AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Freddie

form_srcid: Freddie

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Freddie

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Freddie%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2009/10/30 10:26:59, Link
Author: Freddie
New member finally finds reason to post ...

Thanks to all for all the lolz over the years and hope I get the formatting right on my first post!  This from the November 2008 conference Press Release:

It should be emphasised that these scientists are not “creationists” and would be offended to be considered as such.

If one were to point one's browser to Kolbe Center Advisory Council then you'd find four out of the five speakers listed as members.  The Kolbe Center's About Us page states ...

... the Kolbe Center also seeks to show the superiority of special creation over all forms of molecules-to-man evolution as an explanation of the origins of man and the universe. According to the molecules-to-man, or macro-evolutionary, theory of origins, all living things are descended from non-living matter. During billions of years, this non-living matter changed into all of the different kinds of living organisms. According to the special creation model of origins on the other hand, God created the various kinds of living things, including man, by divine fiat and later, after the Fall, engineered a global flood that produced most of the "fossil record."

So no sir, no creationists here, sir ... no indeedy!

Did I win anything yet?

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2009,08:41)
Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 30 2009,08:35)
If you can't wait for the great conference in Rome, I just put this in the moderation queue at Uncommon Descent:          

I assume that we can save valuable time if we just look at last year's results:
Perhaps someone can report the results of the conference of November 2008, held in Rome, featuring:
1. Josef Holzschuh: The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution
2. Jean de Pontcharra: Are Radio-dating Methods Reliable?
3. Maciej Giertych: Impact of Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution

The titles and their abstracts seemingly didn't change, but perhaps, they use some new pages in their power-point-presentations?

Good catch!~
I think you just earned The Great Detective Badge Of The Week!

Date: 2009/11/02 02:07:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Missed this one on first reading ...

hummus man
3:02 am

Well, at least he isn’t trotting out that tired old “cdesign proponentsists” nonsense again.

... ha!

Date: 2009/11/05 09:36:02, Link
Author: Freddie
Yet one more string to add to that talented bow.  Author, consitutional consultant, and now ... textbook editor.  Can anyone say "Jack of all trades ... "

8:59 am

As a sometime textbook editor with an excellent reputation, I would say that we must be clear, who are the final users? The students.

Date: 2009/11/06 08:54:21, Link
Author: Freddie

5 November 2009
Why is Darwinism public business anyway?

I am pleased to report that The Spiritual Brain is going into Polish translation.

Perhaps it would improve the reading of it if it was translated into Reverse Polish Notation

It would seem to be a fairly savvy marketing move to promote the book in countries which have a very high percentage of the population who regularly attends church.  
So don't expect to see a Norwegian translation any time soon.

Date: 2009/11/07 05:12:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Denyse once again demonstrates her strong sense of compassion ...
Adel DiBagno, if one is an Irish-descendant, one can’t help it.

... and an inate understanding of the issues surrounding immigration and naturalization ...
If someone wants to be Irish, so far as I know, they usually can be.

If they want to land immigrant in Canada, they usually can.

Date: 2009/11/07 05:18:26, Link
Author: Freddie
From the same post ... ('cause i haven't earned my edit button yet) ...
We have no time for criminals, vengeance seekers, terrorists, or revolutionaries, and our reputation for niceness here is vastly overrated.

My bolding.  She speaks from personal experience, perhaps? I don't ever remember seeing "vengeance seekers" as a class of undesirable alien on either a Canadian or US immigration form ... whatever can she mean?

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 07 2009,05:12)
Denyse once again demonstrates her strong sense of compassion ...
Adel DiBagno, if one is an Irish-descendant, one can’t help it.

... and an inate understanding of the issues surrounding immigration and naturalization ...
If someone wants to be Irish, so far as I know, they usually can be.

If they want to land immigrant in Canada, they usually can.

Date: 2009/11/11 14:31:26, Link
Author: Freddie
Dense once again pokes the grammar guardians and the parsing police into action ...
As a Canadian, born citizen on the open prairie in 1950, in a country pestered ever since 1968 by Pierre Trudeau with social welfare bureaucracies – which usually requires the enforcement of lies – this much I know is true:

Some stupid bureaucrat flying a desk somewhere cannot prevent you being free. Only you can do that.

Just make sure you have backup somewhere that they cannot get into.

Question: what's the point of having a backup that they can't get into if they've already looked at the data you backed up.  I think she means you should have a secret, encrypted data stash somewhere ... hence the link into the world of ... The Canadian Connection:
This does NOT require weapons. I don’t have an opinion about the US Second Amendment, but would only point out by way of explanation that in Toronto in the 1960s, even the police did not carry guns in the streets of Toronto. They did not need guns.

Okay, it’s all different now, due in large part to foreign-based drug dealers.

Surely some mistake.  Toronto police need to carry guns to deal with drug dealers in other countries?  Must be Super Guns.  

What the Hull passes for logical thought progression in that most spiritual of brains ??

Date: 2009/11/12 12:38:16, Link
Author: Freddie

3) The point isn’t that Darwin was a “bad” man, it’s that he was a bad scientist. Howard Gruber, who has probably studied Drawin’s notebooks more than any scholar, pointed out that “Darwin presented himself in ways that are not supoorted by the evidence of the notebooks.” As Gruber says, “his actual way of working . . . would never have passed muster in a methodological court of inquiry among Darwin’s scientific contemporaries.”

I don't have a copy of Darwin on Man, co-authored by Howard Gruber, and a search for the reference in quotes from Flannery yields mostly hits to either his site, or UD.  Given that Gruber was a psychologist who was studying Darwins notebooks to better understand the creative process and was likely commenting on that aspect of Darwins work rather than rather than the actual science, I think it likely that these are mined quotes.  I found one reference in this paper Barking Up the Wrong Branch that would appear to support this.
Darwin is an interesting model on that score; his notebooks show that his process was for the most part nonlinear with unordered sequences of “theorizing, experimenting, casual observing, cagey questions, reading, etc [that] would never have passed muster in a methodological court of inquiry” (cited from Gruber in Bonner & May, 1981, p. xiii). Darwin himself characterizes the pursuit as the struggle toward “seeing the bearing of scattered facts.”

We fail to recognize a distinction between how many natural scientists and social scientists actually do operate as opposed to their formal style of presenting outcomes. We do ourselves a disservice when teaching methodology to our students as if the highly stylized form of presentation in journals and books is the same as the intellectual processes that lead to these conclusions.  This actually encourages a more mechanical model of how knowledge progresses. This, along with the tendency to base our conclusion on only one data set, actually fits very well with a mechanical model of what our theories should be like. However, as was the case in evolution, it does not help us master the incredibly complex universe in which the social sciences operate.

Just another day at the office for UD regulars ...

Date: 2009/11/18 17:07:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 18 2009,16:26)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 18 2009,16:14)
But do NOT change that shit-eating Mona Lisa smile.

Disclaimer: This is not me, it is your m... I mean, I look more like Denyse O'Leary.

And now for something completely different:

Faked orgasm:


Went to Amazon's bestseller list and could not find it. But maybe Amazon gives different results when contacted from overseas?

Well - on I see the current top selling 30 science books includes:

#6 The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins - 93 days in the top 100

#20 On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles, 1809-1882 Darwin (Kindle version)

#23 The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins - 670 days in the top 100.  

Having said that Amazon's definition of science book also seems to include such stalwarts as:

#8 Inside of a Dog Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know by Alexandra Horowitz

Checking out Signature in the Cell directly rewards us with this ...
Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in Books > Science > Physics > Cosmology
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
#1 in Books > Science > Astronomy

not unexpected, of course, but if only they'd got the astrology reference in there as well ...

Date: 2009/11/19 10:52:29, Link
Author: Freddie
Good commentary, VentureFree - and thanks for the share, I found it sympathetic with my own thoughts!

One potential alternative explanation for this:
Ridiculously definitive statements are thrown around almost without dissent, and are more often than not simply reinforced by other commenters.

might be that 90% of posters are socks who are playing the game.  Would that it were so ...

Date: 2009/11/20 05:43:59, Link
Author: Freddie
Oh noes - help, we're being repressed again!!!  Place your bets for how long before this shows up at UD, any takers?
Evolution and history compulsory    Primary school children in England will have to learn about evolution and British history under a shake-up of the national curriculum.

Andy Mcintosh is probably frothing at the mouth by now ...

Date: 2009/11/26 11:07:03, Link
Author: Freddie


hummus man
7:29 am

Right, lack of resources required to address such a complicated issue.

DNA Sequencer too expensive to add to your basement laboratory?


8:07 am

Obviously brains too expensive to add to your inventory.
Perhaps you should go buy a vowel…


hummus man
9:24 am
  Perhaps you should go buy a vowel…

I would love to get my hands on a nice æ, but the radical Alphabetists have suppressed the evidence of the superiority of Olde English.


11:49 am

I would love to get my hands on a nice æ, but the radical Alphabetists have suppressed the evidence of the superiority of Olde English.

It was evolution by natural selection…

Another day, and yet another conversation with Caliph Joe descends into a mudslinging farce.  hummus man needs to be careful in case Joe offers to 'visit him'.

Date: 2009/11/27 10:58:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 27 2009,10:28)

Reading at Uncommonly Densey this morning, I came across this literary gem   by ID's high priestess of fractured prose:

(regarding alleged "atheists" who, without any evidence whatsoever, are claimed to be responsible for disrupting a website)

"I can’t prove new atheists did it, any more than I can prove that an outlaw motorcycle gang runs drugs.

But one must ask, who would want to do this?

And now for the contest. What was Densey's intended meaning there? Was she asking:

1) "Why would one want to prove motorcycle gangs run drugs?"

2) "Would motorcycle gangs want to run drugs?"

3) "Why would anyone want to show atheists hacked a website?"

4) "Who would want to hack such a website except atheists?"

Winner gets a copy of Densey's book, "Teh Spatula Brane" -- maybe. Runners-up get two copies. Losers are punished with more copies.**

**Copies were salvaged from the local landfill, where some poor, tortured kindly person left them to check erosion.

From the same thread
6:43 pm

Are there good books I could get for some background on the brain/mind/spirit controversy?

A priceless "buy her book" moment ... courtesy of waterbear

Date: 2009/11/29 07:42:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 29 2009,04:07)

My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book.

I'd think so! So that is only the first of a series?

(My bold.)

Didn't Dense just spend a fair portion of a caffeine-ated post ridiculing the idea that the [URL=

be/]"Higgs-Boson particle could travel back in time to destroy itself"[/URL]

... maybe she could perhaps also comment on Dembski's idea of the backwards-in-time effects of "the Fall".

Date: 2009/11/29 07:43:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Damn - it worked in the preview ... here's the link:


be/]Backwards Time Travel[/URL]

Date: 2009/11/29 07:45:53, Link
Author: Freddie
I'm beginning to suspect there is a limit to the number of characters you can use in the URL field ... don't tell the UDenizens as this seems to be a foolproof way to defeat the AtBC crowd.

Please feel free to delete my previous post.

Date: 2009/12/09 10:08:07, Link
Author: Freddie
Gaz sets Jerry right ...
Rubbish. Britain, for example, has – for now – a socialist Prime Minister who is the son of a Scottish Minister and a practising Christian. Check out the Socialist block of MEPs in the European Parliament and you’ll find most of them – nearly all – are actually Christians.

I expect Jerry's riposte to be one in which he opines that these MEPs cannot possibly be True Christians™ ... 3, 2, 1 ...

Date: 2009/12/09 11:45:57, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2009,11:42)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 09 2009,10:56)
FTK is as delusional as ever

He won’t debate Craig for the same reason he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s and their objections to evolution in his latest book.

He merely takes on critiques of naïve creationists and other amateurs without ever mentioning the ID community because (wait for it) HE’S A FREAKING COWARD, obviously. That’s the only explanation, of course. Anyone who *truly* believes what they purpose would take on their top notch critiques at the drop of a hat. PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.
Why Richard Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig

Oh, my English Nazi ears (eyes?)

he never mentions highly credentialed intelligent design theorist’s [?] and their objections to evolution in his latest

PZ Myers is cut from the same mold as are most evolutionists.

"Cut from the same mold"?

Similar to being cast from the same cloth ...

Date: 2009/12/09 12:33:45, Link
Author: Freddie
12:46 pm

Besides I was under the impression that the UK was still experiencing the effects of Margaret Thatcher and capitalism and free enterprise was still relatively healthy in many places and that many Europeans were coming to the UK for the more relaxed business climate. There is still a fair amount of capitalism in Europe.

Does Jerry watch anything other than the local cable news channel (+Fox of course).  He seems to have missed out on the whole of the last decade or so.

I was just musing to myself today as I walked through a town centre in the UK how well things are going as I counted about 1 in 6 shopfronts are closed and empty.  

Then I came home and read about how there is going to be a new 50% tax on banker's bonuses as it's all so unfair 'cause they caused this mess in the first place.

Yep, the UK today according to Jerry - a healthy economy with a distinctly capitalist flair!

I will enjoy my internets win while it lasts ... thanks!

Date: 2009/12/09 16:31:41, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 09 2009,14:40)
Wasn't sure where to post this.

Kent Hovind's "pH.D." thesis is now on the intertubes here:

If you are afraid of becoming stupid, then I suggest you don't read it.  This will kill brain cells faster than a .357 hollow point.

My 3-year makes more structured sentences and more effective arguments.  

This is slightly beyond hillarious... and yet somehow sad.

I managed to read as far as the third sentence of the dedication page before lol'ing:
My Mom and Dad supplied the computer for this work to be done on.

Date: 2009/12/10 03:04:32, Link
Author: Freddie
Anyone else spot this wonderfully apt 'cdesign proponentsis' moment from page 101 of the pdf?
“Ken Taylor’s Living Bible, I don’the garbage heap, want to be too negative because there are many good things about it …”

And lest we forget, a fool and his money are a penny earned ...

Date: 2009/12/10 03:21:11, Link
Author: Freddie
This is going to drive the whole ID community into a complete frenzy.

Strange spiral lights seen (and video'd) in the sky above Norway the night before Obama arrives to collect his Nobel Prize.   BTW - this is just one of the more outlandish reports, but the video is carried by the BBC and others as well.  

Time to break out the Explanatory Filter, anyone?

Date: 2009/12/12 09:12:38, Link
Author: Freddie
KF Sighting!  With the obligatory, but somewhat strangely worded PS ...
8:43 am

PS: Been busy off-line and elsewhere, to those who inquired. (Some of it for not so happy reasons.) Cooking up some evil stuff. (have a look here at the functionally specific complexity of cellular metabolic reactions as a system. Compare to say the chemical reaction flows pathway of a petrochemicals plant. Then factor in our favourite 1,000 bit threshold and see where that gets ya.

Date: 2009/12/13 11:27:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 13 2009,11:19)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 12 2009,23:46)
Three questions per RJMII's ASA presentation:

1. Is Baylor U aware of the prevalent use of their logo in a presentation that also promotes the previously Expelled EIL website?

2. On page 27, is it the inner prankster of Marks purposely misspelling "Weasel Wear" while promoting the EIL webpage with "Weasel Ware"?

3. Given the plethora of RJMII illustrations throughout the presentation (many with DaVinci-inspired, backward artist's marks), which of the following best describes Marks' real GodIntelligent Designer-given role in life?:

  a. Evoltionary Informatician
  b. Cartoonist/Illustrator wannabe
  c. Consummate ID clown
  d. Utter, senseless waste of human life
  e. all ^

I front-loaded an "all of the above" option in there for moar justice.

Also, a free copy of The End of Christianity to anyone who gets that Marks audio file working; it'd be interesting if he lives up to the Casey Luskin / Kent Hovind ideal of inane-sounding creationists.

Try this one instead - sounds like Dembski gave the pitch ...


Date: 2009/12/13 11:29:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Forgot to add, here's a bunch more if you feel inclined ...

ASA2002-2009 Audio Presentations

Date: 2009/12/13 11:36:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 13 2009,11:27)
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 13 2009,11:19)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 12 2009,23:46)
Three questions per RJMII's ASA presentation:

1. Is Baylor U aware of the prevalent use of their logo in a presentation that also promotes the previously Expelled EIL website?

2. On page 27, is it the inner prankster of Marks purposely misspelling "Weasel Wear" while promoting the EIL webpage with "Weasel Ware"?

3. Given the plethora of RJMII illustrations throughout the presentation (many with DaVinci-inspired, backward artist's marks), which of the following best describes Marks' real GodIntelligent Designer-given role in life?:

  a. Evoltionary Informatician
  b. Cartoonist/Illustrator wannabe
  c. Consummate ID clown
  d. Utter, senseless waste of human life
  e. all ^

I front-loaded an "all of the above" option in there for moar justice.

Also, a free copy of The End of Christianity to anyone who gets that Marks audio file working; it'd be interesting if he lives up to the Casey Luskin / Kent Hovind ideal of inane-sounding creationists.

Try this one instead - sounds like Dembski gave the pitch ...


Hmmm.  Fail on my part.  Dembski's audio file appears to be a terminally boring description of the contents of his book.  Marks presentation is nowhere to be found in that folder - I wonder if it was there, then pulled ...

Date: 2009/12/18 05:49:07, Link
Author: Freddie
Damn those pesky scientists - always trying to demonstrate some sciencey stuff just to mess with O'Learys brain ...
31 May 2009
Uncommon Descent Contest 4: Can we save physics by dumping the Copernican principle?


Dark energy? “Dark” means we are in the dark about it. According to the current model, we don’t know what 70 percent, approximately, of the cosmos comprises. Whatever that 70% is, it does not respond to light. It also does not answer e-mail, phone mail, or letter mail. Bummer.

Many physicists believe that maybe 25% of this unknown substance is dark matter. The rest is dark energy.

Actually, we don’t even know what dark matter is, according to the cautious SNO Plus physicists who are building a huge underground facility in the Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Canada, to trap a particle a year of the stuff. So they hardly wish to give tell-all interviews on dark energy.

Dark Matter Detected?
For 80 years, it has eluded the finest minds in science. But tonight it appeared that the hunt may be over for dark matter, the mysterious and invisible substance that accounts for three-quarters of the matter in the universe.

In a series of coordinated announcements at several US laboratories, researchers said they believed they had captured dark matter in a defunct iron ore mine half a mile underground. The claim, if confirmed next year, will rank as one the most spectacular discoveries in physics in the past century.

Date: 2009/12/20 04:13:26, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 19 2009,22:40)
Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the ‘Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not “support or promote hatred or criminal acts.”

I actually do not see any difference between the editorial descriptions published at Amazon and B&N. Was the Amazon product description different before or is she referring to something in the customer reviews?

Has anyone else heard of Amazon referred to as the 'Zon? It's a new one on me.  And this in the same post ....
I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

"ditches" ?  Apparently "butt" is okay, though.  It's rather pathetic when a 'free speech journalist' has to change single letters in words to claim some kind of personal moral high ground (e.g. Hell --> Hull).

Date: 2010/01/16 09:47:12, Link
Author: Freddie
7:12 am

... So, since in the cases of known origin such are invariably the result of design, it is confidently but provisionally inferred that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.

This is very interesting stuff indeed! Is there a list of objects and their values for FSCI available?

What units is FSCI measured in? I was not able to determine that from the FAQ.

In the olden, golden days of tard this would have led to a long diatribe on FSCI from KF.  Unhappily, his recent absences from the site means we are unikely to be so lucky.  

Nice to see some new posters with both interesting insights and usernames at UD though!

Date: 2010/01/16 11:13:58, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 16 2010,10:56)
Broseph catches on fast, doesn't he!:

11:40 am

h.pesoj is a troll.

h.pesoj is just my name spelled backwards. :cool:

Could be a sock-puppet for Zachriel.

But I will answer the backwards me:

Then he proceeds to stick his head farther up his ass, proving that it is indeed possible.

Another successful test of the good Dr's nixplanatory filter!  Chalk another one up for ID!

Date: 2010/01/16 15:07:03, Link
Author: Freddie
2:05 pm

Could I be sliently banned please? What’s the hold up? The hammer in for repair?

h.pesoj is on a rampage.  To quote Lister on Rimmer's alter-ego, Ace ... "What a guy!"

Date: 2010/04/01 15:21:06, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Maya @ April 01 2010,14:36)
Does Dembski know he's posting an April Fool's joke?

He never struck me as the type to laugh at himself.

ETA:  Original link just in case one of those bizarre software snafus makes Dembski's original post disappear.

Looks like that was made by Brian Garner, on the faculty at Baylor.  Should we give Dr2D the benefit of the doubt and suggest he was reposting it only in the interest of propagating the joke?

Brian Garner - Baylor

Date: 2010/06/10 13:20:34, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (JLT @ June 10 2010,10:41)
From the Hawking interview:
Hawking, 68, was diagnosed with the motor neuron disorder ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, when he was 21. He was told that he likely would not live more than a few years.

But on his personal website he said that with "a cloud hanging over my future, I found, to my surprise, that I was enjoying life in the present more than before."

"I suddenly realized that there were a lot of worthwhile things I could do if I were reprieved," he said.

He went on to have a family (he has three children and one grandchild) and, though his condition progressed, he continued his research unabated with the help of a wheelchair and, later, an electronic speech synthesizer.

As Hawking's children navigate the many complexities of human life, he told Sawyer that he's offered up three pieces of advice.

"One, remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Two, never give up work. Work gives you meaning and purpose and life is empty without it," he said. "Three, if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away."

Hawking was presented with a terrible diagnosis at a young age. But he didn't give up, he didn't look for someone to blame, instead, he became a famous physicist despite of a progressing and debilitating disease. I'm sure that his work has helped him many times to cope with his illness, as has his family, and the advice he's given his children IMO reflects those experiences.
Let's see what Phaedros makes of it:



11:42 am
By the way the philosophy that “work gives meaning to life” seems a bit close to “through work, freedom,” doesnt’t it?




3:00 pm

Phaedros in #3 – Hadn’t thought of that – lol.

It reminds him of a slogan placed at the entrances of concentration camps. And DonaldM thinks that's funny.

Another rather unfortunate statement in the same thread from bantay.

3. He needs to sit down with William Lane Craig and deal with the Resurrection.

... my emphasis, although he probably doesn't see the irony.  Just what the hell is that comment supposed to even mean to a man who has had to contemplate his own proximity to death every day while sitting in a wheelchair for the last 40 years, the last of these almost completely paralyzed?   UD has now arrived at the point where it is just a magnet for people of like-minded extremist, anti-science and denialist views to congregate, there is no longer even a pretense that they are 'doing sciencey stuff'.  Apparently that's just peachy with the site admin.

Date: 2010/06/27 19:21:04, Link
Author: Freddie
Dense continues to misunderstand the concept of "The Selfish Gene".  
*Darwinism? Yes, of course. That guy is saving his selfish genes for a more worthwhile and advantageous woman. Or maybe there is no selfish gene, just people misbehaving, who do not wish to accept responsibility for their activities?

You'd have thought she would have at least thought twice about using the term again after being pulled up on it before.  Apparently not.

Also, note to Dense ... * typically denotes a footnote.  It is not usual to show the footnote in sequence in the very next paragraph directly after the word you have footnoted. That would be a "new paragraph", not a footnote.

Then ...
Don’t believe me? Watch the 1951 film, A Place in the Sun, where a clergyman patiently explains to a guy why he really is guilty of murder, and you will see the difference between Judaeo-Christian culture and what happened later.

Don't believe Martians have landed on earth?  Watch the 1953 movie War of the Worlds to see how the humble bacteria defeated this otherworldly invasion.  You see what I did there, Dense?

Date: 2010/07/17 14:13:53, Link
Author: Freddie
4:58 am

(Then, weep for our civilisation, then pray, then get up and do something for the good . . . )

So near, yet so very, very far ...

Date: 2010/07/17 14:44:27, Link
Author: Freddie
Does anyone else see the irony in that KF has written thousands of words in the Stephen Meyer thread dedicated to remotely commenting and responding to a thread on the YouTube video in question, yet he goes blue in the face when anyone mentions AtBC's UD thread that, well ... comments and responds to goings on at the UD site?

At least he has the option of responding directly on YouTube (although he's already bolted from that challenge as fast as he could toss out the words uncivil and slander).

Date: 2011/03/31 06:22:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Speaking of Dawkins reminds me that when critics of weasel at UD were arguing (interminably and with much bloviate) about the concept of whether the program ratchets or not, they demanded that RD show up and bring his code with him to show his work.  The counter was that if he didn't show up, they would take the first piece of code that someone (anyone!) produced and assume it was the original.  This they duly did - and proved themselves to be the highly dishonest cowards we all knew them to be.

Now, with this latest (highly amusing) controversy, none of the IDiots appears to gave asked the good Dr Dr to show up and bring his math to the table for all to inspect.

The chances of this happening would seem to me to be inversely proportional to the probability that the IDiots commenting in that thread really do believe his working to be anything other than a disingenuous smokescreen.  

Otherwise they would have made the plea already.

Date: 2011/03/31 07:28:35, Link
Author: Freddie
Good point, in that case he could perhaps take his almost-Japanese apprentice's example and show him where he went wrong in his attempt to produce his masters goods - so to speak!

Date: 2011/03/31 16:16:18, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 31 2011,13:44)
William J. Murray tries to help.  He fails:    
BTW, any CSI or FSCO/I analysis only makes a provisional finding of “best explanation” under current knowledge. As PaV’s example shows, we can find false negatives all the time simply by not knowing about the pattern that a sequence describes; it might appear totally random until we find the pattern (in cryptanalysis, that would be the “key”) that reveals the functional specificity of the sequence.

So, basically if one suspects design in the first place, one can then determine if some string actually is designed.  That'd probably require some sort of background knowledge about the prime designer suspect, I'd imagine.  But wow, that CSI sure is useful, I tell you what!  Oh, but wait: what if the pattern is actually due to some totally natural but unknown regularity? Well shucks.

ETA: stupid URL mangling.

Oh wow ... JoeG just linked to his own blog on that thread.  This could cause some Friday meltdown fun when KF follows that one ...

Date: 2011/04/03 05:54:18, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (sparc @ April 03 2011,01:00)
This must hurt: Amazon is already already clearance selling "The Nature of Nature
2 April 2011
The Nature of Nature — Get it at
William Dembski

Even though THE NATURE OF NATURE was printed close to two months ago, it seems that it’s only now finally out and widely available. If you haven’t bought it yet, let me suggest, which is selling it for $17.94, which is an incredible deal for a 7?x10? 1000-page book with, for most of us, no tax and no shipping charge (it costs over $10 to ship this monster priority mail).
Obviously, not too many were willing to pay $29.00 despite all the month long trumpeting at UD. So again another "BUY MY BOOK":    
This is a must-have book if you are interested at all in the ID debate.
Seven years in the making
just show that WMAD has been either lazy or not really interested because at the end it's just a compilation.    
at 500,000 words,
indeed quite an achievement taking into account that Drs. KF and BA77 didn't contribute to the opus.    
with three Nobel laureate contributors,
did Crick, de Duve or Weinberg say anything positive about ID  
this is the most thorough examination of naturalism to date.
To date? Isn't this the status of 2004? ID-creationism didn't evolve much since then but the world kept turning and we have seen things like the Dover decision aka Waterloo since then.

Interesting for a couple of reasons ...

1. There are posts in that thread from February. so it looks like this has just been bumped with a new date of April 2 on the thread to reflect its new status on Amazon.

2. Is he suggesting that purchases over the Internet in the US are not subject to sales tax for 'most of us'?  I haven't lived there for a few years and I know Internet buys were typically not reported by anyone then, but a few friends are telling me recently that this year the IRS is starting to look more closely at this ... maybe he should give Kent Hovind a call to check out the legal aspects.

Date: 2011/04/06 17:40:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (damitall @ April 06 2011,07:08)
Joseph asks:

"Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?"

If UD were unmoderated, the answers would be fast and furious, beginning with "yeah, atheists don't have to tolerate aggressive, ignorant, fairy-tale-believing morons like joe"

As things are, I guess no-one will bother.

Any forum that gives the likes of Joseph free rein whilst moderating polite criticism into irrelevance is terminally broken.

Rather than "Always look on the bright side ..." I would suggest "The Galaxy Song" from The Meaning of Life as a more appropriate Pythonesque/Atheist anthem.  The last two lines are particularly apropos UD.

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Date: 2011/04/07 18:02:28, Link
Author: Freddie
BA77 brings the mushrooms:

jemi, as to miracles, exactly how do you exp0lain the now established scientific fact that the entire universe came into being from a higher transcendent realm that is not limited by time and space? Is it a miracle, or is it not, and either way, because it is now established that the entire universe can come into being instantaneously from a higher dimension, exactly why would it be ‘unscientific’ to presuppose ‘top-down’ appearance of life on earth?

Then robustly defends KF from the quote-mining charge by providing his most devastating rebuttal which, as we all know, is one of the biggest and most oft-perpetuated quote mines in the creationist arsenal.

As to the accusation of taking ‘fossil’ quotes out of context. Here is a defense of perhaps the most damning quote ever by a neo-Darwinist.

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
Excerpt: Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Best. Thread. Ever (well, since the CSI one).  Thank you JR!

Date: 2011/04/09 17:33:49, Link
Author: Freddie
KF spits out a twofer: Godwin and Lewontin in the same post!
Especially when, it is beyond reasonable doubt — onlookers, reread the Lewointin statement and keep on going through what NAS and NSTA have to say — that a priori evolutionary materialism has been imposed on origins science in the major institutions, and is exerting undue influence on theories, models and other explanatory contructs.

In short, you are guilty of the turnabout false accusation, a classic resort of the lowest sort of propagandists. I will not even name the main proponent of the tactic in recent times, beyond saying that his name should have been Schicklegruber.

I really believe he does consider his intellect and accomplishments to be equivalent to that of Hoyle:
On the finetuning half of that observation, I am among others, in the company of Sir Fred Hoyle [as has been explicitly cited], Nobel equivalent prize holding astrophsysicist. And lifelong atheist/agnostic, but he was honest about what evidence is and what it points to. I make no bones, he is one of my personal heroes of science.

... and get this: Anthony Flew agreed with KF's position!  Who would have known?
Indeed, the formerly leading philosophical atheist in the world, the late Antony Flew, agreed with my position on that; once the balance of evidence was decisively shifted by the design evidence on fine tuning etc.

IANAP but i'm beginning to think 'pathological narcissism'.  Wikipedia has an interesting description of some of the traits:

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined ... With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

Date: 2011/04/13 16:17:21, Link
Author: Freddie
What with all the MG mania do not overlook tragic mishap's desperate attempt to wrest the steering wheel from KF, Batshit, Ted Davis, Robert Sheldon and others and to put the clown car that is UD firmly back onto the racetrack of pretence ...


tragic mishap
1:12 pm

What is all this BS about? ID is not claiming to identify which God, much less which member of the Trinity is the designer.

Nor is ID claiming to be a replacement for religion, or claiming the basis of religion is natural science. This all complete BS.

It’s about academic freedom to pursue truth and knowledge.

Did he not get the memo?  Maybe he's not part of the "circle of trust" over there.

