AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: hehe

form_srcid: hehe

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.215.209

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: hehe

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 'hehe%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/02/20 11:00:16, Link
Author: hehe
Here's DaveScot on Usenet:

http://tinyurl.com/kewr3

Here's a classic:

http://groups.google.com/group....=source

"3) Lack of transitory species in the fossil record. We should
see a smooth progression of transitory species but in fact
we don't. We see the immediate emergence of extremely
complex species.

[...]

5) Lastly, there's a resurgence of creationism among scientists everywhere."

Remember the last sentence when DaveFascist will try to claim he is not a creationist but agnostic.

Date: 2006/02/21 20:31:32, Link
Author: hehe
> Out of what is easily thousands of posts he's made you found only TWO mistakes?

Hello, Dave. You have made much more mistakes in that post, so please, don't try to lie about it  :D

Date: 2006/02/25 11:47:18, Link
Author: hehe
Davey, do you agree that the schools should teach the controversy about Holocaust?

Date: 2006/02/27 02:01:51, Link
Author: hehe
:angry:

Date: 2006/03/01 22:06:10, Link
Author: hehe
DaveStalin wrote:

"A theory that supposes certain patterns in nature cannot be adequately explained without intelligent agency of some sort is not religion."

Theism is not a religion. But it is a religious idea. Same with ID.

Date: 2006/03/02 07:05:09, Link
Author: hehe
Hey, JAD, you're always saying that organisms could not have evolved via "Darwinian" mechanisms, but you never even tried to prove it. How about you prove it rigorously?

Date: 2006/03/03 06:58:22, Link
Author: hehe
DaveStalin wrote:
Quote
John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.


The truth is, at present he is nothing but a harmless but irritating crank. One needs only to read his blog. Oh, and you're Texas White Trash according to him. Got it? Write that down.

Quote
Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, folks.


Yep. Denial is very real - like Holocaust denial or evolution denial. And pricks like DaveStalin want to put denial into public schools.

Date: 2006/03/03 21:00:18, Link
Author: hehe
Instead of "2LoT doesn't apply to open systems" it seems one should say "2LoT is redundant in open systems". It may or may not "apply" to them (this is nothing but semantics) but it addresses ONLY closed systems.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:07:53, Link
Author: hehe
IDiots of all stripes when debunked re: 2LoT, always turn to "information", "mechanism" etc., as if it had anything to do with 2LoT.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:47:20, Link
Author: hehe
The most pathetic thing about JAD is his silly catchphrases. No, scratch that. The most pathetic thing about Jad is his belief that his silly catchphrases are witty. What a loon.

Hey, JAD, since you haven't proven that "Darwinian mechanisms" do not work, there's no real reason to take your silly theory - or ID, for that matter - seriously.

Heh, I see now JAD is claiming that life and evolution contradict thermodynamics. Only a comparable or worse loon, like DaveStalin, could actually praise JAD.

Date: 2006/03/04 07:21:11, Link
Author: hehe
Could it be that after his "common descent" fiasco DaveStalin grew frustrated with Dembski and his ilk?

Date: 2006/03/04 07:36:49, Link
Author: hehe
One wonders if he will soon officially leave UP and start his own blog, where he will be able to ban anyone who doesn't accept CD. Circus of one clown. :D

Date: 2006/03/04 07:55:54, Link
Author: hehe
Sure he does.  But his aim is to "win" whatever it takes, and DaveStalin probably thinks that acknowledging both his own mistakes and the frictions in ID camp is detrimental to that aim.

Date: 2006/03/05 17:32:21, Link
Author: hehe
Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers are basically the same. Only objects of denial differ. The methods, the rhetoric - everything the same.

The only reason Holocaust denial is (thankfully) not popular is because it has something to do with the Nazis.  It is rejected purely on emotional level, because intellectually it's jsut the same old denial.

Date: 2006/03/05 21:17:57, Link
Author: hehe
Does Larry accept common descent?

Is DaveStalin Holocaust denier?

Date: 2006/03/06 02:24:43, Link
Author: hehe
666 posts at JAD's Fuehrerbunker. Cannot be a coincidence!

