form_srcid: blipey
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.95
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: blipey
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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'blipey%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/06/14 19:29:15, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Don't worry Steve, your ability to successfully read an entire first- and surname, and bring it whole to another forum will soon be the stuff of legend. We will chant your name for generations to come...if you give us permission, that is. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 21:39:38, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
That certainly makes me go, "Hmmm. I never saw that glaring hole..." It also upsets me a little since I'm going to have to return all those antiques I bought.  |
| Date: 2006/06/16 03:46:01, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Randy, Since you apparently paid attention to what I said when I gave you the link to UD, I'm going to ask you to do one more thing. As others have done here at this forum--ad naseum--I ask you to start talking about the issue. It surely must be apparent to you that the number one reason for many of us to not take any ID calim seriously is that none of its adherents EVER talk about the EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS in a rational manner. If you do not start to present evidence and rational arguments that are on topic, you too will be lumped into this category. It will be your own fault and nobody will feel sorry for you. You've been asked very kindly to stop crying and complaining--now it is time to do so...or accept the reasonable conclusion that you ARE, in fact, a baby that whines and complains and does little else. If you think this is a personal attack on you, I cannot help this. However, please note that I gave you a very easy out--PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS. If you do this, you are not a baby. |
| Date: 2006/06/17 12:09:40, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I must say, skeptic, that you take the cake. At least in my book--fantastic. Your dedication is utterly inconceivable. Thordaddy has nothing on you, WTG. In fact, your performance has led me to guess your actual occupation. You are a professional athlete...probably a dodge-ball player. Your quick first step, your slithery ellusiveness, your gutty performance in the face of inimitable odds...your ability to get kicked in the balls and not even know it.... You are my hero. I just have one thing to ask of you, if you could...you see, I'm a cancer patient and would like to meet a fine professional thinker such as yourself before I die. Please come and sign my cast (It's a pancreatic one...you'll need a special pencil). Of course, if you are unable to get to my bedside in time, could you just phone and inform me of an idea you have...any would do, please, pretty please...just one nugget of your wisdom that I can independently confirm before I die? What d'ya say? |
| Date: 2006/06/17 12:26:19, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| I'm sorry, I obviously meant "professional dodge-ball player"--not "thinker" in my above post; I hope I didn't anger you. |
| Date: 2006/06/18 05:43:49, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
Every morning I get up and check in--just on the remote (probably way over the UPB  ) chance that skeptic will present some actual arguments with real data, but woe is me.Come on, skeptic, how 'bout it? Make coffee come out of my nose one of these mornings...I promise I'll send a picture. |
| Date: 2006/06/18 17:04:14, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Wow! skeptic, you've posted twice since you promised to make coffee come out my nose--AND STILL NO DATA, NO RATIONAL ARGUMENTS, & NO RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU. I know, you haven't had time...you're getting around to it...maybe sometime after the rapture.... I mean, if you couldn't address any points in the dozens of previous posts, why start now? You are boring. Deadly dull, really. Let me sum up your argument if I may: Hey, guys. Look over here, I figured out that arithmetic doesn't work. Yeah, the way we add numbers; we've been doing it wrong since the beginning. You see, when I add numbers I get different things. Yeah, it's different. No fooling. Well, I suppose I could teach you, but I'm really tired now...got to teach bio-chemistry in the morning. My first lesson will be forthcoming...just a matter of time...wait for it. ***a few hours later*** I think the proliferation of hot dog vendors on city streets creates a culture of drones which just can't wrap their heads around the new arithmetic I've shown. What do you propose we do with these vendors so my new theory of arithmetic--which I've shown in detail above--can catch on? ***a few hours later*** Yeah, see numbers are unimportant to my theory of arithmetic. It's really about how we believe the major groups, sets if you will, go together in a new way. I'll get to showing you the numbers in just a second. ***the next morning*** Wow. You guys sure have been discussing things; I had to like pretend to read a lot--a LOT--of posts before writing this one (which will have nothing to do with my new theory, either). You see, I've just finished reading the literally 18,000 pages of material you guys have given me since last night. While I have finished it, it just doesn't seem too convincing. ***later*** So, do you think hot dog vendors hate me? Oh, has everyone started using my clear and well-defined new theory yet? ********* please make this untrue, skeptic. Until then, *yawn*. |
| Date: 2006/06/19 05:45:57, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Which of your um...ideas will I be reading about in a textbook in 40 years, GoP? 1. The Earth is flat 2. The Earth is the center of the Solar System (well, certainly the textbook will identify it as the Earthal System) 3. Logical argumentation is best advanced through multiple non-sequiters I think they are all equally likely, so I was wondering which you were really shooting for. |
| Date: 2006/06/19 08:27:53, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Hey GoP: If you want that geocentric theory in books sooner than later, how about posting the details of your model somewhere. And, I'm very interested in what you think about the non-sequiter argumentation method. |
| Date: 2006/06/19 15:01:57, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||||||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||||||
No wonder you presented the model math-free. I can see where it might get quite complicated:
I can just see all the manufacturers of mobiles crying out in agony. How on Earth are they going to make cute models of the Earthal System to hang over a baby's crib? Will they have to include a warning tag: Do not hang close to baby, model may rupture Also, even if I grant you all the nonsense in this "model?", I find this odd:
Then:
Hmmm. I can certainly understand where an avoidance of math might be to your advantage in explaining all of these non-mathematical claims.... |
| Date: 2006/06/20 07:03:49, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Randy also shows that his legal scholarship is right in line with Disco:
That's what we like here in America: Guilty until proven innocent...Luskin may need an errand boy. Also, I think Randy may have somewhere accidently posted something lucid...that would explain be moderated at UD. Though this lucid posting may be just a rumor. |
| Date: 2006/06/20 07:21:00, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
|
Makes you wonder if DaveTard is amazed that he can pick up a gallon of milk out of his fridge all by himself--against the gravitational field of the entire planet Earth. With strength like that, he must have worked in a circus freak show. From the OED-American Edition:
DaveTard:
Is he saying that gravity follows a two party system: Lilliputians and Beer-guzzling, Braut-eating Couch Potato-Guys? |
| Date: 2006/06/20 07:48:58, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Remember, however, that he is NOT a creationist! |
| Date: 2006/06/27 02:59:28, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
DT would read others but he didn't think that Bone, The Atmosphere, or--certainly--Journal of Applied Logic sounded sciency enough. By claiming SA as his magazine of choice, he affirmed 2 things that are incredibly important to him: 1. He is on top of the heap as far as being SCIENTIFIC 2. He is a flag-waving, right-wing (the only true) AMERICAN. you can wave your ass right outta MY country. homo. -dt |
| Date: 2006/06/27 06:53:11, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
GoP:
I hope this is not the "last section" you were talking about. If it is, you now not only need to provide a complete geo-centric/stationary model but also a replacement for the Standard Model. Yikes. Also, you present Eric's basis for complaint, while providing no rebuttal of your own. Do you concede his point about planetary scale objects. Or, are you claiming that planets are actually under 2 nm in diameter? |
| Date: 2006/06/27 07:39:07, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Well, that's good, I suppose. It does still beg the question of whether GoP has sufficiently answered your complaint. It would seem that he needs to prove that something the size of Jupiter (slightly bigger than a baseball and moving a wee bit faster) produces something other than unobservable quantum properties. Ghost, what is your argument that these effects are indeed observable? |
| Date: 2006/06/27 14:08:59, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Ah, good. Larry Laugherman is back seeking not quite so fresh legal angles. DaveScot once again gives a wacky interpretation of the First Amendment:
Of course, what many--if not most--of the right-wingers want is freedom to practice a particular religion. Remember this one? |
| Date: 2006/06/28 16:09:04, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
DaveScot: Jury nullification is a jury’s refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds. The people have been stripped of this right to be judged by a jury in federal constitutional rights cases by the prevalent practice of seeking only injuctive relief (technically less than $20 in damages) and using exhorbitant attorney fees as a proxy for punitive damages. Is DT claiming that people have been stripped of the right to be judged by a jury of their peers that will ignore the evidence? I don't get it. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 11:07:30, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I'm sure it's the work experience that's throwing them. and now you can pick up your check at the unemployment line. -dt |
| Date: 2006/06/29 11:12:05, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
RichardHughes:
That's fantastic. I want to steal that for one of my stage shows. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 16:36:04, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
DaveScot:
Now I understand. He's heartbroken about being shunned by Scientific American. It's driven him to increasing depths of insanity as he frantically searches for any sciency topic that will set the balance right. Popular Science, indeed. Or, wait...Dave, I should've asked: Do you consider Popular Science to be a hard science publication? You never know.... |
| Date: 2006/06/29 17:24:41, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
afdave:
emphasis mine You aren't selling companies to the mafiosa are you dave? I mean, if you are I certainly won't tell; Guido says that would be bad. Guido also tells me it is VERY cool to talk about yourself in the third person. Blipey thinks so also. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 17:28:18, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| But...with or without clothes, pz? People magazine wants to know! |
| Date: 2006/06/29 17:56:41, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Dembski's lauding a new magazine dedicated to the downfall of materialism! I know; it's exciting. I especially like the the coming soon part. Sorry, I can't link directly to the flash image, but maybe someone can explain exactly how that form of intercourse is either natural or safe. If anything, I think it would be painful...not to mention unfruitful. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 20:20:12, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
This must be a typo. Counterculture? As arden pointed out, Salvo is a right-leaning Christian publication. It's about time that minority finally got an outlet for their views. |
| Date: 2006/06/30 11:52:42, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
.Click the coming soon link. I find that stupendously--if accidentaly--funny. Nice to see the fundies supporting the alternative lifestyles of skull-sex afficianados. |
| Date: 2006/07/01 11:19:28, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Can I nominate Lino D'Ischia as the dumbest IDiot around? Read the comments above the link also...he's a genius. |
| Date: 2006/07/03 20:07:27, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ooooh! Then I can make a movie proving his movie is a fake! |
| Date: 2006/07/05 14:42:42, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
He certainly is. You should also check out his very convincing theories about The Matrix and The Illuminati winning the space race. I'll bet the Soviets were pissed they came in third. |
| Date: 2006/07/07 20:43:34, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I generally agree with the conclusions reached by everyone else. I am, however, a proponent of essay tests. I think that they are the best way to evaluate what someone knows. I think the quibble here is on how we evaluate said tests. As Louis stated, merely making the "essay" requirement one that has a cite and a conclusion is never productive. But, if this is the model, I don't see it as really being an essay. The point of essay tests is (or should be) to evaluate an argument. It is not enough to merely quote someone and leave it. Rather, find a reference, evaluate it, state a theory and support it with logical argumentation. This is an essay. Here in the US there is much clamor in educational debates over "teaching to the test." However, I think that this is a fabulous idea. When people bring this argument, I think they really mean we "teach to the answer." This is the flaw as I see it. I believe it is the responsibility of educators to design tests not for answers, but for arguments. These tests can only be evaluated by exploring what the students comprehend about a subject--a properly evaluated essay is a fine demonstration of their knowledge or lack thereof. |
| Date: 2006/07/08 20:42:07, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
skeptic:
This is a telling statement. The role of high school education has been discussed a great deal. I tend to agree with those who say its purpose is to introdduce the fundamentals and the very basics of research and modern ideas. By introducing the topic, we can hope to encourage interest which may be pursued at a higher, college and university level. Notice that I do not include critical thinking in this plan, because I believe that ALL levels of education should involve critical thinking (it is NOT education otherwise). I would like to know, skeptic, why you do not latch onto cosmology, geology, or any other branch of science with your critique. Surely, they must all conform to the same scutiny? It is this silly obsetion with Evolution that makes the IDC crowd look foolish. |
| Date: 2006/07/10 20:23:32, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, since we can obviously design things based on nature, nature was obviously designed by intelligence that knew I wanted new drug delivery methods. Easy. then move next door to a crack house, 'cause you're outta here, homo. -dt |
| Date: 2006/07/13 09:51:23, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
But, Paley, I won't have hamburgers ready until Thursday.... |
| Date: 2006/07/13 13:40:44, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Arden:
You don't mean this dinosaur, do you? |
| Date: 2006/07/13 16:27:48, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
They certainly do suck. I mean, what are the chances a rampaging dino rider will actually run through your office and/or fantasy museum? |
| Date: 2006/07/13 16:52:28, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
One of the reviews of the book you linked to. I must agree, my belief system has expanded (if only slightly), by merely reading some of the reviews. Holy Moly! I have new belief in how gullible people can be. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 16:57:16, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| Makes you wonder if any of his "true believers" have ever seen this. |
| Date: 2006/07/13 17:30:32, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| An island came to him in a dream? It obviously wasn't big enough to do him any physical harm. Too bad. Unless, opf course, his book is a how-to detailed enough to teach me to peddle snake oil? |
| Date: 2006/07/13 18:43:11, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Which is, of course, why you make sure your snake oil is 110 proof. |
| Date: 2006/07/14 23:41:33, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
And neither have they, the finches that is. wtg, show those chance worshippers the truth. unfortunately, since there can be only one genius of ID on this blog, you'll have to show them somewhere else. -dt |
| Date: 2006/07/15 08:16:16, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I sure hope they have a lot braille in their buildings. Or, perhaps, they're trying to set up some sort of comparison: you think school is goofy, check out a summer with us. Then they can write some sort of compare and contrast paper in composition class. |
| Date: 2006/07/17 10:09:57, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| Why wouldn't he let her post? He strokes Dembski and is allowed to play with UD. He's been doing it long enough (stroking and playing) that he now expects to be stroked. If he thinks he's getting it, who are we to tell him otherwise? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:30:17, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I think improvius's point is valid. We should only ridicule the things she has control over...her publishing history, for instance. DaveTard on the other hand:
all you all are beneath me, if you know what I mean. homos. -dt |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:33:14, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| Though the humor factor of violating SLoT with someone's mother is priceless. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:48:59, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Well I guess we're going to have to hope for that Dave's The Pleasures of SLOT Violation Blog. He's done at UD. I'd say we might get something out of him at Janie's, but his posting there reminds me an awful lot of his posting at Alan Fox's Blog. Where will he go? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 10:55:04, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| oops. doubled it up. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 11:26:50, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Now THAT'S a pathetic level of detail. I think it shall remain unmatched, Midnight Voice; nice job. but I need a match now that I"m heading off into the wilderness. -dt |
| Date: 2006/07/19 19:53:47, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I've always leaned toward the "she's acting" camp. I wouldn't be completely shocked if she really were a 17 year old girl, but I just don't know. I did ask her a while back, but got no real answer, so I let it be. If it is an act, I agree with BR, bravo. It's really well done and really of no consequence either way. In fact, if it is an act, I feel I need to apologize for being a part of the early "outing". She was obviously doing a good enough job to ruffle the feathers of the IDiots in a new and enlightening way. Perhaps we put a crimp in that? So, it really doesn't matter to me, as long as she still stirs the ID pot a little (by keeping her science thread going--at least a bit), I think it's a nice place to have a little cake (UD baiting) and discuss a little theatre...not too many places to do both. Besides, if any of the IDiots aren't convinced one way or the other, the style of her blog can only help. Above comments predicated on only the assumption that Janie is acting. |
| Date: 2006/07/19 20:43:27, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
It's the patience issue again. Or, I suppose, we just don't know what "Janie" gets out of it--that could be enlightening. While I agree, it's probably an act, my lingering doubt is--unfortunately--based on an argument from incredulity. What possible aim could you have that you would do this (in as much detail as has been done--good or bad doesn't matter, just the fact that it was done) for so long? Off the top of my head I can think of: 1. You have copious amounts of freetime to waste 2. It's some sort of challenge to see exactly how gullible everyone is 3. You're bedridden and don't have Netflix 4. You really, really hate DaveTard (my leading candidate) 5. You're deranged in some, probably none-dangerous way 6. I'm out...got no more It's not the acting per se, but the dedication to it that is fascinating to me. It seems a lot of effort for no readily apparent goal. This is why I wouldn't fall over dead if it turned out to be true, but I agree, steve. The topics and comments in her blog read like a movie script...they all tie nicely together and create a precise picture...a managed picture. I'd be almost as interested in knowing what the goal was as to whom it might be. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 03:41:05, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Oh, for sure. But there is something different about the two. Paley seems to have his character based completely on a disconnect from reality. Janie, if a character, is apparently based on some strategy or purpose...she doesn't rave as a lunatic (well, there is the famous f-bomb tirade...), discusses legitimate topics, fairly rationally. While they may both be playing, they're playing different games. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 03:45:18, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Please take good notes, Louis. I think you could be on the verge of posting some AtBC gold. You will gives us the rundown asap? |
| Date: 2006/07/20 04:55:44, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Fuller: Cast down the Gourd of Darwinism, follow the Shoe of Obfuscation! Louis: Even when it finds its way so far up your arse it's firmly inserted in your mouth? Fuller: Yes, even then, my child. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 11:07:59, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Speaking of dangerous idiots, have you seen the latest from Jim Bakker? I'm collecting a list of improvements here if you have suggestions. When I get enough good ones, I'm going to send them off to the good Rev. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 04:35:26, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, I predicted in 2001 that gas prices would increase over then next decade. Also that paparazzi would follow Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie. Let's talk about who has the greater predicative power, Denyse...come on, you know it's me! |
| Date: 2006/07/21 09:09:36, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
OMG. Comedic value still riding high. And DaveScot, if you did leave yourself a backdoor, could you please get rid of my IP ban? I'd love to look at it in person. Wow. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 10:06:11, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
  In recognition of the new UD regime. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 04:43:48, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
1. As the foremost (and highest IQ) Historian on the planet, it is only natural that DaveTard should write the history of the ID movement. 2. As he would no doubt agree, "History is written by the victors." Wait, there're problems with both of those...hmmm, can't figure out where it went wrong. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 05:08:11, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
-emphasis added Yeah, can you kick it from there? Oh, you can? Hold on...uh, I meant can you kick a 50 yard field goal. Yes? Uh, well...hold on a sec. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 09:09:53, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Maybe she will start talking about actual theories? We'll see. |
| Date: 2006/07/22 12:29:43, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
When has that even slowed them down before?  |
| Date: 2006/07/22 19:40:33, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
So, ask an open ended question, with no readily meaningful answers and this qualifies as work on ID? This might be fun; let me try. If you like it Dembski, can I be a fellow at Disco? Here goes: Just as the number of court battles ID has lost has increased over the past decade, so has the number of tasty ice creams grown over the same period. Which ice cream flavor goes better with terrible cross x performance? The White Kind Fish Food The One that's Green with Chips in It Pork Loin I don't eat ice cream |
| Date: 2006/07/24 03:25:50, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Who won, then? Looks like steve was 3 hours under; did someone guess 29? If not, I would like to tke this opportunity to guess 29.  |
| Date: 2006/07/24 08:44:09, Link 64.218.107.140 |
| Author: blipey |
|
A partial list of words I never want to hear again from IDiots. They simply like to show us they know how to say them--screw actually knowing what they mean and/or applying them correctly: 1. ad hominem (I personally think they should from now on use "ad homonim" 2. strawman 3. science 4. is 5. activist judge 6. model They can, if they want, continue to use the phrase "Monty Python's Black Knight". |
| Date: 2006/07/24 15:45:14, Link 64.218.107.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Some of the new Wiki content:
my emphasizing!! seems very solid, and sort of definite...maybe. It then refers you to the Disco site for more info. I can hardly imagine that there could be even more info than is contained in the above paragraph. Very robust program.(atics). |
| Date: 2006/07/25 10:11:21, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I must give the IDiots props in this area. They are much better at making up words than Wesley is. For some real humdingers, go here. |
| Date: 2006/07/28 12:04:12, Link 64.216.140.247 |
| Author: blipey |
| Another Dave? Or, another Tard? |
| Date: 2006/07/30 02:44:33, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
We prefer to be called actors, painters, dancers, cinematographers, etc. Or artists...artsies doesn't really have a professional ring to it.... So, I guess we know what their opinion of the arts community is. That'll go over well--"hey, if you have any idea of how our stupid idea can be spread better tell us about it, unless of course, you're a stinking, liberal, crazy-head homo." Also, as a member of the arts community, I do indeed understand ID better than a lot of people. I do gab professionally; I don't do science professionally. I recognize gab. And, lastly, why does Johnson need help in this area? As a lawyer, shouldn't Johnson have a deep insight into the workings of what makes good art? His training should have made him peerless in this regard. Or does legal training only prepare you for a career in biology? |
| Date: 2006/08/04 05:56:58, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Hey, dt does have a way with words, doesn't he? However, in the spirit of Dave Berry, The Gay Snakes would not be a good name for a band. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 07:14:30, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Yeah, but so did: Paley & Dembski Dembski & Johnson Johnson & Behe Behe & Luskin Luskin & Aquinas Aquinas & .... Holy shit! Dembski is St. Thomas Aquinas of Informational Type Structures reincarnated! Who knew?