Date: 2011/04/14 12:02:16, Link
Author: Freddie
KF seems to be resorting to spamming several threads over there with links back to the "Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined? Doubtful." post.  Has anyone counted how many threads they have started in the last 10 days to try and put the embarassing stuff way out of sight ... I'd be willing to bet its close to an order of magnitude greater than the number of new threads in the previous 10 days to the original MG thread that started all this.  I imagine the PM traffic to be quite high over there at the moment.
BREAKING: The collapse of MG’s claims on CSI, Dembski, Durston’s FSC and the Orgel-Wicken definition of CSI and FSCI

Date: 2011/04/15 01:21:11, Link
Author: Freddie

Thus Idcurious since material particles cannot be the cause of quantum information/entanglement in molecular biology, and Darwinian evolution is based on the materialistic framework, please tell me what the cause is for quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology??? You get one guess!


Is it Jesus?


,,,,I can’t believe you actually got the question right,, and as absurd as it may seem to you and as much as you may mock it, the major Theistic postulate for non-reducible ‘transcendent information’ being foundational to the universe, and even to all life in the universe, is found in the New Testament in John 1:1-5. The postulate is not found in the Old Testament, nor is found in any other holy book of any other religion that I am aware of! and It certainly is not a materialistic postulate!

To be accurate, he got the answer right rather than the question.  However, it's still All Science So Far.

Date: 2011/04/16 13:31:14, Link
Author: Freddie
Onlookers!  This is why KF is never, ever usually given the floor at UD.  They must be desperate to have allowed him to post and he is certainly making the most of his chance to wield the gavel ...


OP ~ 1770 words
#Posts in Thread = 19
#Of Posts in Thread by KF = 14
#Words in Posts from Commenters other than KF ~ 250
#Words in Posts from KF ~ 8100

Death by 1000 words ... though sadly no Lewontin reference yet.

Date: 2011/04/18 07:51:45, Link
Author: Freddie
3:18 pmC & U:

I suggest you look at IDC’s track record over the past day or so, especially compared with J, noting what happened when both — J in the lead [vulgarity] — were called on to clean up their act.

J apologised, IDC doubled down. A telling contrast.


Let's just check that assertion shall we:

9:01 am

Joseph and IDC:
Please moderate both tone and language.
An immoderate tone and disrespectful or vulgar language simply promote incivility, and do nothing to address the merits of the issues on facts, logic, warrant, and underlying assumptions.
Please, please, please.

9:18 am

You are right, my bad. idcurious is on a mental-midget mission to get me banned and I have allowed its continued lies and misrepresentations to goad me into doing just that.
But OK…

9:38 am



But I am sure you won’t understand any of that. Obviously you are deranged.


What about Dr Dembski? Do you think that just bcause you can pull something out of your arse that it is meaningful

10:27 am



Perhaps it is “gibberish” to someone as uneducated as you appear to be. But so what?


Another imbecilic inference. Typical.



Pulling things out of your arse. That sums your posting up spectacularly.

Nice projecion AV boy…

Of course - its not possible to see idcurious's posts as for some reason all of them beyond post 230 seem to have vanished.  And the funny thing is, Clive just keeps on replying to him a day later, even though he must know for sure that he has been banned at that point.  Which once again shows up the completely underhanded and hypocritical nature of UD.

Date: 2011/04/18 11:57:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 18 2011,09:03)
Quote (Freddie @ April 18 2011,07:51)
Of course - its not possible to see idcurious's posts as for some reason all of them beyond post 230 seem to have vanished.  And the funny thing is, Clive just keeps on replying to him a day later, even though he must know for sure that he has been banned at that point.  Which once again shows up the completely underhanded and hypocritical nature of UD.

This is continued fallout from their Mathgrrl debacle.  The 'great experiment' of allowing outside dissenting views from scientifically literate folks was such an unmitigated disaster for the IDiots that they have to revert to the old ways.  That's why Barry and Clive have been on a banning rampage.  Interacting with the real world is just too scary for them.

Speaking of Mathgrrl - we haven't seen any new posts lately, so she may be with the silently banned too.

I have this recurring fantasy that she actually knows very little at all about mathematics but is, in reality, a post-grad psych research student working on her doctoral thesis.  I'd say there was more than enough there to fill a book.

Date: 2011/04/18 15:09:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (PTET @ April 18 2011,14:52)
Uncommon Descent is apologetics. It exists to give comfort to believers that there is progress being made with "Intelligent Design". Much of it isn't actually meant to be read (hence Denyse, KF, etc.). Behe is a scientist who supports common descent. No wonder they ignore him.

Look at the effort UDders put into saying we can't know anything about the past. Their redefining of science isn't about finding positive ways to "prove" design, but rather to make sure that no evidence could possibly exist to support evolution in nature.

Pick any Pro-IDder you like. You'll find them saying something really, really stupid... But there they are, the all-science-so-far vanguard for creationists everywhere.

And lo, from the "Does ID Make Testable Predictions?" thread, so it came to pass ...
ID predicts that the Universe had a beginning.

"Let there be light ..."  indeed.

Good response from rprado though ...
I predict that a programming language and Operative System will be found in DNA, surely in the form of “machine code”, so it will have to be reverse-engineered to get the source code. That will prove Intelligent Design once and for all and also we will have a clue of the designers’ language (i.e, what “words” they use for such commands as GOTO, WHILE, FOR, END, etc., and, of course, the LABEL and comment lines!). I hope to be alive by then.

Date: 2011/04/20 08:56:57, Link
Author: Freddie
I predict this thread has enormous potential for tard.  The OP and Joseph have already have put foot to mouth in appearing to assign motivation to the 'Designer'.  Heinrich appears to be having fun.

I think that the predictions in the paleontology section are more favorable to a creationist perspective than ID necessarily. I mean, ID can predict design in nature, but ID would be okay with gradualism so long as there is evidence of design in nature (like the bacterial flagellum). Having said that, I totally endorse those predictions because I am a creationist.

Which one of you is Collin again?

Date: 2011/04/20 13:30:23, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2011,12:41)
Has anyone been saving versions of the various Mathgrrl threads over at UD?  A quick glance at the "Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined?" post shows evidence of a wholesale whitewashing of the discussion.

Note this comment:
James Grover
1:51 pm

Sorry, I messed up the quote tags in 275. My comment on Scott’s observation begins with “An illustration:”

The comment, in and of itself, isn't all that interesting. Merely a commenter noting that he messed up formating on his previous comment and giving folks enough information so that they can discern where James' commentary begins.   What is interesting here is that he referred to that comment as number 275, but it is currently numbered 247.  Somewhere along the line, 28 comments have been deleted.

PTET in his wisdom has archived the thread up to his banning here:

Mathgrrl thread

A quick comparison shows that the mismatch starts at around post 210.  It looks like it is much of the 'Electricity Hates Water' discussion that has been excised.

In a similar vein KF defends and sucks up to JoeG (sorry for that picture) frequently (cf. KFs rationalization that JoeG apologized and corrected his behaviour when idcurious 'doubled-down' - when the reality is plainly there for all to see in black and white).  You have to believe he has looked at Joe's blog and seen how Joe spews his expletive-ridden rants there, but the desire to maintain the big tent must be stronger than the revulsion he undoubtedly must feel at having to be kissin' cousins with him all day long.  

I mean, can you really see Mr Straight-and-Narrow GEM with his old-style Dickensian speech really wanting to get within 1000 miles of Joe outside of the blogosphere?  Perhaps Joe is a necessary evil that must just be endured when fighting the good fight.  It's a test of his faith, perhaps.  Weird.

Date: 2011/04/20 13:46:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,13:36)
Makes me wonder what will happen to ole Joe once the evil Darwinists (whoever they are) are defeated.

Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution.  So he's going to either change his tune to true belief in ID or he's going to be out on his keister so fast it'll make the ticks in his watermelon spin.

Of course, there are additional possibilities for handling the unbelievers when such a theocracy comes into power.  

Maybe they could invent some appropriate (and yet ironic) ending involving water and electricity.

Date: 2011/04/21 10:25:46, Link
Author: Freddie
On a lighter note:

I come from an island that has a mountain range down its middle, with branch ranges and side hills. I now live in another, that has three main volcanic edifices and some side-hills.

So, I am quite aware of having multiple peaks reachable by hill-climbing.

(Oddly, I have never been to Blue Mountain peak, nor have I ever taken the local Centre Hills tour! I am much more inclined to head for a beach, rod in hand . . . )

<snigger>.  Bolding and ellipsis in original due to linky and inability to finish sentence.  Makes it all the funnier.

Date: 2011/04/21 17:31:11, Link
Author: Freddie
"You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."
11:06 am

So let’s take a closer look at Schneider’s Horse Race page and do a little quote mining.

With apologies to Inigo.

Date: 2011/04/22 06:09:28, Link
Author: Freddie
4:38 am

14 –> There may be something in the suggestion that the M-brot set is God’s thumbprint in Mathematics, just like the Euler equation is a signature of the coherent elegant beauty of the cosmos, the ordered system of reality:

   e^(i*p1) + 1 = 0

15 –> BA 77?s gonna love this one: The ultimate simple specification of a system of infinite complexity and wonderful functionality!!!!

16 –> We may be opening up a new front in the design thought world here: a designed mathematical-logical order

Yes, KF ... you keep on having those wet dreams of yours while the rest of us just stumble on with reality.  Modesty, thy name is not GEM of TKI.

Date: 2011/05/05 07:48:14, Link
Author: Freddie
Seems to be a tardfight brewing between batshit and mung here:

Prophecies - don'tcha just love em???

My 3 question marks addition the link above is in honor of BA seemingly evolving his trademark pattern from ',,,' to '???'

Date: 2011/05/20 11:04:05, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2011,09:57)
We've been charging the Tard Capacitor for several weeks. Tard Shields Up!


Kairosfocus repeats his usual red herring strawman. But he, of all people, should know that repetition doesn't add information, at least not True Information™.


kairosfocus: Perhaps I can give you some context: have you ever met me?

Shields at maximum power!


Shields nearly gone. Exiting the Vortex.

ellazim responds:
Have I ever met you? I can’t say as I don’t even know what your real name is!

Perhaps some kind soul could help him out over there by posting Buck of Twiki's real name and email address for him to see ...

Date: 2011/05/24 09:17:09, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (noncarborundum @ May 21 2011,07:55)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 21 2011,02:38)
Quote (noncarborundum @ May 21 2011,05:47)
Quote (Henry J @ May 20 2011,23:16)
I am assuming DeNews is actually asking how many secular predictions of the earth ending in the past 50 years, although that is equal to the number of times that all life on Earth has actually ended: zero.

There were several close calls a few years ago, but were stopped by Buffy Summers, in what was then Sunnydale, CA (which isn't there any more).

This was documented on TV.


I understand that not all of these historical documents are absolutely to be relied upon.  For more information you may want to consult the 1999 documentary film Galaxy Quest, which goes into the issue in some detail.

Gwen DeMarco: They're not ALL "historical documents." Surely, you don't think Gilligan's Island is a...
Mathesar: Those poor people.

IIRC it was not Gilligan but Days of our Lives Gwen was reffering to (terrific movie, BTW).

I got that from IMDB, and it jibes with my own recollection.

If I look it up on IMDB it clearly states the quote referenced "Gilligan's Island", and that's very much how I remember it too.  

I've noticed IMDB has been getting more region specific the past year - I see a UK rating now next to the film title at the top of each movie screen.  Perhaps this is one of those occasions where the movie was adapted for different markets, and IMDB is reflecting this as well.

Back in "the old days" my future wife and I had an argument about a similar scene from Back to the Future.  She swore that the Delorean had to reach 140 and I was equally sure it was 88.  Well, it was 140Km/h vs 88mph ... she saw it in Germany while I had seen it in the UK.

[/pedant mode off]

Date: 2011/05/26 12:41:20, Link
Author: Freddie
AtBC can haz competition?

Date: 2011/06/13 03:42:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 13 2011,01:56)
There's some good tard over in the comments on the 'PZ open cut quote mines' thread. (These people and irony really are strangers, aren't they?) Even the one clear headed (in my opinion, of course) commenter, Neil Rickert has tard injected into his comment by the now rarely seen loudspeaker in the ceiling method:
I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Maybe the particular ID proponent has written some books, and maybe it is from those books that PZ finds the ID proponent to be a “vicious evil liar.”

I think I listened to the same podcast, and the particular ID proponent was identified as Jonathan Wells. I’m not sure why you omitted that detail. PZ is not the only evolutionist who holds a low opinion of Wells. Larry Moran has been posting a series on his blog (see this post for an example.

(moderator: Neil the language applied would not usually be used of someone who one had not met by a rational clear thinking person. How can someone be “evil” where there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (Dawkins)?)

There's more: Gil has his 2c worth, actually avoiding using the Dodgenator 3000 for once, but still managing to remain content free. There's some serious misconstrual from Barb (who surely merits more discussion here IMO), and JohnnyB tells us that PZ converted him from mere IDiocy to full blown creationism. Just as I'm writing Clive has wandered in and delivered a surprise CS Lewis quote. Touché there, Clive!

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, someone at UD misuses the term "quote mine".  What is it that is so hard to understand about that term that they just don't get it?

Date: 2011/06/13 15:38:05, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ June 13 2011,03:42)
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 13 2011,01:56)
There's some good tard over in the comments on the 'PZ open cut quote mines' thread. (These people and irony really are strangers, aren't they?) Even the one clear headed (in my opinion, of course) commenter, Neil Rickert has tard injected into his comment by the now rarely seen loudspeaker in the ceiling method:
I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Maybe the particular ID proponent has written some books, and maybe it is from those books that PZ finds the ID proponent to be a “vicious evil liar.”

I think I listened to the same podcast, and the particular ID proponent was identified as Jonathan Wells. I’m not sure why you omitted that detail. PZ is not the only evolutionist who holds a low opinion of Wells. Larry Moran has been posting a series on his blog (see this post for an example.

(moderator: Neil the language applied would not usually be used of someone who one had not met by a rational clear thinking person. How can someone be “evil” where there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (Dawkins)?)

There's more: Gil has his 2c worth, actually avoiding using the Dodgenator 3000 for once, but still managing to remain content free. There's some serious misconstrual from Barb (who surely merits more discussion here IMO), and JohnnyB tells us that PZ converted him from mere IDiocy to full blown creationism. Just as I'm writing Clive has wandered in and delivered a surprise CS Lewis quote. Touché there, Clive!

Yet again, for the umpteenth time, someone at UD misuses the term "quote mine".  What is it that is so hard to understand about that term that they just don't get it?

I see Paragwinn has asked idnet for sources for those "quote mines".  Nice idea.  

Couldn't find many with a quick search on Pharyngula.  Here's one from MPR (boldening mine):

Smith: Now, you have been described as belonging to a movement that some people call "new atheism." Is there such a thing and do you like the term?

Myers: No. I'm buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett.

Smith: They do have some sort of soccer team out there or community group with a jersey and a logo.

Myers: What we have is a whole bunch of people who voice their opinions and are looked to as representative of the new atheist movement. And none of them like the term, because we're not new. There's nothing we're saying that Betrand Russell didn't say. This is all the same old stuff . The only difference is that somehow, in the last 10 years or so, more people have woken up and they're speaking out loudly. They're not holding back. I think that's really the only difference is we've got the primal scream therapy of atheism.

New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff and say, "Wake up, wake up, think about this stuff." But it's the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years

Compare this to the "quote mine":

I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. There’s nothing we’re saying that Betrand Russell didn’t say. This is all the same old stuff. The only difference is that we’ve got the primal scream therapy of atheism. New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff. But it’s the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years.

So perhaps I was being harsh before as these really are 'quote mines' in a true sense.  Which just makes idnet dumber than I thought possible to telegraph it.

Date: 2011/06/13 15:57:08, Link
Author: Freddie
Continuing with the theme, from the same MPR interview:
Myers: Well, there's a subtle difference here that what I try to do is promote a conversation that is tolerant. I mean, we do. Think literally about the meaning of the word. We tolerate them, but we do not do is give them a false respect. What this is all about is eroding this unwarranted respect that's given to religion and foolishness like creationism in this country. We back off so much from this and we refuse to confront it. We cover it over with manners and nice words. We shouldn't be doing that. We should be openly dismissing a lot of these bad ideas and doing it loudly and proudly. That's what we do.

But of course the tolerance part is that there's no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective.

Things like religion and creationism do not belong in government. They do not belong in the public schools. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that's perfectly reasonable. That's the tolerance we'll give them.

But if you're telling me that the earth is 6,000 years old, I'm going to call you an idiot.

vs. the 'Quote Mined' version:

Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant.  The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective.  If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

The first sentence in the above came from about 7 or 8 paragraphs earlier in the interview.  

Myers: No, none at all. [laughs] No, I do that all the time. There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. At the same time, when you get to know them, when you talk to them, they're generally nice people. They're your neighbors. They're ordinary people. So I would say, right off the bat, no, this is not about demonizing the individuals. It's about demonizing really, really bad ideas.

There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals.

As I suspect most of not all of the other quotes are similarly constructed I won't bother to deconstruct and compare them.  I'm hardly surprised, though.

Date: 2011/06/14 10:50:50, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (KCdgw @ June 14 2011,10:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 14 2011,10:06)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2011,10:00)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 14 2011,15:54)
Quote (Henry J @ June 14 2011,09:47)
It won't impress the low level IDiots, like tsmith, but it represents a fact that the UDers have to face and somehow get around on a daily basis. It seems to be driving Gil, especially, bonkers.

That's probably a short drive.

(Did I say that?)

It's definitely just a putt.

Trying to get the ball rolling on some pun cascade, I see. I know how it is, I'm a member of the club. let's have it rough!

That's just not cricket.

This isn't bowling me over.

Rather than a short drive I believe it is a fair way!

Date: 2011/06/15 07:32:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (olegt @ June 15 2011,06:34)
Lewontin: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

Priceless.  Just ... priceless:
KF: Yesterday, in the P Z Myers quote-mining and distortion thread, ...

Not even a hint of self-awareness of the irony of that opening statement alone. Let alone the other few thousand words of BS where he attempts to justify leaving out those last few sentences as an "act of charity to a distinguished professor".  What a sanctimonious twat.

Date: 2011/06/21 08:22:25, Link
Author: Freddie
This could be the topic for KF's next "He Said It" post on quote-mining.  Gil says ...
I have major proof that evolution is true: I was once a little baby, and now I’m a great big baby! What further proof could be required to support the fact that evolution is true?

Gil's caricatures of evolution are becoming more distant from reality at each telling.  Next he'll be trotting out the old "if we evolved from monkeys then why ...." routine

Date: 2011/06/23 12:48:00, Link
Author: Freddie
I was beginning to think it was just me as no-one else had mentioned it!

Date: 2011/06/24 12:52:53, Link
Author: Freddie
Elizabeth, when you actually make a coherent argument backed by solid empirics, then you will earn my respect that you are posting in good faith, and not before.

Yeah,,,, Elizabeth,,,, why is it that you never spam up every thread on UD by posting a hundred links to batshit insane crazy whack job web sites that 99.9% of readers will just scroll past as fast as they possibly can ,,,, ????  Perhaps then you'll earn my damn respect too!!!!1!

More seriously, I had to look up what empirics meant and definition 1 (of empiric, actually)  appears to have the noun variant as someone who uses empirical methods, which I had guessed was the intended usage.  

Definition 2 (adj.) is interesting as well:

2. (Medicine) a medical quack; charlatan ... An unqualified or dishonest practitioner;

Just saying ,,,,

Date: 2011/06/26 08:37:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Great quote (-mine) from KF.  sig-worthy I think.
What have we been collectively smoking? Whatever it is, it makes the strongest sensi I have seen pale beside it. I think we have been in a cave full of laced incense and fed on clever stories that the bewitching mind-drugs have made seem real.

The irony is strong in this one ...

BTW - I consider it an act of charity and kindness to KF by leaving out the surrounding text.  I think he could hardly complain about that.

Date: 2011/06/30 16:14:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 30 2011,15:58)
Gordon and BA77 are on notice from PaV:
You’ve placed a rather extended quote in your post (which will be deleted the next time it happens—we don’t need anything of that length that doesn’t apply directly) which simply tells us of the bias of the lead author. That only makes his concession all that more remarkable

Oh, wait. That's not directed at BA77 at all! It's directed at a poster (ahem!) who pointed out that the authors of a study that Pav thinks he is using to put another nail in the coffin of Darwinism in fact could not disagree more with PaV.


And that in a post right after 4 other posts from batshite who spews 2,000 words much of which is his oft-repeated link farm to quantum woo he's collected.  Obviously this is not ... [something] of that length that doesn’t apply directly.

Who knew?

Date: 2011/07/01 04:51:20, Link
Author: Freddie
Looking for assistance in parsing this one from Robert Byers ...  Google translate was no help at all.  Any ideas gratefully received
I notice too that liberals etc openly or quietly sincerely think they are morally and intellectually above the rest.
Yet I find this is common in history and from my own side.
Is it true that collective opinions show collective moral/intellectual differences?
I do believe myself that my fellow evangelical Christians are and live at a higher moral standard then anyone else on earth.
I do also believe that the original people of north america are more intelligent then any identity that has not assimulated into the our flow.
in short the British/Yankee/Protestant identity in north america. That would include any other people as long as they became the same people by assimulation.
No Hyphenism.

Is it true???
We all think so and so assertions openly or quietly should be suffered.
Let the best man win.

Date: 2011/07/01 11:55:00, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (damitall @ July 01 2011,10:45)
And in the same "junk DNA" thread...

Mung flails helplessly

Barb needs reading remediation, to relieve the confusion between "ethologist" and "ethnologist"

That thread is a rich vein of comedy gold!

Potential tard fight brewing.
Thanks mung for your continued stabs in the back. I’m building quite the knife collection.

Date: 2011/07/01 16:47:22, Link
Author: Freddie
Okay, which one of you guys is sonfaro?  
Thanks KF.

Not big on long winded Theological defenses on UD either, but what can you do? I wish there was a sub-forum for that kind of thing: “Uncommon Descent – theological implications” or something. Something to keep the main page from getting cluttered with Judeao-Christian apologetics.

- Sonfaro

Date: 2011/07/04 17:17:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Tomorrow?  Tomorrow he will have woken up to a whole herd of horses heads in his bed.  Well, not quite whole of course.

Nice reference to page 94 ;-)

Date: 2011/07/06 14:45:28, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 06 2011,14:29)
Quote (JohnW @ July 06 2011,13:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2011,10:50)
Gordon E Mullings can't be happy with a google search for his name:

#5 on that list wins.

The numbers may not match, so I am cutting and pasting some good anagrams for Gordon E Mullings:

Gulled Monsignor
Smouldering Long
Lending Logos Rum
Design Gull Moron
Golden Groin Slum
Mulled Groin Song
Demon Ruling Logs
Dull Sermon Going

May as well anagram the TKI that goes with GEM:

out erotic anus fetish kit
curious kitten oat fetish
fatuous trite thick noise
out hot air infest cue skit
huckster oaf into suit tie

Design Mug Roll On
No Grim Sullen God

Date: 2011/07/06 15:01:53, Link
Author: Freddie
This looks like it is going to be a good thread:
I would say that strong atheism is patently irrational, since there is no evidence that a god of any sort doesn’t exist

Are there any other things where there is also no evidence that those things don’t exist?

What else is in that set?

Oh, and:

Old Lose Gig Mr Nun
Old Gem Go Inn Slur
Old Ogle Ring Ms Nu
Droll Men Guns Go I

Date: 2011/07/07 15:27:58, Link
Author: Freddie
mung could be next in line for a visit from the loudspeaker in the ceiling.  He's managed to piss off both batshite and Ilion in the past few days, now he's gunning for StephenB by channeling PaV:
mung [to StephenB]:

Go away little man.


- Mung: “Here’s more of your own words:

“But yes, Meyer in those texts is confused (and confusing).”

Those are your words @58. I never said them nor would I ever say them. I am going to be charitable here and assume that you are getting a little rattled and that you didn’t really mean to purposely tell an outright lie. So, if you offer a quick apology for inadvertently attributing your comment to me, all will be well. I will even give you a pass on this:

—Go away little man.”

Did you pick that one up from Ilion, who was responding to Mike:

—”You should go bother someone else.”

He seems to have won your heart.

—Mung to Ilion @42: “grr…Ilion”

—Ilion to Mung @47: “grr yourself, Mung”

You two ought to get a room.

Date: 2011/07/07 16:10:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (KCdgw @ July 07 2011,15:51)
Quote (Patrick @ July 07 2011,15:39)
Quote (Freddie @ July 07 2011,16:27)
mung could be next in line for a visit from the loudspeaker in the ceiling.  He's managed to piss off both batshite and Ilion in the past few days, now he's gunning for StephenB by channeling PaV:

I've come close to calling Poe on Mung several times over the past few months.  Even if he's not an agent provocateur, he's at least more interested in stirring up the rich organic matter of which UD is formed than in constantly and publicly praising the designer.  He also seems to have something resembling a sense of humor, which makes him an anomaly among creationists.

Mung is not a Poe.

TBH I thought the same once.  But he is not a poe.  There are a couple of comments in the Harold Camping thread that I thought were pretty funny - but I think everyone there decided to ignore them.  Just like when Robert Byers fires off another bigoted post.  None of the IDiots know quite how to respond.  Actually re-reading this thread it's good for quite a few lolz.
10:00 pm

Wait! Stop! I Believe!

Jesus, don’t snatch me away, who would take care of my cat!?

4:19 pm

I took my cat in yesterday and had him euthanized. Do you think I went too far? I’m really going to feel bad if this rapture thing doesn’t happen.

But if it does happen, I’m really going to be laughing at all you suckers that got “left behind.”

Date: 2011/07/14 08:05:50, Link
Author: Freddie
Too obvious?



Date: 2011/07/14 14:48:44, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

Date: 2011/07/24 01:11:25, Link
Author: Freddie
The damage done through this sort of unjust public humiliation should not be underestimated, and can in fact be permanent and even suicidally depressive, if the wrong party is picked on like that.

And unfortunately, the people who are likely to be vulnerable to such abuse, give off subtle cues in their behaviour that often invite the sort of verbal bully we are dealing with to act like that.

He thinks he is likely to get away with it.

And so the sadistic tongue comes out like a cracking, cutting, flaying whip, and strikes, again and again, mercilessly wounding the vulnerable soul deeply.

Deeper than mere blows or scars can.

” A man’s spirit bears him up in adversity, but a wounded soul, who can bear?”

What happened in this case is the young miss wisely went to her pastor, who had a line to Mr Arrington, so it has backfired.

He never counted on that.

He’s probably got away with that sort of personalised, warped need for power, sadistic, highly machiavellian thing before.

Gordon, were you there?

Date: 2011/07/26 09:28:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 26 2011,09:01)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 26 2011,08:34)
DaNews is happy and surprised that Nelson and Wells were treated nicely by biologists.  

I imagine there was no time for withering critique, as every exchange began sympathetically with "Aww, doesn't the Discovery Institute have enough money to pay for non-shitty posters?  You poor thing!"

I mean seriously, I've seen undergraduate research projects with better poster design.

I love this comment:

There is a subtle shift in thought going on. ID is not hep-c on a napkin anymore. Not all people are fleeing from it. They are paying attention to the arguments, and many have teeth. But ID needs to be ready for the next stage. Like Nelson said, many people were saying, OK. But now what? What do you propose?

Yes, please do tell.  Just what, exactly, do you people propose?

While you're at it, why do you detail some of those 'arguments' that 'have teeth', because I sure as hell haven't heard them yet.

I think the whole reception thing was more akin to a bunch of grownups

A) being polite to the children who dressed up in big boy clothes

B) modelling correct behavior for said children

C) all the while thinking 'aww, idn't de widdle kiddy coot'

D) "OK now go tear the heads off barbie dolls kiddo, adults have to have a serious talk now."

From the link, Paul Nelson:
The overwhelming response from everyone else was, "OK, Paul -- so what do you propose to do?" Next time I'll be better prepared to step into the opening these questions provide.

I have a hard time believing that was the overwhelming response from participants.  I would have thought it was more along the lines of "what is the detailed ID theory that better explains the evidence and facts that are today best explained by modern evolutionary theory?"

I'm absolutely amazed that he states he didn't have answers prepared for that question.  I mean, how long has he been pushing this agenda and he doesn't know how to answer the simplest, most obvious question about it?  I work in product marketing ... if I wasn't able to answer "off-the-cuff", superficial/detailed questions not only about my product, but about the overall market and the competitive environment I operate in I would be out of a job pretty damn quickly.

Oh, and let's not forget to stoke the whole conspiracy/expelled angle again:
The most exciting exchange I had, near the end of the Sunday afternoon session, I can't describe here, because the biologist who stopped to talk is a hero of mine (really) for the questions she asks, and I don't want her friendliness towards me to cost her anything in her own work. I'll say this, however: the spirit of open inquiry was alive at SDB 2011.

rriiiggghhhhtttttt .....

Date: 2011/08/03 14:53:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 03 2011,13:10)
Quote (Pilchard @ Aug. 03 2011,10:39)
I always thought BA77 was endearingly naive and relatively harmless compared to the vindictiveness of the rest of UD, but in the [URL=

hawking-says-we-are-living-in/#comments]hologram/giant trailer of poop thread[/URL]:
I remember one comment when Hawking’s ‘Grand Design’ first book came out. The guy made it clear he wasn’t being mean spirited, but he honestly wanted to know:

‘if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?’

Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking’s thinking in a direct way.

And after being called out on this:
And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making. Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease. A problem that should be, perspective-wise, a far easier problem to figure out than creating a universe.,,,

The not-subtle implication is that Stephen Hawkins is to blame for suffering from ALS because he arrogantly wanted to figure out the nature of physics instead of doing medical research. BA77 is a disgusting snide little shit.

Elsewhere on the same thread, where the only defence of Hawking is "If you got a problem with Hawking fine, leave the low blows,it is distasteful" from velikovskys, Ilion musters up some outrage:
What? Hawking gets a free pass because he’s crippled?

Ah, this is just a recycling of "though I can speak with the tongue of angels, have beaucoup $$$, yet if I lose my soul, I have nada," yadda, yadda. Obviously there's some jealousy going on here as well - nobody is really speaking very angelically over at UDeath.

PS - I saved your post from the purple post URL eater. :)

This is also disgusting:

David Klinghoffer:
It's fair to assume that Hawking's installation as atheist guru is attributable mostly to his evocative, camera-ready physical handicap and cinematically eerie computer-generated voice, which someone seems to have tweaked lately to make it sound even eerier. He's not only a media darling but a media creation. Less readily dismissed is the recognition that Dr. Lennox has received as, some have said, a contemporary C.S. Lewis. Lennox is a most unusual combination of brilliance, accessibility, grandfatherly Irish warmth, and sheer charm.

What is wrong with these people?

Date: 2011/08/07 04:12:08, Link
Author: Freddie
Comment 42 is, of course by KF, aka Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat aka Kairosfocus aka GEM of TKI aka dictionary. I wonder if he'll take the bait ... or turn the other cheek.  I'm betting on the former.
9:37 am
Miss Priss @ 42 “The use of vulgarities or profanities will open the door to that deterioration of atmosphere that is exactly what we do not want.”

