and I'm sure a lot's changed. However, I doubt there's been any significant changes in the if/then truth tables, but who knows. You may be covered in shit from rolling around with such a pig in his own slop but you do still smell like roses. Kudos. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh last night I thought I could hear Philip dragging the goalposts around and stomping on courtesy and logic. I was right! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just amused. To say that he's using "logic" when the first step in the chain of logical steps is a "shut up, just accept it" statement is just amusing. The sad thing is how into his own lie he really is. sterile computer 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you even understand his basis for bristling at the computer program analogy and both claiming that he doesn't need if/then statements and that his logic is impeccable and YOU understand it? I'm just not following him here. I know he's a lying sneak but he's usually at least a tiny bit better at explaining himself without all the sneering and denialism. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he's tired of me, and he has nothing to stand on, so it's all characterization of me and the argument rather than bothering with content of the argument itself. I think the computer thing is to say I'm oversimplifying his arugment (although, ironically, it's his train of thought he's characterizing in the long run, which is odd, really). I'm not continuing this long, as it's already getting boring with his contentless replies. sterile computer 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You know when Philip knows he has lost when starts he arguing against the argument. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Whereas everyone else knows he's lost when he posts a statement in the first place. --Kels (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

congratulations , you seem to have driven Philip to deleting anything he doesnt want to hear, well done. Hamster (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

F'n' idiot. sterile computer 13:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that evolutionists now have "blind faith" that point mutations will increase genetic "information" even though there isn't a single example of this occurring. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Except Lenski, but that for some reason is irrelevant. sterile computer 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done sir! PJR has crossed that line into Andy territory! Ace ^{of Spades} 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he was already there. sterile computer 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What a dick. sterile computer 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

aSK

Why are you so obsessed with PJR deleting posts a month or two ago? The same thing happens on RW and RWW, within the last 24 hours, yet I don't hear a word from you about it. And both places have the same vagueness or absence of criteria for post reversion which you bemoan on aSK. Now, to be fair to you, maybe you are not aware of this happening on RW and RWW, and now that I have pointed you to investigate it, you will show the same concern in the case of RW and RWW which you show for aSK. But if you don't, I have to conclude your concerns about aSK are non-genuine. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Philip deleted my posts for "not answering his questions" (is that really a good criterion?) when I had in fact answered them. He, in fact, lied about why he deleted the post and is quite childish. It's on my user page at ASK, if you'd bother to take the time. And it's a different power dynamic, when the site manager who is pusing an agenda deletes posts with someone with whom he disagrees, and he's a horrible manager in that he doesn't make the place welcoming for people he disagrees with. He also said for well over a year that Ace was wrong about the word "nothing" before conceding that Ace was correct because he finally read something. And don't get me started on the word "information" and Philip.

Maybe you want to give Philip the benefit of the doubt as a relative newbie, but most of us here are done with him. (Actually, if you look at the posts immediately above yours here, you can see the links.) PS: I don't plan to continue this conversation here or at aSK, and I'll ignore any further posts about it. sterile^talk 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Philip about a lot of things, but he has been far more welcoming to me than many editors here have. Likewise, while no one is perfectly rational, many editors here are far less rational than he is. Philip is a kind, decent, polite, reasonable person, and I say that as a Goddess-worshipper.

If you don't want to discuss this further, fair enough - but I will hold you to your word, you better cease complaining about it. Otherwise, you would just be making accusations and then refusing to engage when someone challenges you on them, which would be to put your opinions beyond argument - not a rational approach. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What a shock, one guy who grovels to an imaginary friend is welcoming to another guy with an imaginary friend. --Kels (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a concern troll! Yeah! We've dealt with your kind before, and you are really boring. Maybe while you're talking to your new-found friend (someone nice on a wiki with declining usership--who'da'thunk?) you can explore my edits at ASK (there are a lot of them) and provide evidence for my lack of engagement. sterile^talk 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good man!

I'll have you know that membership of the reform society will necessitate you taking some risks. Will you carry the burden of my shield, as we launch ourselves into glorious battle? Will you raise the standard when all are flagged? Will you inspire the minions, as they face despair? Join me my friend, and our conquests shall be magnificent. Join me, and see the face of God. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The pillaging sounds fun, but what is the "God" thing you speak of? Is it a monster? sterile^talk 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean to say join me, and see the face of my penis. (Whom I refer to as God) MarcusCicero (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're penis has a face? You should have that looked at. sterile^talk 01:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still about.

Keep up the good work. P-Foster (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope maybe some retirements aren't really retirements. sterile^talk 01:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. How many standoffish LANCB's have we endured? They'll be back. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should get in touch with HeartofGold. P-Foster (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to seem him (and the liberal swarm). Does he still exist? sterile^talk 02:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider it if RW kicks out a) the trolls and b) twats like occasionaluse and eira who back them up. I loved RW but really, you guys let it go to shit by not having the guts to stand up to obvious griefers that any other wiki would have sent packing. TM 213.1.33.1 (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tough terms for tough times.... we'll see. Unforutantely, that path will depend on the moderator structure Trent proposes.... sterile^talk 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BZZZZZ. --Gulik (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If people care enough to loudly declare that they're running away, you may be sure that they'll come back. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been smitten by a bunny in accordance with the community standards for... no real reason. Feel free to revert this odd edit.

Brx hatred level

Hark!

HAIL MARATREA!

Hmmm, nice. sterile^talk 01:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

Your comment on my talk page

It's a campaign poster for the Moderator elections. As for the heading, you have a lack of vowels in your name. sterile^{no new information} 05:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Girl power!

Sophie 2012!

06:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough

Ida left it "steaming pile" for all I cared, but your...clarification to "Abd's version" was quite correct. I don't think he'll work on it though, it seems as if it's "mainspace or no-place" from what I can see. 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I forgot what he's like. Already getting tedious. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 21:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It should get simpler, Sterile. You've been asking a lot of questions. I'm suggesting that we go one step at a time. If we can't agree on something as simple as whether or not the Pons and Fleischmann work was "reproducible," anything more complex is hopeless. --Abd (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh

nice. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how else to put it any more. And I have no god to pray to. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well my block expires in March. Then I'll have some fun. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Creation Hall of Fame

Do you think that aSK and Philip are noteworthy enough to be nominated to the Creation Hall of Fame ? Hamster (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Those are some heavy hitters. Honorable mention? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No shame.

“”Russell is arguing that it is legitimate to doubt the existence of the teapot, because there's no evidence that the teapot is there. He then compares this to religious claims, implying that the claims have no basis. However, the claims do have a basis: the testimony of the "ancient books". The fallacy lies in assuming that those "ancient books" themselves have no credibility.

—PJR, This fucking template is maddening

12:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he's ever heard of the terms, "antecendent" and "consequent." sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 16:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Go point out how his grasping logic fails. I'll bet that works out real well. 17:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of engaging Rayment on wikipedia, where my account is not "Sterile" but, er, something else. Or warning the kind folks over there to get out. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 19:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)