Date: 2006/03/06 02:28:41, Link
Author: hehe
I see JAD conceded that he didn't prove that "Darwinian mechanisms" cannot work. So, his little "theory" goes into a trash can.  :D

Date: 2006/03/06 06:19:17, Link
Author: hehe
Totalitarian types, like DaveStalin, always have such delusions. He doesn't know the first thing about thermodynamics and information theory, yet pretends to be a genius!

Date: 2006/03/06 17:36:39, Link
Author: hehe
Yes, religion is crap in general, because adult persons believing in fairy tales is a pathetic thing.

Nevertheless, everybody has flaws, so the division line is really between social liberalism and social conservatism.

And as long as someone doesn't push his fairy tales onto others (e.g. doesn't try to put them into public schools), he may be OK.

Date: 2006/03/07 07:46:34, Link
Author: hehe
Javison again: " Of coyrse I haven'r proved Darwinian mechanisms don't work."

Good that you mentioned that, Javison!

Date: 2006/03/07 07:50:46, Link
Author: hehe
But despite the above Javison writes:
"Chance, never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny in the past and has no role today except tp ensure ultimate extinction. Jot that down on your cortex too."

Helllooo? Nobody proved that the natural selection plus several other natural mechanisms acting on different levels cannot produce the variety of life as it is. Got that, Javison? Write that down.  :D

Date: 2006/03/07 09:21:13, Link
Author: hehe
DaveStalin wrote:
Quote
and temperature is synonymous with heat


Un-freakin'-believable. Every non-retard whos is interested in the topic knows the difference.

But hey, whaddaya know, if we go by colloquial definitions, DaveTard may be right! And, no doubt, he has some dictionary to support him. Who needs scientific definitions if you have that Gut Feeling?

Intelligent design is a Gut Science!

Date: 2006/03/07 09:55:02, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Intelligent design is a Gut Science!


Aber nicht sehr Gut Wissenschaft!

PS: OK, I know it's gute. But it's more fun that way  :D

Date: 2006/03/07 10:01:26, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Where are they getting these sentences from?


AiG.

(Answers in Gut).

Date: 2006/03/07 10:13:55, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Have these people not heard of the **environment**?


"Environment"? What are you, some pinko commie liberal treehugger?

Date: 2006/03/07 10:16:48, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
I think just from the 39 pages of this thread, you could get enough info to justify ignoring ID forever.


Too true. And look what it has been reduced to:

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2006/3/7/112136/3963

Date: 2006/03/07 10:57:54, Link
Author: hehe
Poking this chimp with a stick is indeed somewhat addictive  :D

Date: 2006/03/07 22:52:53, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.


The unwashed masses, no less!  :D  :D

Date: 2006/03/08 00:17:53, Link
Author: hehe
You did not answer the question, Boywithanidioticnickname.

Date: 2006/03/08 06:42:17, Link
Author: hehe
Re: Doug Moron's post: it's the new kind of arrogance, when the Black Knight accusses others of being Black Knights, and theofacsist accuses others of fascism.

Date: 2006/03/09 07:37:48, Link
Author: hehe
Could it be that DaveStalin is connected to Al-Qaeda, and  took part in 9/11?

Date: 2006/03/09 08:07:41, Link
Author: hehe
By accusing PT DaveStalin tries to hide his ties with Osama!

Date: 2006/03/09 10:27:05, Link
Author: hehe
Hey, this is exactly the procedure used at Holocaust denial forums! Who would've thunk...

Date: 2006/03/10 06:45:47, Link
Author: hehe
I think DaveStalin and Bill Dembski burned those churches to later claim PT fans did it.

Date: 2006/03/10 18:09:57, Link
Author: hehe
DaveStalin must be a masochist.

Date: 2006/03/11 08:00:15, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
hateful mocking speech about blacks, homosexuals, jews, women, native Americans


1) The word "Jews" is written with a small "j" mainly by hardcore antisemites.

2) Blacks, homosexuals, etc. are inborn characteristics. So it is wrong to negatively stereotype them. Fundamentalism is a set of beliefs, and it is not necessarily bad to condemn a set of beliefs.

But such equivication is only to be expected from fascists like DaveStalin.