If Miss Priss is objecting to BA’s post #41, there is no other way to have said what he meant to say. Moreover, there was nothing at all objectionable, nor profane, nor vulgar about BA’s use of ‘damn’ in that post.

Hell! (that was vulgar) I wonder, has Miss Priss ever read some of the things that God is recorded in the Bible to have said?

Date: 2011/08/12 05:00:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 12 2011,04:50)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 12 2011,01:12)
Unpleasant Blowhard is doing what he does best. Sample:
All that effort, yet its still both painfully and immediately obvious that you haven’t read what it is you are critisizing; you don’t know what you are talking about. You can trust me on this because I’ve read every paper cited by that article.

Emphasis in original.
There's more.

It is no more.

No, it's just the link that is broken.

What happens is that, if the URL for the UD page is too long and you preview your post before you hit Add Reply, then the preview function inserts a line break (<br>) into the middle of the URL. Therefore the URL is now incorrect.  The way to fix it after you preview is to manually delete the line break in the URL just before hitting Add Reply (and of course do not 'preview' the post again as this will just cause the same error again).

Date: 2011/08/12 05:01:41, Link
Author: Freddie
Well that worked ... not.  

Hmmm, it's always worked that way for me before.  Oh well, alternatively just remove the <br> from the URL in the browser address bar once the 404 error comes up :-(

Date: 2011/08/25 06:48:01, Link
Author: Freddie
More irony from KF

F/N: I add that I am a lot less than comfortable with someone based in one country seeking to directly influence the course of the politics in another country ...

... says Gordon E. Mullings of MONTSERRAT

Date: 2011/10/01 11:07:28, Link
Author: Freddie
Come on, Darwinists, you’re going to have to come up with something better than this. As the cop said when he caught the fellow stuck in a narrow window of a house where nobody knew him

Wellerism Fail?

Date: 2011/10/12 07:45:11, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 12 2011,05:40)
Reasons to be cheerful. Mullings has just laid a giant two-page post at UD with the catchy title...
ID Foundations, 8: Switcheroo — the error of asserting without adequate observational evidence that the design of life (from OOL on) is achievable by small, chance- driven, success- reinforced increments of complexity leading to the iconic tree of life.

The best part of course is that nobody at all is going to bother reading all that dreck. Lewontin spotters are in for a treat, though.

I suspect he knows that long URL's play havoc with the AtBC board software ... clever bastard.

Date: 2011/10/13 15:06:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 13 2011,12:20)
I don't have time to read Dembski's newest but according to the summary page he remains the same arrogant Dr. Dr.:      
instead of trying to get the wrong people to do the right thing, make it impossible for the wrong people to keep the right people from doing the right thing.

Dr Dr  
The first thing I will focus on is money. Money is a social technology, but its current technological sophistication is still in the dark ages, despite the fact that computers rather than abacuses now count it. I’m going to propose a radically decentralized, information-based form of money that owes nothing to the state. Stay tuned.

Is this the part where he demands $20K to tell us the answer and then runs away as fast as possible?

Date: 2011/10/25 04:38:47, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 25 2011,03:38)
BornAgain 77 is NOT a Young Earth Creationist, although ...        
Even though the Grand Canyon does not even closely pertain to the main argument of ID, specifically “where did the stunning, jaw dropping, integrated information of the cell come from since material processes have NEVER been observed generating ANY functional information whatsoever, and only Intelligence has been observed, routinely, generating such information?” (Its not that hard of a question Eugenie!),,, none-the-less, the evidence of a cataclysmic flood in the Grand Canyon is fairly extensive. And even though I don’t hold the young earth model as correct for all the geology of earth, I do find the evidence for a cataclysmic flood in the Grand Canyon to be very persuasive, and more importantly, I find the alternative view, promulgated by most neo-Darwinists, of ‘gradual formation’ of the Grand Canyon, to be completely untenable to the evidence in hand
... maybe for SOME of the Earth's geology.



P.S. You've been told that variation and natural selection are the source of the information in the cell innumerable times and in innumerable ways, but possibly you were watching videos every single time and missed it.

In the same thread from DrREC ... priceless, if correct:
I believe the individual described by Evolution News and Views: “As spokesman for the view that evolution is best taught with reference to the controversy over intelligent design, the film casts an unidentified black man missing what looks like half his teeth and speaking ungrammatically with an accent so thick he actually gets subtitles.”

Is Dr. Femi S. Otulaja, PhD CUNY, creationist, and an individual who refused to teach evolution to his students. He happened to be the filmaker’s PROFESSOR in college, and a motivation behind the film.

If David Klinghoffer sees an educated foreigner who played a role in this controversy and embraced it as a “unidentified black man missing what looks like half his teeth and speaking ungrammatically” that might speak more to his racism than the film’s.

Date: 2011/10/25 16:27:50, Link
Author: Freddie
kellyholmes (I heart kellyholmes - which one of you is he/she?) posts a link to this new blog.  One for the bookmarks ...

Child Burning Deviants

Date: 2011/10/25 16:32:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 25 2011,16:27)
kellyholmes (I heart kellyholmes - which one of you is he/she?) posts a link to this new blog.  One for the bookmarks ...

Child Burning Deviants

Forgot to include the original quote


He is simply not talking in terms of reliable predictions, but in terms of material explanations, and indeed say the FSCI criterion, Chi_500 = I*S – 500 bits beyond the solar system threshold, is quite reliable where we can test it.

Really? Where can you test the FSCI criterion?

The funny thing about FSCI is that, as others have noted, you have essentially made it up to support your argument.

Yet in the last month or so you are the only person who has talked about it, really, at all. It’s not exactly setting the ID world on fire so how can it possibly be expected to make headway in the reality based community?

For example, in the last month or so (give or take) FSCI has been mentioned by the following people other then you:

Upright Biped (once)
DrRec (once)
William J Murrary (once)
rhampton7 (three times!)
And you’ve used it around 25 times in that time.

Nobody cares about your fake metrics which can’t actually be applied to anything anyway because you stole the whole idea from some protein paper anyway and point to that when you are asked to calculate it. You don’t need to calculate it because they already have, right?


Anyway, see for youself who has mentioned FSCI and any other words you like by reading this blog post I stumbled over:

Date: 2011/10/26 12:16:00, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 26 2011,11:26)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 25 2011,20:45)
Final comment on that thread:
I will not reward that behaviour, so I will now shut down comments, and add responses in brief overnight to what requires a reasonable comment for record, as editorial notes.


I'm quietly playing IDiot bingo here by myself.  What's the proper armchair psychologist term for Gordon's fear and loathing of open discussion combined with his assumption that he has the authority to reward and punish other participants?  Is "being an ignorant, dishonest, cowardly ass" too technical a term?

Well speaking as an armchair psychiatrist in the truest sense of the phrase (and with the appropriate nod and apologies to those that do know what they are talking about here), I used to think Narcissistic Personality Disorder but I think based on more recent posts I would have to go with Paranoid Personality Disorder. Wikipedia states :
Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others.

Those with the condition are hypersensitive, are easily slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions to validate their prejudicial ideas or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, disregarding any facts. They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their incapacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.

Of course, it's possible that there are elements of both in there somewhere.

Date: 2011/10/26 12:29:34, Link
Author: Freddie
Damn - just when you've made one armchair diagnosis, another one with a better fit comes along.  Try Fanatic Narcissist to see if it fits.
Fanatic narcissist - including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

Bolding mine.  Top that, someone!

Date: 2011/11/01 07:51:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2011,06:45)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 01 2011,07:17)
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 31 2011,09:30)
Sorry, that was GinoB, not Chas D.

This is amazing!  From the same archy thread, BA77 has a link to a video that's actually worth watching!!

An owl, flying directly towards the camera at 1000 frames per second.  I pity any small rodents that ever see a sight like this.

Owls are proof that God hates mice.

Yeah he doesn't give a hoot.

Wisecracks like that will put you in contempt of parliament ...

Date: 2011/11/02 02:07:49, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 01 2011,17:14)
DrBot is [URL=


I assume now you will proceed to deface this post, like you do to the posts of others who disagree with you?

Followed shortly thereafter by this appearing in his comment:
{Ed: Dr Bot, of course is failing to note that this is a case of blood libel being dealt with. The attempt at immoral equivalency in that context is a sad case of enabling behaviour. And to make an editorial remark, yet again, is not to “deface” a post.}

In the same thread from KF regarding Prof Dawkins:
if Dr Craig were a UK resident and were so minded, he would be in every position to undertake a serious case in High Court for Libel with anti-religious bigotry as aggravating circumstances.

There's nothing to stop someone who is not a British national from being a plaintiff in a British court.  In fact, British courts are often used to settle disputes between two non-Brits with only the most tenuous of circumstances giving some kind of jurisdiction (see the current Abramovitch case).

Montserrat, on the other hand, is a British Overseas Territory, and perhaps people who live there that regularly spew poisonous invective on a US-based web site should perhaps consider their own position with respect to the making of potentially libellous statements.

In Other News: I don't think we ever found out what happened the last time the nuke tripwire was tripped, although the idea that yet more spittle has been released seems to fit the data.  In fact, he's outdone himself again and gone so far as to make a post with a URL so long that it causes a double <br> error in the links.  Outstanding!

Date: 2011/11/03 16:23:49, Link
Author: Freddie
... and further clarifies a few things for us:



To apply signs of something, we must first observe the signs.

Once present, per tests we have carried out, the signs are reliable. (As in, deer tracks point to deer.)

What about when the signs are NOT present — as in no deer tracks are there, so deer tracks are not reliable signs of deer — is a strawman fallacy distraction.


Hmmm.  What about someone who lays down false deer tracks pretending to be a deer ... or "something".

Date: 2011/11/09 14:33:01, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 09 2011,12:35)

atters/]Tales from the Quote Mine[/URL].

I think Denyse is a bit unclear on the concept.  Either that or refreshingly honest for an IDCist.

I noted twice before that when the IDiots use the term "quote-mine" most of them do so without the slightest understanding or awareness of what the term is meant to imply.

In this example, posted a quite blatantly quote-mined set of statements from an interview with PZ Myers ... and then even stated in the thread title that it was a quote mine with no sense of irony or awareness whatsoever.  He was rightly called on it by paragwinn as the full interview was readily available online.  I recall this might well have lead to some members of this house practising their own quote-mine techniques on IDiotspeak statements from UD.

PZ Open Cut Quote Mines

Note the very last entry in that thread by KF on July 1st:

Somebody out there on the other side should have enough sense out there to know that you don’t cross a nuke tripwire line.

They just did.

This may well be the first (but not the last) time the nuke tripwire was crossed.

Then, KF got close to an understanding during the Lewontin quote wars when he attempted to justify leaving out those last couple of lines of the oft-repeated passage on the basis that it would be a kindness to the author not to include them.  

Sad, onlookers, very sad.

Date: 2011/11/09 14:47:56, Link
Author: Freddie
And, for my 100th post (Ta-Da!) I present you the following:
159 Sonfaro:

@ CannuckianYankee,

-”Hitler died in 45 though”.

So the 40s.

Even more hilarious.

(To be fair though, RationalWiki is under the impression that ID is creationism in a tux so… wait a minute, how is that fair?)

((also… sorry about the WWII slip up. I just got through shaking my head when a vet told a story about being introduced as a war vet from ‘World War Eleven’ and I do this. Sign of the times I guess…))


And thanks! Pop wouldn’t be so thrilled I’m arguing on the internet but hey, at least I haven’t forgotten everything.

- Sonfaro

160 CannuckianYankee


Well, if he tries to pull you away at any point, just say: “I can’t. There’s an idiot online.”

(that’s not directed at anyone in particular – just humor, and a quote mine.)

The prosecution rests.

Date: 2011/11/10 07:38:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 10 2011,06:12)
Robert Byers: Poet?        
I am YEC.
It amuses me and I welcome the recent great discrediting of evolution by associating it with Nazism.
What can the establishment say?
They have to respect a seemly likely connection.
Surely evolution and Hitler were dancing together.

Yet i am sure evolution was not the origin for the big killing agendas.
It justified to the public and upper middle classes there the attempt to exalt German identity.
The upper middle classes needed,as in our day, educated ideas to justify German being the bestism.
Lower classes easily accept those things.

It made sense from a evolutionary view that selection makes desirable fixed traits.
In fact all the time today people uses phrases like ITS IN THE GENES for something positive or negative. Not free will.

yet the killing of people was in fact just to get rid of them.
not purifying the race. thats just excuse.
They could of deported the gypsies.
The Jews were claimed to be killed to solve the Jewish problem .
The problem being seen as a small foreign identity controling and striving to destroy germany and European civilization in order to replace it with a Jewish one. It was believed they could do it.
That was the claim as I have heard.
in fact the real object was simply to destroy a people who had prevailed over a native population and become the master.
It was envy(which is hatred) and hatred against a dominating foreign people/race.
They were furious at Jewish superiority because, I say, they ,Hitler, believed they had proven to be superior men. A superior race.
So they grasped to prove they were the superior race but in their own hearts believed they were beat by the Jew.
They misintrepretated Jewish achievement.

One could say better that it was evolutionary presumptions that made Hitler and company believe the Jews were a superior race( and coupled with sincerely seeing them as a threat to their civilization, nation, people) and led to a murderous determination to get rid of them from earh.

Modern North America mirrors these things somewhat.
Segregated identities within a boundary, segregated results in achievement , and determination to interfere or not interfere for the desirable results relative to identity.
The modern liberal establishment, Obama world, and some conservative/republican are all living evolutionary construct of right and wrong answers in organizing mankind.

We report, you decide.


I am YEC.

Hello YEC! <waves>
It amuses me and I welcome the recent great discrediting of evolution by associating it with Nazism.

Yes, because "Nazism" is kind of amusing if you look at it in that light ...
What can the establishment say?
They have to respect a seemly likely connection.

How about "You are an incomprehensible bigot"?
Surely evolution and Hitler were dancing together.

I think that was Eva, not Eve or Evolution

... continues forever.  Often a Byers comment seems to shut down a thread as no-one knows how to respond to his screed but can't ignore it if they post.  Maybe there is a friendly, woollen (or cotton .. no discrimination here ... just no blended materials, please), voice over there that can pump it up some.

Date: 2011/11/10 11:27:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,11:24)
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 09 2011,21:46)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,12:21)
I am sure the Designer will get around to completing the GULO project, he just has more important things to do now, such as not appearing anywhere, and making images of his son on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Those images tend to be really grainy. I can barley make them out.

That's remark was a bit corny.

Maize non!  Just a little OA-T-T  !!

Date: 2011/11/11 10:09:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Gil brings up his Dawkins-style Atheist background again along with several other standard stories from his limited repertoire, gets slapped around the head with it by eigenstate then responds with ...
It was for that daughter that I bought a cartoon video in 1994 entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. I had no idea who C.S. Lewis was, but figured out that the story was a Christian allegory. As it turned out, many years earlier a Christian friend of my wife had given her a copy of Mere Christianity for me to read, knowing that I was an atheist, but I never opened it, shelved it, and forgot all about it. Shortly after I viewed the cartoon video I discovered the book and read it.

During that same period I was arguing with a Christian friend (who gave me a Bible, which I still have and take to church every Sunday) about Darwinism. He suggested I read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, which I did.

A young child, a cartoon, three books, and a good friend — everything went downhill rapidly after that!

My bold.  I'm liking the new ending to this tired old story!

Date: 2011/11/18 13:27:57, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (eigenstate @ Nov. 17 2011,19:48)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 17 2011,17:06)

ONLOOKERS.  Regrettably, the poor conduct of the atheistic and materialistic hyperskepticalists has now progressed beyond all bounds of civilized behavior.  

1.  Observe, please, the reference to the "ball" being in KF's "court."  Wikipedia, always a reliable reference, informs us that the root form of the word "ball" "may have been a cognate with the Latin foll-is in the sense of a 'thing blown up or inflated.'"  It is therefore apparently that OMITSDDI is calling KF inflated, as in full of hot air, as in by implication and reverse nonimplication a liar.  

2.  Moreover, the wikipedia page for "court" refers to "inquisitorial systems," clearly making OMITSDDI's comment an accusation that KF is an inquisitor, in other words a torturer, which is base slander, as torture is an atheistic and materialistic practice.

3.  Such vicious, uncivilized, brutal attacks on KF's righteous person are in no way justified by the simple fact that he has not told the truth, about which atheists can not complain in any event, being unprincipled dog-botherers and child molesters who love nothing more than making unwarranted personal insults.

4.  As with eigenstate, these vicious, unwarranted (and indeed, prohibited by the lack of materialist warrant) attacks on KF's integrity are utterly transparent.  Onlookers need only google a word or phrase used in these hyperskepticalists' sub rosa attacks, select an offensive word or phrase from one of the resulting results, and observe the ad hominem strawman that results once that word or phrase is substituted into the original comment.  

5.  This will no longer stand.  I urge you, please, look at your conduct and see what grievous harm you are doing to all concepts of truth and dignity, before you provoke a just and righteous bloodstorm of retribution.  


6(a).  I MEAN IT.  BYDAND.

--Learned Focus

(P.S.  Seriously.  BYDAND.)

LOL. That's worth registering just to give that a thumbs up.

So, that engagement didn't last long.

Welcome (with Hons) !!

Your (regrettably) few posts over there are (were?) some of the best i've read there both for their clear thinking and ability to nail your points home.

The exact antithesis of most of the rest of that thread, then ...

Date: 2011/11/23 16:48:24, Link
Author: Freddie
Bit of a tard fight (well, spat, really) going on here.  Finishes with a long sentence, mostly, with, single, commas, from batshite but worth reading to the end:
Well Scott,, since science is basically a ‘spiritual endeavor’ on the part of man, using reasoning, logic, and ‘directed experimentation’ to master, and understand, the material world around him, and since Christ, through ‘spiritual endeavor’, defeated the material death of his human body, and was given ‘all power in heaven and earth’ as a result, as all Christians hold as true, I’m fairly certain that makes Him the greatest living master science teacher of all reality.

Yep, there's no arguing with that logic!

Date: 2011/12/31 17:43:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Granville Sewell:
Good Lord Elizabeth, you always go after the perifery in order to avoid the main point.

Say, what?  Elizabeth responds and provides the correct spelling.  Granville ignores her and compounds the error - guess he knows best!
The fact that VWs don’t reproduce, or that we don’t find the designer’s tools lying around the fossils IS completely “periferal”.

Later in the same thread - KF finally spells out the basis for an ID research program ...
In short, we need to pause and look seriously at what is going on in that living cell.

Yes, we too can mine those quotes.  Happy New Year everyone ... may the tard never stop flowing!

Date: 2012/01/10 14:51:54, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 10 2012,12:28)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 10 2012,11:57)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 10 2012,11:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 10 2012,10:03)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 10 2012,09:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 10 2012,09:13)
Joe's comment on that is so funny.  

EVERY paper supports ID, if only 'scientists' could see it like us ID-proponents do (i.e. with complete misunderstanding).

Every now and then, Joe surprises me with a brainwave - well, sort of. He seems to have realised that there was something terribly wrong with Denews' so-called "milestone".

Realizing something is wrong and correctly identifying the wrong bit are two entirely different skills.

Great fun - is has dawned on DeNews that the milestone is just a hole in the ground. So she hurries to open a new thread to put things right.        
Having been on this beat for a decade now, I can safely say that no one who is not involved can have any idea how difficult an achievement that is, in the face of a corrupt, tenured establishment that is unashamed to use outright suppression.
As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed. That’s the usual way with any endeavour in science, of course. But in a corrupt environment, success means hewing the party line and failure means departing from it. So rational analysis will remain impossible in many venues.

It surprised me that this post contained so many grammatical, understandable sentences. Except for the reference to 'this beat', 'Darwin troll' (that's me!), and "'crats", she mostly avoids her trademark writing quirks.

You can do it, Denyse! Stay off the sauce a little longer, please.

So, how is it that she can simultaneously congratulate ID for making "Darwinism" "fail" while bitching that a monolithic, censorious conspiracy is preventing ID from succeeding? Anyone? Anyone? *cough* Doublethink? Anyone? ;)

It’s interesting to follow the pattern of the last five years or so:

2006: Dissent from Darwin is becoming more open among professionals

2007: Darwinist efforts to stifle the ID community are failing

What a shame she didn't go back and check the pattern from about 6 years and 21 days ago ... that day was certainly more significant to the ID community.

Date: 2012/01/17 16:56:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Another avenue with a tremendous opportunity for new laughs opens up ...
There is evidence for ancient astronauts. More evidence for taht [sic] then [sic] your position has!

He's wrong again, I distinctly remember Darwin addressing this in his works:
"It is interesting to contemplate a small nebula, clothed with much dark matter and with quasars of many kinds, with gas giants surrounding new suns, with various alien life-forms flitting about, and with giant space worms crawling through the asteroid belts, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."

According to the rules of ID sciencey speak that passage constitutes clear evidence that outweighs yours.  So we win.  Or something.  errrrr .... ALL HAIL DARWIN!!

Date: 2012/01/17 17:01:24, Link
Author: Freddie
Oh yes, and Upright Biped is a slimy, lying, hypocritical, misogynist douchebag.  But you knew that already, of course.

Date: 2012/01/18 16:23:09, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

Date: 2012/01/19 14:01:40, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 19 2012,11:52)
Meanwhile, the clueless gpooch  keeps responding with more dFSCI drivel to the banninated Peter Griffin.

Is it co-incidence, I wonder, that PG appears to have been silenced at the very moment pooch gives us his worked example of dFSCI as applied to PG's example?

Or maybe it was this exchange that did it ...

If you really count that as empirical confirmation that your inference is correct I’m bloody glad you are not my doctor!

Well, I am bloody glad you are not my patient.

Date: 2012/01/21 12:39:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Commenter Eugene S gives the game away:

That is a tard different kettle of fish. It’s strange that you don’t see the obvious distinction. I strongly believe that whenever there’s code, the coder must have come first. Rules that complex systems – such as biological machinery – obey are not the same as physical laws. Say, I have an electric switch on the wall. It is clear that its existence is not necessitated by the existence of Ohm’s law.

My emphasis ... bet he wishes he had an edit button.

Date: 2012/01/21 12:45:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Joe resurrects the "argument from crocoduck:"
OK so according to Shubin he was NOT looking for a transitional form, rather he was looking for evidence of the transition which HE said would be between two data points-> fish and no tetrapods and fish and tetrapods.
Unfortunately Tiktaalik was found in strata in which both fish and tetrapods existed.

Emphasis mine.  You can't make stuff up any better than this.

Date: 2012/01/27 11:58:06, Link
Author: Freddie
subkumquat: Robin, have you read Understanding Exposure by Peterson? If not, I highly recommend it. The light in your photos is pretty flat. You can try flash with a better beamer or something along those lines to help a bit. Playing around with levels, curves, saturation, and the like in post would help a bit too.

I bought myself a Canon 550D with the kit 18-55mm and the lower-end Canon 55-250mm IS zoom at Christmas - my first SLR of any kind.  I was also recommended that book and bought it (it's not expensive).

After reading the first 40 pages everything I had once thought I kind of understood in my previous amateur and fuzzy knowledge of exposure settings became crystallized in my head and made complete sense.  Suddenly, I actually knew what I was doing when I adjusted a setting in Manual mode.  It's a great book full of quite excellent information and beautiful pictures and I would also highly recommend it.

Now, all I need is a day when the sun is shining in the UK and I can use the bloody knowledge.  I've managed to get out with the camera just twice this month as it's been grey and damp here for weeks.

Date: 2012/02/01 01:49:32, Link
Author: Freddie
KF has gone quiet on that thread (and Gil seems to have slunk off with tail between legs too). I think he noticed that, out of all the UD regulars, he and Joe are the only ones responding there - not a lot of support - even batshit only spammed a single post before realizing something was up.

My ID prediction:

Within a day or two we will see a new "She Said It" OP from KF, consisting of >3000 words concerning the amorality of Elizabeth Liddle and non-christians in general, deconstructing quote-mined phrases  from her comments at great length and once again expounding the same outraged indignation regarding the lyrics of Hysteria.  There will be honourable mentions for Plato, Aristotle and Alinsky, but Lewontin will not make an appearance.

Apologies and retractions: there will be none.  As others have pointed out, KF (in my knowledge in 6 years of following UD) has never, ever admitted being wrong about anything.  He doubles (or quasi-quadruples) down every time, as predictable as an atomic clock.

JoeG will, of course be the only other mainstream UD poster to follow KF into the fray with any gusto on the new thread.  This is because:

(a) JoeG knows that without sucking up to KF he would soon get booted from UD again (although by now surely everyone must know the banned Joseph has turned up again as 'Joe' - he could only maintain his new, civilized veneer for a few days yet he is of course allowed to continue spewing garbage).

This is all the stranger given that come the theocratic revolution JoeG will likely be first up against KF's outhouse wall as an undesirable element.

(b) JoeGs insecurity regarding intelligent women will also compel him to respond reactively and viciously to every single post from Febble.

Not much of a longshot prediction, I know ... but it's all I got!

Date: 2012/02/01 13:39:06, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 01 2012,12:18)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,01:49)
This is all the stranger given that come the theocratic revolution JoeG will likely be first up against KF's outhouse wall as an undesirable element.

Ack... bad mental imagine.  Where's the brain bleach?

For future safety purposes, please avoid associating the words KF, JoeG, and up against.  Thank you.

Ah sorry - UK cultural reference which I guess didn't make the Atlantic crossing so well.  Power to the People!

Citizen Smith

And more!

But you've ruined it for me forever - have to go and scrub brain now.

Date: 2012/02/01 15:33:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 01 2012,14:36)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,13:39)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 01 2012,12:18)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,01:49)
This is all the stranger given that come the theocratic revolution JoeG will likely be first up against KF's outhouse wall as an undesirable element.

Ack... bad mental imagine.  Where's the brain bleach?

For future safety purposes, please avoid associating the words KF, JoeG, and up against.  Thank you.

Ah sorry - UK cultural reference which I guess didn't make the Atlantic crossing so well.  Power to the People!

Citizen Smith

And more!

But you've ruined it for me forever - have to go and scrub brain now.

I'm trying to figure out what part of this is a UK cultural reference.  Not "up against the wall", surely?

Nah ... Woolfie from Citizen Smith (Robert Lindsay).  

Although there is also that memorable up against the wall scene with Leslie Ash in Quadrophenia .... however it would be considered a bit tame by the censors these days I guess.

Date: 2012/02/02 03:16:36, Link
Author: Freddie
But the documentary had some weaknesses. The seven or so minutes devoted to the Nazis and their assimilation of Darwinian theory and its basis in the Holocaust seemed misplaced. Not that there isn’t a connection, but bringing up the Nazis invariably causes the temperature to rise and the train of an argument to be lost. Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design. This, to me, was the biggest weakness of the movie. So, ID is marginalized and its proponents vilified. But what has it accomplished to show that it doesn’t deserve that treatment? This needed to be spelled out.


I think they tried that, couldn't find 7 seconds worth of material let alone 7 minutes and decided "screw it, let's go with the Nazi angle ...:"

Wes has an honorable mention ..
Rubes, shouting in: Barbara Forrest! Robert Pennock! Wesley Elsberry! [Rubes told to hush their dam mouths, they dunno what they’re talking about.]

Funny, I have no idea what he/she/it is talking about either.

Date: 2012/02/02 08:07:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 02 2012,07:25)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 02 2012,03:16)
Wes has an honorable mention ..
Rubes, shouting in: Barbara Forrest! Robert Pennock! Wesley Elsberry! [Rubes told to hush their dam mouths, they dunno what they’re talking about.]

Funny, I have no idea what he/she/it is talking about either.

That is an honorable mention. Short-listed with Forrest and Pennock... I'll take it!

One for the scrapbook.  When I looked closer that quote is not in the original article but has been inserted by Dense in her post as if it is, with no other attribution.  The poorest sort of journalism - and I use the 'J' word as loosely as possible, of course, in exactly the same way I would use the 'I' word, Integrity, in her case.

I'm surprised she used the word dam as well, but as she likely intentionally spelled it incorrectly she'll maybe get away with it on judgment day.

Date: 2012/02/03 10:50:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2012,21:40)
Timeatus breaks new ground as exceptionally articulate asshole. He addresses Liz Liddle's arguments by, well, discussing Liz. And nothing but Liz. For a petulant 900+ words.

He closes by confessing that he is put off because Liz blogs to an extent he finds irresponsible for a research scientist:
I think it is irresponsible for anyone to take a salary for teaching and research and spend more than a few hours a week wrangling about evolution on the internet...I say all of this because you have obviously detected that there is more in my posts than merely scientific disagreement.

Have they not considered the possibility that Dr. Liddle is actually conducting her research by posting at UD?  Perhaps the UD denizens should scan recent research grants at the University of Nottingham (where I am proud to say my daughter started as an undergrad this year) to see if there is any correlation.

Date: 2012/02/07 14:13:06, Link
Author: Freddie
Ha ha ... Byers should do stand-up with lines like these:
Only biblical creationism is worthy.
Not foreign religfions[sic].

Date: 2012/02/09 15:11:13, Link
Author: Freddie
keiths ... well played.  I very much enjoyed and appreciated your darned woolly posts at the asylum.  Champion Champignon indeed!

Date: 2012/02/09 15:34:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 09 2012,15:29)
those lubejobs can't stand to lose any regular commenters lest they have to make their own socks in order to have a quorum for occupying the moral high ground

Speaking of which ...

Date: 2012/02/10 04:56:53, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,03:54)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 10 2012,03:39)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 09 2012,21:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 09 2012,15:50)
which one of you guys is Zoe again


shit is too coherent to be batshit

too complicated to be joe

Not enough hate for KF

not sure about KF. Back in 2009 I speculated if KairosFocus aka Gordon Elliot Mullings aka dictionary is identical with Zoe based on quite some evidence.

You may be right, sparc. This sentence of Zoe's has the stench of KF all over it:
The only religious Worlview, across comparative difficulties, premised on warranted, credible facts and evidence, that meet and sustain to, all three of test, is the Historic Judeo/christian Worldview.

And check this out:
And, Zoe is speaking in outline of worldview foundations... He has put forth a serious and provocative thesis... Zoe has also said something very important... And, as Zoe points out...

There is other evidence that "Zoe" is Gordon. Zoe has repeatedly posted this chestnut, or fragments thereof, at the blog "Barbados Underground," supplying a Caribbean connection. Links to examples follow, although click with care, as these are slow loading, Flash laden pages that cause my browser to beachball for quite some time:

Examples here and here.

Somebody posting as Carlos Jordon has posted a version here.

And indeed in response to one of Zoe's repetitions on Barbados Underground another commenter states:
You see. this is a struggle for me and I dont want to be drawn into this argument (been there, done that with GP, Carlos, Gem of TKI etc.)

On Gordon's own blag he links to and extensively quotes comments from a page on Barbados Underground. Although not quoted, those comments include yet another copy of Zoe's sermon on truth. (Another commenter named technician IS* quoted responding, "@ Zoe…..please dont start with your crap !!!")

Further, on UD we find KF welcoming Zoe to UD, several favorable comments upon his contributions, and the repeated use of Zoe's comments to advance his own long-winded points.

Gordon is lonely. He created Zoe for company.