And his IQ and 10k times (150 & 31, respectively)...wait, it might be the other way 'round. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 08:29:23, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Okay. It is a pretty funny name for a band, but I don't think a successful one. Maybe we can get a TV show made about it and find out. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 09:15:27, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I am so %$@*ing hurt! Are you saying I'm a poor man's GoP? I want to go on record as saying that I am at least a high rent GoP! I also am at least 78% sure the Earth revolves around the Sun. I'll take the trash out with ya, ya homo. -dt |
| Date: 2006/08/04 09:34:47, Link 64.216.140.247 |
| Author: blipey |
|
No problem k.e. I just wanted an opportunity to type "%$@*ing". BTW, I really like saphroligious; it sounds tasty. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 10:54:33, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
The following is O'Leary's definition of evidence-based
I asked her very strightforwardly if anyone's OPINION was a legitimate source of evidence. Comment never saw the light of day. However, this completely obvious smart-ass comment of mine makes the cut on another thread:
Did she think I was actually concerned about the living conditions of poor, put-upon Catholics? |
| Date: 2006/08/04 12:29:28, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Hey, the Designer spontaneously created more water after the tiny stream started, thereby creating a raging river. Everything can be explained if you JUST BELIEVE! |
| Date: 2006/08/04 19:52:11, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
As far as I can tell, this comment actually references nothing in particular. I think I might try to post "Pizza is round." on the same thread. |
| Date: 2006/08/05 09:27:05, Link 64.216.140.247 |
| Author: blipey |
|
The racism edit was specifically referenceing this post: I missed it first time time, too. |
| Date: 2006/08/05 19:50:51, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
That's funny. I think I wet myself. Does that make me gay, Joel? Seriously, I just did a 3 hour comedy show and that's the biggest laugh I had all night...maybe I should look at my show. |
| Date: 2006/08/05 19:55:43, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Why are we making the cut-off his high school graduation; let's make it to the present moment? Either way, I'll wager, ah, hmmm. Oh yes, make it a true daily double, Alex. |
| Date: 2006/08/07 10:34:31, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
-emphasis added Sal should get himself a job as a cosmologist; he has a lot to offer. First off, it's nice to know that he, personally, isn't "averse to life existing on other planets". Is he somehow in control of this matter? Second, is he aware of the orbits of any of these meteors that may have come from Earth? If so, could he calculate the dates of their ejection, and tell us what we might expect to find in them? Now, that would be a prediction. And lastly, exactly how would this prediction support or negate any "ID hypothesis"? I know you can tell us anytime, Sal. |
| Date: 2006/08/07 11:29:00, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Isn't the point that Peter did recognize Jesus, but then denied this three times? Seems there's a moral in that somewhere. About denial of facts, lying, obfuscating for your own advantage. Hmmm. Do we know anyone like that? |
| Date: 2006/08/07 11:33:27, Link 64.216.140.247 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
If Sal knew anything about physics, you'd think he would've claimed being on Universal TV, or at least Intergalactic TV. |
| Date: 2006/08/07 11:46:59, Link 64.216.140.247 |
| Author: blipey |
 I think I may be close enough to attend. I really hope my itenerary works out. Might turn out to be the highlight of my tour. |
| Date: 2006/08/08 07:13:46, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
|
WaD asks: Why is she thanking me? He is speaking of the autograph from Barbara Forrest he got last year. He insinuates that it's because he is personally responsible for her career. Wait, I mean he comes right out and says it. IT must be hard to be personally responsible for so much of what goes on in the world today. No wonder Dimski hasn't had time to publish any actual research. I think, however: Perhaps she's thanking you for providing such a lame argument for your side that you are winning the battle for evolution, materialism, and let's see, oh yes--EVIL. |
| Date: 2006/08/08 10:01:31, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Hmmmm. Two things: 1. Isn't gratuitousness a sin? 2. Don't you think it's a little odd to be seen responding to comments that aren't there (mysteriously)? It makes you look like raving lunatics. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 08:30:32, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Or www.Gosh, you sure are pretty, but I can't, my beliefs don't allow...are you taking your shirt off???...gosh, I never seen...huh?...please don't do...(faints dead away).com |
| Date: 2006/08/11 12:30:25, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Nope. I just read it and I have no idea what ####'s going on there. Wow, is that a mess. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 17:51:46, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
This should win an award; it is sublime. May I suggest the "It Smacketh of Truthiness" award? |
| Date: 2006/08/11 18:00:07, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
| We're not soylent green? |
| Date: 2006/08/11 18:15:21, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
| Yes. I'm going to Hustle right out and see this one; your Kung Fu is strong, steve. Dimski as head of the Axe Gang would make a great sequel to Dover. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 18:33:17, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Cordova is still plugging his intergalactic, universal, not-only-in-Denmark TV appearance. The main focus will be the case of Caroline Crocker, a former professor of biology at George Mason University. Six years ago, in the course of her research, she came to see that Darwinian evolution was scientifically indefensible and untrue. This TV report details the ordeal she endured for the cause of scientific truth in the face of those seeking to suppress it. -emphasis mine Interesting that the program will detail the ordeal but not the evidence that led her to her beliefs. I, for one, am shocked. Shocked, I say! SHOCKED. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 20:46:53, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
It's either: A. whiskey induced, or B. he's wearing the wrong trousers.  |
| Date: 2006/08/11 20:50:11, Link 66.142.53.153 |
| Author: blipey |
| I think that Jason, like other crackpots, has nothing new to say. He's just found a faster way to use more space while saying nothing. It makes him feel important. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 04:41:22, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Geez, there's going to be a turf war any day. Joel's going to have to ban the church lady as her primary language is destroying English. This is bad, see here. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 17:51:17, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, of course. They only have one reference; why shouldn't everyone else be held to the same standard? |
| Date: 2006/08/12 19:59:08, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
 |
| Date: 2006/08/14 19:07:06, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Or from the blurb that describes building a dinosaur skeleton out of KFC bones and forgetting to hide the receipt. On a serious note, it must be really hard to live your life absolutely assured of 30 different conspiracy theories. How do IDiots manage to leave their homes? |
| Date: 2006/08/15 05:07:55, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
What's the point of that? Does cyberspace really need a vast collection of new posts with no comments?  |
| Date: 2006/08/15 09:30:25, Link 66.142.53.153 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Well, the workload was overwhelming and all.... He is only one IDiot and can only obfuscate so much for so long. |
| Date: 2006/08/18 19:22:33, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, I certainly missed it. What insights did DaveScot have again? At least I'll get the chance to laugh at him with more regularity again. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 06:11:01, Link 65.64.125.31 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Wow. Now the UD crowd are experts in the scientific background and working habits of South Africans! WTF Maybe someone can tell me how this relates to ToE? Or why South Africans don't cotton to that particular theory? |
| Date: 2006/08/21 07:45:09, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I would be shocked if he doesn't. His personal blog is one long conspiracy theory buy in. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 08:30:03, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
from Joseph, on DaveTard's new post:
"Um, yes; I thought that the PTers said something stupid and that is bad. However, as I see that they are not stupid, and it was actually you, DaveScot, that said something stupid--well, carry on!" |
| Date: 2006/08/21 10:32:21, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
That's funny. My amusement is only tempered by the realization that GoP will now start a thread to prove this relationship. |
| Date: 2006/08/22 10:37:22, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Sal comes to his senses on this thread.
Maybe there is hope. edit: keiths beat me to it |
| Date: 2006/08/22 19:34:30, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Could this mean that Paris Hilton is several times smarter than DaveTard? |
| Date: 2006/08/23 19:41:05, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I think the point is that no specific function was expected or necessarily likely. There was no "WEASAL" or "Steiner Tree" to find. Absolutely anything that scored more points could "win". As the generations grew, this probably led to some very interesting and very different strategies, many equally effective. As was mentioned in the original post, strategies would have to compete against each other to be evaluated, not just against criteria to see how close or far it was from a particular function. This experiment represents more of a "free-for-all" than some GA experiments. I believe this is what was meant; I'm sure someone can correct me if I am wrong. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 03:22:26, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Or, perhaps, it's just ownership of the individual car....  I like to think Dimski has this same wide-eyed, OH S###!!!! look as he gazes over the IDC landscape. |
| Date: 2006/08/24 03:57:03, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
I feel for Tom English. God bless him, he's trying to explain what models are to people who wouldn't recognize one or what its purpose was if it fell on them.
I give 5,000 : 1 it won't.  |
| Date: 2006/08/24 04:06:07, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Um, Dave. If your program always made the best decision available, the randomness of your hands would preclude you winning all of them. If he had better cards than you, he would always win. If the cards were evenish, he's most likely win, and he'd probably even steal couple when at a disadvantage. Also, how exactly would you whip him when he was dealt: 5C, 5D, 5H, JkS, and 5S comes on the cut? By knowing he was going to kick your ass, you nulified his superior hand? The play of cribbage is by far the least important aspect of the game; it's the meld that counts. |
| Date: 2006/08/25 07:31:13, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
What? Your brain couldn't wrap around the concept: If we completely forget what the word population means, instead inserting another word...say, glockenspeil, thereby creating a completely novel sentence-form with much CSI--completely by intelligent means--the Church of Darwinism is dead. Doesn't seem that confusing to me; let's see what this concept might create: So, if each individual can be considered a glockenspiel (within a bistro), then it is glockenspiels that drive panini sales. Perfectly clear. |
| Date: 2006/08/26 12:08:53, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
[quote=stevestory,Aug. 26 2006,16:42]
He doesn't want to talk about it. I tried to leave a reply and it never saw the light of day. Looks like little Joel has learned a lesson at UD. In fact, I tried to comment a couple weeks ago at Please_pretty_please,_stoptryingtoreasonwithme.com and was told that if I wanted my comments to appear, I would have to be nicer. Seems I hurt his feelings. Ahhhhh. |
| Date: 2006/08/27 07:06:26, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I especially like this part of his post:
emphasis mine. Hey, Joel! Why don't you come out and talk to us sometime? Joel? Joel??? oel...oel...el...el...el...l...l...l.... |
| Date: 2006/08/27 08:19:58, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Darwin Attacks the Established Science of Intelligent Design!