Date: 2006/03/11 21:20:48, Link
Author: hehe
DougMoron is nothing but a religious fanatic. He can't even see a simple logical contradiction, yet he advises others to take Philosophy 101. That's the trash one has to deal with when one battles IDiotism.

I'm not saying this about all IDiots, but the ones at UD are a bunch of theofascists.

Date: 2006/03/13 21:32:27, Link
Author: hehe
DaveStalin proves once again that he is nothing but a sociopath, not unlike Stalin and Hitler.

Anyway, since DaveStalin is against hate speech against gays, is he for banning the Bible?

No I'm not and you're done. -ds

Date: 2006/03/14 19:11:40, Link
Author: hehe
What's with the IDiots calling themselves "daddies"? Don't they understand how pathetic it sounds? crankdaddy, turddaddy...

Go to daddy. -ds

Date: 2006/03/17 02:44:15, Link
Author: hehe
50 pages... Congratulations!

Yeah, I'll try just a little bit more... AND BAN YOU ALL!!!11 -ds

Date: 2006/03/17 07:57:21, Link
Author: hehe
(with apologies to Marilyn Manson)

I have a big stock
And very big cock

That's all I need to be a scientist

I'd like to ban you
but my finger is sore

I did
I did
I did work at Dell -ds

Date: 2006/03/19 02:11:46, Link
Author: hehe
> This is why science ALONE is not adequate.

No, is quite adequate in explaining the world around us.

>  If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously."  You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system.

Morality doesn't nearly come into play here.

> I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.

It isn't. It is a blind belief, nothing more.

> Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor.

There is no known empirical evidence for IDer.

> No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science.  Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there?

There is no empirical evidence for an IDer.

> Can science answer all our questions or can't it?

It can't.

> Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve?

The methodology will be the same.

> Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification?

Science is not religion.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing schizophrenic in science, but you write as if you were a schizophrenic.

Date: 2006/03/30 21:39:52, Link
Author: hehe
But this is just semantics. It doesn't matter if the "human life", whatever it is, begins at conception. It is obvious that a zygote is not equivalent to, say, even a newborn, whether it is "human life" or not, it can be safely disposed of, if needed.

Date: 2006/04/02 01:24:28, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
I assume you are still sticking to the original question that INCLUDED A FIRE.  Therefore, my CHOICE would be based on that FIRE.  Do you have a location for the fire as it relates to the baby and embryos?

PS Can we assume that the FROZEN embryos aren't too close to the FIRE?


That you even have to ascertain these "conditions" shows that you're potentially a murderous moonbatty thug. And that's the point of this little hypothetical.

Date: 2006/04/29 00:00:25, Link
Author: hehe
Why is anybody arguing with this ... person? People like him were sending homosexuals to prisons and concentration camps (because otherwise civilization would collapse).

Date: 2006/04/29 03:36:20, Link
Author: hehe
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Date: 2006/04/29 03:36:20, Link
Author: hehe
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Date: 2006/04/29 11:16:38, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.


Yes, of course. Moreover, since this "god" was supposed to forbid incest later, it either proves that she is a moral relativist, or the Bible is not inerrant  :D

Date: 2006/04/29 11:16:38, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.


Yes, of course. Moreover, since this "god" was supposed to forbid incest later, it either proves that she is a moral relativist, or the Bible is not inerrant  :D

Date: 2006/04/29 11:23:31, Link
Author: hehe
Of course it is less discriminatory, it has one condition less, doofus.

Now, "not relatives" clause is just nonsense - if people wish so, they should be able to marry without regard for kinship.

Without this clause the definition may be arbitrary (2 persons; not really arbitrary though, as it is based on long practice), but it is not discriminatory (discrimination by age doesn't count). Not allowing three persons to marry is not discrimination. Although polygamy should be allowed too, perhaps on special conditions.

Date: 2006/04/29 21:29:22, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Basing marriage on opposing genders is "based on a long practice," too.


Which potentially makes it non-arbitrary, but it does not cease to be discriminatory.

Quote
But I like how you pick and choose which criteria for marriage is legitimate and which is not.  You're no less bigoted than those that advocate for traditional marriage.