(And if he uses his left hand it feels like someone is really there.)

[Edit: corrections vis Gordon's blag]

I have a different theory (not to be confused with a well constructed scientific hypothesis, of course).  

The prose and worldview are similar, however I find it impossible to believe (unless he is as capable of maintaining such a facade as Aaron in Primal Fear) that he can keep the pretence going over several years without reverting more closely to the writing style of gordon e. mullings of montserrat.  Then there is the brown nosing that goes on between them.

I suspect Zoe is a hopelessly indoctrinated disciple (probably the star pupil) from his school of Renewal and Reformation, the "Kairos Initiative" ... that Gordon knows full well who Zoe really is and probably even persuaded he/she to start posting there.  This would be an almost as interesting ethical dilemma as KF posting as two different users on the same board.  If anyone cared about such things w.r.t. the  IDealogues over there, that is.

Now, how to test the theory?

(I can does science too although i am not one, not even a lawyer or a forensik man).

Date: 2012/02/10 07:08:32, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2012,05:45)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,05:15)
I'd say, if Zoe and KF are the same person

I'd vote for not. That emphatic asterisk (I keep looking for a footnote) appears all over Zoe, but not in K/F, and other markers of common descent are absent in the other direction. I don't think he has the wit to keep two personas up-and-running. But the styles, the prose and the smackable certitude are certainly very close cousins.

What is it with creationists and the inappropriate use of punctuation marks?

Date: 2012/02/10 10:40:06, Link
Author: Freddie
WJ: Pardon, but if you can show that someone has said what they know or should know is false, hoping to gain from its being thought true, then we should correct the act. I am not at all sure that it is fair to characterise a person with a stigmatising brand by what may be an uncharacteristic slip-up. Save, where that person is so persistent that he needs to be marked as of no credibility, i.e has shown a habitual and defiant problem. Notice, how I and others have spoken of Wikipedia in such terms, only after many corrections have failed, indeed have been resisted. KF

Is Mr.Leathers about to make a Friday meltdown appearance?

Date: 2012/02/10 11:22:32, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,11:14)

A picture of joe, if possible, would be appreciated too. I won't divulge the source, and will treat it with all 'due' respect. ;)

We could have hours of endless fun with that request ...


Date: 2012/02/10 11:35:39, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,11:13)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,17:07)
Looks like I have been banned too.

And me - GCUGreyArea - again! (p.s. I was also DrBot)  :p

As an avid Iain M. Banks fan I laud you as one of the great players of games.  Your use of weapons was state of the art especially given all that time you were playing against a dark background: all of the IDiot responses to your posts I would consider flea bites.

Date: 2012/02/10 15:18:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,13:40)
Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,19:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,19:30)
There you have it. A Friday meltdown. And a fine specimen, too.

As I said elsewhere, I recon it is because Barry just spent the week being humiliated in court so he has to take it out on someone, anyone. (Apart from his lapgogs of course!)

Lapdogs, not lapgogs. sorry, commenting from my new smartphone.

Smartphones!  Wicked child.  Smartphones are an invention of Satan! (with apologies to Miriam Margolyes)

The Puritans

Date: 2012/02/10 15:47:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Okay - which one of you guys is "Dr. Jammer"?

Date: 2012/02/10 15:56:28, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 10 2012,15:49)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,16:47)
Okay - which one of you guys is "Dr. Jammer"?


Fuck me - that's two POTW nominations for two different posts in one day.  I am SO happy I decided to take today off and screw around here for a couple of hours.

Yes.  I need to get out more.

Date: 2012/02/10 16:06:57, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:04)
4)  Don't say "kill" when you mean "make sweet sweet sweet homosex to".  Most of us aren't that sadistic, you naughty little pervert

Ha, that ain't 4, it's 5. Or 4b. You can have that. Is cool.

Okay - reset to ..

6) Don't send confusing and mixed messages in a single post.

>Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here.

>I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

Date: 2012/02/10 16:29:34, Link
Author: Freddie
Yes, because running away is always the answer. If you’d have bothered to read the thread, you’d see that I was responding to not only you, but champignon and Elizabeth as well.

Forgive me if I continue to think that you are simply taking the coward’s way out by not responding to any of my points.

Alas, neither GCUGreyArea, Elizabeth Liddle or Champignon are able to respond at all now.  Who are the cowards again?

Date: 2012/02/12 14:23:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 12 2012,00:01)
My post to Barry, which I suspect may not be preserved over there, given the current dynamics:

Theoretically, yes. In practice, the probabilities are so vanishingly small it's indistinguishable from no.


Predictably, and disgustingly, cowardly Barry claims eigenstate has not responded and bans him.  
Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.The genesis of this post was the StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

What a P.O.S.  Perhaps someone (if any) left posting in the echo chamber can point back to eigenstate's post and correct prediction at the "fever swamp" here.

Regarding the final sentence: I wouldn't bet on that, Barry.

Date: 2012/02/12 14:47:22, Link
Author: Freddie
I knew when Dense linked to the Daily Mail it was going to be like pouring petrol on a fire ...

Incidentally, it takes many forms. Apprently, there are 450 public employees at present working on legislating for hospital staff to be forbidden to use the terms, ‘mother’ and ‘father’, for fear of offending the sensibilities of homosexuals.

I should have said, ‘militant’ homosexuals. There is a difference between them and most homosexuals, I believe.

Also, in your dismissiveness, you forgot the primary-school children raping and sodomising their little class-mates.

In today’s papers, two young women, each with a baby sired by the young man in the middle of the photo. We’ll leave their sexuality out of it, since there is no arguing with homosexual lobbyists, however “ad hoc”. The immemorial wisdom of nature’s nuclear family is despised by today’s atheist know-nothings.

Some other odd views in his ramblings as well.

Date: 2012/02/13 16:35:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ Feb. 13 2012,16:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 13 2012,16:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2012,16:47)

..Another update: At another site Eigenstate says he responded here, which is an outrageous lie. At that same site he up an idiot’s answer to the question which is not worth responding to. Suffice it to say it was neither “yes” nor “no.”

I don't believe you, Barry. And why wont you name the other site or link to it?

OK, OK, for God's sake Barry, bring the Friday meltdown to a conclusion. It's Monday. This is getting more than a little scary.

I like that the posting software melts down along with Barry. Unnumbered posts, posts with the same number, timestamps out of order, and non-nested replies. People referring to and quoting from comments that aren't there.

What shame there was no screenshot saved, given that Barry A has now committed himself irrevocably to the 'there was no post and he was not in moderation' line.  Unfortunate, but we learn from our mistakes.  

Of course, I am pre-supposing that no such screenshot exists ...

Date: 2012/02/14 05:44:04, Link
Author: Freddie
The face of UD to come

5 responses.  3 marked OT by batshit as he just cannot resist spamming a thread with his BS links. 1 post by ScottAndrews2 before Robert Byers brings the misogny:
Men were created by God to serve God and do well in so doing.
Women were only created to help men(husbands) in this.
they have less of the innate motivation to achieve.
Fighting is just about conflicts between people and men simply have more and they are important.

It can’t be beat that women and men are very different in the sexual identity motivations and purposes.

If Denyse were a real woman she would beat him around the head for those statements (I know ... I know ...).  Apparently birds of a Canadian feather are thicker than water. Or something like that.

I can't image she would let this shit go if she didn't have to take the big tent into consideration.  Alternatively, maybe she agrees with him.

Date: 2012/02/14 08:21:04, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (George @ Feb. 14 2012,02:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.

Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.

Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?

Barry A: 1    Truthyness and Honestyness: 0

Date: 2012/02/14 15:11:37, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ Feb. 14 2012,14:57)
Petrushka February 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I accept the definitional foundation of logic.

I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle.

I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato’s thought.

But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist.

The question faced by physics is somewhat different.

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” Petrushka. Goodbye.

<a href="URL=" target="_blank">Wow</a>

Is it still Friday somewhere?

Looks like that's the final nail in the UD coffin.  They'll be laughing in the streets of Dover tonight ...

Date: 2012/02/14 15:33:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,15:26)
Bitter Arrington:

6Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm
ben h, “yes” or “no,” can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Dum Dum Dum ... another one bites the dust!

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” rhampton7. Goodbye.

Date: 2012/02/14 15:40:20, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,15:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,15:26)
Bitter Arrington:

6Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm
ben h, “yes” or “no,” can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Dum Dum Dum ... another one bites the dust!

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” rhampton7. Goodbye.

And another one's gone and another one's gone ... another one bites the dust!

Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that Horatio Barry?

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.

Date: 2012/02/14 15:46:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Somewhere in the middle of all that there was a post by Timbo that I missed a screencap on but has since been disappeared.  I remember it was not particularly complementary, anyone catch it?

I wonder if Timbo has been similarly disappeared?

Date: 2012/02/14 15:53:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Bwahahahaha - collateral damage?  
February 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm

It’s been fun, but I’m not comfortable with this. While I agree that it’s absurd to argue that the moon can exist and not exist, I’m not comfortable debating someone if they are required to humiliate themselves by repeating a one-word answer. I understand the reason, but it feels too much like submission, like staring a dog in the eyes until it looks down. But I’ll keep reading all the excellent posts and comments.
Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?


Date: 2012/02/14 16:04:27, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,16:02)
AtBC needs a qualifying question too. Candidates? I'll start:

Can a one-legged frog kick the seeds off a dill pickle?

Errr ... aren't you supposed to also give us a list of the approved answers?

Date: 2012/02/14 16:11:37, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,16:05)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,17:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,16:02)
AtBC needs a qualifying question too. Candidates? I'll start:

Can a one-legged frog kick the seeds off a dill pickle?

Errr ... aren't you supposed to also give us a list of the approved answers?

Bzzzzzt. Wrong question. You're outta here.


Damn - I was so sure it was going to be the one about the African and European swallows that I memorized the answer for it.  Those tricky AtBC'ers ...

Also, ScottAndrews2 gets a glimpse into a day in the life of a sock:
It would be too awkward for me to continue a discussion with someone knowing that they’ve humbled them, and I have the upper hand because they’re always on the edge of being removed.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:18:55, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,16:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,16:13)

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

and now edited without edit marks:

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.

And with a miraculously well placed typo in the final phrase.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:34:28, Link
Author: Freddie
Hereby recording the demise of several more unfortunates, caught in Barry's diabolical (yet puerile) trap"
ben h
February 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that Horatio Barry?

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.

ben h, we hardly knew you but you had the balls to stand up and be counted when it mattered.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:36:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,16:34)
Hereby recording the demise of several more unfortunates, caught in Barry's diabolical (yet puerile) trap"
ben h
February 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that Horatio Barry?

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.

ben h, we hardly knew you but you had the balls to stand up and be counted when it mattered.

Dammit - I guess i'd finally better go about getting me an edit button ... sorry, ben h, for screwing up your obit a bit.

Date: 2012/02/15 01:35:45, Link
Author: Freddie
I recently wasted an entire evening trying to reason with someone that (analogously) two flips of a coin could yield a heads and a tails in two distinct ways (HT or TH) giving the combination a 50% chance of success over either HH or TT. This person had already decided that the two combinations were identical, and no amount of demonstration would convince her otherwise. Attempts to show proof yielded blank stares or more illogical protests. It became clear that this person had placed an irrational world view as the stake in a debating game against me. After the debate got started, our discussion had nothing to do with discovering truth, nor illuminating each other’s views, rather a win-at-all-costs attitude emerged as the keystone of the discussion. She was playing a game, and one that she plays every day in life: truth is what you can make others believe, and not anything that can be determined by universal principles. I was subject to any objection that appeared to provide the slightest bit of wiggle room for the person’s argument, and an utter lack of willingness to engage my points on their merits. For every advance I made in my arguments, she doubled down and protested all the more. Her arguments became more long-winded and rambling in an attempt to filibuster, seeking to derail the heart of the discussion by finding some small weakness in my peripheral knowledge, to try and gain the upper hand. After many revolutions of circular arguments and backwards reasoning on her part, when it became all the more clear that her protests would yield no fruit, she lost all interest in the matter and shifted to an unrelated argument.

I then noticed there was no dinner cooking in the oven, that my martini had not been prepared and my pipe and slippers remained stubbornly in their resting place rather than being presented to me on my customary padded cushion.  I filed for divorce the next day.

Date: 2012/02/15 01:46:14, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,19:33)
Here's a preliminary list of the deceased. Did I miss anyone?

Liz Liddle
Peter Griffin
Ben h.

And the deadest doornail of all:

Uncommon Descent

I believe I saw a note a few pages back to the effect that Prof FX Gumby's mild-mannered voice of dissent has been silenced.  RIP.

Meanwhile on the initial LNC thread cowardly StephenB sends a message to someone he knows is unable to respond.
–ben h:

“You have no cause to be belligerent towards me and I am offended that you would so easily strike such a tone.”

You mean that you don’t know whether Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time in the same way? Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just say, “I don’t know. Teach me how that works and why it matters.

Date: 2012/02/15 02:46:23, Link
Author: Freddie
Robert 'I ain't no stinking monkey' Sheldon, physicist, lets the (dead and not dead) cat out of the bag regarding common descent.  Perhaps Joe has found a soulmate.
Suppose for the moment, that your ancestor was a monkey, and this supposedly explains your opposable thumb. But wait, maybe your ancestor was a savannah monkey like a baboon, how does that explain opposable thumbs? And where did the tail go? And for that matter, why couldn’t racoons be an ancestor–they have opposable thumbs? The point is that this common descent argument neither predicts nor is falsifiable. The presence or absence of opposable thumbs can neither verify nor invalidate the thesis. Common descent doesn’t require similarity, it only suggests it.

I'll shut up now as I seem to be hogging the page.  The reduced number of posts over there means it's easier to spot the tard and harder to refrain from digging it up.

Date: 2012/02/15 09:28:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 15 2012,00:00)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 14 2012,08:50)
Just think, this unscrupulous, deluded shyster could someday be a judge:
arrington's idea of overwhelming evidence and FACT

I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. That record, which was written during the living memory of those who saw the events in question, is the only record we have, and there is no good reason to disregard it.
Being a lawyer, you may not have heard of this, but that type of evidence where one person tells what another person told him is called "hearsay" and it's not allowed in court.
A person may choose not to believe it, but it fits very well with all of the other evidence, about which volumes have been filled.
Yep, it's just as worthless as the rest of the "evidence".
But perhaps you are one of those people who believe the disciples willingly went to their gruesome deaths when all they had to do to avoid the agony was recant a wicked fable they knew to be a lie. Odd ducks those disciples. Dr. Johnson was quite write; martyrdom is the measure of truth.
Read your Bible, Barry.  Most of the disciples are barely mentioned before the crucifixion and are never heard from again after it.  Stories of their "gruesome deaths" are pius Christian fables.  I must agree with you, though: that type of "evidence" does indeed fit very well with all the other evidence and is of very similar quality.

The thing that gets me about Wikipedia’s sources is that their [sic] second (or even third) hand. This doesn’t mean that they’re not reliable. They may be in most cases. But when explaining that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, I usually get “but they’re unreliable!”

What’s the difference? The gospels are secondhand accounts, just like an eyewitness account reporting an incident. If one is valid, then so is the other, unless you want to start moving goalposts.

Just because 'second-hand' and 'secondary source' sound similar it does not make them equivalent.

Second Hand: "Someone told me Barry Arrington had allegedly raped a duck."

Secondary Source: Harvard Law Review analysis of the case and verdict as recorded in the transcript of the trial of Barry Arrington on alleged duck rape charges

Date: 2012/02/16 09:31:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 16 2012,05:16)
89 dmullenix February 16, 2012 at 5:06 am

Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Well, according to logic, the answer is “No.” But according to quantum mechanics the answer is, “If you can get all of the atoms of the moon to stop jostling each other for a moment, then it can.”

Of course, that’s not good enough for Barry, but then Barry is the guy who once sued two political rivals for calling him a bully, thus proving conclusively that he IS a bully.

I’ve been reading this blog since Dr. Dr. Dembski founded it, usually just lurking, occasionally commenting under my own name. I’ve had a lot of laughs, a very few good arguments (thank you vjtorley) and an awful lot of WTF? moments.

But recently, under the leadership of Bully Arrington, I’ve mostly just been getting a sick-to-my-stomach feeling. This sick feeling really kicked into high gear last Friday when Bully gave us the absolutely best Friday Meltdown ever, except maybe for the time Dr. Dr. Dembski published the names, home addresses, home phone numbers and private email addresses of the entire Baylor Board of Directors. (Sorry, Barry, but not even you could top that one!)

Anyhow, I’ve read enough and I will now leave you all to stew in your own juices.

So Bully, the answer to your question is, “Yes.”

Suicide sock fails, but post disappears to be replaced with a 2,500 word screed by KF containing numerous fever swamps (which is apparently a term from Jesus' sermon on the mount - we learn new things every day), and in this paragraph we learn more of what makes KF get out of bed in the morning:
h: The image I often have is the banana: plucked from its hand, peeled, sucked out of what was wanted, the husk tossed away and forgotten. That works with the sexual exploiters who try to rack up notches on their bed posts of girls they have seduced and tossed. It works with those who want cannon fodder for cultural-political movements, it works at the extreme with those who are making suicide bombers. And so forth.

And so forth, indeed.

Date: 2012/02/16 11:37:22, Link
Author: Freddie
Finally I have a worthy sig.  Thanks Joe.

Date: 2012/02/17 08:55:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 17 2012,08:26)
"Bydand" was a little acerbic about the current raised level of hypocrisy at The Tardpit, suggesting that if they felt that tedious and stupid materialists ought to be banned, they might, in equity, look to banning those of the Home Team who were at least as tedious and stupid.

"Bydand" thus joins the Glorious Fallen, or Legion of the Silently Banned.

A tribute.

Farewell Bydand

Date: 2012/02/18 04:54:30, Link
Author: Freddie
I see UD has yet another post up with Dr Dr's view on Baylor and the evolutionary informatics lab ... this prompted my memory for something I saw a while back:

Wanted - IMDB - Trivia
Screenwriters Michael Brandt and Derek Haas named several of the movie's characters after people from their college alma mater, Baylor University. Robert Darden, the name of Wesley's first target for assassination, is the writing professor in whose class they first met. (They have used the name Darden for the first victim in several other films, as well: 3:10 to Yuma and 2 Fast 2 Furious). Sloan, the character played by Morgan Freeman, is taken from the university's previous president, who was forced to step down under pressure from faculty and alumni.

There's also a cafeteria scene in the movie, set in the assassin's HQ.  More parallels?

Date: 2012/02/20 14:12:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 20 2012,13:28)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 20 2012,12:51)
Denyse embarrasses herself yet again:
Fiftieth anniversary of John Glenn’s space walk February 20 1962

The first American spacewalk didn't happen until 1965, and it wasn't John Glenn doing the walking.

Could someone introduce Denyse to this newfangled 'Google' thingie?

If Denyse were capable of feeling embarrassment she'd have abandoned UD (and in fact all writing activities) years ago.

Ha - a liberal editorial whitewashing from that left-leaning site, Wikipedia.  Everyone knows it was John Glenn what done the first space walk ... and Glenn Beck was named after a real American hero because of it.

Ya see, your side just has no proof it ever happened.  Were you there?

ETA: [/joe] Even the article she links to states quite clearly what John Glenn did in 1962.  One more comprehension fail to add to the pot.

Date: 2012/02/21 08:56:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Well, I got my fix for the day, how about you guys?

My emphasis.

Bilbo I

Robert @ 8: I’m willing to bet that you are not a linguist. I’m not either, but I’ve read enough to know that there’s at least one school of thought among linguists that would say that human languages are the output of an innate human structure involving various rules about how to form a language. I’m not sure how much of this idea is accepted among linguists. I’m pretty sure that no linguist thinks that there are any “primitive” languages.

Robert Byers
February 21, 2012 at 5:25 am
Bilbo I.
i’m not a linguist.
I don’t think they do think there are primitive languages or at least its not acceptable to say so because of the racial stuff.
There is indeed no inferior but there is atrophy from primitive segregated people just as in nOrth america the backwards folks twist English into almost another language like in Tom Sawyer or something.

There is no need ti invoke innate structures.
They just miss the point that people are very intelligent , including children, with very complex thoughts from the start.
There could not be a time where we only grunted.
Quickly did sound combinations become agreed upon.
I say this was in Eden and the in babel there was a sudden unnatural disagreement.
Evolutionary thought corrupts understanding what language is.
In fact its just what writing is.
Sounds = agreed meaning=language and written symbols = for agreed sounds.
Thats all it is.

That's cleared that up, then!  I didn't highlight the obvious racism.  Obvious racism is obvious.

Date: 2012/02/22 13:53:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 22 2012,12:41)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 22 2012,11:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2012,21:58)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 21 2012,20:27)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2012,18:53)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 21 2012,16:27)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 21 2012,17:01)
I wonder how much longer BA77 and Joe will be the dominant posters at UD?

Are you familiar with the idea of a 'hydraulic empire'?

I think Heinlein had a novel that along the way asserted that a regime that controlled access to water could last indefinitely. "Friday", IIRC.

I was thinking of a Larry Niven book, World Out of Time.

Is that the extension of the "Rammer" short story? If so, I remember the book, but not specifically the water control discussion from it.

Yes, it is. The hero, Corbell, explains that the State lasted as long as it did because it controlled all the key resources (water monopoly was his term). Since (in this analysis) a water monopoly can only be overthrown from outside, and there was no outside, the State lived forever.

One of several hard SF books of the Reagan Era that took the Soviet empire really seriously.

IIRC The Integral Trees is set in the same universe.  The autopilot of the ramship always announces itself as "Kendy for the State".

Well - you can keep your rammers in your pockets, chaps.  

As far as I am concerned Tank Girl the movie (and former comic strip) cornered the market on despots that cornered the world's remaining water supplies!  

Also introduced one 'Naomi Watts' in I think her first significant role.

Date: 2012/02/23 10:38:57, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,10:04)
Some good theotard from tgpeeler:
I think the problem ultimately boils down to rebellion. If God is Reason, and He is (I AM WHO I AM – an expression of the Law of Identity and the basis for all thought, rational or otherwise, because it is the basis for all language) then to reject Reason is to reject God. We are not dealing with intellectual problems here, we are dealing with willfully disobedient (to the First Principles of rational thought) fools (Psalm 14:1). It’s a hard thing to say but there it is. I hope lurkers are being reached because I’ve never had one acknowledgement of undeniable truth “out here” in years of posting with the ELs and their ilk. At bottom, this is moral degeneracy because it is willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths. Isaiah warned against this when he said “woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” This is a violation of the law of identity. And woe to those who do it.

Axel, February 22, 2012, 6:50 pm
Spot on, tg. Insightful and lucid.

BrentFebruary 23, 2012 at 8:28 am

If that’s two cents’ worth I don’t think we need to worry about inflation just now. Very nice!

William J MurrayFebruary 23, 2012 at 9:03 am
tgpeeler and StephenB,

Beautiful, truthful messages.

Some great, almost poetical stuff from KF further up that thread too:
What I am thinking is that what is really going on here is that we are in an era where ultra-modernism, aka post- modernism, is the conventional wisdom of the day in circles influenced by the sort of elites Santorum was fingering as dupes of the prince of darkness grim.

You know how hard I have come down on the point that if we can be got to swallow an absurdity, a necessarily false notion, it then corrupts our ability to discern truth and falsity, as it leads us to reject the truth that will obviously not conform to such error.

So, what happens when his lowness and the lowerarchy –C S Lewis got that part dead right — get our civilisation to drink deep and long at the well-springs of absurdity?

Oh yes, I know I know, it is seen as utterly dummy fundy or the like to suggest that — horrors — there actually might be such a thing as the prince of darkness grim.

Well, let me cite the Catholic — yes, they were Roman Catholics, and were standing in the name of the principles they had been taught through the Catholic church [and I say that as an Evangelical Protestant] — martyrs of the White Rose movement on the subject, in exposing and explaining one of the chief, willing disciples of that dark prince in recent years, herr Schicklegruber the foam- at- the- mouth carpet-chewer:

My emphasis - for no other reason than as a brit I enjoy the odd double-entendre and I have no qualms in pulling out sentences that can be used to quote-mine KF at all.   I must admit, "foam-at-the-mouth carpet chewer" in reference to Herr Schicklegruber (why does KF never just call him Hitler - regardless, it appears spelled incorrectly anyway) did make me laugh, but only as that's how I imagine many of the regular IDiots act in the 'real' world.  It's also a refreshing change from ad hominen, soaked in oiled herrings etc.

His OP is another magnum opus as well: weighing in at 4,738 words, or 4,500 words if you take out the scripture.

Good stuff guys, keep it coming!

[edit] I can't image how I spelled imagine wrong

Date: 2012/02/24 16:55:35, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,14:56)
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 24 2012,02:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,05:48)
I wonder if Deuce knows about the difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry?

As mathy concepts go, one version of that is absolutely without parallel!


you always go hyperbolic

When I'm not off on a tangent, anyways...

Careful, you're on a slippery slope with a steep gradient, there ...

Date: 2012/02/24 17:03:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 24 2012,16:59)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2012,23:57)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 24 2012,17:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,14:56)
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 24 2012,02:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,05:48)
I wonder if Deuce knows about the difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry?

As mathy concepts go, one version of that is absolutely without parallel!


you always go hyperbolic

When I'm not off on a tangent, anyways...

Careful, you're on a slippery slope with a steep gradient, there ...

this conversation is derivative

Meh! Circular arguments...

I need a drink. A slim tot, hic!

Date: 2012/02/25 03:17:05, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2012,02:30)
Been raping monkeys again, Barry? Feeling a bit guilty?

Poor sod.

I'd heard it was a duck.

Date: 2012/02/25 12:11:54, Link
Author: Freddie
You guys are missing quite the little tard fight between Batshit and several others over there.  They'll be slapping each other with their handbags soon.  Not a lot of ID science in sight, though ...



“I therefore referenced a exhaustive study of the Hebrew text itself of Genesis 1 in post 82, as well I referenced a study of the specific Hebrew text in question in post 78.”

Come again? You accept [a] 3 page article and single self-published book, both by [the] same author, against entire opus of scholars that argue differently including most respected OT Commentaries, Hebrew Lexicons and Hebrew Dictionaries?

Yep - it doesn't matter what the subject is, the age of the earth or evolution, that's the ID way.

Date: 2012/02/28 10:14:37, Link
Author: Freddie
I see both John West and Batshit have also posted at First Things, after Elizabeth's post.  Batshit, of course, brings his quantum woo baggage together with the obligatory video link.

Re: Barry, the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

Date: 2012/03/01 11:50:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 01 2012,10:04)
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 01 2012,08:41)
Just an idea for Marks, Dembski, etc. :  You wanted to create the impression that the symposium was held by the Cornell University - that's why you used the carefully crafted abstract:      
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
Perhaps it is enough to create the impression that Springer Verlage  published the proceedings? You could try to get the interest of the Axel Springer Verlag - perhaps a short article in the Bild-Zeitung? Then you could still claim that you were published by Springer, and that's what this is all about....

Apparently it was cosponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

Recently Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) co-sponsored an international symposium entitled "Biological Information - New Perspectives" that was attended by many PhD scientists to address the question: "What is biological information and where docs it come from?"

The symposium was held at the Slater Hotel on the Cornell University Campus.

The published article at that link is ... interesting.  It's all there: Darwin, Racism, Hitler and so on ... also, the author repeatedly uses the word 'proves'.  

I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

It is refreshing to see the author, a Christian, state that Christians were deeply involved the slave trade, though.  He wouldn't last 3 posts at UD before being KF'd to death.

Date: 2012/03/06 10:27:58, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:09)
They woulda got away with it if they hadn't bragged before publication. Premature jubilation.

and if it hadn't been for those meddling kids ...

Date: 2012/03/08 08:47:05, Link
Author: Freddie
... and of course there's The ....

Date: 2012/03/09 04:17:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 09 2012,04:02)
Oh noes - my last post on "Joe's Tardgasm" doesn't show, even though is it mentioned as the last post of the thread. Is it my browser?

Page bump bug - wait for the next post and it will show up on a new page I believe.

Date: 2012/03/13 10:38:05, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 13 2012,07:18)
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 13 2012,06:29)
Mullins is a fucking lunatic.
Now, I had long thought that the Creationism in a cheap tuxedo sneer was a toxic smear, but it was only when I made the connexions through the Barna survey and the Aiden vampire clergy video, in light of the cyber harassing comment by subject Y of the initial circle of attackers since June/July last year, that I saw that we are actually dealing with blood libel.


Umm, let me get this straight.  Mullings is likening the description of ID as a low-rent creationism to the accusation that Jews kill Christian babies to use their blood in religious rituals?  Is that what he is doing?  

Okay - I know I swore off that place but this is too good to pass up.  

In hot retort, one of the associates of one site (who seems to moderate another of the hate sites and who runs a site of his own with “NSFW,” highly questionable photos [Ed: wonder who that could be? hehe] ) stated, in relevant part:

If more people spent their Sundays at home watching porn, there’d be less money in the coffers of those houses of hate and ignorance called churches. That could only be good for the world . . . . You are the most sanctimonious, lying, misogynistic, homophobic, willfully ignorant, unintentionally hilarious scum of the earth windbag on the interwebs.

That highly unusual word, “coffers,” points straight back to the lyrics of Hysteria,  AIDEN’s so-called “atheists anthem.”

Remember, in the video, the below — which I annotate — is being sung by a vampire clergyman, standing in a graveyard (I understand of US service-members):

Love how they burn your synagogues
Love how they torch your holy books
Filling coffers [--> offerings are blood-money] with your grief
Filling coffins with your misery [--> you are war mongers]

Emphasis from original.

(1) 'coffers' is not a highly unusual word - I used it in a non-churchy context just the other day!

(2) I have no idea what he is claiming here other than that perhaps the word is some sort of secret signal used by the atheist cabal to stir things up ... or something.  Because it appeared not once but twice somewhere ... and only a few months apart!  Weird.

Best part is then in the comments from Byers:

It is a fair suspicion that those who accuse the most and the most severely are themselves involved in what they accuse.

Modern life surely has ended the old prohibition against conspiracy theories.
They can be true and many have simply different lists.


Date: 2012/03/13 15:11:13, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 13 2012,11:50)
this is a transparent attempt to resuscitate their dead blog by stimulating traffic. who gives a fuck what they have to say?  if you want tard, PM me and I will send you a shit ton of other places to go tarding.  UD is a dustbin

Okay, okay ... I hear you.

But .... one last thing.  Gordy has used this graphic as some sort of seminal set of statistics about web porn several times.

Now if you do a little digging, it is an interesting piece of art:

(1) There is a URL at the bottom which points to where, indeed, this image is hosted although it doesn't seem to be an official part of the site, a quick search doesn't turn up anything anyway.

(2) The citations for the stats are at the bottom of the chart in the small print.  The first cite is from the UK's Daily Mail. Top drawer stuff ... here's the link.  There are also links to the BBC news site, and various other news, review and blog sites.  No actual real researchers were harmed in the making up of these stats.  This is not to say they may not be true, but I think there may be some selective quoting going on here.  Surprised?  Me neither.