We're going to have to adjust that ID ppy (papers per year) number now. Let's see: roughly 2 papers (one rescinded) in 3000(?) years. That works out to 0.0003 papers per year! Surely the fall of the Church of Darwin is upon us. edit: I'm trying to be generous with the figure of "2" (minus 1). |
| Date: 2006/08/28 18:24:41, Link 65.64.125.31 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Lee Smolin an Id Theorist. Who knew??? Dimski must really enjoy writing for a captive, docile and stone-stupid audience. Could you mis-represent a man's views any more than this? Perhaps Dimski is unaware that Dr. Smolin's discipline of Loop Quantum Gravity actually posits progressive ideas and does not exist entirely to discredit String Theory (which also provides positive argument...though perhaps not all testable ideas, but that's another problem entirely). |
| Date: 2006/08/28 18:35:33, Link 65.64.125.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I think I'll skip the chainsaws. I thought it was interesting that I left the door wide open and he missed his opportunity. He could have suggested brains and made the joke his--I was going to let him. Guess using brains for a battle is the furthest thing from his mind.... Think I will invite him to provide positive argument in person when I get to Austin next January. Maybe I should start a pool to see if he actually shows. |
| Date: 2006/08/28 18:49:58, Link 65.64.125.31 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Uh oh. What's DaveTard up to now? It isn't just fungus in the basement anymore, is it? |
| Date: 2006/09/01 19:57:16, Link 65.66.149.55 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
No, but it has had a very detrimental effect on the ultra-giant chariot wheel industry. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 23:24:07, Link 65.66.149.55 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Dodgingcars:
What does that even mean? Surely, he can't be including English? And if not, on what authority does he speak? I'm sure he has studied, what? Arameic? Hebrew? Greek? If he isn't fluent in these languages, what is the basis of his faith? Yes, a trick question. I'd love to ask him--if I weren't banned. Some lovely O'Leary stuff on the thread, too. |
| Date: 2006/09/03 13:36:27, Link 64.219.129.175 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I think steve may be right. As far as subject matter for AtBC, UDOJ is pretty tame. Of course, DaveTard manages to be pretty stupid there, but that particular quality is blog-independent. There just isn't that much actual science discussion that goes on. Actually, when it does go on, it is a pretty decent introduction to science. Biogeer, guthrie, lifewish, and others hae actually presented interesting (if fairly basic) posts on chemistry, biology, and a little cosmology. Dave chimes in with inanities, but with only him to hold forth, the ID / anti-science brigade doesn't provide much fodder. We already know he's stupid and he provides what little new stupidities he has on UD, not UDOJ. |
| Date: 2006/10/03 16:26:34, Link 63.242.208.66 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Thank-you, k.e., for defending clowns. I don't want to speak for all clowns, but I think it safe to say we don't want to associate with DaveScot or any of the other IDiots. Except, of course, when I see him in Austin next spring. You do remember, Dave, right? Don't be gone...it'd be really embarrassing to have it get out that you're running away from clowns. |
| Date: 2006/11/06 15:27:39, Link 65.110.111.222 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I don't feel so special anymore. I was sure (no, really) that DaveTard only had special feelings for me. He doesn't say hi to anyone, though he does state clearly that he will not skip out on my visit to Austin. I'm looking forward to meeting him...it will be a high (low?) light. |
| Date: 2006/11/24 16:43:54, Link 67.64.40.219 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I'm going to try this Spring. He's promised to beat me up when I go to Austin on my tour. He said to look him up, he's in the book. I guess I'll have to do the leg work there too, but I'm looking forward to it. In fact, I'm looking forward to the meeting more than anything else in my yearlong tour. Don't go on vacation, Dave. |
| Date: 2006/11/24 16:57:42, Link 67.64.40.219 |
| Author: blipey |
|
You are substansively right, Guthrie. I am actually interested in getting his supporting ideas on local school curiculum. He seems to be coming from a very libertarian place, but.... I'm not sure what his point is (as is often the case with Dave) since he provides almost nothing but an opening statement or blather. I don't think that states' rights are what motivates him. This is something I hope to get a handle on at our meeting also. As of this moment, I think he is almost entirely motivated by ego and whatever trappings of power he can accumulate (small as those may be). The ideas he supports seem to me to be a secondary concern. The one's he's chosen are just the easiest to dominate--wingnuts and creobots speaking about evolution are not the brightest bulbs. DT just found it easier to get to the head of this particular class. |
| Date: 2006/11/25 08:36:41, Link 66.140.73.45 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Reciprocating Bill (on DaveScot):
I completely agree with this (possibly excepting the "bright"); Dave's shown no insight or original thought at all. He certainly has shown no fresh thinking about biological matters, as is the case with all IDCers of recent times. His Daveness is not passionately interested in pushing ideas--he has none--he is passionate about pushing personality, namely his. And as I said earlier, he can push his personality to the top in IDiot circles rather more easily than anywhere else. A small pond indeed. |
| Date: 2006/11/25 18:56:47, Link 66.140.73.45 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
After a rigorous bout of single-malt scotch drinking, I have isolated the next two terms in this pattern: x = "The US gevernment should require lactose intolerant eskimos to drink milk to qualify for the school lunch program" x + 1 = "Sub-boatdeck mushroom growing should be a tenure-track position in Amish biological furniture making" |
| Date: 2006/12/05 22:22:42, Link 69.92.141.207 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I think it's all the little comets....
my kicking your ass from my keyboard. how's that for distance, homo? -dt |
| Date: 2006/12/09 15:20:32, Link 68.15.200.99 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
from the original DaveTardese: Yeah, we monitor the threads here at UD to a bullshit tolerance of less than 997,892 parts per million. So, go do your sciency stuff elsewhere. homo |
| Date: 2006/12/12 22:28:10, Link 70.246.83.130 |
| Author: blipey |
| Hey, whatever happened to Joel Barflowski? I really loved reading his site, but no new posts since 11-11. What's up? At least Joe G. has picked up the slack. |
| Date: 2006/12/16 21:21:04, Link 66.140.75.199 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I'd like to nominate Joe G. as the new Tardiest Tard in Tardville. --edit-- I have now sbmitted this inquiry that will clear up the troubles between Joe and I. There's about a 50/50 shot he'll actually answer, too. I am afraid I am unable to continue with this until you provide me 6.2 reasons that ID shrinks my shirts in the wash. And it would be very helpful to know if professional baseball players with birthdays on Tuesdays are able to sufficiently counteract the strong correlation between academic success and sedimentary lobe disfunction that we see in many old world primates. Without the answers to these pressing questions, I don't see how we can get any further in the conversation. I eagerly await your answers to these needful things. best, blipey |
| Date: 2006/12/16 21:35:21, Link 66.140.75.199 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
And, of course, at the bottom of his last comment he calls women dickheads. He's such a nice guy. Joe:
|
| Date: 2006/12/20 21:29:02, Link 66.142.56.170 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I hope DaveTard's not having a bad day. A comment like that might get Gil banned. It would be a sad day in Romper Room if that happened. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 23:39:56, Link 65.66.159.104 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Born in Alamosa, CO. Basically a Kansas Citian most of my life, the saner Missouri side. Have lived in Florida (Orlando and the armpit of the world--Daytona Beach) and now basically live in hotel rooms all across America. Someone tell me AFDave isn't living in KC, please? Please. |
| Date: 2006/12/22 23:34:55, Link 66.140.73.6 |
| Author: blipey |
|
'Tis a season of joy and I can't tell you how much laughing makes me joyful. Of course, you also made sure that I do not over-indulge these joyous feelings, thereby causing myself harm, by creating perfect moments of jaw-dropping inanity. I only hope that the new year finds you happy, wealthy, and funny. blipey |
| Date: 2006/12/24 01:50:35, Link 66.142.237.143 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I'm going to do just that in a couple months. Can't wait. If anyone has a question, request, or procedure that you would like from the DaveTardster, post it here. I'll be more than happy to include it in the exam. |
| Date: 2006/12/29 02:35:40, Link 65.64.101.213 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Hmmm. At first I thought that was Billy Boy's secret, martyred friend. Then I became skeptical. Then I read "I hope to discuss some relevant science here in coming posts." and laughed. |
| Date: 2006/12/29 12:03:05, Link 65.64.101.213 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This completely ignores the basic fact derived from my comprehensive knowledge of set theory tht we could, in fact, be scissors. Or not scissors... [/Joe G impersonation] |
| Date: 2006/12/29 22:03:25, Link 65.64.101.213 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
the general disregard for education of any kind by IDiots? While they certainly don't know much about science, they are equal opportunity ignorant. Besides, they say English is the hardest language.... However, this is also the country in which the sign "12 Items or less" can be seen in every grocery store. |
| Date: 2006/12/30 19:49:07, Link 65.64.101.213 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
There's a surprise.
At least they don't pussyfoot around. I particularly enjoy the "pressure" statement. We know that everyone thinks this is crap, but we're going to apply some pressure, not persuasion with evidence, I say, but PRESSURE! Also, anyone have any idea who these 70 IDiots are?
A topic I'd like to ask the DI about. If the IDiots can't even get the church to take them seriously, what have they got? |
| Date: 2006/12/30 19:56:16, Link 65.64.101.213 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Too funny:
What is the natural state of a scientist? It can't be blond, as there have been dark haired scientists before and after Darwin. Oh, it could be Christian. Nope, wait, there have been atheist scientists before and after Darwin. Could it be that scientists should push science in the schools? |
| Date: 2006/12/30 21:07:31, Link 65.64.101.213 |
| Author: blipey |
| A Smith & Wesson beats 4 aces. |
| Date: 2007/01/02 13:20:11, Link 65.66.151.121 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
That's awesome. What a great thread! Sal sure is a smart guy; I feel myself being persuaded. Sal is sure a great guy. A great guy for me to poop on. [/Triumph] |
| Date: 2007/01/02 15:42:29, Link 65.66.151.121 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Best part of this particular stat page? "No news items..." bwahahahaha |
| Date: 2007/01/03 21:14:42, Link 65.66.151.121 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos? Couldn't we just round them all up and put them in the same rubber room? We could play continuous loops of science lectures. Either they'd listen or they wouldn't, and an almost infinite amount of energy could be redirected to usefulwork. Alternately, dgszweda could read the GoP Geocentric Crap Thread or the AFdave BS Thread. Or, he could ignore everything that has gone on before and continue to wallow in willful ignorance. There's money to be had in choice B. |
| Date: 2007/01/04 01:09:22, Link 65.66.151.121 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Thats the difference between the whackos and the non-whackos (such as yourself). dgszweda was invited to read the threads, but apparently had better things to do. I know it's an awfully lot of work to do so, but if you are truly interested you wouldn't dismiss the reading out of hand. That's why I said willful ignorance. He won't learn becausehe isn't interested. |
| Date: 2007/01/05 00:00:40, Link 66.142.56.69 |
| Author: blipey |
| I gotta go with wordpress, also. It doesn't sound like you'll need to customize very much, so the no javascript is moot. There are a lot of templates to use and a fair number of plug-ins, though, all for free. |
| Date: 2007/01/12 16:50:22, Link 76.215.182.179 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Granting that all this is true, Zachriel, I still think that Joe should write more articles. After all, DaveScot only has so much time, what with his fungus growing and all. Yes, JoeG should absolutely put more of his thoughts in writing--even the not-quite-so-indelible writings of UD. |
| Date: 2007/01/12 22:18:24, Link 76.215.182.179 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, I just gotta say that I'll avoid his ginormous ass. If he weighs 220, his ass has got to be huge! In the tradition of UD, maybe he's conflating the numbers: the weight of his ass and his IQ. |
| Date: 2007/01/14 00:16:27, Link 75.8.47.113 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Don't have my Texas swing finalized (the booking agent only finalizes schedules a week in advance), but we're in the area in March. |
| Date: 2007/01/14 09:54:48, Link 75.8.47.113 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Look for the intelligent designer that created the sound system that would be piping in an actual drill sargeant's voice. |
| Date: 2007/01/22 17:51:25, Link 66.225.33.52 |
| Author: blipey |
| Hey, I'll be in Seattle in 8(?) weeks, or something like that. If the Seattle AtBC meetings continue, I would love to attend one. I'll pay my dues (and buy beer). As an added bonus, I will have met DaveScot by then and will be happy to share. |
| Date: 2007/01/22 19:34:28, Link 66.225.33.52 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
As I once told DaveTard, my superior footspeed will allow me to bob and weave his tard. |
| Date: 2007/01/23 21:23:10, Link 12.201.83.214 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
They make Britons in Seattle? |
| Date: 2007/02/06 10:09:12, Link 69.21.245.82 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
But I thought he was 225 lbs of lean fighting machine? How could he let himself go like that--needing to lose 40 lbs??? Maybe he should put his mushrooms in a location 2 miles away from his boat and walk there every day to check on them. |
| Date: 2007/02/14 23:05:29, Link 70.243.173.226 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This has got to be one of Joseph's best arguments to date:
From here. If I get him, he means something like this: 1. I believe that global warming may just be correct; I mean it sounds like it's correct. 2. dum aethiest, libral scintist guys know that I think this. 3. so, they produce and make up facts from false data that support my pre-believed beliefs 4. becuse they data supports my thoughts, it must be not true. See, its just a conspiracy because they know that I know that I think they may be onto something. see? |
| Date: 2007/02/17 11:09:58, Link 65.66.152.204 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
zachriel:
Oh zachriel must be confuzd hear. A livign trilobite would be a creature with a father, even if he was a dead father (and i mena really dead not just deadbeat hahaha, i'm funny) And we know from hte teachings of St Joseph the Tard that people, uh...trilobites with fathers can't be a nested heirarchy. |
| Date: 2007/02/21 22:29:59, Link 65.66.154.248 |
| Author: blipey |
| Ah, beer drinking and witty conversation in Seattle? Sign me up. I'll be in town 3rd-ish week of April (give or take a couple days); schedule is subject to some change. |
| Date: 2007/03/10 22:48:04, Link 66.180.105.138 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien Yikes:
How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"? |
| Date: 2007/03/18 00:56:23, Link 68.166.220.95 |
| Author: blipey |
|
This topic came to mind as I was reading BWE's "passive verb" thread. I have heard people (you know, just random people in the ether) say that there are only mathematical child savants. This struck me as a very interesting claim. AtBC, it seems to me, would be the place to find real, actual, knowledgable people who could tell me wheher this is true or not. Some specifics of my wondering: 1. I assume that "only mathematical" encompasses musical savants as well. Music is pretty mathematical in nature, but are music and higher math processed in the same way? 1a. Do many mathematical savants actually do higher math? It seems that a lot of it is arithmetical and not necessarily higher math. This may not be the case, however. 2. Are linguistics something that a young mind cannot grasp due to lack of exposure? 3. Is there an evolutionary path that leads to mathematical, and not linguistic (or other) type, savants? 4. What is the difference between child (or adult) savants and those, for example, who have great facility for language (speaking a dozen or more fluently, etc)? Any insights by Arden et al would be spiffy. may gravity be kind, blipey |
| Date: 2007/03/18 10:49:37, Link 68.166.220.95 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Keiths: thanks for the video link. I had seen a small clip of this on 60 Minutes or some such, but had not seen the whole thing. It is fascinating. Reciprocating Bill: Thank-you for te excellent response. I had not thought about it in quite the "math is the exception" vein before. Though, I suppose I should have--it makes all the sense in the world, children pick up languages very easily. I do have a couple questions on the "canalization" of evolutionary adaptions now. By "canalization" do you mean that certain selected factors (such as linguistic ability) are "more" hardwired into us than others? Then, because of this, significant variations are harder to realise? At the end you say that music and dance are somewhere in between. In terms of selected features, this may or may not be true, I don't know. There are musical savants such as Mozart that truly showed drastic variation within the population. But, afaik, there aren't literary (I realise this is different than linguistic) savants. No one is writing the next great American novel at age 6. Music (and especially composition) is something most people need extensive tutelage and/or exposure to in order to become any good at all. Poetry, or fiction wriing seems to me to be in the same boat. Yet, we have musical extremes in the population and not(?) poetical or literary extremes. Though, I suppose, music in some form has been around much longer than mathematics and may have more available ways to express itself. Is this some state between "canalized" and freedom to have wider expression? |
| Date: 2007/03/18 11:17:11, Link 68.166.220.95 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I suppose it's true everywhere, but in all my travels around this country, I meet a surprising number of people with less than half a brain. To them, she probably looks brilliant. I should also mention that the .4-brainers are in the minority (not always a clear minority, but a minority all the same). |
| Date: 2007/03/18 11:21:35, Link 68.166.220.95 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Ah yes "don't let the words get in the way of a good tent-rally". It would be interesting to know how many of the legislators actually read past paragraph 4. |
| Date: 2007/03/29 19:49:22, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on this thread never showed up. I don't know why.
Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do. I am saddened beyond belief by this. No, really; I'm crying. |
| Date: 2007/03/29 22:11:29, Link 70.136.224.22 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard. Not cancelled, just postponed. I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th. I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis. |
| Date: 2007/03/29 23:26:52, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Yes, I'm very aware of things that ToE can't (and doesn't purport to) explain, though I'm pretty sure FTK is unaware of said things (and explanations). I'm frustrated that she doesn't bother to detail any of the things "We are discovering...." Ah well, I'm sure she's working hard on producing tht list. |
| Date: 2007/03/29 23:34:23, Link 70.136.224.22 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin. Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it. I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation. I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer. As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature. Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws. So, it could be fun. |
| Date: 2007/03/31 11:06:32, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
And it goes well with chips and vegetables. |
| Date: 2007/03/31 14:11:50, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Wait, wait, wait! I'm either a stegasaurus looking thing or a Godzirra looking thing? Don't get me wrong, dinosaurs are terribly cool but...Who do I petition in order to be on an evlutionary branch further away from DaveTard? |
| Date: 2007/03/31 23:29:02, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Good lord, Kristine, how can you muddle through that stuff? What the #### is he talking about and how would anyone know? From this paragraph, one would assume that if we are all innately good (as the Barenaked Ladies say), then Arabic numerals would never have been invented--no one needing to count that high and all. And someone named Roman is keeping this a secret from us. Bully for you, though, actually reading in depth and all. |
| Date: 2007/04/01 00:33:56, Link 70.136.224.22 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
edit to actually include Whiteside's comment:
This is a particular argument that has always rubbed me the wrong way. As an actor, I very much understand the importance of language and its usage. However, I've ever been irritated by people claiming phrases like Whiteside's are ill-conceived. I don't believe they are. There are situations where words need to be chosen very carefully--situations that require great specific detail in order to communicate a message. Most situations do not fall into this category. For the most part, we get a sense of message from the context of what we're hearing/seeing/feeling. When a scientist is the one speaking/writing/punching us in the nose, we generally know where he's coming from. His words can be interpretted through our understanding of his role as a scientist. Walking on linguistic eggshells is not what we should be worried about (and, indeed, I don't believe for the most part we are). We should be more concerned with educating people to be able to think in real life situations. Even so, some people will not be helped--we don't need to tread lightly for them. |
| Date: 2007/04/02 00:02:46, Link 63.197.134.218 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This is certainly nothing new. Welcome, Albatrossity2, to the world OF IDiots. Most, if not all, ID blogs (not to mention books, conferences, and other events) involve the same sort of incestuous participation (or lack thereof). For other not-so-stunning examples visit: <a href="www.uncommondescent.com" target="_blank">Uncommon Descent</a>, <a href="www.intelligentreasoning.com" target="_blank">Intelligent Reasoning</a>, or <a href="www.overwhelmingevidence.com" target="_blank">Overwhelming Evidence</a>. I would like to thank you, Albatrossity2, for being outraged at these people. But, I would also like to remind you to take them with the grain of salt which they deserve. Otherwise they will drive you crazy. They are not to be taken seriously. That is, until they want to educate your children--then make a fuss and their stupidity will become obviousl (even to the American judicial system). |
| Date: 2007/04/02 00:16:24, Link 63.197.134.218 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I don't mean to disagree with you, N. Wells, but I don't hold the general public in quite the same regard as you do. I think you and I are quite simpatico in regards to our personal views of what science is saying. Where we differ is in how we think it is appropriate to communicate these ideas. I believe that if we couch all scientific discoveries and discussions in language appropriate for creationists we will never be able to communicate amongst ourselves. As Lenny said up-thread, who the heck cares what the creationists think about scientific issues? Sure, it is appropriate to use language very precisely when speaking to creationist groups or addressing the issues when debating creationists. Other than that, screw 'em. they'll quotemine from anything, so I don't believe it is necessary to watch your language 24 hours a day--merely a waste of energy. It is more useful to completely reveal their quotemines and lies. Of course, this requires that we, as a society, respect and admire logical thought and education. These are the areas that I believe we are most deficient in and that our educational system should most engage in. |
| Date: 2007/04/03 23:00:15, Link 71.139.79.105 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Awesome! We have the female version of DaveTard. Threatening violence in response reasoned argument.... That's awesome! You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister. Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws). |
| Date: 2007/04/04 21:59:24, Link 216.70.158.144 |
| Author: blipey |
|
FTK doesn't have anything but social observations and she will never discuss science because she doesn't even know where to start. From some of the comments on her blog one would think she never even wandered into a science book in her home-school. Her comment saying she can't discuss science because last time she tried she struck around long enough to learn something is telling. Of course, that's my own interpretation of her comment, but shes free to tell me I'm wrong. So far we have: 1. I can't discuss science because none of you people really want to discuss science. (Even though we've asked you to discuss science numerous times) 2. I can't discuss science because I find it interesting. Wow. Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list? |
| Date: 2007/04/04 22:09:38, Link 216.70.158.144 |
| Author: blipey |
|
FTK: A little helpful info on this particular board. While serious science can be discussed here (and certainly is), this is the "blow-a-little-steam" place. You seem to think that science is seriously discussed in all pro-ID forums, though there is very little evidence of this. Most of the peope on this board have tried to discuss science seriously in many of your favorite type places: UD, OE, even Joe G.'s place, AiG, etc. Since exactly zero discussion can take place in these forums, they come here to discuss the science and, more often, the idiocies of those places where they are not allowed to comment (and not allowed to provide rational content). Try to take that into consideration (not just the behavior--the reason for it) when visiting. |
| Date: 2007/04/05 00:29:48, Link 216.70.158.144 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I'm not sure any of those were even mildly funny. Oh well; I wouldn't expect anything more. She doesn't know why the first two were funny in the first place. FTK, you sure do go to a lot of trouble (as most creationists do) to be seen and heard without having anything at all to say. Why do you think this is? I mean, I know why I go to a lot of trouble to be seen and heard. It's my job. But, I'm always baffled by people who seek noteriety just for noteriety's sake. We've all seen your blog. We've "discussed" with you. Why do you constantly hang around while adding nothing to the discussion? Can't resist being the little ol' regular person who is beat down by those mean old aethiests? (Well, except for those of us like Wesley who aren't aethiests) You sure do seem to have a low opinion of people with scince degrees. Why is that? Do you think they're stoopid? Why would you think that lay people have a better grasp of the technical issues in biology? Really, I'd like to know why you think this in a meta-way. Why do you think there are experts in any field? (Music, acting, chemistry, plumbing, whatever) Or, do you indeed think that there are not experts in any field? Can lay people do just as well in any field in which they hold an opinion? If you wanted to build a small 4 story office building, would you attempt this task on your own? Why or why not? If your son needed open heart surgery would you attempt it yourself? Why or why not? If there was a tricky question of astrophysics that needed to be answered to save life on this planet would you step up and be the woman for the job? Why or why not? Answers to this last paragraph interest me greatly. I've asked them of many IDCers and none have ever answered me. Why do you think that is? |
| Date: 2007/04/05 17:36:23, Link 216.70.158.144 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Well, the time draws nigh. DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact. I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...). So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard. These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever. I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard. So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out. |
| Date: 2007/04/06 10:03:56, Link 216.70.158.144 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, Joe is now officially no longer worth slapping around:
Since he admits he's a senile individual with a discredited idea, our work is done. I love it so! |
| Date: 2007/04/07 13:14:49, Link 69.227.250.204 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Really, FTK, the paper isn't that long. Instead of typing up 2 of your extremely boring comments, you could read the paper. For someone who is SO interested in science (as you claim to be), it should be no problem to take a few minutes and read the paper. Unless, of course, you have no intention of actually becoming informed on the issue. Please don't tell us you'll read the paper when we know you aren't going to. You promised several days ago on your own blog to post details about what you didn't like in the Hume lecture. You have yet to do that, and you never will. You don't like to talk about details--they screw up your story. You like to make broad generalizations about how wrong other people are and then complain when others show you IN DETAIL how wrong you are. It's time to be an adult, FTK. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 13:57:59, Link 69.227.250.204 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Okay, FTK, here're a couple of softball questions from Wilkins / Elsberry: The major problem with Dembski's EF is that it lacks a mechanism for dealing with foundational conditions. Indeed, a slight change in what we know about starting conditions seems to change the entire conclusion of the EF. 1. How is this not truly a problem for the EF? Or, what changes would you make in the EF in order to address this problem? Wilkins and Elsberry claim that we would need to know, to 100% accuracy, the starting conditions of an occurence or event in order to come to the conclusion of design (rarefied design in any case). So: 2. Is it possible to know with 100% accuracy these conditions? If so, could you provide us with some calculations that show design since you have this wholely known set of data? Or, if it is not possible, how can one successfully apply the EF? |
| Date: 2007/04/07 14:50:03, Link 69.227.250.204 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Hey FTK, While I'd really like to discuss science with you here, amongst scientists that I can actually learn from, I have another option for you. You claim to have spent decades, if not centuries, discussing science at forums all across the universe. And it's a funny thing, I can't seem to find any of those places. UD is certainly not it. Your blog is certainly completely data-free. In fact, if you google your name absolutely nothing sciency comes back. So, if you could provide some links (or even email some copies of your science discussions), I'll leave you alone while I peruseyour wonderous scientific knowledge. Deal? |
| Date: 2007/04/09 19:57:21, Link 71.159.25.25 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I can't agree with argy, ftk. I think you are absolutely, 100%, a dyed in the wool lying for Jesus, dishonest, slightly-dangerous-if-allowed-to-make-policy-decisions type. Is it any wonder that I think that? What are we supposed to think about people who: 1. Say they discuss science but never do 2. Avoid every question of substance ever asked of them 3. Always talk about what they did--SOMEWHERE ELSE 4. Always claim that facts are negotiable? Seriously, aren't you always claiming that liberal atheists are the ones who think everything is fine, just as long as everyone's happy? Come on, it's conservatives that are always going on about how facts can be interpretted in different ways. The evidence points in all directions, it's inconclusive...blah. That's bullshit and you know it. So, here are questions even easier than what I asked you before. I don't want you to discuss theories, or even science, really. This is what i want: I want you, FTK, to list 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology. Just type out the facts, no interpretation. I want to see if you know what a fact is. If youmake an interesting list, we might be able to discuss it. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 20:23:10, Link 71.159.25.25 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I don't know who these girls are, but I want to let everyone know Kansas City is a nice place. Please come visit us. Sure we have AFDave, but, um, well, there's nothing to be done about that. On a better note, those girls looked okay in sparkly dresses and ftk assures us that fundies have better sex. </kansascity_visitors_and_convention_bureau> |
| Date: 2007/04/09 22:02:02, Link 71.159.25.25 | ||||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||||
FtK:
I am also sorry I feel this way. I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious. I truly find you to be neither, and that is a sad thing.
While I certainly have left many comments on your blog, I believe that around 70 percent of them had actual content. You see, that's really the point. You complain that science in general is censoring the truth of ID, yet find no problem censoring things you simply don't agree with--regardless of the scientific or philosophical relevance of said things. And we'll never really know will we? If you'd do the hnest thing and really discuss the issues, people would see my 70 percent and the other 30 percent would never have been written. As for the Hume bit, I'll certainly comment on that; I haven't read that particular post as yet. I will; we'll see if you let me comment on it.
I do believe you know nothing about either (and I don't feel I'm alone in this, either on this board or in the world in general). But, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show me otherwise. Just post something that is factual or that you hink is factual and we'd take it from there. If I agree with what you post I'd tell you. If you really, truly, actually posted something that you thought was factual and I thought not, I'd tell you my objection. Then we could discuss it. I'm wrong a lot, but I generally thank the people that tell me I'm wrong when they show me. You have no interest in showing other people they are wrong. You have no interest in learning about where you might be wrong. You have an interest in telling people they are wrong and telling others that you are right. Telling and demonstrting are different things. By your actions you show that you have no interest in demonstrating. You come right out and tell people that you don't want to discuss things; it is the very first thing you volunteer. Am I supposed to take you seriously, or should I be allowed to wait until you do something serious?
You certainly have made many comments. Very few of them having anything to do with science. Your questions are of belief and faith and not of science. It's hard to carry on a discussion when your level of understanding is an unknown. While it would be possible to start at the beginning, many of the actual, working scientists on this board go through this all the time with AFDave, Paley, etc. Forgive them if they don't want to start at the beginning if they don't have to. But now that you've volunteered to start in 1st grade, it will be easier.
Interesting. This is what I and a lot of others have been asking you to do for some time now. All of a sudden it's my fault that we aren't discussing science. Nice. Well, I accept, if you're actually willing to discuss science finally. |
| Date: 2007/04/09 23:32:34, Link 71.159.25.25 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
FTK:
Intersting. Completely ignored the part where I said I was wrong a lot. In fact, I'll give you a link to a place where I was wrong--admitted it, and apologized. Joe Gallien likes to bring it up a lot. Which is fine, I was wrong and it should be brought up lest I forger every once in a while. You see, I admitted to Joe G that I was wrong and he irritates me much more than you do. So, go here at Joe G's blog. A place where Blipey was wrong. And the point of my griping about the Hume thing was your two-faced view of the issue. You often complain about people attacking IDers because of simple disagreement, or lack of evidence or whatnot. You posted an entire screed about Hume in which you presented no data. You just told us what an idiot you thought he was while not backing it up. That was the substance of every single one of my Hume posts, bar none. FTK: [QUOTE]Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.[QUOTE] What exactly has been "not true"? Aside from the obvious sparring with Rich contained solely on this thread? It seems that Rich had started a thread to call attention to your lack of a grasp on things science. So, given that you came in not wanting to discuss any science, how exactly did you plan on clearing up this little issue? |
| Date: 2007/04/14 21:58:29, Link 69.227.32.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Arden:
Only if you're biased against the TRUTH. Besides, your lack of bias comes from swinging both ways. -homo. wait, not homo, -bi. oh, I'm confused. -dt |
| Date: 2007/04/15 12:21:35, Link 69.227.32.153 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Steve's point certainly deserves to be quoted again. Here's hoping that if it's seen enough, an answer will be forthcoming. Doubt it, but you never know. I also think stephen elliot's point actually leaves room for discussion as well. It should be bloody obvious to people of average intelligence that IDers are lying, dodging, wankers. However, I also think that sometimes when you are very close to a project, it looks good. I've done a small number of shows over the years with some pretty talented people that were absolutely hideous. Why did we do them? Money is the cynical answer, but not the correct one I think. I've quit projects that I saw as train-wrecks and others I've worked with have as well. So, we must have thought we were doing good work at the time in order to stick it out. Something else fell through--outside support (or directorial oversight), our own egos, something touched us about the piece that skewed our objectivity, etc. I think that IDers have many things that work against their objectivity in this matter. Cue "oh yeah, scientists are the ones who are really biased..." |
| Date: 2007/04/16 23:50:58, Link 69.227.32.153 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
SteveStory:
my bolding Of course this is true. I'd like to ask another question of Ftk now: When you take a private moment each night and think about the wonderful work you're doing for the kids, do you even answer these questions for yourself? Seriously. Have you ever answered them, even alone, even once? Steve's question about science journals is not a science question. It is a yes/no question. We don't even require that you add anything (though it would certainly be nice if you did), just answer yes or no. Here's my thought. You won't answer because yes means that we can explore why you think that piece of empty (I mean actual blank pages, not just content) junior high journalism resembles a professional anything, let alone a science journal. That would be embarrassing for you and the movement. You won't answer "no" because that will be letting the enemy win. It's a no-win for you, not a position I envy. This also means that you have to increase the sphere of unanswerable questions to ANY quesstion ever asked of you on ANY subject. This is why no one takes IDers seriously. They have a pathalogical need to avoid discussion, people, thoughts, and data. Do you really think that the world will just all of a sudden come over to the "light side"? Will this happen in a religious epiphany? If you don't think this, what plan do you have to bring the world over? If you don;t have a plan to do this, what do you think you're accomplishing? Thanks for ignoring in advance. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 00:12:22, Link 69.227.32.153 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I was brought here by my home's proximity to the state of Kansas. It was back in the days before the goofy "Evolution Hearings" by the Kansas Board of Education. Both of parents are educators and I do a little bit of teaching (theatre) so I'm interested in such things. While I live in Kansas City, MO, I am very close to Kansas and some of my classes were in Kansas. So, when I heard about the hearings I decided I would attend. Attending, I briefly chatted with some of the KCFS folk and found the Panda's Thumb. From there, I got here and must echo stevestory's enjoyment of creationists getting worked over. Not being a working (or lazy, for that matter) scientist, I also learn some stuff here--that's always good. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 22:35:23, Link 71.138.191.43 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Crap. I hate to be the one ask a real question again, but here goes. Um, Ftk, could you please cite some data about how ID is so much more widespread than it ever has been? I mean, what numbers are you comparing? Where did these numbers come from? What method was used to gather these numbers? I know it's sciency and all, but it really is a simple question set that you should have no problems answering. Don't ignore it. You can claim that thhis is an intellectual wasteland all you want, but that only holds because of YOUR behavior. If you'd like to talk science, it can be done. However, the more YOU ignore the quite large portion of this forum that attempts to carry on serious conversation, the more you show your own lack of intellectual prowess. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:13:45, Link 71.138.191.43 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Oh thanks, Ftk, I can do my own research. Really. You see, the question was really just to see if you'd actually looked at any data on the matter. Or, are you just spouting talking points? I think I know, but it's always nice to see it confirmed. Here's the amount of research that I'm sure you're familiar with: A Google Fight While this is completey unscientific and meaningless, it does illustrate the point that even by your standards, ToE is kicking ID's ass. But, Google Fights are not how real work is done. For that, you need actual numbers from actual people. You see, proliferation on the internet means almost nothing to the validity of the idea. For example, there are millions of search results for "Holocaust Denial". Did the Holocaust happen? I'm just interested to know where you're coming from. I don't know what numbers you're looking at. Maybe they're different than mine. You have an opportunity to enlighten me. Most reasonable people (and practically everyone here) enjoy opportunities to both learn and teach. Why are you backing away from an opportunity to teach? If your numbers are better than mine, I'll say so. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 23:31:20, Link 71.138.191.43 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Hey, RIGHT HERE!!! PAY ATTENTION!!! Ftk, Why would you ignore the point that googling for something doesn't legitimize it? I mean, seriously, you think that googling a thing makes it a serious intellectual concern. I mean, I just googled it twice in the last few minutes for the previous post and I think it's bunk. So, does me googling it mean that I believe in it? Do you think that other people might be in the same situation? have you heard of Project Steve? Do you know what it means? |
| Date: 2007/04/19 11:13:08, Link 71.138.191.43 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
I absolutely agree. But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with. That is both right and funny. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 11:33:34, Link 71.138.191.43 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This reminds me of one of my favorite Fundies Say the Darndest Things quotes. I can't find it right now, but it basically says that Athiesm is a subset of Islam. Hmmm. I know some people who need a dictionary for Christmas. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 11:47:07, Link 71.138.191.43 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Joe is the dumbest of the dumb. All of his accumulated knowledge can be yours for only 20,000 USD. But, if you don't have it, you're out of luck. And this proves that he's really interested in disseminating information.