I am not bigoted at all, unlike you, thornazi :-)

As I said, being arbitrary and being discriminatory is not the same. Not allowing 3 adults to marry is not discriminatory. At worst, it is arbitrary. And - you ignored my point about polygamy. How predictable.

Allowing only certain kinds of adults to marry is discriminatory.

Note that your argument works fine for those racists who would like interracial marriage to cease. After all, if we are not bigoted in discriminating against gays, why are we bigoted in discriminating against blacks, in not allowing them to marry whites?

Date: 2006/04/29 21:32:26, Link
Author: hehe
Note how Dave ran away from my points   ;)

Date: 2006/04/29 21:32:26, Link
Author: hehe
Note how Dave ran away from my points   ;)

Date: 2006/04/29 21:36:20, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
As long as the law views ID as religion the believing that ID is science is protected as religious belief.


Sure it is. DaveSnot is free to believe it. This right to believe is protected. What was Snot's point, anyway?

Date: 2006/04/29 21:39:51, Link
Author: hehe
> what makes you think you're entitled to dismiss their efforts?

The Root of all Evil  ;)

Date: 2006/04/30 11:09:59, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
If eric, occam and hehe can tell me how [b]their new definition of "marriage" is not discriminatory and intolerant[b] towards certain adult unions then I would love to hear the explanation.


It is not discriminatory against any groups of consenting adults. We are discussing discrimination against individuals, not against abstract concepts like "unions" (which unions do not even exist in a legal sense, so how can they be discriminated against legally; catch-22). Moving the goalposts noted.

Which group, exactly, is discriminated against? Even if one rejects polygamy, then _no_ group will be allowed polygamy, not just gays or lesbians, or... So, no discrimination.

Date: 2006/04/30 21:43:39, Link
Author: hehe
Did anyone notice this old pearl:
Quote
Note also the absurdity of conjoining some views of the contemporary left: Wanting some people to die because they are Jews/black/retarded/homosexual/Gypsies/abortionists is evil, but wanting most people to die because they are wrecking the Earth (as one thinks it should be) is okay as long as it is nondiscriminatory!


Since this person distances him/herself from these views, he or she basically says that it is OK to want some people to die because they're Jews, etc.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/987

Date: 2006/04/30 22:39:59, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
Will they say NO, we have discriminatory and bigoted criteria for who can get married?


No, we won't, thornazi.

They will be discriminatory and bigoted if two gay brothers cannot marry, though ;-)

Quote
By rendering gender meaningless, marriage is meaningless because any other criteria for marriage MUST be arbitrary and discriminatory.


Arbitrary is not the same as discriminatory, thornazi.

Now, thornazi's argument is no different from any white supremacist's arguments:
Quote
By rendering race meaningless, marriage is meaningless, because any other criteria for marriage MUST be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:41:02, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.


Thank you for accepting that "god" is a moral relativist. Why shouldn't we be? ;-)

Date: 2006/05/01 03:41:02, Link
Author: hehe
Quote
hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her.  Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.


Thank you for accepting that "god" is a moral relativist. Why shouldn't we be? ;-)

Date: 2006/05/01 06:17:43, Link
Author: hehe
Dave, you did not address the point again. Is incest objectively immoral or not? (If it is forbidden for mere utilitarian reasons, it is not immoral.)

Date: 2006/05/01 06:17:43, Link
Author: hehe
Dave, you did not address the point again. Is incest objectively immoral or not? (If it is forbidden for mere utilitarian reasons, it is not immoral.)

Date: 2006/05/01 08:26:26, Link
Author: hehe
OK, Dave, so not every "god"'s commandment establishes a moral rule. Some are simply utilitarian.

Given that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament (unless you keep kosher and follow all 600+ rules of the OT, you will agree with me  :p ), and NT has no rule against incest, incest is OK if precautions are taken  :D

Date: 2006/05/01 08:26:26, Link
Author: hehe
OK, Dave, so not every "god"'s commandment establishes a moral rule. Some are simply utilitarian.

Given that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament (unless you keep kosher and follow all 600+ rules of the OT, you will agree with me  :p ), and NT has no rule against incest, incest is OK if precautions are taken  :D

Date: 2006/05/01 21:39:10, Link
Author: hehe
Thornazi still at it? Yawn.

 

 

 

=====