If you take at face value that there are 12% of all websites offering porn and extrapolate this to today (where there are by some counts about 650m sites with 5% growth per month) then this would mean either 78m porn sites are in existence, or Gordy's stats are well out of date.  I suspect the latter.  It wouldn't sound so good to state 3% of sites are porn sites would it now?

But wait, what's this?  The site Gordy links the image from is the Pink Cross Foundation (Faith based relief (!) for former Porn Stars - or something like that).  There, we find this:

So maybe the number is really 4.2m web sites offer pornography (a few years ago).  So let's say the number doubled in the last few years (there's no end to the number of fetishes you can dream up, I guess) and there are now ~8m sites out of 650m.  That's ~ 1% of all web sites.

Hmmm.  Maybe this belongs on the BW instead of here after all.

Date: 2012/03/19 16:48:29, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,15:56)
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,15:24)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2012,13:37)
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 19 2012,13:16)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2012,12:51)
Noise is an inevitable result of a high ISO. Anything above 400 will have noise if you blow it up enough. the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Noise reduction software helps, but at the cost of sharpness and detail.

A succinct summary of the number one cause of noise in photography Midwife. However, that brings up the question  - since I don't shoot anything over 400 ISO (and the shot of the Kestrel was at 200 ISO), what's the main issue creating all the noise in my pics? Is it that I'm not getting close enough or using a big enough lens (300mm) and thus I'm enlarging my shots beyond what my camera can really grab? A possibility, but I would think if that were the case, my closer shots - like the one of the female Cardinal -  wouldn't be so noisy, but they seem like they are just as noisy to me. I think I enlarged the female Cardinal shot by .25X...maybe .5X, but not that much. OTOH, I think I enlarged the Kestrel by 4X, which can be quite a bit on a 200 ISO shot.

I really don't know. It could just be the D3100's sensor is particularly sensitive to direct full sun, though I've not read anything to indicate that such is the case. All the reviewers and tester articles I've read indicate that the D3100 has one of the better noise compensation algorithms built into it.

Bottom line, while I know that noise is one of the big factors reducing the quality of my shots, I don't know where it is coming from.

This is probably something you're aware of, so feel free to ignore..

Are you shooting the images in RAW mode?

No. Fine JPEG.

ETA: removed extra letter

OK, try shooting in RAW mode.  Even fine jpg is a lossy compression.

With RAW you don't get as many shots in the memory, but they are not compressed in any way and you can avoid that noise due to compression.

Right ... but as soon as you turn them into JPGs for viewing you re-introduce compression artifacts!  

I think the point is that when you shoot RAW you can control what happens in the compression stage to get the optimal result/filesize you are looking for, whereas if you use the camera's compression algorithm you have a fixed compression algorithm that can't be undone through post-processing.  I shoot RAW+JPG as its easier to see which images are which once I get them onto the PC to play with.

To me, the Kestrel picture looks over-sharpened slightly, you can see a slight halo around the bird as well as the noise in the blue areas. But some of the others are great!  
It's getting towards Spring here in the UK so hopefully I'll have the chance to get out and shoot some birds other than the bloody wood pigeons, crows and magpies that seem to infest my neck of the woods at the moment.

Date: 2012/03/24 12:40:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Well - I managed to get out in the great weather today and walked a few miles up the local canal path with my camera.  It's woodland bordering wetlands in the South of England, therefore I was hoping to perhaps see a few slightly less obvious birds.  Oh well.

Robin - F8, 1/125, 250mm, ISO100

Blue Tit - F8, 1/125, 250mm, ISO100

Shot in RAW then Adobe Camera Raw / Photoshop.

Date: 2012/04/12 15:31:49, Link
Author: Freddie
Oh noes, our planets is falling into teh sun!!!  Quick, angels,  to your stations ... clean up in aisle 3!!!

ETA: From this completely apropos site

Date: 2012/04/12 16:16:13, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2012,10:23)
<sigh> So many beautiful pictures and just one desktop ... I think I'll start with the Blue Tit.

This one's on my desktop right now, I took it a few weeks back at a local arboretum.  It's a Rhododendron but I don't know the variety for sure, I think it is 'White Peter' but there are so many similar variants.  Looks great in the full size.

F5 - 1/1250 - 135mm - ISO200

Date: 2012/04/13 11:37:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ April 13 2012,11:16)
Wow--even well-evidenced, mild dissent gets the bold voice of god from Barry.


[email protected] April 12, 2012 at 7:34 am
Is the cover on the left a fake? From what I can tell, it’s from April 2007, not 1977. The original headline was “The Global Warming Survival Guide”.

The 1977 “ice age” version doesn’t appear in the Time magazine cover archives for that year:

But the 2007 “global warming” version does…

Thoughts, anyone?

UD Editors: Really? The 1977 cover is one of the magazine’s most famous. Have you been living in a cave


Then again, Barry did get caught lying--posting a poorly photoshopped Time cover that swaps the title "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age onto a 2007 Global Warming issue.


Real Cover

And this guy made a living standing up in court and presenting evidence? Holy crap.

If you look at the 'shopped image it points to this site:

There's some great shit there ...

Date: 2012/04/13 11:46:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Nice - KF Doubles Down in his OP! Sorry - too good to pass up.

KF quote from that post:
Let us see who is name-calling and distorting easily checked facts, and who is laying out facts on the merits. That’s why we are going to roll the tape below.)

Gil was speaking in the context of the issue of climate change and how it has been handled over the past forty or so years in the influential media.

I’m sure Barry won’t mind our putting the picture back up, of two contrasted Time Covers, c 1977 and c 2006:

Epic fail.  Twat.

Date: 2012/04/13 16:15:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ April 13 2012,16:07)
I guess some photographers develop earlier than others?

Only when stored in a dark room ...

Date: 2012/04/13 16:54:09, Link
Author: Freddie
Damn, look what I just found from 1992 - it's uncanny. Those damn sick & ronery materialist atheist maniacs (and their hellspawn offspring).

Date: 2012/04/13 17:05:53, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (steve_h @ April 13 2012,17:03)
I remember that one well - it was one of the more famous ones. It was even hung on the wall of our cave for a while.

Cave?  Luxury.

Date: 2012/04/13 17:32:14, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 12 2012,01:02)
Super cool stuff:

Your post prompted me to go and see what the state of the art is in downloadable apps for star gazing.  I spent $3 getting Star Walk for iPhone and judging by the few minutes i've played with it so far it's worth every penny.

Star Walk

Date: 2012/04/14 08:58:24, Link
Author: Freddie
I though this one worth saving properly for posterity, including Barry's notpology.

Also, this looks like an interesting paper in light of this little episode:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Date: 2012/04/15 15:37:39, Link
Author: Freddie
Just when you thought it was not possible for UD to sink any lower than the Time photoshopped cover debacle, along comes slimy Sal.

Note: no links, and not photoshopped.

Date: 2012/04/23 08:56:33, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2012,06:18)
Questions into the wind:

How much post-processing (Photoshop, for instance) is too much? Where do you draw the line (if you do)?

I don't mind softening the focus a bit to play down a few years' worth of age, or zapping an unfortunate pimple, but I won't use something like liquefy to slim a hip, for instance. It's probably a completely arbitrary and subjective line, but it's mine, damnit. What's yours?

What software do you like, and why?

I'm using Digital Photo Professional (comes standard with a Canon) to sort through and do mass deletions, and maybe take a quick peek at the shots. I like the interface for selecting a group of shots, looking at them in the edit window to decide which I'm going to keep, and deleting the rest.

But for the actual post-processing, I'm using Lightroom 3. I like the controls and the end-product, but sometimes I look at some really great photographers' work and wonder if I'm missing some critical piece of software, or if its just a matter of experience.

That's a good question.

I shoot RAW + Fine JPG, then dump them all onto the PC and decide which images to keep by looking at the JPGs in Windows Photo Gallery.  I find I can weed out the poorer images more quickly this way: delete the JPGs then go through and delete the RAWs that have no corresponding JPG in the folder.

Then I use Photoshop Camera RAW v6 for lens correction, straightening and cropping, then open up the resulting image in PS CS5 for editing (I know you can do a lot more in Camera Raw as well but I'm more familiar with CS5 having used Photoshop for about 10 years now).  

Using Camera Raw as input to Photoshop I think provides a better result than DPP --> Photoshop, as DPP can only save to JPG whereas Camera Raw uses TIFF as the intermediate file format (and Photoshop cannot open DPP files directly).

I'll usually do no more than sharpen, colour correct and adjust the dynamic range on the image using the unsharp mask, Curves tool and layer blending respectively, although I have been known to clone out the odd pimple here and there if it's only a 'temporary' feature (or clone out a bird from an otherwise flawless sky or similar etc.)  I don't think i'd ever want to materially change an image such that it doesn't represent what I actually shot but I have no qualms about using Photoshop to realize different versions of the same image.

More recently, i've been using the Shadows/Highlights tool in CS5 instead of layer blending. It can provide some fantastic results for images that have difficult exposures (or just poor ones like this off-the-cuff shot I took in Rome last week).

One item I would like to have is a better screen.  I have a 'standard' Samsung 22 inch LCD which is calibrated by eye/free tools only.  It would be nice to have a really decent screen properly calibrated for this type of work but out of my price range right now.

"Late afternoon sun at the ice cream parlour, near the Fontana di Trevi"

[ETA: Just to make it clear, the top image is the JPG off the camera, the bottom is the manipulated RAW image.  If there was no RAW I would have been stuck trying to fix the overexposed JPG which is never easy!]

Date: 2012/04/24 10:31:35, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ April 24 2012,07:01)
Quote (DiEb @ April 24 2012,07:37)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 23 2012,16:05)
It seems like the activity follows a pattern created by occasional relaxation of the banhammer.

At least until now: the banhammer is very relaxed at the moment, but there is no influx of people who want to be annoyed by the regulars....

I do hope it stays that way.  Who knows what the tard will mature into if it ferments in its own juices for an extended period.

Or perhaps ...

Date: 2012/05/05 01:46:00, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Woodbine @ May 05 2012,01:38)
UD are reporting JAD has died*.

RIP you crazy bastard.

These blog posts seem to be his final dispatches....

* Considering the source there's every chance JAD is actually in the rudest of health.

If not then there is certainly some good fodder for a conspiracy post, here's his Obit (PZ posted this earlier):

JAD Obituary

[ETA: Just realized the link was posted previously on Bathroom Wall as well ... sorry for dupe!]

Date: 2012/05/05 04:53:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Robin @ May 04 2012,13:40)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 04 2012,08:55)
Quote (Robin @ May 03 2012,15:34)
Red headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)


The Red-headed Woodpecker is one of two birds on my visual life-list that are not on my photographic life-list. (The other is the Ruby-throated Hummingbird.) I am very jealous.

ETA: And P.S. There is a decidedly marked improvement in your shots over the last few months, Robin. Keep it up!

Thanks much Lou! Yeah, they're getting better, but I'm still working on a number of elements to improve the shots or keep them more consistent.

I must confess that the red-headed shots frustrated the @%@$%&&* out of me! I shot about a dozen pics of the guy and this was one of two where I was actually focused <b>on the bird</i>. I don't know what my problem is, but many of my shots are just off the subject. It pretty much happens only when I'm shooting between 200 and 300mm I'm center focusing now only, so theoretically I'm locking in on just the subject, but for some reason I'll be focused an inch behind or in front of the object regardless of what it looks like in my viewfinder or using autofocus. Grrrr...

I have the same problem in a lot of my shots, typically at around the full length of my lens at 250mm.  I'm guessing it's multiple problems compounded by the fact that you often don't have long to focus before the bugger moves.

I've tried both manual and spot automatic focussing to see if I can improve the hit rate but no one method I use seems to be foolproof.  There needs to be a bracketing option for the focus feature :-)

Anyone have any tips for this?  I think some of the higher end cameras allow you to adjust the focus point on each lens but mine isn't one of those!

Date: 2012/05/06 03:59:12, Link
Author: Freddie
Thanks, will give that a try!

I found a few tips elsewhere yesterday as well - one that seems to be common is:

1. Shoot in bright light (duh)

2. Set ISO to 400 or higher

3. Set aperture to 16 or higher and then hope the combination of this and ISO gives you a shutter speed you can use - having image stabilizing lenses helps.

The theory is apparently that with a larger depth of field using the higher aperture setting the point of focus on the subject is not in such a narrow window.  If it ever stops raining in the UK long enough for me to try it out I'll post some results (assuming this has some positive effect)!

Date: 2012/05/09 11:28:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (QED @ May 06 2012,17:34)
I usually just lurk here, but photography's been a hobby for 35 years and I know a bit about the technical side.

Focus is always more difficult at the extremes of a long zoom because the depth of field decreases as the focal length increases (with equal apertures). Also, unless it's a "parfocal" lens, the zoom will probably require refocusing when the focal length is changed.

Some cameras do indeed allow for focus micro-adjustments. I've been playing with my new 5Dii, and have been surprised that both my Canon lenses (24-70L f/2.8 & 50 f/1.8) have required adjustment - one back-focuses and one front-focuses slightly. Normally this isn't a big deal, but when you're working with larger apertures and long lenses, it can matter. Some photographers find in time they can adjust the focus slightly in manual mode to compensate, if the body doesn't have micro-adjust. For those fortunate enough to own a 60D or 5D, there is new software called Focal that will calibrate lenses automatically while the camera is tethered to the computer by a USB cable. I'm not shilling for the developer, but he has been very cooperative during the beta trial versions.

Setting the aperture to 16 or higher will certainly give greater depth of field, but be aware that most lenses have a resolution sweet-spot between F/4 and f/11. Bumping the ISO is sometimes a better option, then deal with the increased noise in Lightroom or Photoshop.

As Lou mentions, practice makes the biggest difference in the final result. Knowing your camera and lenses well, using them until they become second nature as you work, and also the post-processing is key, after your artistic sense, of course.

Sorry to butt in - just wanted to add a few hints from an old-timer...

Thanks for this info - I did some playing around at the weekend and found that my 18-55 zoom was easier to manually focus correctly at the larger focal lengths than the 55-250.  

I got mixed results again using the longer lens so I think between your guidance and Lou's much more practice is in order!

Date: 2012/05/13 14:27:28, Link
Author: Freddie
Of course it was only a matter of time ... if anyone wants the PSD file PM me and I will deliver.

Date: 2012/05/16 11:34:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (NormOlsen @ May 16 2012,09:56)
O'Leary offers evidence against human evolution:

The few claims for which we have hard evidence are stuff like cave art (which went downhill over the millennia) and temple complexes (Gobekli Tepe, about 12000 years old, went down over the millennia too), which doesn’t support Darwin’s gradual ascent thesis at all.

That, plus the fact that she's way dumber than most writers were a century ago, so take that Darwin!

What the fuck does that even mean?  Did she just piss off a few hundred million fellow catholics?

Date: 2012/05/16 14:02:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Ahem.  Back to the real world.  Went out early this morning before work and couldn't move for birds everywhere.  They must have all flown in during the last few days.

I think the advice on focussing is paying off - a much higher percentage of shots came in on focus ... I also set the camera AF to AI Focus, apparently this switches automatically to AI Servo if the subject starts moving, seems to help as well.

Wren - this guy stayed hopping around and posing for several minutes, got a few good shots of him in neutral, happy and angry poses.


I was looking up in the trees when I heard a rustle in the brambles to the side of me and out popped a couple of juvenile Blackcaps.  I hardly needed to zoom for these, they were so close and so snap happy

All in all a good morning, took home a number of shots I was pleased with!

Date: 2012/05/19 02:09:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (dhogaza @ May 18 2012,22:46)
Freddie: beautiful wren up there.

Damn, I almost called it "winter wren" because growing up our winter wren was considered conspecific with your "wren" (Troglodytes troglodytes).  I decided maybe I should double-check that and learned that splitters have run amok.

Ours is now Troglodytes hiemalis, which sounds vaguely like a Troglodytes troglodytes that's acquired some sort of socially embarrassing disease ...

Anyway, really nice shot of a very, very tiny and often hyperactive bird.

Thanks!  You've got some nice ones there too ... especially the Wilson's Phalarope which I had never heard of before today!  I have a small lake nearby with a  good variety or birds but it's hard to get close enough to the edge for a decent picture (it's wetlands so not easy to get across - no access and the potential to disturb a lot going on on the ground).

Troglodytes troglodytes is such a great  name - but it's the only type of wren we get in the UK.  You inspired me to post my 'angry' pose from the same bird, not quite as sharp but good for a laugh perhaps :-)

Date: 2012/05/31 21:49:35, Link
Author: Freddie
Okay - i'm looking for some guidance please.  I'm in the San Jose/Los Gatos area this weekend, with my camera. There's a lot of state parks and hiking trails all around but I don't know much about the wildlife in this area or where best to spend the time I have.  

Can anyone give the clueless Brit a recommendation where to go and what to look out for?  This park is close and looks interesting ...

Castle Rock State Park

p.s. there is no way that Painted Bunting is for real, right?

Date: 2012/06/19 08:28:42, Link
Author: Freddie
No comments (apart from the bolding in the final two sentences).  Just  .... enjoy the random and heartfelt musings of UD contributor Robert Byers, YEC:  
This yEC sees music as not as complicated as presented.
It seems clear to me music is just human thoughts presented in a more primitive way relative to language.

Singing is just lingering or emphasizing a thought. We do this all the time when we stretch our words like telling someone to HURRRRRRYYYYY UPPPPPPP.
we always are singing or rather singer is just more control over our words stretching.
Its just pressing a thought.
this is why its received and understood by everyone.
Its from and too the heart. so it must be emphasized.
i’m sure of this.

Music , without words, and so less complex thoughts, seems to be simply putting sounds from instruments to mimic the tones(sound) of voice we add to all we say all the time.
So there is a angry, sarcastic, gentle, exasperated, impatient, patient, kindly, and so on and on Tones of voice.
In fact we understand tones of voice and conclude whats being said almost as much as words.
A sarcastic sentence would be understood differently if just read on a page.
A writer would have to add the sentence was said sarcastically.

Then these tones(sound) are universal in all languages.
So this is why music, no words, crosses all languages and the winners are famous everywhere.
i’m not as sure but pretty sure sounds from instruments just mimic tones we use and so thoughts are accurately communicated by music.
Music moves quick in its thoughts but not as quick as in language.

Music is after all just a expression of human thoughts.
Thoughts to reach our hearts or get deep into us.
Thoughts get into us if the presenter has these thoughts deep in them or faking it.

I see this as the great boundaries of it and then the rotation and rhythm and repetition just is added .

Music is not a different species from ordinary human thoughts.
just a less complex but more emphasizing of thoughts.

by the way the bible says musical instruments were created instantly.
Not music but the instruments.

ETA: Oops wrong thread - have PM'd to have it moved to UD topic

Date: 2012/06/20 16:28:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (NormOlsen @ June 20 2012,12:22)
There's a stunning level of ignorance on display at UD right now at the Adam and Eve Possible? thread.

Says user mahuna:

As far as we know, all hominids give birth to 1 baby at a time, with rare cases of twins or triplets. Even in the ancient historical period, the odds of 2 twins (let alone 3 triplets) surviving infancy were very low. So, it isn’t reasonable to assume that in a single generation 10 (for example) homo sapien children appeared from non-homo-sapien parents. The logical alternative, even assuming Evolution is true, is that after several false starts, 1 male and 1 female homo sapien found each other (even if born in different packs) and mated successfully.

And this, even after Jon Garvey tries to edumacate him.

Gauger (UD Link):
Excellent summary of the current ND view of speciation, John Garvey. And funny.

Collin, have you read the book?

Mahuna, the existence of mitochondrial Eve doesn’t indicate anything about how many females there were when she was alive, just that we all have inherited our mitochondria from her. Besides, Y chromosome Adam appeared roughly 70 years later, depending on what dates you use. So thinking of them as a first couple doesn’t work.

Seriously, read the book.

I'm going to be kind and assume she had a DeNews moment and missed a few zero's somewhere along the line and that this isn't just pandering to the YECs under the canvas.

I think this one is on course to break the record for the number of "buy my book" requests in a single thread.  It could possibly also generate enough tard to be a signature line mining source for years to come.  

Which one of you guys is mahuna?

[Edit: Corrected Link]

Date: 2012/06/23 16:40:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 23 2012,15:38)

I'll see you and raise you by $10 with this little nugget ... ladies and gentlemen, I give you Collin!

Date: 2012/06/26 01:48:26, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (The whole truth @ June 25 2012,19:32)
This crap should be considered child abuse and the perps should be impeached, prosecuted, and jailed (or at least tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail).

Carrier said, "We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

Yeah, like a real education about reality. Indoctrinating them with insane religious fairy tales will be a lot less confusing to them, eh?

I'm embarrassed to be a US American. This country is going down the shitter.

I'm calling Poe ... I mean look at the contacts page on their (horrible) website, these are obviously completely made up names.

Date: 2012/06/26 17:28:07, Link
Author: Freddie
Does anyone recall the "Uncle" stories written by J.P.Martin and illustrated by Quentin Blake?  I have most of the series on my 'childhood' shelf, but I just can't justify spending big bucks to buy the two long out-of-print titles that I am missing :-(

Uncle is a rich elephant who lives in a nice shiny castle called Homeward and, even though he has a large ego, he is a generally honest chap and treats his friends and tenants well.  

His life is spoiled only by the horrible view across his moat - of a small fort called "Badfort" in which lives Beaver Hateman (a vile, sackcloth-wearing, angry and hateful creature) and his cronies.  The Badfort inhabitants continually plan to bring Uncle down and to con the inhabitants of Homeward out of their money and goods using some foul scheme or other.

Anyway - to the point.  Badfort has a newspaper: The Badfort News.  The chief reporter on the newspaper is Hitmouse, a loathsome, dwarfish creature who likes nothing better than to stick skewers he carries on his person into Uncle when given the chance (an apt metaphor, I believe).  

The Badfort News is the epitome of the low-life tabloid newspaper ... the truth is consistently ignored in favour of a spin on a story that attacks Uncle and his friends with vitriol, just because he is Uncle, because he is rich and because he has everything that the Badfort crowd do not.

I think you can see where I am going with this.  It came to me today ...

Homeward is "The Scientific Establishment", Uncle is Charles Darwin/Richard Dawkins, Badfort is "The Intelligent Design Movement", The Badfort News is Uncommon Descent and Hitmouse is O'Leary.

It's uncanny.

Pictures of Hitmouse available on "Look Inside" here: Uncle

Date: 2012/07/04 12:13:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,10:35)
He can't be talking about AtBC; we don't photoshop decent grandmothers (Denyse?) with sexual slurs because Lou would delete the filth because we are mature persons.

I'm pretty sure this is a dig at Barry and the rest of the UDenizens ... the word "bullies" is the giveaway ...
Last, but not least, the habitual resort to such guttersnipe tactics leaves the clear implication that we are here dealing with out of control ideologues who have not got a sound case on the merits but believe they will prevail by smearing filth and acting as ill-brought-up bullies.

Such bullies need to know that their want of common decency is duly noted, with all it implies.

Those who encourage or tolerate such behaviour, need to know that such enabling behaviour will inevitably taint them as well.

What a surprise and shame ... comments not enabled!

Date: 2012/07/05 11:48:22, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (keiths @ July 05 2012,01:47)
Granville is very tired:
I’m not going to add any further comments on this post, I’ve been arguing this topic for 11 years and am very tired.


If you're so tired of arguing the topic, then why do you keep bringing it up, you petulant windbag?

Also to kuartus: We certainly hope that Dr. Sewell, once rested, will continue a cordial discussion. But, just making a general point here for the record:

It is inherently difficult for a specialist to discuss matters on a blog if people are unwilling or unable to read and understand the primary material.

This problem arose here with Ann Gauger’s critique, in a recent book, of an argument made by Francisco Ayala re first human population sizes. UD news (Denyse O’Leary) had in fact read the relevant chapter (5), but some commenters did not feel the need.

Now, to be clear, we don’t mind people simply holding forth (if they must). But we do not blame the author of a book or paper for refusing to engage with persons who do not read it, do not feel the need to read it, and may not understand the issues, and don’t care if they don’t.

Yes, the author must defend his work against his peers. But the set of all peers is only a subset of the set of all persons with an opinion to air.

Well, let's see how that worked out, shall we?

Commenter paulmc orders book, reads book, understands the issues, takes the time to post a detailed review of the problems he found available for all to see on his blog and links to it from the premier ID supporter site complete with a summary posting in the same thread in which Gauger told everyone to read the book before commenting. Response from Gauger and the entirety of the rest of the crack ID Research team:

<chirp> <chirp>

Perhaps she too is just resting after all that work.

Date: 2012/07/06 00:10:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (olegt @ July 05 2012,20:01)
Can you guess who wrote this?
I’m a very simple person, au fond. I play Chopin on the piano, write artificially intelligent computer programs as a hobby, and earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D.

Granville (now rested):
But by now I realize I have completely wasted 11 years of my life, and put up with unbelievable ridicule and abuse for nothing, because I now realize that anyone who can read my original, common sense argument above, and believe that 4 unintelligent forces alone can create “encyclopedias and computers,” is always going to find a way to avoid the obvious conclusion, no matter how clearly and accurately you state the second law argument. They will argue that the second law only applies to thermal entropy, or that what has happened on Earth is just too difficult to quantify, or use the most popular argument: “you’re just an idiot who doesn’t know anything about the second law”, whatever it takes, they will find a way to distract attention from my main, obvious, point. I have wasted 11 years of my life.

I trust that his DI colleagues have removed his belt, tie and shoelaces.

Date: 2012/07/10 09:38:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2012,21:27)
Quote (NormOlsen @ July 09 2012,15:07)
Oh noes! Crazy atheist lady has blue hair!
Run away!!!

Sal's right - the guy who looks like a Ken doll clearly makes a more compelling case for his claims.  I guess.  Whatever they are.  Anyways, his hair is way neater and not blue.

I just found it interesting that Sal's choice of beauty contest entrant is male.

ID makes a prediction!!

Robert Byers:
Creationist are more persuasive when the case comes down to merits of evidence.
As to character it is a open fact those creationists who can or do reach audiences tend to be of higher quality in character then the opponents who reach audiences.
Not rank and file mostly.

Creationists are the attackers at the moment and so a wrong idea would have a higher mean of character from the attackers.
While the idea being attacked would tend to draw more extreme elements to the initial defence.
The evolutionists of fame seem more unkind and nasty as opposed to the creationists of fame.
As the evolutionists feel more danger to maintaining their cause I predict better types of them will start appearing.

"Types" but not "Kinds" Robert, eh?  ;-)

Date: 2012/07/13 01:15:55, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 12 2012,23:41)
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 12 2012,23:14)
I can't see Diogenes lasting too much longer at UD, taking on Dense and BSI77, among others. Nullasalus has already lit the fuse (UD link) for a Barry style banhammering:


Quick question. Do you deny the Law of Non-Contradiction? ;)

Diogenes is absolutely hammering O'Dreary, and batshit77, and even Joe G.

I predict he'll be silently banned before COB tomorrow.

I do rather hope that Diogenes is able to survive long enough to respond to this one from Byers:

I wrote an essay called “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by robert Byers. Just google.

I say marsupials of S America simply walked there around the pacific rim and possibly only became marsupial upon entering s america.
Jumping over to Antartica was no big deal and unrelated to australia.
There is no reason to see marsupials as connected from a former united southern breakof of Gondwana etc.

Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals.

ETA: Gah, beaten to it - I shouldn't have spent so much time laughing at the contents of that thread.

Date: 2012/07/14 09:13:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Johnny B of "The Blyth Institute" (Director: Jonathan Bartlett) has a new video of his up for viewing on UD. This is from the recent "Engineering and Metaphysics 2012" conference held in conjunction with Oral Roberts University.

KF comments approvingly (italics in original):
JB: Beautiful substantial equivalence on inferred credible reality of hidden factors from what is observable point! KF

Whatever the hell that means ...

The conference program is here (Conference Home) and it looks like there are a number of video presentations uploaded, including one intriguingly title "An Engineering Perspective on Suffering:
The Problem of Evil and Suffering from an Engineering Perspective".  

Conference presenters include: Dr. Walter Bradley (Baylor University), Dr. Alexander Sich (Franciscan University of Steubenville), Dr. Dominic Halsmer (Oral Roberts University), P. Wesley Odom (Oral Roberts University), Dr. William Jordan (Baylor University), Dr. Mark Hall (Oral Roberts University), Jonathan Bartlett (The Blyth Institute), Winston Ewert (Baylor University), Eric Holloway, and Arminius Mignea.

Have fun ...

Date: 2012/07/17 16:05:27, Link
Author: Freddie
For crying out loud - someone get her a science book, or a maths book.  No wonder she thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.  Does she think 'm' is short for millenia?

Twice in the past week.  What an embarrassment.

Date: 2012/07/19 07:04:26, Link
Author: Freddie
I see Doug Axe has responded to Paul McBride's review of his book.

Thou Shalt Not Put Evolution To The Test

It seems to be of the "Any aspect of the transition [... from apes to humans] that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years)." variety.

Date: 2012/07/19 07:20:35, Link
Author: Freddie
Some good stuff here:

Biologic Institute Facebook Page

Get it before it all goes 'poof'!

Date: 2012/07/20 00:25:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Look on the bright side: the 100 word posting limit means that any and all cut and paste contributions from KF or BA77 are a non-starter so you won't have to scroll past all that crap.

Date: 2012/07/25 11:05:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 25 2012,08:39)
Gordon Mullins says rather more then I suspect he might have wanted to:
it hardly matters if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand by default.

Got you Gordo.
it hardly matters if there are even critical flaws in Behe's work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand by default.
it hardly matters if there are even critical flaws in Dembski's work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand by default.

IP, I have to go now. In recent days, PM’s noview has been seriously addressed, especially at ENV, with several related threads at UD. This is just one of them. Remember, “every tub must stand on its own bottom,” and if the evo mat narrative of OOL and OO body plans including our own cannot do that, it hardly matters if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand by default. I will, DV, be back later, I have a mission- critical issue to help a client address and have already taken more time than I should from it. KF

Edited to make the image a bit smallerer !

Date: 2012/07/26 01:58:21, Link
Author: Freddie
ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,

The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.

It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.

Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing.  The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.


Date: 2012/07/26 11:32:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Gordon is the living personification of ... Victorian Dad

In other News:  
The two sides in this contention are divided by different interpretations of a much larger body of evidence, which is really the issue.

If the fusion case turns out not to be so good, would you consider that an argument against common ancestry?

Gordo, and the other idiots over there, chromosomal fusion itself is not evidence for common descent or common ancestry.  Does this concept not make it through your evolved mammalian ears past those thick skulls of yours?  Do you not have the slightest understanding of this topic Ms 'News'.  Have you understood nothing that has been written about it?  Maybe you just didn't bother to read up on it as you already know your answer?

Chromosomal fusion is a classic, successful scientific prediction given that it was observed humans have less chromosomes than our theorized closest cousins on the evolutionary tree, chimps.  All the fusion event tells us is that some point after an ancestral line split, a fusion occurred in the human lineage and spread through the population.  Real scientists can use this and related information to construct a historical timeline of these events - that's real science.