|
| Date: 2007/04/19 11:51:59, Link 71.138.191.43 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Yep. That's the one. Thanks for wading in longer than I could. (And probing better than I did) That's the only thing Arden's good at--probing. In fact, when he was down at my boat last year, he was my little probie. Ha! I'm such a homo sometimes! No, Arden is, ARDEN IS! The Islamoatheists have me confused. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 11:57:41, Link 71.138.191.43 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, the volume of tard that he writes posts about is perhaps worthy of a thread. After he writes the post though, he gets off track easily due to his complete lack of ability to answer questions. And his total DaveTard-at-his-worst-personality. But he does say a lot of funny stuff. Of course, he'll never appear here to discuss anything, but that doesn't mean we can't poke him with a stick. In fact, that's what I think his blog is for. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 20:17:50, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||||
Yeah. And Ftk actually censored this from that thread:
That was my entire comment. I've since resubmitted it with a note to Ftk asking why in the world she would reject such a comment, yet allow DT to post such vile things about other religious and ethnic groups...oh wait, other relig...and, uh, other, bad atheists, bad... I get it. :D |
| Date: 2007/04/19 22:10:36, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, that does bring up a few questions now doesn't it? It's really too bad that that means you won't be answering them. You see, as Richard said upthread, "yet he goes uncensored". You see, your complicity in allowing him a platform to dupe (not us, but the general readers of your blog, if you have any) without any comments clearing up the clearly vile nature of what he said means you're not only NOT FOR KIDS, but perhaps Dangerous for Kids. Perhaps you should rethink the kinds of things that are allowed on your blog. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:08:50, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Yet still don't understand why I had a problem with it being moderated. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:15:58, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
One might say the same is true of "it's all how you interpretate-aroo the evidence". Of course, you probably don't think that's true. Which brings me back to a question I asked of you earlier: Isn't it liberal, atheist, intellectuals that are supposed to be wishy-washy about what things mean? Everything's okay as long as you believe it and all that? How is it that you can take on this obviously liberal, immoral attitude while not puking? As has been mentioned before, Do you not see a disconnect here? In lieu of answers, you could just go away. Otherwise, you might just have to be asked questions everyday--by people who have no interest in asking you questions--if you can believe that. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:23:25, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Right. I do. I apologize for undetailed typing. I meant, "Ftk, gee, you've posted my comment, yet you still don't understand why I was upset that it was moderated in the first place." Other than that, I really don't know why I should stop be glib under normal circumstances. |
| Date: 2007/04/19 23:31:02, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Absolutely not. I wanted to know if that's really what DaveScot thinks. He has proposed a lot of things in the past that strain credulity, so I don't think that trying to understand his true feelings in this matter is really all that strange. I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned. Or do you not consider what he said stupid? Even if it was only to provoke? Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?" You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict. |
| Date: 2007/04/20 12:14:41, Link 69.230.93.38 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
This is absolutely correct. I think we're all aware of what Ftk is. She would only be getting the better of us if we did not know. I participate in this thread for 2 reasons: 1. (the least likely), something may actually be said that causes Ftk to go, "WTF! Wow have I been an illogical dumbass!" 2. She's the kind of person that shows up at local school board meetings in order to make her policy ideas heard. The more completely bone-headed her behavior, the more I can show up and say, "Lookie here." It's nice when we have reams and reams of material from creationists making them look incompetent. 3. She's occasionally funny. Oh, I have 3 reasons I participate in this thread: 1. possible education 2. defending our schools 3. chance of hilarity 4. too much coffee... Four, I have four reasons...oh, I'll come in again. |
| Date: 2007/04/20 12:36:45, Link 69.230.93.38 |
| Author: blipey |
|
BA - Theatre performance with masters classes in clown theatre, juggling, mime, and stilt-walking. This makes me qualified to drink beer, throw knives, and live in a cardboard box (simultaneously, though--that's the skill part). I also completed 108 hours of an aerospace engineering program, before making my mom proud and becoming an actor. |
| Date: 2007/04/20 22:09:07, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Well, yes. While WAD does many things poorly, I think he does "street theatre" worse than anything he's "tried". This, of course, might have something to do with the fact that he's not really doing any theatre--street or otherwise. |
| Date: 2007/04/20 22:20:15, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
True that. This thread will probably wither at some point for that very reason. |
| Date: 2007/04/21 12:09:49, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
And you'd move from San Diego to Lawrence for, ubwuh, wakkawakkawakka, why? |
| Date: 2007/04/22 01:12:26, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Yeah. I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines. that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live. Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter). |
| Date: 2007/04/23 11:05:10, Link 72.192.143.251 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk:
That's just goofy. Do you really not see why that's goofy? Let's do a little word substitution: BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of which state the Kansas City Royals play their home games in, and I've mentioned that in the past. You know, some people say it's Missouri, others say it's New York. I think there are good explanations for both. Is it really that hard to take a stand on this issue, Ftk? I don't particularly care which side you take. But it would seem that this is an issue in which it is just plain goofy to sit the fence. In lieu of actually answering the questions, how about you tell me why it isn't goofy to sit the fence on this one? |
| Date: 2007/04/23 11:13:56, Link 72.192.143.251 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
I might as well as you this here as well, Ftk, since you can't seem to not read this forum--it's kinda like chocolate cheese cake, huh? Ftk posted this as the last comment in a discussion thread on her blog:
That was in lieu of answering some questions I posed to her. I then asked her why it was that she had several dozen (I believe over 7 dozen) more comments in this discussion than I have. Could it be that I occasionally ask her to support her accusations, assertions, and lies? This probably doesn't sit right with her--being super busy and all, not having enough time to actually get into it with we who don't want to discuss science and all. It is tough to answer queastions while simultaneously posting over 150 blobs of drivel. So, Ftk, I ask, "Do you have a life outside this discussion????" |
| Date: 2007/04/23 12:18:31, Link 72.192.143.251 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
No. The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky. However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet. The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches. The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist. My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged. The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice. For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay. |
| Date: 2007/04/23 22:52:29, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
John W:
This is good advice, stephen. Occasionally a whisky might need a tiny "wakeup". If this is the case, a wee splash of room temperature water is all it needs. You don't want to cool off the whisky--it loses flavor as it cools--but a little bit of water can make it brighter on the tongue. I wouldn't recommend any more water than, say, half an eyedropper per 2 oz of whisky. Stephen:
My recommendation here would be to generally stay away ffrom the Islay malts. There are plenty of fairly peaty malts from Speyside or the Highlands that will do yyour taste buds better. The Tamnavulin (Speyside) above will do you well. Also, a cheaper to only moderately expensive distillery that I like is Glenmorangie (Highland). You may want to tour the distilleries here. @ Bing: I have not had the pleasure of Poit Dhubh, but the HP 25 is very fine. I'll bring whisky if I can be invited to the next party. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 19:41:21, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk:
Uh, you have met DaveScot, right? You know, the one who posts at your blog? DaveScot? Champion of forthrightness, bolding, banning, and impregnating? DaveScot? |
| Date: 2007/04/24 19:54:34, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Ftk:
How about we geerally asked you for what basis you have for your views and then you answered by saying that yu would never tell us what basis you have for your views? Then we asked why we should take your word for it if you aren't going to provide any supporting details. Then you got mad at us because we asked? This seems to me how it went, generally.
Hmmm. We ask some questions. You don't answer them, but duck and dodge and claim that we have never wanted to discuss science. Then you continually tell us you're all about the science and never once, not once, talk about science even when sked to countless times. You claim to be for the kids, but you show: 1. No scholarship 2. No desire to discuss issues with anyone. Not here, not at your blog, not in public, not with the establishment, not with scientists, not with public officials, not with kids, not with anyone. But you expect to be taken seriously? For that, I have one question that you HAVE TO ANSWER. WHO IN THIS WORLD WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DISCUSS SCIENCE WITH? ANYONE? IF NOT, WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY? You have never shown anyone the respect of actually engaging with them in a discussion. To me, that is the ultimate sort of respect. I respect you enough to engage with you in meaningful dialogue, to teach, to learn, to share. As far as this goes, you show zero, and I mean zero respect for any other breathing being. Respect belongs to those who know what to do with it. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 20:04:52, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk (from the fossil forrest thread):
It was my conception that you were a person who evaded questions, never talked about facts, andgenerally behaved the same way that all creationists behave. You're doing a lovely job of changing my mind. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 20:13:58, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I am so sorry; I don't know what got into me. I was going to comment on the double-wood Balvenie earlier. It is a nice whisky (the proper spelling for Gaelic whisky, we Americans added the "e") and you can certainly obtain a fifth for around 36-40 USD. I can't do the gin myself except as a mixer. I appreciate your taste in gin, however. Take this from a non-gin drinker, but the best gin I've tried is Citadel (from Pierre Ferand). A little pricey for me (non-gin drinker here), but I thought it was fairly smooth. Add some #### vermouth to the martini, though. (Even if you do a vodka martini bastardization like I do.) You don't have to go original recipe and add an entire half a jigger, but I like about 1/4 ounce. And definitely stirred; we agree there. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 20:36:30, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Yes. a shaken martini is a little watered down--the process melts more ice into the cocktail (though this is a term that only technically applies to a martini with vermouth in it, cocktails needing more than one ingredient). This causes the flavor to be a little flat on the tongue. A stirred martini chills while melting about 1/4 the amount of ice into the cocktail.
I agree totally, I like the single malt whisky, big reds, spicy carmeneres, an armagnac once in a while. Gin is just not something my tongue likes, a little too herbal for me.
Yes, I live in downtown Kansas City, MO (though I am currently performing in a natioanlly touring theatre production so god knows what KC's like at the moment). Of course, your statement could also apply to: AFDave or Ftk--maybe I jumped the gun :O |
| Date: 2007/04/24 21:56:56, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Wow. I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir... Drip coffee, yes! Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.
This is not illusory; it is called "bruising". Some people like this, but they are poof-tas. Vigorous shaking can change the flavor of an aromatic or herbal liquor like gin. |
| Date: 2007/04/24 22:23:47, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
|
And now for something completely different. Well, for this thread. I was reading a book a couple of months ago about the Gypsies that I thought was fascinating. It seemed to not be able to pin down the origins of the Gypsy people, but talked a lot about language. In fact, one of the people in the book was a linguist the author had met and who was accepted into the Gypsy community (as much as outsiders can be) to a fairly large degree. Sorry, I can't recall his name right now and the book is back in KC. I was wondering, Arden, if you had any input on the origin of the Gypsy? Are they an Indian sub-continent people? Have you studied any of the origin or development of the Romani language? |
| Date: 2007/04/24 22:27:13, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
They had some Kona they were selling for upwards of 50 USD per pound. I passed--too many other habits to support and all. But I should give it a try, I imagine? |
| Date: 2007/04/24 22:40:46, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
| Right, I'll have to go back. I bought the 35 USD / lb stuff. It's 30% (I looked now that I know I should have--the things you learn at AtBC). |
| Date: 2007/04/25 14:17:30, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, in that it doesn't taste particularly bad, sure. I do prefer my liquor with a little flavor, however. Vodka is a great thing that: adds alcohol to grapefruit juice, makes dry vermouth drinkable, puts a finish on a good bloody mary mix, and generally makes the women a little tipsy while drinking their foo-foo drinks. |
| Date: 2007/04/25 14:38:15, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I like the English Breakfast myself. Can't say I'm much of a tea snob, not quite like I (and certainly not Arden or stevestory, those girly, 22-second espresso-sipping, coffee-house sitting homos) am with the coffee or the scotch. I'm taking this time, stephen, to tell you the grand designer is thinking of terrible ways to undesign you for your malodorous statement on coffee. Don't drink the gin, at least not since I stopped bartending a few years ago--Citadel and Tanqueray #10 being the ones I could choke down sober. Brandy: like it as a mixer, but not often straight. There are certainly things I like better at lower prices. Tequila: delicious, Don Julio 1942 being my favorite sipping tequila--pleasantly warm without biting you from the get-go. Some of the cheaper stuff that make good ritas: sauza Hornitos, Petron Silver, Don Eduardo Anejo. Whisky: the johnnies are blends (well, most of them), not to be compared to the single malts. Though the black label makes a decent rusty nail or godfather. Beer: the nectar of the gods and one of the things that makes me ashamed of my American heritage. Fortunately, the micro and craft breweries have ecome popular here and there is a lot of decent beer to be had if you look for it. A few of my favorite American brews: Unfiltered Wheat (hefeweisen): Boulevard Brewing Co., Kansas City, MO Moose Drool brown ale: Big Sky Brewing, Missoula, MT Winter Ale (English olde ale, malty): Alaskan Brewing Co., Juneau, AK. Their rauchbier (smoked porter) is also worth a shot. It's not for everyone, but their version is not so overly smoked as to be identical to liquid smoke flavor additive. |
| Date: 2007/04/25 15:02:09, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Oooh, sounds like fun. While talking about drinking is all well and good, actually drinking is better. And drinking a bit while discussing (cussing?) things with a creationist is best. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 02:07:46, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I will second the Black Butte Porter. It slipped my mind; I do like it more than Moose Drool (which is still a good beer). The Obsidian is decent as well. As for a Varsity Drinking Team name, here are my proposals: 1. International Society of Creative Imbibers & Drunks 2. World-wide Association of Drinkers 3. We may be drunk but we know that beer was invented more than 6,000 years ago. 4. Sorry, DI who? |
| Date: 2007/04/26 02:38:47, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
|
DaveTard is a weak excuse for a human being. Well, it looks as if DaveTard is going to duck our meeting after all. What a pussy. There's a nice pic of him though, with his dogs, and a nice Texas size, 13 mpg truck. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 12:57:50, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Now, that's funny. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 18:41:38, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
I think the only proper things to do would be to either: 1. Call Homeland Security, let the proper authorities know that there are godless or 2. Drink a lot of Scotch, watch an old Buster Keaton film, then coninue to do what you do so well. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 18:50:03, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I will agree with this. The best European brews are better than the best American brews almost every time, probably all the time as regards dark beers. For example, I think the Boulevard Brewing Company in Kansas City does a very nice job with 3/4 of its brews (hefeweisen, pale ale, belgian white, etc). It really completely drops the ball with its porter and stout--absolutely foul, dark beer for people who like Miller Lite imo, watery and thin, ugh. Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason. So, they don't make it very well either. This isn't to say that there aren't some very nice examples of stouts and porters around in tiny places in North America, but you have to go find them. And they're not quite as good as the best of the Scots, Irish, or German darks. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 19:16:25, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
| DaveTard weighs in on many things not limited to, but including: his weight, his body type, and Texans' penchant for shooting people. |
| Date: 2007/04/26 19:22:18, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Watch out Lenny, you homo. I'm into home visitations with people who make wild-ass claims. If you don't retract that I'll be forced to come over and take your porter bottle whole...even though I'm straight. Uh, and an agnostic. Also I'm a marine. |
| Date: 2007/04/27 13:37:04, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
A pretty good example of a stout, the finish is ever so slightly too metallic IMO, but even so it is very nice. |
| Date: 2007/04/28 00:33:35, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Surely you didn't mean to waste so many words? Wouldn't this be more appropriate: FTK should really read. |
| Date: 2007/05/01 21:05:48, Link 72.67.84.175 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Yeah. The logic is fabulous. We have these gems:
Yes, that's right; Al Gore's potential hypocrisy has a direct bearing on whether or not the phenomenon of global warming is happening.