The evidence for common ancestry/descent that shows the prediction was correct is from when we became able to sequence the genome and found a high level of correlation at the 'pre-fusion' point in the chimp genome and the 'fusion point' in the human genome.  Hence, it is very likely that we both shared a common ancestor prior to the fusion event in humans.

I have High School (well, Secondary School) Biology only and even I can (sort of) understand this point.

It is, of course, possible that a simpler explanation (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) is that humans and chimps were just designed that way in the first place 6,000 years ago (waves at joeG).  It is also a simpler explanation to say that Newton's stuff was good, but really there are just invisible fucking unicorns pushing the planets around with their pointy ends to a fixed pattern.

Occam's razor requires two competing hypothesis, you numbskulls, not one complex hypothesis and one simple made up story with zero supporting evidence.

There is an enormous 'body of evidence' surrounding this whole topic.  If you believe there is another interpretation that better fits the entire body of facts gathered over 150 years of scientific research in many different disciplines, then please, please publish your detailed hypothesis that accounts for everything. If not then also, please, just shut the fuck up because without your own theory, you have nothing.  Do you understand ... you .... have ... nothing.

If you people really believe that failing to turn the equivalent of an apple into a banana in a cutting edge IDiot lab over the course of a few years means that evolution can never have happened, then you are just plain deluded.

p.s. apologies to real scientists if I mangled any of the terms above.

/rant over - these people just annoy the crap out of me with their sanctimonious, arrogant, evidence free BS.

Date: 2012/07/27 03:59:09, Link
Author: Freddie
It seems JoeG and PaV are in two different ID camps.  Schism!!

Also - PaV brings the laughs. Another case of "so close, yet so far ..."

Date: 2012/08/01 05:37:20, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Badger3k @ July 31 2012,22:59)
Quote (Patrick @ July 31 2012,18:37)
Celebration of the divine feminine in kairosfocus' backyard!

Only if you shave it first!  :O


Date: 2012/08/01 09:46:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (socle @ Aug. 01 2012,09:19)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 01 2012,08:32)
Awwww... Back at Sandwalk.

Geez larry, all you have to do to silence us is actually step up and present positive evidence for blind and undirected chemical processes actually constructing new multi-protein machinery. But you are such a sad little man that you can't even do that.

Ya see Larry, you can spew insults all you want but being a little faggot yourself, your insults don't carry any weight- of course you carry a lot a of weight but that is another story.

Have a good day.

BTW if you want to see a decrease in evoTARDs just tell them to find me and insult me to my face. Go NRA!


Joe: Please, watch tone and language. KF

Hmmm - seems to me that counts as a mafioso-style 'we know where you live' threat!

Date: 2012/08/02 08:51:01, Link
Author: Freddie
Catch it while you can ...

Date: 2012/08/02 10:58:13, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 02 2012,09:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 02 2012,09:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 02 2012,05:11)
Wouldn't it be better to do that "experiment" on some organism with even a hint of self-awareness?  I'm pretty sure a moth doesn't know what color it is, nor does it particularly care.

Actually moths do attempt to blend in with their backgrounds. It is called voluntary crypsis.

Should that be "some moths"?  Just looking at the links, it seems like the original 'peppered moths' don't do that, but the Korean moths do.

Nick Matzke's takedown in that thread is a pleasure to read:

..., whatever those species do, the British peppered moth species doesn’t have this behavior. So the behavior of these other species is irrelevant to them. There are tens of thousands of moth species on the planet, you can’t just read something about a moth species in Korea and make wild, random claims about the implications for a species of moth on the other side of the planet in England which has been very well studied on its own.

Short version: you and your YEC source made a complete incompetent hash of this story, if you had any sense of scientific propriety or care for truth you would issue a retraction, recommend that Creation-Evolution Headlines did the same, and write them off as anti-scientific yammerers who don’t care about research or accuracy if they don’t. This kind of thing is the *primary* reason creationists don’t get no respect from scientists. They don’t deserve it. They don’t earn it. In fact, what creationists earn is just pity and scorn, through confident-but-poorly-researched-and-inaccurate screeds like this one.

JoeG adds his own eloquent contribution:
That’s it? REALLY? If that is all natural selection can “do” then it is obvious that the theory of evolution is in deep poo….

Date: 2012/08/02 16:55:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 02 2012,16:19)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 02 2012,13:52)
PAV gets all sciency:
. . .

Go away little PaV.

Ah, happy days!  That thread must have generated almost as much spittle as the 'quasi-, semi-latching weasel' thread.  Brilliant stuff - reading through it again now is like seeing it again for the first time.

Date: 2012/08/06 06:27:55, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 06 2012,06:17)
Did you notice that Bat's Asshole 77 actually invoked the second law of thermodynamics in reply 10?

Apparently none of us exists.

sergiomendes from that thread:


you certainly person of lengthy study speaking for subjects religion, science, filosofia, mathematicas, music, video. member for religion order like priest, monk, or scientist, professor of university, maybe of Academia Pontificia de Ciencias? however, very generous of sharing knowledge. thank you.


Well i'm not sure about his religious or academic qualifications but I think I remember reading that at one point he was in the AA program.  Anyone got that link for Phil's past?

Date: 2012/08/06 10:30:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 06 2012,09:59)
my bet is on elevator guy

ha ha ha ha


too companies for production guns of automatic shooting, granadas, mines explosivo. death to many village peoples indigenous on Sudamerica, Centromerica!


Date: 2012/08/07 15:20:44, Link
Author: Freddie
I hope they find a footprint on Friday.

Date: 2012/08/22 14:27:01, Link
Author: Freddie
Someone has a hard-on for Dawkins recently judging by the number of new threads targeting him on the UD site.

How long before Sal chips in to claim Dawkins beats puppy's just like his god Darwin?


I love it that KF just posted a 4,000 word OP about how he was 'slandered' on another blog.  

Hey Mr. Fucking Bydandy, how about you grow a pair like your supposed ancestors, sign up over there and state your case rationally in a post of 100 words or less.  

Oh, right, I remember why now ...

Date: 2012/08/22 14:43:51, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ Aug. 22 2012,14:27)

 Anyone know what he is talking about? "hate site initiative"? "suspicious associations tied in with porn"?

He is talking about the fact that our esteemed Lou once posted a link to photo's he had taken professionally that were hosted on his own website.  At least one of the pictures showed - gasp - a woman's naughty bits (above the waist only, I might add, but still devil's dumplings to be sure!)

Since then, he has taken several opportunities to state that this site associates with others offering pornography, or something like that.  Sounds libelous to me, anyway.

Anyone got a link to that great passage where KF talks at length about having to force himself to watch some hot girl on girl action?

Date: 2012/08/22 15:46:01, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2012,15:09)
Would someone care to point out to sanctimonious prick KF that Joe (who has his 6!) has posted pictures of ladies genitalia here, on TSZ and his own blog. And ask him why he and Joe are 6-watching buds.

Quote (REC @ Aug. 22 2012,14:27)
KF doesn't get the "so long as you don’t link to porn" on TSZ reference to Joe's 'tunie' link, and has this to say:


I just can't get my head around the KF/Joe bond.  At the top of that same thread here is KF ...
I do so now, as I have just learned how I have been slandered at The Skeptical Zone by Petrushka, as one who would censor for mere disagreement. (Joe, thanks for watching my 6.)

In any other universe KF wouldn't be seen in the same galaxy as Joe, the reality-denying, filthy-mouthed dullard with his kindergarten-level education and similar level of emotional maturity.  

I mean, here is a guy who actually did post pornographic images here and on Lizzie's blog, yet apparently that's all okay behaviour in the big ID tent. Onward christian (or muslim) soldiers ...

Joe's own blog is a hate-filled, content-free excretion with some derivative of the word 'fuck' appearing at least once in a large percentage of Joe's posts.  In any other context KF would expend thousands of words excoriating such a blog.  Here ... <chirp> as KF likes to say.

I am 100% sure KF knows what Joe is but chooses to ignore it to prop up his more 'noble' cause. The ability to suppress cognitive dissonance must be strong in this one.

Maybe KF lives vicariously through Joe, the guy who says publicly what the puritanical KF can never be seen to state.  

Or maybe KF just thinks of Joe as cannon fodder.

Date: 2012/08/23 11:47:13, Link
Author: Freddie
Granville Sewell
But you have intelligence, so you can think ahead. Mutations will should only be selected if they improve the survivability rate immediately, not if they hold “promise” for improving survivability in later generations!

I can't work out if this is a tongue-in-cheek comment or if he is actually serious.

Date: 2012/08/23 16:14:20, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 23 2012,15:05)
Barry Arrington continues his quest to push inconvenient questions off the first page. He has started what is at least the third thread at UD dealing with Upright Biped's semionic theory.

So he can start the whole thing over as if the links to TSZ don't exist, no one ever asked UB how his theory supports ID, whether he has evidence that the genetic code existed in its current form in the first replicator, or what the existence of red plastic balls has to do with evolution.

I predict that if anyone brings this up or posts links to the threads UB ran away from, they will conveniently stop posting after being warned of more serious forms of correction.

"Having finished typing his rather grandiose OP, Barry sensed a nagging feeling that something was wrong ..."
I take the following from an excellent comment UP made in a prior post.  UP lays out his argument step by step, precept by precept.  Then he arrives at a conclusion.  In order for his argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises.  In order for his argument to be sound, each of the premises must be true.

Now here is the challenge to our Darwinist friends.  If you disagree with UP’s conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false).  Good luck (you’re going to need it).

Without further ado, here is UP’s argument:

Date: 2012/08/24 15:55:02, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 24 2012,13:45)
Upright continues (same link as above, plus 1).

Through an interesting turn of events, I was given the opportunity to have an audience with a physicist that many would consider an authority on these specific topics. I can say this with some confidence because his peers have already honored him as such more than once. There is no need in asking for his name because (#1) I do not have his permission to give it and (#2) I wouldn’t anyway. This man is an ardent materialist who was kind enough to review the larger argument I am making here and give me his response to it. I have no intentions of dragging him out to be slaughtered by the ideologues whom have already shown what they will do to anyone who would stain themselves by agreeing with an ID proponent. It’s not going to happen.

The reason I bring this up is because I do intend on sharing the first line of his response. ...

blah, blah, blah ,,,

And in contrast, here is the first line in the response from a physicist motivated by evidence, without the emotional requirement to belittle and berate any perceived lesser person who holds a different opinion:

   I agree with everything you say, although I often use different terms. I try to stick with the vocabulary of physics as much as possible. This is just one example of the arbitrariness …

Perhaps someone can translate this into something meaningful.

Happy to help:

>>I agree with everything you say,

"Please don't bother me right now I am in the middle of something"

>>although I often use different terms.

"What the fuck are you talking about?"

>>I try to stick with the vocabulary of physics as much as possible.

"Whatever it is you are trying to tell me you are not making any sense at all.  You might as well be spouting Vogon poetry."

>>This is just one example of the arbitrariness …

"I'm going to start just saying random stuff back at you so you think i'm agreeing with you, then you'll hopefully go away and not bug me any more.  I come to parties to let my hair down, so please cut the metaphysical bollocks and stop blocking my route to the bar ... "

Date: 2012/08/25 02:23:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 25 2012,01:12)
Kiros Focus' defense of censsorship:


kairosfocusAugust 25, 2012 at 12:02 am



The comments boxes of UD are open for just that, but over time consistently we find abusive objectors, evasive/distractive objectors and enablers for abusive and evasive/distractive objectors.



Because calling folks "those with the manners and attitudes of a swamp predator" exhibits "address issues on the merits of fact and logic, with a modicum of common decency ".

Mullings, you're just a cowardly pulpit bully unable to carry himself in a public forum.

Reminds me of something:

[Jimmy is explaining to Reggie what kinds of people his secret army will be against]

Jimmy Anderson: Wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue-sniffers, "Play For Today", Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?

Reginald Perrin: You realise the sort of people you're going to attract, don't you, Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, racialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, rear Admirals, queer admirals, Vice Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo-loyalists, crypto-loyalists.

Jimmy Anderson: Do you think so? I thought support might be difficult.


Date: 2012/08/26 16:00:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (iconofid @ Aug. 26 2012,14:09)
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 26 2012,13:09)
ID is all about science, though, really.
It isn't religion.

Sergiomendes on the "On self-evident moral truth" thread:

"Barry arrington,

now is Uncommon Descent site concerned more and more of Christianity, filosofia, atheism and less and less sciences, yes?


I somehow wonder if Sergio is related to the recently deceased Mr. Nakashima.

There's only one thing self-evident on that thread ... and hopefully it will be up for posterity for all to see!

Date: 2012/08/26 16:15:17, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Freddie @ Aug. 22 2012,14:27)
Someone has a hard-on for Dawkins recently judging by the number of new threads targeting him on the UD site.

How long before Sal chips in to claim Dawkins beats puppy's just like his god Darwin?


I love it that KF just posted a 4,000 word OP about how he was 'slandered' on another blog.  

Hey Mr. Fucking Bydandy, how about you grow a pair like your supposed ancestors, sign up over there and state your case rationally in a post of 100 words or less.  

Oh, right, I remember why now ...

Do I get a prize for being in the ballpark?


Date: 2012/08/26 16:34:37, Link
Author: Freddie
Great photo's Dhogaza!

You have prompted me to upload a few images from my weekend walkabout in California back in June.  Not being a native I don't know what I'm looking at, but I think #3 is a Chestnut-backed Chickadee. Help with the others would be appreciated. There's a few more once these are figured out :-)

Date: 2012/08/27 04:58:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 26 2012,20:42)
#1 black-headed grosbeak
#2 & #4 lesser goldfinch
#3 ya got it!

Excellent - thanks so much, I wasn't sure if 2 & 4 were the same species, as they were taken at different times in different places, so thanks again for that!

ETA: Looking the Goldfinch up, it looks like '2' is a Green-backed Adult Male and '4' is an adult Female.

I work for a company in the San Jose area, but live in the UK so I only get over there once or twice a year.  I've been to Monterey several times while visiting and know the pier you are talking about above - maybe next time if the season is right i'll do the whale boat trip too!

Date: 2012/08/27 06:04:10, Link
Author: Freddie
A few more I took in Castle Rock State Park, Santa Clara.  The big birds are Turkey Vultures, I believe.  The top of the park is at about 2,400 feet so I was able to get photo's of them climbing and soaring.  The first butterfly is from the same park, the second is from a different park about 20 miles to the South which is mostly grassland at about 2,000 feet up, it is parked on top of a grain of grass.

I tried to save them at a relatively small filesize - hope it doesn't slow the page loading time down too much!

Date: 2012/08/27 06:54:39, Link
Author: Freddie
KF - August 26th:
Now, of course, as was pointed out before this was ever said, we have a case where Petrushka played a nasty game of falsely pretending that I threatened to ban someone who has not been banned then played an even more nasty trick of suggesting — using my abbreviated handle — that I would post pornographic links. That is a plain case of willful deceit with insult added to injury.

So, what is needed here is not a correction of misunderstanding but an apology and retraction.

I seem to recall someone previously informed KF that the comment he is referring to was not posted by Petrushka, but by Alan Fox.  Alan Fox has now started a new topic at TSZ:

Apologies to Kairosfocus and Petrushka

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Alan Fox

It seems I have given great offence to the commenter, Kairosfocus, at Uncommon Descent with my comment:

I see Kairosfocus is reading comments here.

I can’t tell for sure but is KF owning up to or denying banning mphillips? In case he finds time to read more…

Come on over, KF and, so long as you don’t link to porn and can be succinct enough not to overload the software, you will be very welcome, I’m sure!

I would like first to point out to Kairosfocus that he is mistakenly attributing the comment to Petrushka, a fellow commenter here and elsewhere. I would like to say sorry to Petrushka too for apparently initiating the misdirected criticism she has received.

Given that KF has now repeated his assertion then this would seem to be a case of wilful deceit, nay, slander (perhaps even libel!) that KF has performed on Petrushka.  

KF, I am astonished that your original post seems to be a strawman “provocation” instead of an occasion to stop,  think again and not proceed to justify the inexcusable. This is a personal and unwarranted attack given the circumstances and obvious reluctance to simply perform a fact-check in the face of criticism.  KF, you have a plain duty of care to correct such basic errors otherwise those that have met these Alinsky-like demonisation tactics before when facing radical marxists in the 1970's will all too easily see those who should know better take faith from such actions and spread this slander to other sites where refutation to the primary source is no longer possible.  Your accusations and insinuations in that inward-looking poisonous fever swamp at which you post represents behaviour that no sensible person should be prepared to tolerate.  The dehumanisation, demonisation and targetting of Petrushka through in effect propagating such a slander is obviously the real agenda behind such wilful concealment of the truth.  We could continue on and on, but that is enough for now to substantiate the point about what would be likely to happen were you not to publicly and immediately apologize for your actions and to remove your offensive post from that swamp site.  Until then, all I can do is to point out to the onlooker just what is really going on, trusting that in the end, the extremism and abuse of such radicals and the traces they leave behind for all to view for posterity will be its own best refutation.  KF, apologize now to Petrushka, before it is too, too late for your abusive behaviour to be corrected and you fall foul of those in our society who would continue to lie about, slander and misrepresent other's thoughts and work in the end to push their own dominionist and theocratic agendas.  I call on your 'fellow' posters at Uncommon Descent and ask "Is this really the kind of behaviour you want to associate with?"  For shame.  Good-day.

Date: 2012/08/27 08:35:27, Link
Author: Freddie
ha ha ha .... brilliant, KF you are the best!
In addition, are you aware that one of these denizens has operated a photography business that openly posts NSW pictures, including of a suspiciously youthful young miss whom the then deputy commissioner of police here estimated to be 16 YO at most (never mind that person’s assertion that she was 23). And yes, operators and denizens of said site, I spoke with both the Police and the Attorney general’s Office here.

You gotta read the whole screed - it's a tsumani of spittle.  Melt-down Monday!

Date: 2012/08/27 16:37:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Does a 'mock' kidnapping count as fun when it comes to child torture?

Fake Church Kidnapping

Date: 2012/08/28 01:39:41, Link
Author: Freddie
Thanks for the identification Robin!
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 27 2012,21:25)
Freddie, do you have a ventral view of the checkerspot, and a more direct ventral view of the second butterfly (a lycaenid)?

Gah ... now you're going to make me post the ones that didn't quite make it out of RAW stage.  I don't have ventral pictures of either of those specific butterfly's.  I did take some more of what I think are the same species as the checkerspot in the same area on the same day (below) but the only other one I have of the lycaenid is basically the same shot from only a slightly different angle.

Date: 2012/08/28 15:03:22, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 28 2012,03:13)
Freddie, if you're concerned that some of your other pictures aren't very good, don't worry, I won't denigrate them. Even a blurry, badly lit (or worse) picture can often be helpful when it comes to identifying a critter or plant. And I know how hard it can be to get good pictures of some things, especially when they don't sit still.

Regarding the checkerspots, I'd say that the second picture is a chalcedon checkerspot (Euphydryas chalcedona) which is also also called 'variable' checkerspot, etc., etc., and some people consider the chalcedon to be the same as the colon checkerspot and maybe even the same as the anicia checkerspot. Yeah, it's a bunch of lumping or splitting and just plain confusion. The same thing goes for some lycaenids and many other butterflies. Taxonomists like to throw a lot of names at things before they know what they actually are.

Edith's checkerspots are easy to identify if you have a ventral view. They have a thin dark line running through one of the orange/red bands on the hind wings. The chaos with Edith's starts when it comes to "sub" species, "forms", etc.

The butterflies know what they are. :)

The white spots on the abdomen of the second checkerspot above are also an indicator that it's a chalcedon although the white spots aren't always there. I think that the first one is also a chalcedon ('variable', etc.) but I wish I had a ventral view to be sure.

Not at all - I just had to dig into my archive to find the RAWs and pull them out (i'm a bit anal about keeping everything, too many times I have deleted something only to find I needed it the next day!)

Thanks very much for your help. In the UK there are some different species of birds that are really quite difficult to tell apart, I hadn't really considered that butterfly's would be in the same camp even more so!

Date: 2012/08/28 17:07:30, Link
Author: Freddie
For crying out loud, KF
Obviously, T has failed to do basic homework and does not know that Dawkins has admitted that Weasel is a pre-loaded targetted search. Cf here.

How many times will you try and make it seem as if Dawkins was ever hiding something when he was indeed quite up front about what Weasel was intended for.  There's a word for what you are doing ... one you use very often with respect to people who just disagree with you.

The whole point of Weasel is not the target, it is to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection over 'single-step selection' - i.e. the creationists stupid tornado in a junkyard sketch.  And of course, as your BFF Joe states, ID is not anti-evolution (although he has never really stated what he means by this - perhaps KF can tell us?) so you and he both should be happy with the concept of cumulative selection, no?  Get over it - the world has moved on from Weasel in the last 26 years since he published, apparently you haven't.

Date: 2012/08/29 14:52:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Hands off ... it's my sig line okay.  Mine, all mine ... first dibs and all that!
Well dr who has responded to me but the response is totally evidence-free.

Earth to dr who- “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”- hitchens

As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.

Date: 2012/08/29 18:11:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Onlooker, please leave this thread and any other thread that I own. I have already laid out the reason you requested and you have chosen to try to derail discussion in spite of having adequate information — and current incidents further back it up, including a case of outright insult — to answer any reasonable query, and a repeated request to focus on topic. Your disruptive conduct has removed you from the circle of the civil. Good day. KF

(bold loudspeaker format in original)

Har har onlooker, this is you:

Date: 2012/08/30 09:05:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 30 2012,08:29)
So, we should have a favorite tard contest.  

PM me your vote for the most entertaining tard of the t.a.r.d. website UD commenters, or who have come here.  this covers most of the tards with two boundaries i think.

you don't have to talk about your vote publicly, it's just a game.  but wouldn't you like to know?

Vote for your tard and explain why this tard is your favorite in three sentences or less, send me a PM and in 10 days I will tally the votes.  

I want Gordon E. Mullings of Man Jack Heights Montserrat to know just how much we love him!  Or, don't love him!  Muah!

Does the choice have to be a current practitioner of tard, or can you vote for one that has either retired or turned recluse?

Date: 2012/08/31 02:23:18, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ Aug. 30 2012,23:30)

Robert Byers August 30, 2012 at 10:07 pm
my mom was a nurse too and I heard things about girls being stronger then boys too.
However perhaps its just poor analysis. More gorls then boys are born and so on.

Adam would of seen all creatures in male/female divisions and parts and so if he was the male one it would suggest to him a chick is coming.
Yet it seems he had no such idea.
So i suggest he was self reproducing and knew it.
So the “rib” was this organ taken away and so today we have no evidence of it.

I mean Adam had no beard because it was perfect in Eden and no threat from nature. Perhaps after he needed it.

The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.
Its rainy in europe but not asia/North America.
Animals in the tropics are very hairy also but not because its cold.
I see out hair growth as simply a reaction to moisture which the body, wrongly, interpreted as a threat to warmth. So we need deordant and have hair there uselessly. And so on.
It all indicates biological change comes from innate triggers but no grand strategy.
Its possible asian bodies represent the original look of post flood people below the neck.

Which of you is it this time......

Snagged that one, thanks ... actually, I think I could have equally chosen any sentence from that one and picked a winner!

Date: 2012/09/03 08:26:02, Link
Author: Freddie
"Having failed to smite Tampa good and proper with Hurricane Isaac, god's next plan involved something less subtle ..."

(from Google News, today)

Date: 2012/09/04 14:42:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (REC @ Sep. 04 2012,14:25)
Bored now....

Where's the increasingly shrill, self-defeating and erratic loudspeaker?

Where are Byers' cleanly shorn asian garden of Eden dry-hair Eskimos fresh off the ark and Adam asexually reproducing from his 'rib' that was taken later?

Come on UD, you're seriously under-entertaining lately....

I need me some meltdown!!!

Well, to be fair, Byers did cough this one up yesterday.

Robert Byers:
Maybe Einstein is malicious?
And on these issues useless. stick to gravity stuff Al.

nature is not in its original form.
originally nature had eternal life and mechanisms to do it.
only a great and weird FALL changed nature into a thing of death.
The bible says this.
Any analysis of nature must include a option its not what God planned.
Christianity is about bringing remedy.
God was executed.
This is not showing a healthy universe.

Not quite as entertaining as the explanation for a post Fall Adam's beard, but worth reading through a couple of times just to appreciate the flow ... it works best for me by reading in the same tone as Michael Palin's 'prophet' character in Life of Brian.

We could take turns at deconstructing it for want of something better to do?

Date: 2012/09/05 12:06:50, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 05 2012,11:29)
Joe climbs down:
OK my apologies to R0bb and UD-

? does NOT change.

Hey, Joe, if you can be wrong about that perhaps you can also be wrong about, oh I dunno, everything else as well?

Ever considered that? That perhaps it's your lack of understanding that's the problem, not the science of evolution?

But it's OK, Joe has not really admitted any significant error:
And that means the new search grid excludes R0bb’s 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. And that has been my point all along.

Ya see, IOW Joe is always right even when he's wrong. His all along point is still true, despite a few hiccups along the way. So Joe is the only true, undisputed understanderer after all exactly as Joe suspected all along.

Did he also apologize to R0bb for all of these comments made by Joe directly to him in the last 48 hours alone?

Blah, blah, blah- It has already been proven that your intent is just to purposely mess up whatever Marks or Dembski says.

So why should anyone try to respond to you?

Ok R0bb- your math is invalid because your your sets were imporperly defined. That is why we don’t leave math up to people intent on messing it up.

And you’re just realizing that now? Did you not read the equatuation and discussion or did you jusrt decide to post without understanding it?

They look as if a 3 year old defined them. Other than that, nice job for a 3 year old.

Yes, you could so define the set, if you want to be a jerk or if you are a 3 year old.

You choose…

That you refuse to understand that exposes your agenda and your lack of integrity.

As I said you appear not to know anything about the topic that you are trying to discuss.

But seeing that you are anonymous you don’t care that you look foolish.

R0bb’s post on TSZ are a failure- a failure to comprehend what Dembski and Marks are saying which led to a failure to properly address what they said.

And one reason that you don’t see progress here is you and your ilk prevent it. This thread is a great case in point…

Why are you even asking me? Everything is defined in the paper you are referencing. And if you can’t understand what is in the paper, as obvioulsy you do not, then you should not try to discuss it.

So no, I have indulged you enough- no, more than enough.

Explain yourself, I dare you…

That you can’t even be honest about that exposes your agenda.

I thought not.

I would suggest that counts as prima facie evidence of uncivil behaviour and name calling.  Do the moderator's on that site have no shame?  (a rhetorical question)

Date: 2012/09/06 06:07:51, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 06 2012,04:23)
As King of Tards, DS was allowed the privilege of not having to slavishly adhere to every bit of ID nonsense. The rules are what the king says the rules are!

It's good to be the King!

Date: 2012/09/08 03:57:58, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 08 2012,03:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 08 2012,09:22)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 07 2012,18:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 08 2012,00:48)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Sep. 07 2012,09:28)
A quick note to say "Hellbound?" is doing a sneak preview in Nashville on Sept. 12 and then opening in NYC, Dallas and Minneapolis on Sept. 21. See all of the details here:

Just out of curiosity, do you think anyone here actually cares?

By posting here it triples his web traffic.

I thought web traffic was when people click on your website, not when you click on someone else's website.

He might think that some of us would be bored enough to click on his website.

<hangs head in shame :( >

Date: 2012/09/08 04:01:01, Link
Author: Freddie
Looks like their 'Recent Posts' section is not updating over there.  Bugger.  Now we have to actually search for T.A.R.D. instead of having it presented to us.

Date: 2012/09/08 07:15:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Female Mallard, a common bird but I just liked the photo :-)

Date: 2012/09/10 15:27:26, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 10 2012,15:20)
hey, a 580 square foot mansion for 60K US, what a great fucking deal.  No wonder Gordon wants to live there

Who wouldn't want to live there with a vista such as this?

Date: 2012/09/13 17:10:32, Link
Author: Freddie
Yep, PoTW!

Can we do it again next week?

Date: 2012/09/15 13:28:57, Link
Author: Freddie
A few pictures from the past week.  Made an effort to get up to catch the sunrise today and ended out in the wetlands for about 3 hours, soaked below the waist from the dew on the long grass & rushes. Got a few good shots (as far as I am concerned!) so it was worth it - might post some more tomorrow.

Comma (Polygonia c-album)

Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta) taking in some windfall.

Four-spot orb-weaver (Araneus quadratus) - Female

Four-spot orb-weaver (Araneus quadratus) - Female

[ETA: Both spiders taken hand-held, manual focus. The first is at 235mm from about 2 metres, the second is 300mm from about 3 metres - almost impossible to use auto-focus]

Date: 2012/09/16 02:59:27, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 15 2012,21:13)

Or from a different story series:
"Why does it have to be spiders? Why can't it be follow the butterflies?"


Unfortunately for Ron, there were rather more spiders than butterflies around yesterday :-)

Date: 2012/09/16 10:10:53, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 16 2012,09:52)
We all know that Dr. Dr. Dembski is now the ''Philip E. Johnson Research Professor in Culture & Science'' at the Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College. He will fit right in, as he fits their profile: he is male...

They provide a  catalog where I couldn't help to take a closer look at the faculty:
  • Graduate Faculty (Full-Time): 8 male (6 bearded), 0 female
  • Graduate Faculty (Part-Time): 7 male (3 bearded), 0 female
  • Undergraduate Faculty (Part-Time): 5 male (1 bearded), 1 female (hurray!)
  • Adjunct Faculty: 10 male (3 bearded), 0 female
  • Visiting Lecturers: 4 male (1 bearded), 0 female

Obviously this heavy thinking stuff isn't for the ladies...

Looking at one of the photos in the brochure, I would say the faculty somewhat represents the gender mix in class:

With all those beards, it surely can't be difficult to spot a female interloper ...

[PS. when uploading these pics to tinypic the spam/bot filter phrases were "the end is near" and "nest egg".  I kid you not.]

Date: 2012/09/16 12:41:12, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 16 2012,11:22)

i caught about 100 green sunnies and bluegills yesterday, mostly on a popping bug.  also hen-of-the-woods, autumn olive berries.  anybody found any muscadines

You and the Mrs. ?

Date: 2012/09/18 05:35:27, Link
Author: Freddie


Date: 2012/09/18 08:37:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 18 2012,08:07)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 18 2012,07:40)
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 18 2012,05:35)


I thought the very mention of the fever swamp was a banning matter?

Anyway, I'm sure the UD crowd are fascinated by details of Joe's battles with sundry netkooks on other sites.

Yep.  Fortunately Joe is immune to actual knowledge.

Notice how he's switched from vitamin C to vitamin D.  

BTW Joe, did you know that vitamin D photosynthesis first appeared in bacteria 750 mya (and that's not 'millenia').  And every land vertebrate has the exact same system for using sunlight to build vitamin D.  Hmmm... evidence of common ancestry.

Fail again, Joe.

Oh and do come back and cut and paste your metric for measuring or determining complexity, specificity, and the possibility of other options for the 'design inference'.

Sorry - schoolboy humour. I was laughing at Joe's reference to VD in your system and it's affect on gene regulation.  

I'll get back to reading me Viz, now ...

Date: 2012/09/21 14:04:51, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 21 2012,02:52)
No points for guessing who wrote this magnum opus tardissimus:

Centrality of Each Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

,,,yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘thought experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

... Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so I dug around a bit and found this,,,

Comedy gold.  "I dug around a bit and found this,,, " ....

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

I can't help but picture batshit standing up in front of an AA group in the church basement giving this speech.  And that's just from the 1st page!

Date: 2012/09/23 16:47:53, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 21 2012,14:29)
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 21 2012,12:04)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

Looks like the motherlode of all batshit's copy-and-paste jobs.  Disappointingly, it's just regular text, and not a scan of something written in green crayon.

Batshit publishes his research ...

Date: 2012/09/24 13:29:38, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 24 2012,12:20)
gpuccio earns 10 points on the Crackpot Scale:
To Joe Felsenstein (at TSZ):

One more thought: in the end, I believe that Dembski is right, although I aould never be able to give a mathemathical demonstration that he is tight (and I am not sure he has completely succeeded in that). But the general concepts are there.

Crackpot Index, #15:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

In theory we should be able to rate each longer thread at UD on the Crackpot Scale once it has reached, say, 50 posts to provide a common basis for comparison.

It would mean a little work and studious adherence to all 37 potential point-earners, but I think we could generate a top 20 list that would give new devotees of Tard a starting point for where to go to get the good stuff first.

SideWiki may have been a useful tool here :-(

Date: 2012/09/26 05:37:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 25 2012,12:07)
Someone should get him started on chemtrails. That should be a laugh.

why start on chemtrails when we're still having so much fun with H2O?

I've lost track, this is certainly beyond doubling down but is it tripling- or quadrupling-down at this point?

Date: 2012/09/26 13:27:15, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 26 2012,12:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 26 2012,17:27)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 26 2012,10:46)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 26 2012,09:30)
vjtorley: Are crows capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents? Five reasons for skepticism

First. Crows can't reason because they "are unable to explain the basis of their judgments".

Second. Crows can't reason because they can't "justify their claims in the court of public opinion, and if they cannot do so, they are rightly ignored."

Third. Crows can't reason about causation because causation "is quite a sophisticated concept".

Fourth. Crows can't reason because vjtorley is confused about causation.

Fifth. One cannot help wondering what would happen if vjtorley actually took the time and effort to observe crows?

Sixth. Crows don't understand Caws and Effect.

Drat! Missed that.

We're eating crow.

But they're raven mad.

Should we carrion with this pun cascade or rook to move it to the Bathroom wall?

Date: 2012/10/03 09:53:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Ah, DeNews ...
4. TED talks creator Wurman says they’ve lost their jazz

Now plans new type of event most of us can’t afford.

In “Life after TED” (Financial Times September 29, 2012), April Dembosky. Ideas conferences have lost their spontaneity, says Richard Saul Wurman. His solution? A $16,000-a-ticket event featuring David Blaine [pianist], Herbie Hancock [stuntman] and 72 hours of ‘intellectual jazz’

5. Oldest galaxy ever detected?

From “Ultra-Distant Galaxy Discovered Amidst Cosmic ‘Dark Ages’: May Be Oldest Galaxy Ever” (Science Daily, September 19, 2012), we learn of the galaxy, found viagraviational lensing, that
dates from 500 million years after the 13.7 mya Big Bang,

There appears to be a new strategy to thwart her ability to push all new posts off the home page after 24 hours - she's now posting 6 'news' items in one thread.  More concentrated tard, I guess ...

[edited: to add 2nd stupid mistake from same post - missing a few zero's yet again.  Someone tell her the difference between million and billion again, ... please]

Date: 2012/10/03 10:13:22, Link
Author: Freddie
Journal of Creation Theology and Science

Do we need a new thread for this exciting new YEC publication, courtesy Bryan College and Todd Wood?

For example:

Ancient mtDNA Implies a Nonconstant Molecular Clock in the Human Holobaramin - TC Wood

Date: 2012/10/03 15:20:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Robert Byers is my favorite YEC sub-tard:

Date: 2012/10/06 04:08:24, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2012,03:44)
Mung: I notice that in good Uncommon Descent tradition you are slinging insults with almost every post in the discussion of GA's (calling people dumb etc ..) meanwhile the self proclaimed moral authorities like KF turn a blind eye - Give the discussion about GA's I thought I would point out that Mung is only two mutations away from Dumb.

He also seems to have a new keyboard he's having so much fun with it ...

Date: 2012/10/11 10:30:21, Link
Author: Freddie
For me, it is simply a shaking impact, of a cold probability assessment coming up sadly trumps. (I long ago determined not to fly on the puddle jumpers unless there was compelling, life hazarding level reason. I much prefer the ferry.)

Yes, because of course the annual incidence of death by drowning in ferry-related disaster's in the developing world (or in this case, stuck in the 19th Century world) is much lower than that of death by crash and burn in an airplane.

Another example of KF's legendary ability in the area of probability calculations?

Officials of the UK’s Air Accident Branch arrived in Antigua on Monday to begin investigations she said. Golden said?it was the first time an accident with fatalities happened in Antigua. CEO of Fly Montserrat Capt Nigel Harris, in a statement yesterday, reassured the public the airline operated at the highest standard of a UK-regulated airline.

The statement added: “Fly Montserrat operates to the very high standards of a UK-regulated airline and its regulator, ASSI, who regularly visits to audit the company’s operations, was made aware of the accident on Sunday evening.

Date: 2012/10/15 15:52:44, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 15 2012,15:40)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 15 2012,15:36)
The KF-Joe "scold and grovel" dynamic:
Joe: Remember, I cannot spend a lot of time policing and cleaning up threads. Kindly, restrain yourself. Namecalling and personal attacks are patently counter-productive: answer a fool according to his folly, and you will be as him, down in the mud of a fever swamp wrestling amidst the filth, where he can probably beat you on experience. Yes, I can see where a well warranted negative conclusion where someone has gone to the point where his/her behaviour goes to character is appropriate; but even in those cases, remember you are dealing with a human being and should not say anything you would not wish said about you in polite company. Thank you. KF

My aplogies kairosfocus, I lost my focus yesterday

A dim, obnoxious toady groveling in front of a hypocritical, sanctimonious windbag.  Lovely.

KF must love Joe.  He could have said "Shut the Fuck Up!"*

* Of course, KF would have said it in 30,000 words, with numerous links to naked ladies and Sam Jackson.

KF (Two posts earlier in the same thread):
Here Toronto is being willfully misleading, hoping to profit by his misrepresentation being perceived as truth.

So, Toronto is being irresponsible and distractive.

Sadly, no surprise.

Date: 2012/10/16 10:43:59, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2012,14:57)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 14 2012,22:26)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2012,17:43)
Getting away from AtBC was good for me. It was a needed break. I've been away for what, 4 years or so?

I'm going way out on a limb here and guessing that the numbsculls at UD and the DI etc failed to do any groundbreaking research in biology in that time?

Have I missed anything interesting?

Dude!  Welcome back!

We were just reminiscing about the AFDave TARD graph...

Maybe my best moment here. Ahh, memories.

It's possible you also missed the whole "Weasel Wars" episode, where KF declared all sorts of patent nonsense to accuse Richard Dawkins of cheating with his little BASIC program running on his BBC Micro.

This lead to the coining of the terms 'latching', 'semi-latching' and, when KF was shown indisputably that RDs program had no need to do any such thing: 'Quasi-latching'.  

So UD held a competition where they announced a prize for anyone who provided Richard Dawkins' Weasel code.  Read that thread - it is ... well ....

What followed was one of the most pitiful and embarrassing episodes at UD where, because of course no-one was able to ante-up the original Weasel code, they declared that
someone else's code was to be taken henceforth as the de facto program for Weasel.  
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.

What a bunch of pompous loons.

Date: 2012/10/17 06:15:10, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 17 2012,05:00)
So you thought Joe couldn't possibly believe in anything more stupid than ID, Nazca alien runways and drinking bleach?

Oh ye of little TARD....

It's all just water at the end of the day, unless you freeze it of course :-)

Date: 2012/10/17 14:18:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Cognitive dissonance at its very best? Or just more incoherent ravings from our favourite Canadian YEC?

Date: 2012/10/20 09:45:54, Link
Author: Freddie
page bug.

Date: 2012/10/20 10:28:54, Link
Author: Freddie

Joe must be confident in his position at UD these days - the KF love-in has borne fruit.  I'm not sure KF will get the inference that all those at TSZ are 'cunts' which is clearly what Joe is implying.  

Perhaps there is someone over there that can help Joe with his question ...

Date: 2012/10/22 15:42:15, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Southstar @ Oct. 21 2012,06:50)
very Rapid speciation event in starfish

From the abstract:
We show that these species have only been reproductively isolated for approximately 6000 years
(95% highest posterior density of 905–22 628), and that this life-history change may be responsible for dramatic
genetic consequences, including ...

Why oh why did it have to be 6,000 years?

Date: 2012/10/23 03:09:18, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,16:29)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 22 2012,22:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 22 2012,14:45)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2012,13:50)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 22 2012,11:40)
On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

A linguistic question: how do people point out double entendres?

"That's what she said" seems to be a US coinage. The equivalent one in These Parts is often ". . . as the bishop said to the actress", which has more than a whiff of the music halls and Donald McGill postcards. A friend from Tipperary used to say ". . . she said as she fainted", which I suspect was his own invention, but is still a goodie.

Any local varieties, anyone?

Here, the bishop/actress combination is the one I grew up with.  

On a related note, an often-heard exclamation around these parts when someone farts or burps loudly in company: "More tea, vicar?"

Date: 2012/10/23 05:18:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2012,22:02)
Why oh why did it have to be 6,000 years?

They tried for a better answer, but they floundered.

The YECs at UD will be carping on about this for years ...

Date: 2012/10/30 15:09:21, Link
Author: Freddie
Just noticed this one ...

For once I can agree with the UD moderator.  In actual fact, I have the exact same thought about almost 100% of batshit's link farm spam!

Date: 2012/11/02 16:55:38, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,16:51)
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at

I think we need a fucking WindTalker, myself.  Unfortunately we are a day too late ...

Date: 2012/11/02 16:57:06, Link
Author: Freddie
There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  

Does someone have an eraser?  I thought he mentioned time travel and crossed it off, but on re-reading the sentence I see I was just a little too eager for the win.

Date: 2012/11/02 17:07:49, Link
Author: Freddie
Quoted from the link because this is even better shit - I got over half me boxes checked now, suckers ...

I just made a MAJOR rewrite that made it many times better! [CHECK]

The intro more pro-ID to match the added science being more a score for ID'ers.

It's still short, 3 paragraphs, but contains a lot more important science words [CHECK]. Previous concepts fit right in to strengthen it [CHECK].

Never packed so much science in such a small space before. Now has hyperlinks like crazy [CHECK] to NCBI and all over to expand out to enough science to learn to be a scientist knowing. Have to link to blog for those, too many to relink here. But here's the unlinked text at this point which might be easier to read after clicking on links makes it all multicolored [CHECK].

Note - the 'MAJOR rewrite' occurs approximately 80 minutes after the first version.  Some funny stuff.

Date: 2012/11/02 17:26:50, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:


Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.

Date: 2012/11/02 18:08:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

Date: 2012/11/02 18:16:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 02 2012,18:12)
And if I had a hammer, everything would look like a nail.

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"?  What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)

Judging by the silicon in his diagram I think he's trying to make one of these:

Date: 2012/11/02 18:19:29, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,18:11)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,16:08)
Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement.  I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer.  If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie.  I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

Date: 2012/11/03 14:59:42, Link
Author: Freddie
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.

Original quote (probably):

Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.

Date: 2012/11/03 18:37:29, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,16:48)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 03 2012,14:59)
One of the best compliments used "jam packed" to describe it.

Original quote (probably):

Dude, this whole website is jam-packed top to bottom with bullshit phrases and gobbledegook, what the hell are you on? Get help.

At the time it all still fit as a single opening post for a topic.  The exact phrase became "Jam packed-post".  Here's the link:

This is the best you got?  After all those thousands of words in the OP? Notice the careful use of punctuation in the first paragraph:

Date: 2012/11/20 15:14:00, Link
Author: Freddie
Based on what is going on in the other threads, can I propose Freddie's 1st Law:

"The number of IDiots posting insane shit at AtBC is inversely proportional to the number of recent links from AtBC to UD".

In other words, the more we ignore the mindless repetitive shite being posted at UD, the more the 'less sane' members of the ID community come here to poke at us with their idiocy.

I think this is testable.

Date: 2012/11/24 17:08:30, Link
Author: Freddie
A tic-infested watermelon sitting inside a glass pyramid?

Date: 2012/11/26 10:47:40, Link
Author: Freddie
Joe's getting some great quotes in over there.  He even trots out the old favourite from Privileged Planet ...
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” "The Privileged Planet"

Humans get the best opportunity to see a solar eclipse, therefore god. Excellent.  

Also ...
There is more evidence to support reincarnation and the fact that pyramids are antennas, then your position has. And I understand that bothers you.

Evidence.  I do not think that word means what ... etc.  If I had more characters for my sig entry I would snag that one too :-(

Date: 2013/01/01 10:03:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2012,22:27)

...I just as swiftly became aware that whatever this entity was, it was intent on sodomizing me, so clenched my gluteal muscles, as I was later to tense my neck muscles, to timely effect, thus thwarting the perverse designs of that priapic, phantom limbo-dancer.

In Malaysia, we didn’t wear pyjamas – not sure we did in Germany; certainly not jackets. But also, in Malaysia we just slept with a single sheet over us. I suspect it was a ghost, not a demon.

Can't understand why this isn't up at FSTDT yet ... it's superb.  Even the fundies at UD don't know how to respond!  I think it could end up rated higher than the all-time #1 on the Fundie Index.

Date: 2013/01/09 15:06:41, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2013,13:42)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 09 2013,12:52)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,02:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Test: Does it look designed to me?

Validation: Does it look designed to another creationist?

Double-blind test: Does it look designed to two blind creationists?

Peer review: Does it look designed to a creationist with a blog?


Seconded - lol

Date: 2013/01/22 12:44:55, Link
Author: Freddie
Hello, my name is Freddie and I am a tardaholic.

It's 15 days, 5 hours and 27 minutes since I last visited UD.  That's all I have to say.  Thank you for listening.

Date: 2013/02/06 16:20:41, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (rossum @ Feb. 04 2013,14:26)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 04 2013,13:47)
KRIII seems to have been found buried beneath a parking lot. There's no accounting for taste in burial sites.

Not strictly true.  The site is in England where we say "car park".  Apparently certain upstart former colonial types across the pond call it a "parking lot".


A Long Stay Car Park, no less ...

Date: 2013/02/18 15:27:49, Link
Author: Freddie
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like “evolutionary theory” has never made a single prediction ...

Yes, that would be muslim creationist JoeG who does this repeatedly on every forum he has ever joined.

.. while those who kept making it ignored every word you said in response then you would certainly soon enough give up on that futile effort and tell them to prove their own damn claim.

Not sure who is supposed to be mad at who here as the subjects seems to have got a little muddled ... but yes, we have asked JoeG a zillion times for any evidence of what he claims and he, like you, has absolutely none whatsoever.  

Do we get upset?  No.  

Do we get a good laugh out of the strange person, working on his toasters, tics and watermelons in his basement while pretending to be a scientist and a GA coder?  Hell, Yes!!

Date: 2013/02/18 16:47:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2013,16:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2013,16:18)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 18 2013,15:27)
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." ...

Yes, that would be muslim creationist JoeG who does this repeatedly on every forum he has ever joined.

.. while those who kept making it ignored every word you said in response then you would certainly soon enough give up on that futile effort and tell them to prove their own damn claim.

Not sure who is supposed to be mad at who here as the subjects seems to have got a little muddled ... but yes, we have asked JoeG a zillion times for any evidence of what he claims and he, like you, has absolutely none whatsoever.  

Do we get upset?  No.  

Do we get a good laugh out of the strange person, working on his toasters, tics and watermelons in his basement while pretending to be a scientist and a GA coder?  Hell, Yes!!

Were you actually expecting me to present evidence that the NCSE's opinion "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." is factual?

Or that "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."?

Here is the original quote from your post
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like “evolutionary theory” has never made a single prediction ...

Here is what you just modified it to be in your latest post where you "quoted" my post, changing the context in the process and making the point seem in your own favour.
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." ...

That is dishonest and reprehensible behaviour.  Even JoeG probably wouldn't stoop that low.  Probably.

And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously (apart from the complete lack of evidence concerning your theory and its ability to address known facts and observations better than the prevailing scientific theory)?

Date: 2013/02/18 16:56:03, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2013,16:53)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 18 2013,16:47)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2013,16:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2013,16:18)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 18 2013,15:27)
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." ...

Yes, that would be muslim creationist JoeG who does this repeatedly on every forum he has ever joined.

.. while those who kept making it ignored every word you said in response then you would certainly soon enough give up on that futile effort and tell them to prove their own damn claim.

Not sure who is supposed to be mad at who here as the subjects seems to have got a little muddled ... but yes, we have asked JoeG a zillion times for any evidence of what he claims and he, like you, has absolutely none whatsoever.  

Do we get upset?  No.  

Do we get a good laugh out of the strange person, working on his toasters, tics and watermelons in his basement while pretending to be a scientist and a GA coder?  Hell, Yes!!

Were you actually expecting me to present evidence that the NCSE's opinion "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." is factual?

Or that "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."?

Here is the original quote from your post
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like “evolutionary theory” has never made a single prediction ...

Here is what you just modified it to be in your latest post where you "quoted" my post, changing the context in the process and making the point seem in your own favour.
If for months all here were repeatedly plastered with a claim like "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." ...

That is dishonest and reprehensible behaviour.  Even JoeG probably wouldn't stoop that low.  Probably.

And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously (apart from the complete lack of evidence concerning your theory and its ability to address known facts and observations better than the prevailing scientific theory)?

You are an ass.

But at least I can say I am an honest one ...

Date: 2013/02/18 17:29:58, Link
Author: Freddie
Glad this forum is starting to come out of winter hibernation!  It was an almost spring-like morning in Southern England (if a little chilly). Managed to get out and about and take a few photo's.  Plenty of Robin's and Blue Tits / Great Tits around.  I'm also seeing way more pair's of Chaffinch's this year than last, the wet weather must suit them.

Juvenile Robin

Blue Tit about to take flight (it did so about 1/10s after I took this)

Goldfinch (common but striking) next time one of the buggers will point in the right direction for the camera.

Date: 2013/03/05 16:02:38, Link
Author: Freddie

ETA: My 300th post and i'm proud of it.  Sorry, Arthur & Stanley.

Date: 2013/03/06 10:01:27, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 06 2013,08:11)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 06 2013,08:54)
Why is it that a diagnostic trait of science crackpots is whining about being shut out of the academy when they haven't made any attempt to get in the door the same way everyone else does?

Indeed.  They inevitably wind up advocating religiously based affirmative action for stupid ideas, shittily communicated by people suffering from delusions and ethical confusion.

more lolograms and less giggle's whining please.  Freddie nearly killed me with that last one

Happy to help!

Date: 2013/03/08 12:57:11, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2013,11:29)
Basically, through a slight of hand trick (i.e. anything x 0 = anything else x 0), he's equating information with work.  Awesome.

So what you're saying is that this person is a piece of work? :p

Perhaps he's even the joule in the crown ...

Date: 2013/03/19 16:44:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2013,13:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2013,13:10)
Bonus LULZ and Lies.

Starting hereish:

Now there was a post from Barry Banington suggesting Alan Fox "might want to google WJM" - trouble is it's wasn't the WJM he was hoping for.

Of course Barry deletes his error without acknowledgement, having again failed guessing who the designer might be ;-)

The acknowledgement is in. I was wondering what Alan Fox' comment was about.
And it's anybody's guess if Bully Bannington would have apologized if it wasn't for those nasty detractor sites which monitor him closely.

So WJM is WJM and at the same time is not WJM?

Yes, you bastards have dumped me off the wagon and made me go look again this past week.  Nearly had 2 months UD free there.

Date: 2013/03/20 11:54:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 19 2013,20:33)

LarTanner at UD has had enough of Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat


LarTanner  March 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm


Get bent, man. You don’t get to lecture me, and I am not going to read your indulgent, meandering puffery. I’ve tried reading your “101? junk, and all you do is torture the work of friend and foe alike–and then you wrap it in some bizarre amalgamation of old world snuff-box snootiness and down-home gobbledygook. Add some math-y stuff and there’s your schtick.

In short, you are not credible, you are not interesting, and you are not someone who needs to address me. So don’t. Go impress a grad student somewhere.

Pardon directness

Get ready for Gordo to blow a gasket with his sputtering righteous indignation.

BREAKING NEWS: KF attempts world record for biggest parenthetical phrase ever - this site gets honorable mention - only thing missing is Lewontin!  You go, girl!
(Onlookers, this is a specific, contextual reference to one of the first drive by sniping attempts by LT, back in was it 2011. He tried to muddy the waters on the inductive, and often highly reliable inference from empirical sign to signified state of affairs connected to that sign, even as deer tracks are connected to deer passing by or radar returns to an object capable of reflecting radio waves of the relevant frequency, with range and direction deducible. From time to time since that initial fairly sharp exchange, thankfully, the level of exchanges has improved, but there has been a persistent pattern of return to attempted “gotchas, you ignoramus.” That easily explains the subtext of contempt in the latest dismissive remarks and consistent failure to address on substance. Pardon that I am not playing by the game of being emotionally cool just now, but I think that the time has come after two years of provocative behaviour, for a bit of direct reckoning with LT, under Lev 19:15 – 18, for those who want to know what is my ethical basis for what I am doing here, after two years of having him serially play the attempted gotcha game time and again every few weeks or every several months. At some point, it is necessary to reason directly with — or even take to the figurative woodshed — someone who has been consistently taking advantage of the normal diffidence that civility requires, to play at gotcha games that then feed the nastiness of the fever swamps out there. Tell us, LT: have you been consistently patrolling and going over by TWT’s blog or TSZ or anti evo, Sandwalk, etc to correct them on substance and tone when they ever so often resort to red herrings lead away to strawman caricatures soaked in personal attacks, ignited to poison, polarise, cloud and confuse the atmosphere? When some have tried outing tactics and have violated a simple request that you respect the privacy of my name, including what is in my part of the world a big insult, publicly using someone’s middle name without permission? Or, taking real world pictures and defacing them to mock people, including grandmothers? Thus, providing, with location info, targetting info for the lunatic fringe? Not to mention, making mafioso style threats against my family, as in inquiring with mock concern about them, attempting to publicly name my wife in particular? Defacing web sites? And so forth? If you have not been policing your own side LT, you have utterly no moral right or standing to be coming here to play gotcha games, especially ill-informed gotcha games. Period.)

Looks like he's pissed at someone for stating Gordo's middle name.  Marvellous stuff!  Doesn't get much better - am now immersed in tard again and it feels gooooooooddddddd!

ETA: Missed the bit about taking people to the figurative woodshed on first reading ... damn, he's even got his favorite theocratic wet dream in there!  Brilliant.

Date: 2013/03/20 17:44:34, Link
Author: Freddie
Maybe if you gave your diagram some spooky quantum woo treatment it would be better received.  Deepak Chopra may even pick up on it.

Date: 2013/03/21 16:33:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 21 2013,10:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2013,08:46)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 21 2013,08:00)
Don't tell me, let me guess...

These scientists, science teachers and others "seeing through the charade" - they're terrified of revealing their support for your "theory" in case we send in the black helicopters, right?

That's why we'll never find out who they are!

Not giving names (or screen-names) helps prevent defamatory harassment that would jeopardize their careers and/or reputations.

You guys wouldn't know her.  She lives in Canada.

Hey, Gary, could you get one of them to make up a name, come on here and give us those dates we keep asking for?

Gary ... send out for help ...

Date: 2013/03/22 18:29:06, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 22 2013,14:37)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 22 2013,14:37)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 21 2013,19:03)
Honestly, people, don't let the bastards get away with this crap.

Too late in this particular case. KF has opened another thread about Right Reason™, and UDers are relieved to be able to scurry away from that nasty evolution of the eye and Nick Matzke.

By the way, KF was so inebriated by the brilliance of one of his comments that he turned it into an even more long-winded spin-off OP.

The first sentence of his new post:
G2 has made an objection at 45 in the STP 3 thread on how UD is a philosophy-theology site, and how he sees no science advances.
I'm used to Kairofocus' idiosyncratic ramblings, but even so, it took a little time to unscramble this. Kairofocus writes only for his echo-chamber, not for anyone who just happens to visit the blog...

'Nuff said ...

Date: 2013/03/31 12:59:00, Link
Author: Freddie
So many great shots here the last few weeks - the snow geese formation especially!  The weather in the UK has been so grey recently but hoping to get out and take some more photos soon if things improve.  It was almost sunny for a few hours this morning and I snapped this one of a juvenile long-tailed tit.  This is with my Canon 100-300 EF IS and is highly cropped due to the distance (and noisy due to high, auto ISO as I shot at F8 1/500 for sharpness).

I may (repeat 'may') be able to afford a low-end L range lens sometime this summer.  I'm looking at either the 400mm prime (f/5.6) or the 100-400mm (f/4.5-5.6 IS) going on a cropped 550D/Rebel T2i body.  

Judging by the shots above the 100-400mm seems to do the job w.r.t sharpness vs. the prime (plus the prime has no IS) - I think the 7D has the same sensor as the 550D.  At least, the specs look the same!  

Then, maybe later, I can add a 1.4 extender for the three days in the year that it will be bright enough to use it :-(

Date: 2013/03/31 17:47:54, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 31 2013,02:48)
Alright, whose sock is this?    
BA, how do future DNA computers compare with quantum computers in their possible speed, memory, etc.? It may be that if quantum computers are perfected we may skip the DNA computer step, though DNA computers will still have functions like being able to be inserted into the human body which quantum computers may not. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Found in the thread sparc linked to.

To be honest, I was wondering the exact same thing about this series of posts:

Date: 2013/04/02 09:55:52, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 02 2013,08:44)
LOL!  Gordon Elliott Mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat has a new OP up at UD whining about how all the meanies at TSZ are picking on him and demanding that Dr. Liddle censor her blog.


enial-of-abuse-of-design-theory-proponents-at-tsz/]FOR RECORD: I object — a “tour of shame” concerning well-poisoning strawman tactics joined to denial of abuse of design theory proponents at TSZ[/URL]

Comments off of course

ETA:  Added whole URL because of the 'break' bug



Unfortunately, I am no longer shocked by juxtapositions like this from the ID crowd, and from Gordon Elliot Mullings in particular.

Unfortunately, despite patent cases like this, many objectors to design theory are in denial of the reality of undue censorship and expulsion of dissidents from the halls of science.

In that general context, I have drawn attention to a key historical case, where ordinary German people from towns near death camps at the end of the 2nd World War, were made to take forced tours of what had been going on next door, so that they could not ever after deny what they had been enabling.

So I am not shocked, but I am once again disgusted to see just how far Gordon will go to demonize his opponents - to once again demonstrate he is the extreme case of what he continually accuses others of.

Gordon, that you can't even for one minute see how utterly reprehensible and poisonous your inner thoughts are is shameful.  You are undoubtedly an obnoxious as well as a noxious individual.  Shame on you.

Date: 2013/04/02 16:24:56, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Robin @ April 02 2013,14:20)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 02 2013,14:04)
Over 1100 posts spanning several months.  It seems GG must *really* like us.  I don't see any evidence of him hanging around anywhere else for nearly as long.

Apparently he doesn't like himself as much as he likes us. His

MySpace page hasn't been updated in four years.

ETA: Ok...I can't stop laughing. The comments here are just waaaay too good!

Excellent find ... my favourites:
I honestly wish I could help you out of your delusions, but cranks worldwide demonstrate on a daily basis that they can’t be helped. But at least your entertaining, in a drunk-guy-vomiting-at-a-dinner-party sort of way.

... later ...
Now the drunk guy at the dinner party is making clumsy advances toward the married hostess.

and Gary:

And even though they might just look even more crank I’m currently experimenting with smileys to indicate when I’m purposely adding some humor, and will consider any suggestions for solving that problem quicker.

Ah ... priceless, thanks for that - made me laugh out loud tonight!|

Date: 2013/04/03 08:05:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Driver @ April 03 2013,02:21)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 02 2013,20:41)
Wasn't Magenta the girl of golf ball/garden hose fame?


As far as I remember, "I bet you could suck a golf ball down a garden hose" is a line from Full Metal Jacket.

Start reading from here:


Date: 2013/04/03 16:52:14, Link
Author: Freddie
Ladies and Gentlemen, please set your irony meter's to 'stun'.

Date: 2013/04/03 16:59:21, Link
Author: Freddie
We can see what happened when KF was given privileges to start threads over there.  Namely, he uses it as his soap box, whines incessantly about perceived attacks on his person, regularly turns commenting off and channels the loudspeaker in the ceiling.

If I was at all a religious person I think I would be praying hourly for Joe to get the same privilege, just to have a single chance to see the final meltdown.

Date: 2013/04/04 10:51:13, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (DiEb @ April 04 2013,10:01)
And KF cites the Peano curve, again at Comprehensibility of the world.

My comment (again in moderation):
The Peano curve is important as it is continuous and a curve, i.e. it shows that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line, that of the Reals.
To show that "that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line" you don't need something which is "continuous and a curve" (BTW, curves are continuous), but just a bijective mapping. You could map [0;1] x [0;1] bijectively on [0;1] by sending (0.a1a2a3a4...;0.b1b2b3b3...) on 0.a1b1a2b2a3b3a4b4....

I'm afraid the only need for the Peano curve is in this context that it sounds so nice and a little bit impressive....

Never mind, DiEb, Batshit has got it covered:
Though the physicists/mathematicians in the preceding video, in exasperation, feel that they are at a dead end in ever successfully reconciling General Relativity within Quantum Mechanics, I would like to put forth the case that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Himself, as strange as it may sound people, is the most parsimonious solution to the number one problem in science today.

The reason I hold that the resurrection of Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the reconciliation of GR into QM is that, as niwrad has pointed out in this post, and as Godel has shown in his incompleteness theorem, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable,,

Thus if we allow God to play ‘the role of a person’ in Jesus Christ, which may be very difficult for some people to allow the possibility of, then a empirically backed reconciliation of GR into QM finds a very credible, empirically backed, solution in the event horizon evidenced on the Shroud of Turin:


[ETA: "empirically" - You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means]

Date: 2013/04/05 16:58:05, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2013,14:38)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 05 2013,21:09)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2013,14:05)

Nightlight seems to have triggered some sort of healing response at UD, with StephenB, KF and BA77 raising things to a boil.

Nightlight is brilliant; he keeps praising KF's design detection while utterly destroying their sciencey bluster.

Edit: Fingers crossed Nightlight is an abyssmally deep undercover sock.

FTFY ... :-)

Date: 2013/04/07 05:27:47, Link
Author: Freddie
From joeys blog:
I also understand trees. Over 30 years working in information technology designing network topologies, computer directory trees and server access trees. All of that requires knowledge of trees, hierarchies and nested hierarchies.