translated: I'm doubting this because my church friends that don't like evolution don't like some of the people who do some studies about things like global warming and reality. |
| Date: 2007/05/02 01:22:01, Link 72.67.84.175 |
| Author: blipey |
|
OH MY GOD!!! Just when you thought the supply of premium tardity was waning a pleasant surprise pops up. WAD's former coffee drone and office duster has returned to tell us all about the evils of not being Christian. Three new posts (not at the level of insanity that I was accustomed to last year, so maybe he's turned over a new leaf) are now available. Here's hoping that Joel has either become more sane or will post something truly funny soon. Joel Barofsky's "Stop Lying to Us" |
| Date: 2007/05/03 01:10:11, Link 69.231.136.227 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
|
Welcome back, Fdp, FUkids, FcK, whoever: Couldn't stay away from the fan club, huh? Oh wait, sorry. That was a question. You've been away so long that I almost forgot how poorly you deal with those. Please disregard any and all questions that might have appeared in this paragraph. Okay? Oops. Since I have broken the question ice, here are some more. 1. Why'd you pop in this time? 2. What the #### does this mean:
Is quite well different from *quite* well, how about quite well? 3. As regards this passage of yours:
Do you have scary dogs? Or just ones like DaveTard? Why is it weird that I would want to visit DaveTard? I believe I have explained in great detail why I (and others) might like to visit him. Imagination isn't your strong point is it? Please do remember that I'm intending to visit you as well when I get home--just a couple of weeks now. And of course Joe Gallien is on the list as well. Is it weird to want to visit the two of you? Perhaps I'm doing it out of Christian kindness to spread the truth? Oh, and why do you feel your opinion should be heard on this issue and not on, you know, the important ones like science and all? |
| Date: 2007/05/03 09:29:58, Link 69.231.153.47 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Wow. I have already met you, Ftk. Can't say that it was super memorable though. I was sitting about4 rows back and a few seats to house right of you. Good stuff. Those were th good old days, huh? Hearings about science that didn't accomplish anything rational, a dude from Turkey who may have been certifiably insane (though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--English is at least his 2nd language), a whole bunch of creationists who dodged questions.... Oh yeah, and the couple in front of me who said during testimony that this was certainly not about religion in any way. Then, in the foyer during a break, they disagreed with me and told me I was going to #### because of that point of disagreement. Good stuff. |
| Date: 2007/05/06 02:29:04, Link 64.183.172.64 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Been surfing for a couple days so this may seem a bit out of place. However, I would like it to be known to the namesake of this thread that I do not go aound hunting down IDiots. DaveTard and Joe Gallien have each personally invited me to their homes. DaveScot on Janie's blog over a disagreement over who should set public school curriculum. He told me to stop by any time I was in Austin. Now, I didn't just take a vacation to Austin to confront him. Several months later my job takes me to Austin and I take him up on his offer. He reneges...hmmm. don't see how this is too terribly strange. Joe Gallien has done much the same thing. I find it odd that when people actually take IDiots up on their offers, it is the takers that are called stalkers. I have offered to visit you, Ftk, since you live less than 2 hours from me. However, I have no idea who you are, where you live, or anything else. I guess I now know what you look like, but that isn't much. While I would be interested in actually meeting you to discuss education issues and what you think about ublic science education, I would only visit you after calling you or emailing you and setting up some sort of mutually agreeable meeting. I don't think that this so strange. When people actually meet and actually discuss things (something you seem completely unable to do) knowledge is gained. That is usually a wonderfu thing. |
| Date: 2007/05/06 13:38:47, Link 64.183.172.64 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Oh yes. I don't find it odd if our set is that of all IDiots. I just find the behavior strange when applied to the set of all human beings. I try to look at people as fairly normal human beings first: until they prove otherwise, then all bets are off. |
| Date: 2007/05/07 01:20:55, Link 71.214.186.178 | ||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||
|
Ftk, Maybe you need some ginko-biloba or something? Perhaps a nice chat with a pachyderm?
You are the same person who has been posting on this thread since the beginning, right? I mean, you haven't abducted the person who was previousl posting as Ftk and taken her place? You are the same person who said:
and
and
Right? This is you? Cause that don't really sound like no person I might go round and shoot the shit with about education, the sciency stuff and all. Hmmm. I might be wrong. As for Dave, you really don't get the point of it all, do you? 1. Talking to Dave by email would be just as effective as talking to you on-line. Zilch. He (like you) won't do it. 2. Oh, you might try and read what Dave has to say in my email correspondance with him. You might find it enligtening. See what your hero has to say by clicking here. 3. The point is and always has been that people like DaveScot and Joe G are blowhards that really don't have anything to say if confronted in public. Since both of them have specifically invited me to their houses, it's the perfect way to show off their blowhard natures when they refuse to act like normal human beings who invited me to their houses. Just because there were words typed after the bit about your duplicity, don't forget to address it in your next comment. Thanks in advance for ignoring. |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:43:11, Link 69.30.139.26 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Gee Ftk, I hate to screw up your little self-deluding world more than it already is, but I have to make an inquiry. You said earlier in this thread that I should try emailing you in order to discuss science. I did that 2 days ago (I assume you've seen that you have a message in your box here?) and you seem not to have had any response. Why is that? I know, you're very busy and can't be bothered to actually spend time here (except for the 250 times you've posted). So, I assume that you're merely busy and haven't had time to address my scientific questions? I will be getting answers, right? Since you invited me to an email discussion and all... Or, were you merely being pig-ignorant again? |
| Date: 2007/05/10 23:52:01, Link 69.30.139.26 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Creationists predicted that humans diverged from apes 5,000,000 years ago? I must have missed that. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:00:13, Link 69.30.139.26 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Excellent! Please provide an ID lesson plan and curricuum. I want 3 months of classroom lessons, preferably in the 50 minute lecture / 5 per week format. Include lecture, study questions, quiz topics, and testing materials. To truly be u to par, you should also include home study project and a possible lab experiment or two to be done in class. Thanks for being the one to show us a workable ID lesson plan. I'm very excited in advance. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:14:23, Link 69.30.139.26 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Really? Why would that be? Please explain in your own words. Linking to AiG or somewhere only proves that you're a sheep. Plesae explain in your own words why catastrophe is a better explanation. Then we can have a discussion about said things. Oh, speaking of discussions, how're the answers to my science questions coming in our email, ahem, discussion? Great. Thanks.
Um. In your own words, please tell us exactly why each of the evidences for deep time fall flat. I mean they must have if we're still missing something to be discovered later. Radiometric dating? Plate techtonics? Cosmology problems (planet formation, speed of light, etc)? In your own words, tell us why you can completely ignore these evidences and wait for the Oh, also, you have some questions waiting in your in mailbox--3 days now. They aren't difficult or terribly complicated questions. |
| Date: 2007/05/11 08:20:21, Link 69.30.139.26 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk:
I'm going to start voting for you, Ftk, in the "Who's the Dumbest IDer of 'em all" competition. You're seriously distressed that someone is behaving exactly like you? And really, you've outclassed anyone here on avoidance of questions. Are you really saying that someone should be man enough to answer questions posed by you? Really? In seriousness? Truly? And you're not joking? Really? |
| Date: 2007/05/13 05:37:16, Link 66.140.72.192 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Her email invite lasted exactly one email. In it, she provided no arguments and no explanations of her scientific positions. She also provided no religious babble to speak of. But she did manage to say this when I emailed back some follow-up questions:
I'm pretty sure it was you, Ftk, who said I should try email. Why was that? Should I have expected different results? I didn't, but I'm interested to know if you did? Because, really, as a time waster, the ruse never had any legs. |
| Date: 2007/05/13 05:48:08, Link 66.140.72.192 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk:
Would it be too much to ask for an example of my mind being closed? Which pieces of data am I ignoring? Exactly what am I missing and how exactly do you know I haven't considered your position? Ftk, functioning human beings are able to make decisions. We take in data, process it, and then make a flippin' decision. Then there's you. I sometimes feel as if I should track you down sometime in order to keep you from starving to death. Do you open up the fridge, see chicken and steak, and completely shut down because you're open to both being dinner? In what circumstances might you be able to decide between two options? Meals? Politics? Science? Religion? Drivng iteneraries? Blouses? Alarm settings? Anything at all? |
| Date: 2007/05/13 05:53:38, Link 66.140.72.192 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
You make an awful lot of broad statemets for someone who has never once backed anything up. Would it be too much to ask for a list of historical inferences that don't have any evidence behind them? After providing that list, what amount of evidence (quantitatively) would be required for you to decide on steak for dinner? Also, how about the outline of an ID lesson plan? |
| Date: 2007/05/13 06:07:04, Link 66.140.72.192 |
| Author: blipey |
| In an unsurprising news flash, DaveTard is afraid of clowns. I emailed the Tardmeister to tell him I was arriving. No reply. I called him to tell him I was in. No reply. I guess the just don't build marines like they used to. I mean, they obviously build them bigger and with an inverted v-shape, but not like they used to. |
| Date: 2007/05/13 09:20:36, Link 66.140.72.192 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
My money's on never. Unlike AFDave, Ftk is too afraid to confront anyone on anything. She's never actually made any scientific claims to link to. AFDave is a tard, but he's a tard with gumption. Ftk is merely an also-ran. |
| Date: 2007/05/13 09:53:54, Link 66.140.72.192 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
In the same way that my love of bacon is not a declaration of war on English poetry, but rather a rationalization of my hatred for those of cloven-hoof? |
| Date: 2007/05/13 20:24:41, Link 66.142.231.145 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Well, if DaveTard were important enough for them to know who the hell he is. |
| Date: 2007/05/13 20:48:03, Link 66.142.231.145 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
adn too spell it "right", to!!! |
| Date: 2007/05/13 20:51:14, Link 66.142.231.145 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Ditto what Lenny said. The Tard is strong with us; it is our finest weapon. Damn cheap as well, gotta like that. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 11:17:01, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
But I thought that creationists only got 2 kinds of doctorates: Lemming and Obfuscation. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 13:44:05, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Louis and Wes, I find this discussion fascinating and AtBC is maybe the only place it could remain this civil. Very nice. I have a couple very small (possibly insignificant) things to add. While I can wrap my brain around PZ's argument of religion on both sides blurring the line between plaitiff and defendant, I find it hard to picture exactly what that court case might be about. Of course, I'm not an employee of some think tank whose only job is to come up with said court case. Also, as PZ says in Romney II, he isn't aware of the religious positions of most of the text authors on his shelf and it doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the textbook. I think it is mostly irrelevant what a person's theological bent is. As you stated, Louis, science can answer some religious questions (6,000 yo earth, etc), but certainly not all of them. While most, if not all, of these unanswerable questions boil down to the necessity (or irrelevancy) of a supernatural causation, I don't believe that they necessarily interfere with good science. It seems to me that a suernatural being could remain undetected even if he were interfering with the natural world. Is it necessary for that being to exist? No. But how does that necessarily interfere with people seeking the truth? I think the happy place for TEs (and others fighting for education) is to rephrase what you wrote above:
emphasis mine. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 13:54:43, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Bob Jones U might be looking. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 16:19:22, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Can you see over their ankles? A lot of Lilliputians can be dangerous, but just one is merely sad. |
| Date: 2007/05/14 18:11:42, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I'm assuming that the discipline is not Law and that you were rejected by the debate team? |
| Date: 2007/05/14 18:34:07, Link 65.69.69.236 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Wow. After watching that I don't think that I'd count on Comfort to be able to prove the existence of the steak I have on the grill right now. Not to mention the great skills of rebuttal that he and Cameron command. My favorite moment was when Bashir asked if the had any comments to the 1st Law of Thermo argument. And really, the way it was presented in the video there were many possible responses. The blank stares and then Cameron's soft, "No" are fabulous. |
| Date: 2007/05/16 13:12:18, Link 64.216.155.93 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Compleat nonsense, homo! My ps. Richard wouldn't know street theatre if he was sharing a dressing room with 2 flaming clowns. homo. |
| Date: 2007/05/16 14:29:47, Link 64.216.155.93 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Okay, don't make me violate another fundemental law of the universe by explaining to you how the strongest force in |
| Date: 2007/05/16 23:49:55, Link 64.216.155.93 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I thought he was dead. |
| Date: 2007/05/16 23:58:35, Link 64.216.155.93 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Ah, I see, massah. You ARE majoring in Law at the Johnson School of Dumbassery BUT the debate team still turned you down. Is that it massah? Edit: to include properly despicable racial relationship to RO. |
| Date: 2007/05/17 14:46:57, Link 65.64.101.175 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Continuing in her amazing qust to see ad hear nothing that goes on around her, we have her latest post on tenure. So I asked her an unanswerable (in her case) question:
|
| Date: 2007/05/17 15:17:28, Link 65.64.101.175 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
I'm sorry, where was Of Pandas and People in Wes's quote? You're going to have to show me that evidence card, now Bob. |
| Date: 2007/05/18 10:09:01, Link 66.141.252.170 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
And if there WAS a movie that wold prove that people were there. And people have been here since the beginning. The movie would clear up the non-sense about deep time. Get the DI working. There's money to be made at weekend church camps! working title: The Quickly Moving Planet: 6,000 years of off-balanced thinking |
| Date: 2007/05/18 22:42:47, Link 66.142.239.176 |
| Author: blipey |
Joe Gallien is now forwarding chain mail. This one offers up a fool-proof (fool-proof, I tell ya!) way for us to start paying 1.50 USD for a gallon of unleaded gasoline. Wonder if these people have ever looked into the taxes placed on gasoline? If so, does that mean that Exxon/Mobile will have to lower prices to 95 cents before we take our boot off their throats? I have to admit, however, that this is a much better plan than DOING anything: stopping our dependance on oil, looking for alternative fuel sources, or--the big taboo from the letter--conservation. I love these people. |
| Date: 2007/05/18 23:22:59, Link 66.142.239.176 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I give him a ranking of 5 for speaker points. |
| Date: 2007/05/21 03:22:22, Link 64.218.106.150 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I think we can start the deathwatch on Ftk's blog. About the only person she'll let post now is Larry Falafelandcoffee (and occasionally Rich, what's up with that hughes?) and this is what his content is like:
That would be like me saying I'm against super models or a case of Fladgate vintage 1984 port. Crazy talk. |
| Date: 2007/05/21 11:05:24, Link 64.218.106.150 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat, heh? And to be fair, my quote was of a Larry Phlemandbile comment on Ftk's blog. Though it's reasonable to think that she agrees. |
| Date: 2007/05/21 11:14:39, Link 64.218.106.150 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This isn't correct is it? I'm no cosmologist but theories such as M-Theory and brane worlds do not imply that there is no fundamental theory of everything, right? In fact, string theory (as far out and perhaps untestable as it is) is a quest for a unified theory. So I don't get how disproving any of these is really an argument for CID. |
| Date: 2007/05/24 12:08:18, Link 66.142.231.217 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
That can't be true. I hate to ask you to look over any previous threads at UD, Joe's Place, or anything AFDave has ever said because it may kill you, but I m never amazed at anything these people say. They have taken away my sense of disbelief. |
| Date: 2007/05/24 12:15:24, Link 66.142.231.217 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Archaeopteryx proven to be a hoax! Evil, atheist Darwiniasticysts using thug tactics to silence truth-telling Kiwi researchers! Read all about it! Never mind that the authors of the paper claim nothing of the above headline. Ftk is quick on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, though. Wonder if she actually can extrapolate anything from that article? About what a "missing link" actually is? Where one might be found, even still breathing today? Or about error correction and new evidence? You know, the simple stuff that her kids might be able to grasp. |
| Date: 2007/05/24 12:42:38, Link 66.142.231.217 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Yikes. The comments to that thread are stupendous. And from the blog description: uh, since when was the holocaust a controversial subject? And please can all the wackos who live in Missouri please leave? I don't want you voting in my public school elections. And Larry Frenchtoastandcheese doesn't even live here and he's titling one of his blogs "I'm From Missouri". Can I file an injunction? |
| Date: 2007/05/29 14:40:46, Link 66.142.59.77 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
But the Tardmeister will ALWAYS get another shot and will never be banned by Ftk. Because he is so rational and sane. Proven by the fact that Ftk says other people rant. Take that Mr. Logic-dude, take it in the face! |
| Date: 2007/05/30 16:15:21, Link 66.142.59.77 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I like the part of Deace's rant about Avalos that says "angry atheists (and are there any other kind)". Then Ftk basically endorses this view on her blog as one of rationality in a post about bias. I would love to sit in on a couple of comparative religions classes with her as a student. With some popcorn and a tall beverage. |
| Date: 2007/05/30 16:28:26, Link 66.142.59.77 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Hmmm. Tough to come up with rules that wouldn't kill you within an hour. I was thinking about taking a drink anytime she mentioned "bias", but.... Or perhaps you have to slam the remainder of your tumbler anytime she makes a lucid point. Not much fun, but a lot healthier. You get to make a new rule anytime she mentions that only Xians have a moral system of any kind. |
| Date: 2007/05/31 10:45:42, Link 66.142.59.77 |
| Author: blipey |
|
@ EG: why would you blockquote an entire passage unless you were going to reply to it in some manner? I'm just trying to figure out what the heck Albatrosity's post had to do with your response. If you could bother with keeping the tinfoil off for a moment and explain? Remember that will involve details. |
| Date: 2007/05/31 11:15:20, Link 66.142.59.77 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ah, yes; that one name is worth the price of admission. |
| Date: 2007/05/31 11:42:22, Link 66.142.59.77 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Not sure how I didn't notice it before, but Ftk's blog has a link to Larry Flapjacknsyrup's I'm From Missouri (which he is not, thanking my lucky stars). In fact, the links section of her blog are super sciency!
|
| Date: 2007/05/31 11:54:42, Link 66.142.59.77 |
| Author: blipey |
| Ooooh! Weapon of Mass Insanity! He was over at UDoJ for a bit a while ago. Great stuff, as Louis said, to drink to--not much good for anything else. |
| Date: 2007/06/01 10:22:21, Link 65.66.148.15 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
I must stick up for right when I see it and Ftk did something right. In comments on this thread she responds to Weapon of Mis Information with a completely rational question. Not only that, there seems to be purpose behind her inquiry that may belie a little curiosity. edit: to actually include quote I forgot to copy
|
| Date: 2007/06/01 10:39:53, Link 65.66.148.15 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I can't believe I was missing out on a discussion of hot sauce! Unforgivable. I used to tend bar at a local hotel and we specialized in the bloody mary (one of the world's finest drinks). We'd keep an assortment of hot sauces to add individual pizzazz according to patron's preferences. We kept all 3 versions of Dave's on hand as well as a dozen or so others (some fairly mild, some hotter, even a BBQ flavored jalapeno sauce). We'd occasionally have "macho sauce-eating competitions" with customers. We'd each do one drop of Dave's Total Insanity on our tongues and see who cried first. If we did, we bought the customer a drink. For any true (and truly insane) hot sauce lover I recommend The Atomic Wings from Quaker Steak, a Pennsylvania Restaurant chain. I am an Atomic Wing Survivor. |
| Date: 2007/06/03 17:35:47, Link 66.141.255.111 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Hoorah, Semper Fi, Homos. For Ftk: 1. Do you have any idea what information theory is? 2. Do you realize that all scientific theories are theories of information and that this was recognized well before ID was around? 3. Do you think that research labs are merely opened because someone has a few extra bucks and a truckload of cement? Or might it be more plausible that they have something in mind when they open it? 4. Considering they've been around for awhile and because of our previous long-standing realization that information is at the heart of all scientific advancements, why is it they've done no experiments? 5. Can you even begin to explain the "Evolution through informatics" thing in an ID framework? You know, with details? 6. Do you know what details are? 7. How about cheesy-poofs? |
| Date: 2007/06/05 18:00:42, Link 76.222.204.78 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I beg to differ:  |
| Date: 2007/06/07 13:02:05, Link 66.142.229.41 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Number "B", please (as my niece would say). |
| Date: 2007/06/07 13:21:35, Link 66.142.229.41 | ||||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||||
Yep, if there's one thing e know about DaveScot, it's that he's such a nice guy. Nice dogs, nice chainsaws, nice personality, nice ego....
Is that all creationists? I wasn't aware that they were all alike. I can come up with a handful of them off the top of my head that like the "poof" theory. Their fearless leader opened a museum; you may have heard of him?
Is that the technical, scientific usage of "reassure"? Is there any particular reason we need reassurance? Is that what science is doing for us, reassuring? I don't find anything icky about common descent, I guess you do?
I wasn't aware that you were a Mormon. Do you believe that the Intelligent Designer works as a human works? Do you believe that we can become as the Intelligent Designer? If not, why invoke human works when discussing the things that his Intelligentiness can do?
Yet you can't fathom how this might lead someone to think that there was a common source? Oh wait, you do think there was a common source--the designer. Well, since your story only differs from mine by including a designer, all you need to do is show me the designer. How's the evidence coming? Is it in level 5 containment at Baylor? And lastly on this paragraph, do you think your example somehow disproves the common ancestry of automobiles? You can see how comparing the fleets of cars of today and from the 19th century show certain parallels to common descent? |
| Date: 2007/06/07 15:47:04, Link 66.142.229.41 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Why is everyone so mean to me? All I want to do is seek the truth. I believe that "facts" are open to interpretation by open minded people who are not closed off to "obvious" truths if they just want to open their eyes to evidence that is really just sitting around and always has been. Do you know how hard it is to sit around and be an anonymous, hard-working, non-activist disciple of truth? Think about it--with an "open" mind--I'm scared for my life that the Darwinists who sit around and plan ninja-style midnight, death attacks to "truth" seekers. Sure, no one knows my name or address, and probably think I'm too "dumb" or "religified" to actually visit. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WON'T! I worry every day that atheists will outsource my job to some country that scored higher on public education surveys than we do here in middle America. You can just see that it would be * I'm still up in the air about open minded atheist persons. |
| Date: 2007/06/07 21:19:27, Link 65.66.152.87 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
How is this possible? Did they not get the recipe from an Englishman? |
| Date: 2007/06/07 21:40:47, Link 65.66.152.87 |
| Author: blipey |
|
As for the sweeter beers, I like them as well, though I can't just pound them down like some others either. A list of some nice sweeter beers I like: Old Engine Oil (Harvestoun Brewery; Dollar, Scotland) A fine example of a Scottish Ale: burnt caramel, fairly malty. Kelpie (New Alloa Brewery; Kelliebank, UK) While not strictly a sweet ale, this has a chocolate palate that is nice. Sold in the US under the Froach Historic Ales label. Rochefort #10 (Rochefort Trappist Brewery, Belgium) a stupendous beer, get some if you can. You'll probably have to order directly from the brewery (and live in an alcohol in the mail friendly state), but your finer liquor stores may be able to get it in as well. A very complex beer, very malty. My favorite part is the port wine and dried fruit flavor. My least favorite part? The silly European 375 ml bottle--not even 3/4 of a pint! |
| Date: 2007/06/07 21:43:55, Link 65.66.152.87 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Is this the "secret information" that was hinted at at Ftk's blog? I'm all a-tingle. |
| Date: 2007/06/08 12:44:43, Link 65.66.152.87 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Double the Fun at Reasonable Kansans! DaveScot and Ftk posting on the same thread! I can hardly contain myself. Of course Dave misses the point again after offering some legal advice. He and Larry Flebotamist should open up a practice together. Here he tells us just how threatened scientists are by GG.
Dave sure does like violence a bunch. Hope his dogs are okay. |
| Date: 2007/06/08 15:02:28, Link 65.66.152.87 |
| Author: blipey |
|
In the long term, no. But I actually have to eat and feed myself, etc. After my schedule clears up or if I can get a gig in Texas, I'll certainly look him up. His little suburban neighborhood looks nice. edit: "eat" should be "drink", which on second thougt maybe i shouldn't be doing more of... |
| Date: 2007/06/09 21:14:11, Link 66.140.75.140 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I'm sorry, Arden, you appear to have posted something but I can't seem to read it on my screen--just an empty window. Perhaps others are having this problem and you should repost. |
| Date: 2007/06/09 22:03:32, Link 66.140.75.140 |
| Author: blipey |
| Arden, I'm going to hire you as my straight-man. I'd offer the job to Rich, but well, you know.... |
| Date: 2007/06/10 11:48:47, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Then perhaps you should actually take a class. You may recall that someone once told you (I hope) that class was for attending and learning things. Class is for asking questions. Class is for participation, for comprehension. Things that directly bear on education and, yes, what is best for the kids. You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others). I don't hold out much hope that you will. I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar. This place will still be here after it closes, I want you to prove me wrong. |
| Date: 2007/06/10 12:06:22, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
A traditional caesar salad does not contain anchovies. Caesar salad is made with worcestershire sauce, which does have anchovies in it. Over the years, many places have started to use an anchovie paste in the dressing, and occasionally you will see sliced anchovie on the salad. These I hold in the same contempt as caesars with tomato or caesars that are not tossed until the dressing very lightly coats all the romaine without any pooling . |
| Date: 2007/06/10 12:35:39, Link 64.218.107.164 |
| Author: blipey |
|
BAN ME WILL YOU! LET'S SEE HOW WELL YOU BAN WITH MY ANCHOVIE DOWN YOUR THROAT. HOMO. I do love me some caesar salad. It was actually a little side project of mine on my recent national tour. I had an astounding number of caesar salads from coast to coast. Some good, a very few stellar, and many sorry-ass ones. |
| Date: 2007/06/10 12:57:11, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave. I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts. However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.). You miss the point of what he says repeatedly. I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you. I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says. He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas. My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is. My problem is two-fold: 1. You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?). 2. You pretend to know what science is. Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot. This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about. If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology? edit: the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you". |
| Date: 2007/06/10 13:26:59, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Damnit, I wanted that one. If you let me go in with you, you can have 25% of my winnings as well. |
| Date: 2007/06/10 13:32:28, Link 64.218.107.164 |
| Author: blipey |
|
As for drinking a beer in the UK? Why would any sane person turn that down? If in the London(?) area, I will certainly give you a call. I will also come alone, walking backward, with both hands visible at all times. An aside: what the hell dumbass was responsible for every US corporate restaurant making an Irish Coffee with one of the following recipes: 1. Jameson's, Bailey's, coffee, canned whip cream 2. Jameson's, Bailey's, creme de menthe, coffee, canned whip cream, marachinno cherry. |
| Date: 2007/06/11 12:47:01, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
|
Excellent. I will try to answer your questions, Ftk. Now, I am no biologist, just an actor, but I'm going to explain this in my own words, without linking to anything. You should try this once in a while--I'm not poking at you, here. But if you write posts and comments in your own words and actually address the issues you'll find two things happen: 1. Your brain engages and you start to think critically about the issues. 2. You reveal your level of understanding of the issues. At this point, other people can step in and help you more easily because they know the specifics of where to start. This will now be seen as the more knowledgeable people here correct my following comment. [QUOTE]Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...
As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin. Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational. Anyone can observe and write down findings. An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years. As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has grown, species have been reclassified. The question is could creationists have done this reclassification? Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried? In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world. Your example of "environmental similarities" shows this. As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar? A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage. If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer. Now, an evolutionist, working from common descent, notices that there are similarities between whales and hippos (not something that is apparent at first thought, perhaps). Continuing to research this, they find morphological similarities between the two that add credence to CD.
The key here is understanding of the classification system--the why. A creationist can say with confidence that "these things are similar, I have looked at them". Now he asks why. His answer is that the Designer made them that way. Now, did the designer: 1. use similar parts to make their bodies look the same, but their organs are arranged differently? 2. use similar parts to make their immune systems work similarly, but their body plans are completely dissimilar? 3. come up with a completely new way to provide a similar function? what is the Designer's goal--the same parts? the same ends? how do we know? The theory of common design requires us to know what the purpose of the Designer is. This is something that IDers say cannot be done. If it cannot be done, how can we possibly use the theory of common design? If the Designer is unknown and unknowable, the theory of common design is useless from the get-go. Now, the theory of common descent allows us to structure the plethora of living things into a knowable order. Using this knowable order we can predict traits, proteins, and abilities that things in this order may have by comparing them to other things that have a common ancestor. A common design theory doesn't let us know what the commonality might be. We simply can't know before hand, unless we steal the blueprints from the designer. We only know what the similarity is AFTER finding it. A common descent theory allows us to say "hey, we might find this sort of thing here, because other things that are close to it in the hierarchy also have it. We predict what we might find BEFORE looking for it, by an educated guess, not blind guessing.
Yes. Sometimes he will be wrong, but he has a much better chance of being right than a creationist operating from a notion of common design. By looking up the hierarchy, he can make educated guesses as to what he will find as he works his way down the hierachy--BEFORE observing the trees. |
| Date: 2007/06/11 13:21:03, Link 64.218.107.164 |
| Author: blipey |
|
She was obviously confused by the 2 comments that Wes put up back to back. She has admitted that she can't wade through more than one comment at a time. So she just missed the question about whether or not she thinks transitional fossils exist because she was addressing the other, not-quite-so-interesting topic. |
| Date: 2007/06/11 16:54:09, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
The 18 year? Or was she really nice and it's the 25? |
| Date: 2007/06/11 17:06:17, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Apollos:
First of all, he's not of the caliber of Sal, DaveTard, and company??? Yikes. Perhaps he has self-esteem issues. My candidate for an alternative reason is Stark, raving, unadultarated craziness. Quick, quick, I have a bottle of Balvenie 21 yr portwood aged whisky for the first person who can cite the paper with the evidence for a 3,000 year old common ancestor of humans and chimps. What?????? Nothing yet? Come on! |
| Date: 2007/06/11 17:12:22, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I wonder if anyone will take this as evidence that even the posters at UD generally think of UD as a non-scientific enterprise. |
| Date: 2007/06/12 09:24:53, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Exactly. Are you advocating that we just tell her this and present no questions? Or might it be a better idea for Dave to take the time to ask a question that requires no biology in order to get to the point? The specifics of his question would indeed require a deep understanding of biology. The very easy logic problem of "how might a creationist predict something that has no apparent function" requires none. When Ftk makes statements like "evolution is just speculation" she is claiming for herself an expertise in the matter. In doing this, all questions are fair game and her avoidance of those questions may even be helpful. At some point the reason she is avoiding them may dawn on her. I think Dave's polite questions lead down that path. |
| Date: 2007/06/12 09:28:34, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Doesn't matter for either group of scientists. The logic employed by a YECer and an IDer are the same. The logic employed by evolutionary scientists is the same. The question isn't about biology at its core; it's about logic and, as has been stated before, being educable. |
| Date: 2007/06/12 09:41:32, Link 64.218.107.164 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Joe G's back! I know, everyone missed him so. He has a new post telling us all about how common descent isn't true (or is it?) and about how it's not even scientific.