Is this a new claim about his past life experience, or one we've heard before - i've lost track of them all.  

I have previously spent a substantial number of years designing and implementing local and wide area networks, including developing big-iron switching platforms for the WAN that have gone into service with some fairly large fixed and mobile operators around the world.  I don't recall ever having to know much about nested hierarchies to become expert in those fields.

Date: 2013/04/10 14:15:55, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ April 10 2013,13:03)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 10 2013,13:09)
Bully Bannington has evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax because:

1) this winter was long and cold
2) Fox News said so.

All science so far.

Climate change is on topic for a blog ostensibly about intelligent design creationism how exactly?

For once, words fail me ... a screenshot will just have to do:

Date: 2013/04/15 10:26:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Nice, Robin!

Date: 2013/04/15 17:43:57, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 15 2013,17:26)
Barry has "posted without commentary" a quote that is apparently fabricated, to forward his political religious agenda. Is that the sort of fact checking you'd expect from a lawyer?

Should one infer negligence or malfeasance?

Wasn't it also Barry who triumphantly posted that fake Time cover on "Global Warming" only to have to backtrack once enough of even his own supporters told him it was not legitimate.  Yes, some lawyer indeed.

I'll be interested to see how this thread pans out with Barry's and Byers' comments respectively below:
I make no excuse for Luther’s anti-Semitism. I am appalled by it. Still, he lived half a millennium ago, and as you rightly say his views are not relevant to assessments of contemporary Lutheranism.

by the way martin luther was the greatest man in human history, changing mankind for the better, and any comments on his nations issues with Jews is fair and square.

Byers also brings the love for all things feminine ...
However this woman seems quite ugly and being the posterboy for feminism and abortion and birth control says it all.

What a shitty turd he is, in truth.

Date: 2013/04/16 08:42:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Joe takes the low road.  No surprises there.

Guess what, Joe - it's quite easy to demonstrate the OP and your additional quotes are false.  But of course you know they are false already, don't you. Lying for allah again, Joe?

Also - further up KF 'weasels' around the clear fact that the OP is an outright lie and takes the opportunity to double down:
On evidence currently in hand, the specific words above may indeed be incorrectly attributed to Ms Sanger. That is an error if that is borne out.

That said, it is plain that Sanger and her Birth Control League, along with a great many others, were caught up in the Eugenics scheme of thought, which had swept the elite culture by riding on a tide of Darwinist thought and wearing the lab coat of science. There is no doubt whatsoever as to the meaning and implications of the logo of the Eugenics congress, as linked already. History, grim history, answers to that.

No - it is not plain and you, KF, Kairosfocus, Gordon Elliot Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat have yet again slandered someone who is not in a position to respond to your religiously motivated hatred.  For shame.  You are a hateful individual.

Date: 2013/04/16 11:13:39, Link
Author: Freddie
Oh look, Barry has taken down the image and put up a notpology!
Update:  When I saw the quote originally posted here, I researched it and found an attribution to a source.  (The Birth Control Review of 1933-34).  It turns out that attribution was mistaken.  For posting an inaccurate quotation I apologize.  That said, the general views expressed in the quotation were in fact held by Margaret Sanger.  I replace the original post with this from Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”:

Yes ... "in fact" ... I don't think your fact would stand up in a court of law, Barry.  How many cases did you actually win?

From the piece Barry then goes on to post ...
In 1939 Sanger created the above-mentioned “Negro Project,” which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through the Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers (including the Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr.), doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. “The mass of significant Negroes,” read the project’s report, “still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes…is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” Sanger’s intent is shocking today, but she recognized its extreme radicalism even then. “We do not want word to go out,” she wrote to a colleague, “that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

It is possible that Sanger didn’t really want to “exterminate” the Negro population so much as merely limit its growth.

Classy, Barry, classy ... now repeating discredited lies and quote-mines using someone else's words to hide behind.  You slimeball.

Date: 2013/04/16 12:46:28, Link
Author: Freddie
KF calls out Alan Fox:

This a clip from the post that KF is referring to:

This is the primary source (from here) which, ironically, is the exact same cite given (c & p'd no doubt from a fundy site) by KF:

Okay so now the point is addressed and it is shown that KF has willfully misquoted the actual content of the letter from his own cite to the extent that he is implying Sanger advocated extermination through a forced eugenics program.  Clearly, this is not the case and any person capable of reasonable reading comprehension would find likewise. KF therefore stands accused of outright falsehood and slander by his own hand.

I suspect if we were to look into the other claims in that same post - we would find similar results.

Will he now retract this statement?  Of course not.

Date: 2013/04/17 03:43:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 17 2013,02:01)
If anybody wants a screen cap of the original "Post Without Commentary" thread, PM me.

If you go through a mobile interface, the original image still shows up.

Date: 2013/04/17 09:12:16, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 16 2013,21:34)
More from my Great Midwest Birding Adventure, mostly in spite of the weather.

I added 13 species to the photography life-list in five days, and got much better shots than I had of a handful of birds. Not a bad haul, especially given how cool, windy, overcast, and rainy it was for most of my meanderings.

New species from the trip:

1. American White Pelican
2. Broad-winged Hawk
3. Virginia Rail
4. Lesser Yellowlegs
5. Wilson’s Snipe
6. Horned Lark
7. Northern Rough-winged Swallow
8. Bank Swallow
9. Black-capped Chickadee
10. Golden-crowned Kinglet
11. Yellow-throated Warbler
12. Purple Finch
13. American Goldfinch

Beautiful piccies again ... is it me or is that Eagle doing a Linda Blair?

Date: 2013/04/18 01:30:19, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 17 2013,17:04)
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 17 2013,23:20)
Heh, right now (it won't be for long) UD's defence of Michael Behe at Dover is top of the list of Rationalwiki's Clogosphere items.

That thread is comedy gold: How could they confront Behe with all the publications he had failed to read?

And speaking of banninations: Jerry, who is trotting out micro- versus macroevolution, complains:      
I was banned here once for criticizing Bill Dembski’s reply to a student who challenged him at a presentation at some college.

Yes - comedy gold.

Sorry, let me be clear. ID explanations are perfectly capable of being scientific and defended in court. It’s just that most scientists and judges are atheists, and they’ve banned from their journals and courtrooms all explanations of anything involving intelligence. I know it sounds silly, but trust me, it’s true.

Which one of you is lyo again?

Date: 2013/04/20 12:01:02, Link
Author: Freddie
La la la - you can't see me!

Date: 2013/04/21 13:18:32, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 21 2013,05:26)


A Blue Tit, I think ... but then I couldn't really see him/her :-)

Date: 2013/05/08 04:21:58, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (The whole truth @ May 08 2013,02:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2013,23:08)
Gordon Elliot Mullings of Montserrat is the American Taliban:



Fuck off, thought police.

Richard, your link appears to be broken.

It's the KFBU (KF's Fucking Big URL) problem.  Just cut the <br> from the URL in the address bar and it will work.

Date: 2013/05/20 16:16:08, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ May 20 2013,15:46)
Joe's inability to realize that the set of all whole numbers, the set of all positive numbers, and the set of all rational numbers have the same cardinality is the best example I've seen yet of a more general cognitive deficiency of his: he has great difficulty comprehending abstract concepts.  

If he can't make sense of it in concrete terms, then he can't understand it.  (That's why he insists that the only thing that would convince him of macroevolution is a step-by-step specification of each and every nucleotide change in the speciation event.  And of course that level of detail is far beyond any present science.)  

Philip is much the same, and I suspect that part of what drives it in both of them is that they don't read very much.  Philip's "contributions" to UD mostly consist of videos, not articles or books.  And there's a big difference in the kind of cognitive processing that's going on with reading and writing and with watching a video.

Joe fails to comprehend the 'joke' ...

Remember the UD motto 'Numquam iniuriam' !!

Date: 2013/05/21 12:05:08, Link
Author: Freddie
For the "serious enthusiasts" out there ... anyone planning to get one of these any time soon? :-) Lens

Okay so a little expensive at £11,999 retail (approx. $US 18,000), but i'm sure it would be worth it!

Date: 2013/05/26 04:31:49, Link
Author: Freddie
What I assume is the old IP address is still being served up, even by Google's DNS.  This is

If you can determine the IP address of the new server, a quick workaround might be to use the URL syntax http:// a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is the real IP address of the server (without the space after the colon as this site then interprets this as a real URL and formats it!)

Non-authoritative answer:

Might be worth a shot.

Date: 2013/05/26 04:35:20, Link
Author: Freddie
If you now have access to the server you can find its IP address in your DNS cache:

ipconfig /displaydns

Then just post it here and we may be able to find the server using the IP

Date: 2013/05/28 16:12:48, Link
Author: Freddie
A genyewine prediction (UD Link):
Here’s a YEC & YLC prediction.

When an observed mutational rate for the Y-Chromosome is found. To the extent as above for mitochondrial Eve. The age for Y-chromosomal Adam should come out to about 4500 years old (i.e. the time since Noah).

There you go, a risky prediction has been made.

All science so far!!

Great thread!

Date: 2013/06/02 12:08:41, Link
Author: Freddie
CharlieD has outstayed his welcome - well, to be honest with his style of post (fun as it was) it was only a matter of time.  And Barry.

Date: 2013/06/04 14:04:03, Link
Author: Freddie
The loudspeaker in the ceiling is back (did it ever leave?)

I love the military-style banter from KF (Bydand!!!)

Joealtle and franklin are having a field day over there - is fun watching but I doubt they will last long.  The light that burns twice as bright and all that ...

Date: 2013/06/05 15:59:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Barb, discussing fMRI:

Okay, so I know what he/she means, but it still made me chuckle.

Date: 2013/06/06 10:57:57, Link
Author: Freddie
From the Front Matter PDF:

Original scientific
research was presented and discussed at this symposium, which was then written
up, and constitute most of the twenty-four peer-edited papers in this volume.
These papers are presented in four sections: Information Theory and Biology,
Biological Information and Genetic Theory, Theoretical Molecular Biology, and
Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.

"Peer-Edited".  That's just like Peer-Reviewed, yes?

Date: 2013/06/06 15:40:47, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (damitall @ June 06 2013,14:11)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 06 2013,10:33)
I don't often go to UD, but when I do I need to drink a lot of Dos Equis.  A lot of Dos Equis.

I started to read the Cordova "platonic forms" thread thinking he was just jacking around, then it became clear he was jacking off.  (It was so pornographic I had to whip myself as punishment while looking at a photo of Louis in a leopard-print mankini.)

Then the comments started flowing and it was Pure 100% Grade A TARD!  Tardles all the way down.

Good old WD400 had the temerity to bring up Tiktaalik as an example of a fish-o-pod and was promptly smacked down by unclassified footprints, totally missing the point, of course.

Then Joe showed up, ya see, and that thread is so blindingly stupid that even a professional snarkmeister like myself would have a daunting task writing such a thing as a Poe!

But this is the state of ID in 2013.  Mental patients, a bunch of old, has beens and a gerbil.  (Note to self:  movie plot - old guys take road trip with hamster.  hi-larry-ity ensues.)

Whatever's got into KF in that thread?

Not a comment above a few dozen words (excluding C&P material). No Plato, Alcibiades, Lewontin.Has he taken anti-logorrhoea pills? - or is he suffering some crisis keeping him from his keyboard?

I believe I have seen several comments from him this past day (not that I go there much nowadays, nosiree, not me!)  to the effect that he has not much time at the moment due to other pressing matters (or somesuch).  Almost certainly there is a constitutional crisis brewing, or there was a plane crash on another island to keep him occupied, or Mr. Leathers desperately needs oiling... whatever.

Date: 2013/06/06 15:42:25, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2013,12:22)
Not biology, but this is interesting (and really cool)

Well - now we all know what batshit77 is going to be throwing at us for the next 12 months.

Date: 2013/07/02 12:08:09, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Patrick @ July 02 2013,11:53)
Quote (keiths @ July 01 2013,17:43)
Things are hopping at UD, now that critics aren't being censored (well, except by that pusillanimous hypocrite KF).

Let's see how long it lasts.

Damn it all to hell, that place was finally dying with the denizens starting to feed on each other.  Why in Eris' name would anyone add to their page hits after the last Great Banning?

UD does not deserve your input.


Sorry to say it (because I do enjoy seeing KF assplode regularly while creeping ever closer to displaying his full-on homophobia, Joe straining to keep a leash on his potty mouth and misogyny and Barry appearing regularly in full-on Mr Punch mode) but you are feeding a cesspit that doesn't deserve or have any respect at all for your time and effort.  I think we can get the same hit without being enablers.

The only reason they tolerate you there is so they can control the discussion, look and point to where they showed those evilutionists what's what and then eventually (and we all know exactly where this is going) flex the banhammer due to your supposed incivility.  

Just let it devolve into the 'fever swamp' it is and implode.

Date: 2013/08/25 10:05:48, Link
Author: Freddie
Thinking of changing my sig line to include this new one from Byers:
There is not really any such thing as science. Its just people thinking carefully.

Anyone want to buy out any of my current sig quotes?


Date: 2013/09/06 10:22:20, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 06 2013,08:34)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 06 2013,02:41)
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 01 2013,00:22)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 01 2013,05:56)
This could become fun, guessing who-is-News-today?
TSZ link

Definitely Denyse

If that’s true, it is a polite way of saying that most of the Darwinian evolution advocacy your taxes have paid for did not advance knowledge. All those court cases, all that persecution of dissenters. Oh well, ‘twas ever thus.

Definitely Denyse

Undoubtedly Denyse?
Undeniably Denyse?
Unfalsifiably Denyse?

Pick any adverb starting with U Denyse.....

I would say "Unctuously" fits the bill quite nicely ...

Date: 2013/09/29 15:55:37, Link
Author: Freddie
KF, the gift that keeps on giving, after a 3,000 word OP criticizing TSZ and Lizzie.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Gordon.

Date: 2013/10/23 11:30:25, Link
Author: Freddie
All Science So Far!

UD Link

BA77 is corresponding with CentralScrutinizer and quotes (multiple times) from Tesla's autobiography, with links to his source, of course.

Here's BA's post:

Okay - I had a few mins on a tea break so I found the original text which is happily archived in a reputable location here.

Here we find the original text from BAs 1st quote in the thread:
It had been my intention to leave immediately for Paris in compliance with a similar obligation, but Sir James Dewar insisted on my appearing before the Royal Institution. I was a man of firm resolve but succumbed easily to the forceful arguments of the great Scotsman. He pushed me into a chair and poured out half a glass of a wonderful brown fluid which sparkled in all sorts of iridescent colors and tasted like nectar. "Now," said he. "you are sitting in Faraday's chair and you are enjoying whiskey he used to drink." In both aspects it was an enviable experience. The next evening I gave a demonstration before that Institution, at the termination of which Lord Rayleigh addressed the audience and his generous words gave me the first start in these endeavors. I fled from London and later from Paris to escape favors showered upon me, and journeyed to my home where I passed through a most painful ordeal and illness. Upon regaining my health I began to formulate plans for the resumption of work in America. Up to that time I never realized that I possessed any particular gift of discovery but Lord Rayleigh, whom I always considered as an ideal man of science, had said so and if that was the case I felt that I should concentrate on some big idea.

One day, as I was roaming in the mountains, I sought shelter from an approaching storm. The sky became overhung with heavy clouds but somehow the rain was delayed until, all of a sudden, there was a lightning flash and a few moments after a deluge. This observation set me thinking. It was manifest that the two phenomena were closely related, as cause and effect, and a little reflection led me to the conclusion that the electrical energy involved in the precipitation of the water was inconsiderable, the function of lightning being much like that of a sensitive trigger.

Here was a stupendous possibility of achievement. If we could produce electric effects of the required quality, this whole planet and the conditions of existence on it could be transformed. The sun raises the water of the oceans and winds drive it to distant regions where it remains in a state of most delicate balance. If it were in our power to upset it when and wherever desired, this mighty life sustaining stream could be at will controlled. We could irrigate arid deserts, create lakes and rivers and provide motive power in unlimited amounts. This would be the most efficient way of harnessing the sun to the uses of man. The consummation depended on our ability to develop electric forces of the order of those in nature. It seemed a hopeless undertaking, but I made up my mind to try it and immediately on my return to the United States, in the Summer of 1892, work was begun which was to me all the more attractive, because a means of the same kind was necessary for the successful transmission of energy without wires.

The first gratifying result was obtained in the spring of the succeeding year when I reached tensions of about 1,000,000 volts with my conical coil. That was not much in the light of the present art, but it was then considered a feat. Steady progress was made until the destruction of my laboratory by fire in 1895, as may be judged from an article by T. C. Martin which appeared in the April number of the Century Magazine. This calamity set me back in many ways and most of that year had to be devoted to planning and reconstruction. However, as soon as circumstances permitted, I returned to the task.

Hmmm. Can't see that 'revelation' quote at all.  So I went to BAs link and, sure enough, I found it there.  Along with some other strange looking sentences regarding divine inspiration and related topics.  Additions to the original in BAs link are in bold, omissions are in italics.

It has been my intention to leave immediately for Paris in compliance with a similar obligation, but Sir James Dewar insisted on my appearing before the Royal Institution. I was a man of firm resolve, but succumbed easily to the forceful arguments of the great Scotsman. He pushed me into a chair and poured out half a glass of a wonderful brown fluid which sparkled in all sorts of iridescent colors and tasted like nectar. "Now," said he, "you are sitting in Faraday's chair and you are enjoying whiskey he used to drink." (Which did not interest me very much, as I had altered my opinion concerning strong drink).In both aspects it was an enviable experience. The next evening I have a demonstration before the Royal Institution, at the termination of which, Lord Rayleigh addressed the audience and his generous words gave me the first start in these endeavors. I fled from London and later from Paris, to escape favors showered upon me, and journeyed to my home, where I passed through a most painful ordeal and illness. Upon regaining my health, I began to formulate plans for the resumption of work in America. Up to that time I never realized that I possessed any particular gift of discovery, but Lord Rayleigh, whom I always considered as an ideal man of science, had said so and if that was the case, I felt that I should concentrate on some big idea. At this time, as at many other times in the past, my thoughts turned towards my Mother's teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.

One day, as I was roaming the mountains, I sought shelter from an approaching storm. The sky became overhung with heavy clouds, but somehow the rain was delayed until, all of a sudden, there was a lightening flash and a few moments after, a deluge. This observation set me thinking. It was manifest that the two phenomena were closely related, as cause and effect, and a little reflection led me to the conclusion that the electrical energy involved in the precipitation of the water was inconsiderable, the function of the lightening being much like that of a sensitive trigger. Here was a stupendous possibility of achievement. If we could produce electric effects of the required quality, this whole planet and the conditions of existence on it could be transformed. The sun raises the water of the oceans and winds drive it to distant regions where it remains in a state of most delicate balance. If it were in our power to upset it when and wherever desired, this might life sustaining stream could be at will controlled. We could irrigate arid deserts, create lakes and rivers, and provide motive power in unlimited amounts. This would be the most efficient way of harnessing the sun to the uses of man. The consummation depended on our ability to develop electric forces of the order of those in nature.

It seemed a hopeless undertaking, but I made up my mind to try it and immediately on my return to the United States in the summer of 1892, after a short visit to my friends in Watford, England; work was begun which was to me all the more attractive, because a means of the same kind was necessary for the successful transmission of energy without wires. At this time I made a further careful study of the Bible, and discovered the key in Revelation. The first gratifying result was obtained in the spring of the succeeding year, when I reaching a tension of about 100,000,000 volts—one hundred million volts -- with my conical coil, which I figured was the voltage of a flash of lightening. Steady progress was made until the destruction of my laboratory by fire, in 1895, as may be judged from an article by T.C. Martin which appeared in the April number of the Century Magazine. This calamity set me back in many ways and most of that year had to be devoted to planning and reconstruction. However, as soon as circumstances permitted, I returned to the task.

So it looks like Tesla's original text has been augmented by someone who doesn't care for the demon drink but likes Watford, and BA's link is to the 'alternative' text.  Quelle surprise.  Even more surprising is when you google "and discovered the key in revelation" there are numerous matches mostly to religious leaning sites and UD, but a couple also to copies of the autobiography published and available on Amazon & Google Books.  It would seem these later altered and published versions are the source of the 'additions' to Tesla's original text.

I know ... BA77's link is bogus and yes, bears still shit in the woods.  He still deserves to be called on it.

ETA: I also see now that the 'revised' version has an added chapter "The Influences that Shape Our Destiny" in which the revised text appears.  This is actually the original chapter 5 "The Magnifying Transmitter", which has now replaced the title to chapter 6, which was previously titled "The Art of Telautomatics".  Marvellous - and, even though I am an atheist, I recognize that this is just wrong.  BA obviously believes this is okay.  So much for his moral compass.

Date: 2013/10/23 11:56:26, Link
Author: Freddie
Actually, that whole thread is starting to look like good reading material for fans of Timecube.

Date: 2013/10/23 17:34:42, Link
Author: Freddie
Well - he has the decency write a forthright apology so I will do the same and state that if this was an honest mistake then I apologize to him too.  

However, I suggest that he carefully check the sources for every one of his link farm quotes of the same ilk.  I don't believe this is the first time this has happened. This quote in particular has appeared multiple times on UD over the past few months.

Oh, and thanks for the PoTW!

Date: 2013/11/26 02:37:17, Link
Author: Freddie
Some nice shots there, still looking to get my first Kingfisher on the wing shot down in the South of England!

Here's a few I took in October in the mountains around Los Gatos and on the coast at Santa Cruz.  Looking for some identification help, especially on the humming bird as I have tried in vain to figure it out ...

Date: 2013/11/27 04:01:38, Link
Author: Freddie
Thanks everyone!  Re: the hummingbird, I can see it is a female Anna's Hummingbird now once you pointed out the characteristics and I did some more searching :-)  Very happy to have added so many new birds in to my collection!

Date: 2013/12/04 16:30:45, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 04 2013,15:20)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 04 2013,12:37)
Quote (REC @ Dec. 04 2013,11:54)
Alan Fox December 4, 2013 at 11:15 am


UD Editors: Alan apologized but then added a smart-assed comment that made the apology clearly insincere. He will remain in moderation.

I wasn't following this thread. Was there a demand to apologize to Barry because Alan asked for the context of a mined quote?

Yep.  Bully got caught using some bog standard Creationist quote-mined quotes. Alan called him on it.  Alan is now in permanent moderation.

Big brave Bully Arrington.  Censorship and banning is all he knows.

Has anyone found the full quote yet? I don't have the book, but googling around shows that BarryA got the title of the book wrong: it should be The Myths of Human Evolution. Oddly, an s disappeared in Barry's version.

Niles Edredge Out Of Context

Date: 2014/01/09 14:32:23, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:23)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2014,11:22)
"However the design inference has to eliminate chance and necessity therefor it" - That looks like a positive case to me!  :O

Yes, moron, the first parts are to eliminate necessity and chance- that is how forensic science and archaeology do it. Only then can you see if design is warranted.

Wrong again dumbass.  That's not how forensic science and archaeology do it.

Forensic science and archaeology both start with the hypothesis that humans did it, then look for evidence of human involvement - tool marks, source of the raw materials, other outside indicators of human presence.  They try to identify the humans involved.

Stick to wolfing cheeseburgers chubs.  Play to your strength.

Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window

Is it a crime if termites are the murders?  After all termites are intelligent agents.

It could be a crime. It all depends.

Any1 of them merdering turmites comes neer my family and I swear ill do time.

Date: 2014/01/14 02:15:11, Link
Author: Freddie
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:

Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

Date: 2014/01/23 23:06:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 23 2014,20:57)
Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?

Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


Does he have a little round head, too?

Date: 2014/02/10 12:46:10, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 10 2014,10:13)
Then feed it!  :p

Give it a byte to eat ...

Date: 2014/02/11 09:51:34, Link
Author: Freddie
From here:

A link to the original USC News article.

The first two paragraphs of the original USC News article:
A team of paleontologists affiliated with USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County has determined that birds were capable of modern flight patterns much earlier than previously suspected — at least 60 million years before T. rex stalked the land.

The new findings have added a layer of understanding to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as researchers explore how early birds took flight.

- See more at: [URL=!/article/58528/pristine-specimen-offers-clues-to-flight-of-ancient-birds/

So few words, so much fail in addition to a dishonest quote-mine thrown in for kicks.

Date: 2014/02/12 15:38:37, Link
Author: Freddie
So glad this thread has gone active again ... super pictures these past few days.  Living here in the South of England, there's not much opportunity to get out right now unless you have a boat and like taking pictures of lakes.  

I bought myself a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens for Christmas, with an OEM ring flash (not an LED knock-off) so i've been playing around with that combination learning how to take macro shots.  

All of these are handheld at 1/200th with the flash, most I think are between f11 and f22 to get some decent depth given that the macro lens has an extremely shallow DoF at f8 and below.  This all makes for a challenge, of course.  I've now got a monopod coming in the post (by canoe, probably) just to hopefully increase the 'good' shot ratio.  Also ordered a macro slider so I can try out some focus stacked shots with my tripod.

These couple are from a frosty morning in early January.

Ice 'stalagmites' formed on a leaf:

Small diptera (fly), unknown species.  This is close to a 1:1 shot so I was able to measure the body length at about 5mm to give a sense of scale.

I made it over to San Jose again with work in January and got a half day's hiking in.  Didn't find much to be excited about due to the time of year and the drought conditions except for one muddy patch from a small spring in a state park.  Pretty much the only thing going on that day was happening around there ...

BTW that 100mm lens doubles as a standard prime and takes some excellent portrait shots.  Great lens for the price I got it for on eBay!

Date: 2014/02/12 15:54:43, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 12 2014,13:19)
All quiet on the UD front.

UD link for those wishing to avoid the sauce pit. Here's what it says:


G-typeFebruary 12, 2014 at 2:08 am

In the kitzmiller v. dover case, a federal court ruled that intelligent design is religious.

Teaching a religious viewpoint in a class that is listed as a science course = school endorses a religious viewpoint, and is therefore unconstitutional.

During the trial, the discovery institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific viewpoint rather than a religious one. Yet, in articles on f.ex., its pretty appearant that intelligent design is religiously motivated:

Example, from one article: “The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored. – See more at:”

The article blames “intolerant atheists” for censoring intelligent design. In saying that, the article heavily implies that intelligent design is religously motivated.

In effect: intelligent design proponents are aware that Hedin was breaking the law, and are upset that Jerry Coyne had a part in exposing the crime.

I'm just fascinated by the fact that this comment has sat for some time without so much a ceiling speaker crackle. So which one of you is G-Type?


From the same thread.

Yes, it's often hard to parse comments as convoluted as this.  Please try harder.

Date: 2014/02/13 08:15:57, Link
Author: Freddie
What's up with that picture of Meyer?  Looks like he is squeezed into a suit 4x too big for his head ... if I didn't know better i'd say that had been photo-shopped badly!

Date: 2014/03/06 12:41:51, Link
Author: Freddie
Slow day out there on the volcano ...

Date: 2014/03/11 09:54:30, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Human shitstain Sal Cordova has his new IDCreationist blog, Creation Evolution University up and going.  Looks like it's going to be just like his other failed IDC apologetics blog from a few years ago, Young Cosmos.

I'm rather disappointed he didn't keep the name he originally chose for this new goat rope, "Liars For Darwin".  :D

In a move with a huge amount of unintended irony Sal chose for his board background the same picture used by another science-denying crank, AGW denialist Anthony Watts and WattsUpWithThat.

Snigger ...

Date: 2014/03/31 10:04:36, Link
Author: Freddie
Over at EN&V, on March 28th a clear and unambiguous prediction is made!!!

And now, the reality as of March 31st ...

Must hurt to be wrong so much of the time.

I see the execrable "God's Not Dead" managed to scrape $9m.  Wonder how that will turn out for them next weekend.

Date: 2014/04/01 17:09:40, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 01 2014,16:28)
"Scientists Find Imprint of Universe That Existed Before the Big Bang"

Had me fooled for the 1st few paragraphs at least!

"Doug Neidermeyer, a cosmologist at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York."


Date: 2014/05/21 01:53:17, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Henry J @ May 20 2014,21:43)
And no one really knows why love hurts.

Could it have to do with roses having thorns?


Actually, they have prickles rather than thorns!

Prickles, Thorns and Spines

My GF works for the RHS and pulled me up on this last week, so i'm passing it on ...

Date: 2014/05/26 16:25:22, Link
Author: Freddie
I've been practicing some more with my 100mm F2.8 Canon macro lens.  These were taken without ring flash (didn't have it with me) and with handheld camera using manual focus at the most stopped down aperture I could manage given the light conditions.  Hence the very shallow depth of field.

Pyrrhosoma nymphula - Large Red Damselfly, Male

Date: 2014/07/01 15:20:46, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2014,11:05)
Answers in Genesis has a "Flat Ken" photo contest.

I think maybe a little editing is in order for the non-AiG crowd to get into this: "Flat Earth Ken".

A myriad possibilities await ...

Date: 2014/09/10 16:32:02, Link
Author: Freddie
"Vestigial".  You keep using that word ...

UD Link

Date: 2015/02/18 11:42:48, Link
Author: Freddie
this is stuff a 3 year old would understand ... if you put a sandwich in a DVD player it won't play a movie. In fact, you can't put a CD in a DVD player and expect to watch a movie ... the information isn't there.

Ahem ... Video CD Format.  Still supported on many DVD/BD players today, actually!

Date: 2015/04/29 12:26:24, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 29 2015,12:09)
Quote (JohnW @ April 29 2015,11:51)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 29 2015,08:34)
When a comment starts with these words, my eyes glaze over and I move on to the next comment:
Take an Abu 6500 C3 reel, i/l/o its FSCO/I....

Give it a rub down with oil of ad hominem, and you're ready for those red herrings.

Casting aspersions at the tangled bank?

Expect some backlash.

You guys just aren't able to tackle his argument ...

Date: 2015/05/21 12:34:31, Link
Author: Freddie
Silver Asiatic plays the killer ID argument card to Larry Moran:
Also, you claim to have no evidence of ‘gods’ but on the same basis, you have no direct observations of humans descending from chimplike ancestors. You make an inference based on fossil and genetic similarities. You even posit ancestors that are invisible (at least for now).

We have no evidence of non-humans giving birth to humans. But you’re so convinced that it did happen, you call it a fact.

Date: 2017/11/28 09:30:23, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 24 2017,18:04)
As a simple fraud would not have the sort of blunders we see, that leaves the distractor and tainting game — moths to a flame effect — on the table; where ability to do this sort of trick is enabled by media dominance so the narrative will fall on the polarised party lines. 

KF has moved far, far beyond rationality.  Where are the Speakeasies?

Nut City Chronicles

Breaking cover to state that I cannot believe this exchange has not been posted.  Slackers.

Date: 2017/12/01 11:03:23, Link
Author: Freddie
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 29 2017,21:42)
I couldn't say myself, but her name is Emma Rose and she's from ...

Penzance?  co-inky-dink?  I think not.

This is why I love this place ... that and the puns, of course. Who would have thought the old "PZ-69 pic" would eventually lead to a G&S reference?