I love this post, a perfect example of the wishy-washiness of creationists. You see, CD isn't true, though I don't categorically deny the premise--that way when someone calls me on it I can hedge and avoid and claim I never made that statement. I asked him about it. |
| Date: 2007/06/12 09:49:38, Link 64.218.107.164 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Just because some people answered a poll question doesn't mean they're right. Is this the same poll that was discussed on the official UD thread: 66% pro creo / 53% pro evo? The link in Folger's article actually goes to a credit card application--nice! |
| Date: 2007/06/12 23:43:56, Link 66.142.238.16 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Ftk, are you saying that icefish have always been just about they way they are now? Except that maybe they have an inactive globin gene? Do you not seriously see the explanatory power of a nested hierarchy and common descent? You avoided answering Dave's question. He asked you what predictions about the globin gene in icefish would a creationist make? You gave no answer? Why? I ask you "what explanation does a creationist have about this globin gene"? What repeatable process leads to this observation? |
| Date: 2007/06/13 11:24:44, Link 66.142.238.16 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Since creation has always been true and I know that, everyone before me has also known this. So we see that my knowledge base can be used as a starting point for all those who came before me. Unless they disagree with me. [/Ftk off] |
| Date: 2007/06/13 16:58:49, Link 66.142.238.16 |
| Author: blipey |
| You kidding? I was in the Bay Area for 2 weeks and I never looked you up! Jeebus, I'm a moron. |
| Date: 2007/06/13 17:37:41, Link 66.142.238.16 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Yeah, that is if he really existed. I'm all for Ftk telling me how this couldn't possibly be evidence that dinos are ancestors of birds. |
| Date: 2007/06/14 17:06:30, Link 69.148.241.54 | ||||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||||
And don't ask me any questions I don't like. Or refrain from calling DaveScot names. And asmit that atheism is the same as science....
Could I get a working definition of this activity?
Very open minded of you, of course. Both sides are completely equal in all ways. It couldn't be that IDers change their mind as to what they believe depending on who they're talking to, could it? Maybe? Look up the fascinating changes in definition of "Irreducible Complexity" if you must. Take a gander at any thread on UD that includes the words "Common Descent". Or, if they haven't been nuked, any thread there with the words "ID isn't about Jesus".
Aw, that's terrible. A site that doesn't let everyone post what they want. I wonder if we can come up with a couple more of those. |
| Date: 2007/06/14 23:02:04, Link 65.64.101.48 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I don't think she's actually ignored this one. I believe she's said she was mulling over a response to Wes's question; now this could be another question, but I got the impression in was this one. Not ignoring, but not answering either. It takes a while to google enough bullshit to confidently state that transitional fossils don't exist. |
| Date: 2007/06/14 23:08:45, Link 65.64.101.48 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
There is, technically, a difference. There are insane people out there who think that habaneros aren't hot enough. Actually, depending on flavor of dish I might be one of those people. Anywho, scotch bonnets are the result of habaneros that have been specially engineered to be hotter. I believe they are about the 3rd hottest pepper around now. The habanero species is not as hot a the bird pepper species: pequin, etc. There are several varieties of habanero and bird peppers. |
| Date: 2007/06/14 23:21:57, Link 65.64.101.48 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Do you ever wonder if people who disagree with you are actually happy? Just saying... Which statement did you correct? Was it: 1. The ever-changing definition of Irreducible Complexity? 2. The charge that UD commenters keep changing their minds about whether Common Descent is true or not? 3. The accusation that all ID is is religion? No? None of those? You just needed to correct the clear jibe at your own person? How could I not be a happy person with all the mirth you create? |
| Date: 2007/06/14 23:24:33, Link 65.64.101.48 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
We'd get up in the morning, half an hour before we went to bed, go the mill and pay the mill owner 6 pence just for the privilege of going to work. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 04:52:32, Link 65.64.101.48 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
Jumping Jeebus on a pogo stick, that's hot. That's twice as hot as anything I've ever put in my mouth...ack, I mean, uh...ooooh |
| Date: 2007/06/15 10:42:24, Link 65.64.101.48 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
You may now also take the time to note that I am 5'8"...or a completely different height that is not 5'8". I'll stand by that (of course, when I'm standing I'm 5'10", or another height). It's part of the open-height regime, keep your options many.
Have you googled enough bullshit to make sense of your "I believe transitionals exist but they aren't really transitionals" stance? Seriously, this might be one of the stupidest things you've ever said. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 11:07:12, Link 65.64.101.48 |
| Author: blipey |
| Have fun camping! Wyoming is lovely this time of year. My dad lives in Buffalo and likes it a ton, even the winters. Of course, he moved there from Alaska so we know he's a bit touched. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 11:12:32, Link 65.64.101.48 |
| Author: blipey |
|
As regards te stupidity of Ftk's statement about transitionals. It may not be the absolute stupidest things she's said (my sample size is smaller than others), but it is the kind of things that I will never understand. Joe G does it with almost every sentence he types. She managed to completely contradict herself without finishing a perfectly good sentence. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 17:32:56, Link 67.53.162.227 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Ftk:
I wet myself. Thanks. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 17:36:27, Link 67.53.162.227 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Can you please define "inference"? Can you then show an example of the similarity between ID and ToE as regards this definition? No? Thanks. Moving on. |
| Date: 2007/06/15 17:46:50, Link 67.53.162.227 |
| Author: blipey |
| I was just noticing how far this thread was from the top. For the life of me, I can't figure out what would cause that. Hmmm. |
| Date: 2007/06/17 10:59:25, Link 65.30.126.11 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Let me translate that for you Ftk. Alby really means "can you read this article and discuss the technical aspects of it and the specific problems you have with it"? Please don't say things like "Creationists don't..." or "an evolutionary paradigm doesn't allow us..." Stick to the points made in the paper, please. |
| Date: 2007/06/17 13:17:49, Link 65.64.124.76 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
You'll find the scotch pours freely around here. You may want to check out the libations thread. Welcome aboard and I don't have any Laphroaig, but I do have: 21 yr Balvenie, 12 yr Madeira-wood Glenmorangie, and a pour or two of Ardbeg resting in my cabinet. |
| Date: 2007/06/18 14:16:34, Link 68.94.112.31 |
| Author: blipey |
|
To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse: The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester. Some of the class's papers are up as well. |
| Date: 2007/06/18 16:37:11, Link 76.222.204.78 |
| Author: blipey |
|
I personally don't find anything wrong with the ad. It is funny; sometimes stereotypes are funny and we must remember that stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. I'm not defending all stereotypes here or their use. However, I think the lesson was taught in this one without being offensive. A commercial is 30 seconds long; that's not a lot of time to write out a Tony Award winning script. The use of pigs is a quick in that serves a purpose. I believe the real issue facing us is the reasons for Network disapproval. Fox's is completely stupid. As one of the commenters at Tracy's said, "Would they have aired it if the setting was a gay bar"? Fox can't even get around to telling the truth when the truth would probably get them what they want. Disgraceful. |
| Date: 2007/06/19 10:08:59, Link 68.94.112.31 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I read this and all I can think is, "Keanu Reeves is an actor, he has appeared in movies." nuf said. |
| Date: 2007/06/21 00:44:46, Link 65.69.69.2 |
| Author: blipey |
| I'm in. After August 15th would be best for me, but I can swing (SHUT IT!!!) it other times as well. Middle of July is good now that I think about it. |
| Date: 2007/06/21 11:12:43, Link 65.69.69.2 |
| Author: blipey |
| You can walk to the Field Museum? Why didn't I know this? When I missed the METRA last time at 2 am, I should have at least hassled you. Way better than waiting for the 4:50 to the south side. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 12:48:14, Link 67.64.42.197 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Now that Wes has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ftk lied outright in a previous post, can we start a pool on her retraction? I'll take the Tuesday after the Second Coming. Also, I know you'll never do it, but can we ban all comments that use quotation marks around anything that isn't actually a quote? I realize this will significantly reduce the amount of humor we see from Ftk, but it will streamline the thread. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 15:17:46, Link 67.64.42.197 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
Nicely done, sir. :D |
| Date: 2007/06/25 18:35:37, Link 67.64.42.197 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
From Joe Gallien:
I'm stupefied, utterly speechless. From here. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 18:46:19, Link 67.64.42.197 |
| Author: blipey |
|
No, seriously. I really can't come to grips with how one might say that the number of scientists that accept ToE is an alleged majority. This doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not ToE is correct. This is a basic count-the-number-of-hands-raised thing. Secondly, isn't one of his main arguments that there is a scientific conspiracy, all scientists are materialists, scientists don't know what the hell they're talking about sort of thing. And now, all of a sudden, most of them are actually ID supporters. WTF? |
| Date: 2007/06/25 18:54:04, Link 67.64.42.197 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Now that was as good a comment to this thread as can be done, Wes. Very nice, but as you said, it is for the lurkers. I give it exactly zero chance that Ftk will even address one sentence of it. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 18:57:47, Link 67.64.42.197 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Oh, I'm right there with you. I was being facetious in the previous comment. That I understand the mechanism by which Joe receives the words he types in no way translates to my being able to comprehend how it happens. It's just so stupendously stupid. and I only lye to you're mother. homo. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 22:41:02, Link 67.64.42.197 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Well, color me jaw-droppingly flabbergasted. Who knew? |
| Date: 2007/06/26 11:53:21, Link 65.66.153.128 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Cue the blather. |
| Date: 2007/06/26 16:05:22, Link 65.66.153.128 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
I do rather think I'm going to have to look up conversation. It must not mean what I think it means. I do wish that she would have an actual conversation with anyone sometime. It might be truly entertaining. But, she just can't get herself to talk to anyone. All the people she already knows and shares a worldview with don't really provide conversation--just reinforcement, not the same thing at all. Of course, all of us who treat her as a piranha aren't worthy of a conversation because she's already said everything that needs to be said to us (though where she might have said these things will remain enshrouded for eternity). She even closed down a conversation that jc and I were having at her blog because she didn't like the way it was going. JC being, ostensibly, on her side and behaving so strangely that even Ftk realized he was hurting the cause, it was time to close it down, despite her pet peeve of civility not being a problem in the thread. It's sad to think of going through your entire life and never having a real conversation. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 00:36:30, Link 65.66.153.128 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Oh yes, Zachriel is, hands down, the leader in JoeG protective gear. He waded in for several weeks of serious posting (by this I mean real content--none of which Joe acknowledged). Zachriel should win some sort of award actually, by carrying on the, uh, discussion on my blog for a while. He lured Joe out of his own personal confines to be ridiculed in a completely separate arena. Joe's stupidity regarding nested hierarchies is hilarious, though. He told me that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because, wait for it...people have fathers. That's right; try to figure that one out if you can. His latest is that a majority of scientists don't accept ToE or CD, because, wait for it...they can't prove it. Don't ask me what the validity of a thing has to do with people believing it, but there you go. There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 00:47:54, Link 65.66.153.128 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Oh, I must have links to this. He would make the worst Muslim-impersonator evah!!! |
| Date: 2007/06/27 11:24:26, Link 65.66.153.128 |
| Author: blipey |
|
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week. Oh, she found it. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 11:33:28, Link 65.66.153.128 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless. That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog. It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment. I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all? If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything here:
The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 17:15:40, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Yep. has crossed my mind, Ftk. In fact, most of us have gone to just about every ID site out there and provided content. For that trouble, we have been banned. So, yeah. I guess we would respond in hostile environments. Isn't it interesting that we allow you to do what your friends will not? |
| Date: 2007/06/27 18:50:40, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Methinks she doesn't know what information is. Perhaps the relevant literature in information theory, thermodynamics, and other fields is beneath her? |
| Date: 2007/06/27 18:52:45, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
This in response to Ian Brown saying that there is no evidence for God and research into abiogenesis is ongoing. Funny, she doesn't seem to require proof for the existence of God, pitiful details and all. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 19:10:22, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
1. Everyone is expected to provide proof (no scare quotes, just normal everyday proof) and take all of the facts (not just the scare quoted ones) into consideration. 2. Creationists have provided no proof and barely any content to anything at all. For example, the many questions you have waiting for you: how did the Egyptians survive the flood? (silence), why didn't the water boil away in the 60mph continental drift? (silence), etc. This is what is meant by taking into consideration all of the facts. Many facts have to be ignored in order to champion these theories. If you have evidence, we'll all say rah and give you awards. 3. Creationists often pose questions that do not rely on known facts (like the above things). Creationist questions are almost entirely those of incredulity. They have no (as yet) testable premises or predictions. These questions are of the "Hey, what pathway did abiogenesis take?" "I don't know yet" is a perfectly valid answer to these types of questions. Indeed, if we give it some time, we might find the answer. There is a qualitative difference between these types of questions and the "what happened to the Egyptians" kind. Sorry, Ian, carry on, but I thought that Ftk's thought process should be pointed out to her. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 19:20:31, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
Done. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 19:24:50, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I must say, that is good. I like-y very much-y. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 19:27:59, Link 65.66.155.250 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
don't make me "ban" you for "inverted" comma usage, hughes. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 22:20:02, Link 65.66.155.250 |
| Author: blipey |
| Do rest up, and I hold out for the time you'll be back. Though I do agree that starting a purely serious thread here is problematical at best, I hope a little R&R will allow you to swim the waters here for what they are. |
| Date: 2007/06/27 22:23:13, Link 65.66.155.250 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Ah, I feel for you, Ftk. Here's a sure-fire way to manage the number of outstanding questions you have: ANSWER SOME OF THEM!!! Easiest possible solution and all.... |
| Date: 2007/06/28 08:30:22, Link 66.142.52.60 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
I used to think that you were merely ignorant. Then I thought you were intentionally deceitful. Now I just know that you have a 2nd grade grasp of English. And a kindergarten relationship with logic:
You do realize that this statement means: Since I think there is no evidence for common descent, therefor design? Have you even once tried to think for yourself? Ever? Edit: (to try hopelessly to get you to see what you write) That is the same logic as "I don't like ice cream, therefor I love pizza." |
| Date: 2007/06/28 10:52:42, Link 66.142.52.60 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
So "obviously" common "design" that I'm afraid I just can't "speak" about that here--as "I've" already speaked about it in so many places, with so many mountains of "evidence" that I've pointed out so "clearly" so many other times. *sigh* atheist assholes. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 11:55:25, Link 66.142.52.60 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner. I'm going to take him up on it. Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot. You can only keep trying. There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list. Invite here. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 11:59:36, Link 66.142.52.60 | ||||
| Author: blipey | ||||
It seems this point may have been brought up before; I can't remember. How about you, Ftk? Have you ever given any thought to this? |
| Date: 2007/06/28 12:05:12, Link 66.142.52.60 | ||||||
| Author: blipey | ||||||
I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS. Does that mean I'm a scientist? It'll look good on the resume. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 12:09:54, Link 66.142.52.60 |
| Author: blipey |
|
As regards Phelps, yep. But he truly is one of the more despicable human beings to have ever walked around. Comparisons to him are not warranted in many (if any) cases. The relativism angle is one that has always fascinated me. Fundies (and to a greater extent, Conservatives in general) use up a lot of oxygen bemoaning the relativism of liberals and anyone else they don't like. However, when it comes to defending their pet theories, it's relative away. Weird. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 12:16:12, Link 66.142.52.60 |
| Author: blipey |
|
Merely a bit of street theatre. The insane are never hooked by hoaxes. Hoaxed by hookers, but never hooked by hoaxes. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 13:19:15, Link 66.142.52.60 | ||
| Author: blipey | ||
|
You know when your kids are lying to you, Ftk? That's right, it's when they can't stay on topic, switch the subject, and generally talk around any question you ask them. If you can tell wen they're lying (and I'll bet you can), why do you think we can't tell when you do it? For example, when your kids are lying, do they sound like this:
Notice that I left you one very easy out (perhaps more). Please use it to continue your poor-me act. |
| Date: 2007/06/28 13:52:20, Link 66.142.52.60 |
| Author: blipey |
