AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: onlooker

form_srcid: onlooker

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: onlooker

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2012/09/18 16:07:02, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 18 2012,13:35)
Apparently onlooker is banned from all threads that KF starts. Not that KF ever exercises mod powers or anything.

Indeed.  kairosfocus is demonstrating his respect for open discussion by banning me from his threads at UD.  Apparently pointing out his hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice is grounds for him to demonstrate, well, hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice.

In any case, if gpuccio is reading here or if anyone can still post in this thread, here’s what I wrote:

Quote
gpuccio,

Quote
Quote
Are your concepts of functional complexity and dFSCI intended to be used to identify design where it is not known to have taken place or merely to tag design where it is known to have happened?

Obviously the first option.

In that case, I think you have a fundamental problem because you are defining dFSCI such that only "non-deterministic" mechanisms can create it. Just so I’m clear, do you consider evolution (random mutations of various types, differential reproductive success, neutral drift, etc.) to be deterministic? If so, dFSCI doesn’t distinguish between "designed" and "non-designed" but between "known to be designed", "known not to be designed", and "unknown".

And just to be further painfully clear, would you agree that deterministic mechanisms can create functional complexity of more than 500 bits, by your definition?  


Also, if anyone can get my similar post out of the noob filter at TSZ, it might increase the odds of a UDer seeing it.

Thanks,

onlooker

Date: 2012/09/18 16:13:07, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (REC @ Sep. 18 2012,13:29)
Onlooker asks to continue his polite discussion:

 
Quote
95 onlooker September 18, 2012 at 9:33 am
kairosfocus,

I am having a discussion with gpuccio, not with you. I am quite willing to not respond to your comments, but surely you don’t want to shut down open and mutually consensual communication between other participants.

[ALLOWED TO STAND TO DOCUMENT WILLFUL CIVILITY VIOLATION. ONLOOKER KNOWS WHAT HE DID, AND WHY I HAVE INSTRUCTED THAT HE EITHER APOLOGISES FOR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR, OR ELSE CEASES FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY THREAD I AM OWNER OF. KF]


 
Quote
109 onlooker September 18, 2012 at 10:48 am
[REMOVED FOR CIVILITY VIOLATION PER WARNING AT 93, AND WILLFUL CONTINUATION IN THE TEETH OF A KNOWN REQUIREMENT. ONLOOKER KNOWS THE WRONG HE DID AND THE APOLOGY REQUIRED TO COMMENT IN ANY THREAD I AM OWNER OF. I WILL NOT PERMIT DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR, ON ANY EXCUSE. KF]


What does KF think onlooker did?

"The wrong" I did?

I pointed out that kairosfocus was being hypocritical by continuing to participate at UD while Joe was there but refusing to participate at The Skeptical Zone because people who post there were rude (by his standards) on completely different sites (no doubt this infamous den of iniquity).

You want an apology, kairosfocus?  I'm really very sorry that you're such a thin-skinned hypocrite.  I'm even more sorry that you have the ability at UD to interfere with a conversation in which you were not a participant.  I am overwhelmingly sorry that I bothered to offer even a modicum of respect to such a pretentious, dishonest blowhard by responding to you politely.

Date: 2012/09/21 08:54:42, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 18 2012,16:13)
welcome onlooker, i had assumed you were already here

Who knows, maybe I was!  :-P

Would you rather think that one of the AtBC regulars has a sock problem or that UD is getting more viewers?

If anyone here has admin privs at TSZ, I have a couple of comments that never appeared.  Alan helped out with one on one of his threads, but I don't seem to have the ability to comment on others.

I'm interested in continuing my discussion with gpuccio in a venue where kairosfocus can only glare and whine like the bitchy little church lady he is.

Date: 2012/09/22 10:14:58, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2012,05:43)
It's getting a little slow around here. We need a new meltdown.

I'm working on it:

Date: 2012/09/23 11:11:05, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 22 2012,16:29)
Quote (onlooker @ Sep. 22 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2012,05:43)
It's getting a little slow around here. We need a new meltdown.

I'm working on it:


Your comment has been censored on grounds that it accused the censor of censorship.

I'm shocked -- that kairosfocus took so long.

Date: 2012/09/23 11:12:29, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 22 2012,18:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2012,18:51)
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 22 2012,17:47)
   
Quote
O makes a false accusation of censorship — probably being amplified all across the slander laced fever swamps as we speak — when O knows full well he was asked to apologise and cease from derail attempts or leave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ry_of_O

   
Quote
Story of O (French: Histoire d'O, IPA: [istwa? do]) is an erotic novel published in 1954 about love, dominance and submission by French author Anne Desclos under the pen name Pauline Réage.

Ah, kairosfocus must be oiling Mr. Leathers in anticipation of his next meeting with Onlooker.  One can just imagine the look on his face as he rubs his hand up and down the slick shaft, over and over and over . . . .

I really, really didn't need that image while sipping my morning coffee.

Date: 2012/09/24 12:40:29, Link
Author: onlooker
Upright BiPed identifies the miscreants:
Quote
the rancor being passed back and forth between UD and TSZ does not have its genesis at UD or among UD commentors.

Yeah, Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus are the epitome of civility.

Date: 2012/09/25 08:16:01, Link
Author: onlooker
Seen on another blog this morning:
Quote
"Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

It reminds me of something, right on the tip of my brain.  Ah, well, I'm sure I'll remember.

Date: 2012/09/26 10:51:39, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 25 2012,13:16)
Joe is a learning opportunity.  I know, intellectually, that he is no doubt a physical coward who would never dare make statements like that to a person's face.  I also know from his online history that he is none too mentally gifted.  Both of these characteristics warrant compassion.

Nonetheless, I will have to meditate repeatedly before I can let go of the desire to see a video of someone swinging through his hometown and defending Lizzie's honor.

Joe is an easily ignored blowhard.

Does anyone know what is up with Mung?  He's at least as unpleasant and ignorant as Joe, but he also has a bitterness that reminds me of the weaselly little kids who would hang around with bullies, encouraging bad behavior that they weren't capable of committing on their own.  I don't think he's any less of a coward than Joe, but he strikes me as the type who would key a car or drop a dime on a fake police report to harass someone if he thought he could get away with it.  He just gives a nasty vibe overall.

Date: 2012/09/26 10:53:59, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 26 2012,10:46)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 26 2012,09:30)
Quote
vjtorley: Are crows capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents? Five reasons for skepticism

First. Crows can't reason because they "are unable to explain the basis of their judgments".

Second. Crows can't reason because they can't "justify their claims in the court of public opinion, and if they cannot do so, they are rightly ignored."

Third. Crows can't reason about causation because causation "is quite a sophisticated concept".

Fourth. Crows can't reason because vjtorley is confused about causation.

Fifth. One cannot help wondering what would happen if vjtorley actually took the time and effort to observe crows?

Sixth. Crows don't understand Caws and Effect.

I snorted, I admit it.

Date: 2012/10/06 08:23:48, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 06 2012,06:10)
CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

 
Quote
CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF


That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

This is becoming a boringly predictable response from kairosfocus -- when he can't address an argument, essentially every time anyone bothers to address his claims, he gets the vapors over some imagined slight.

kairosfocus is a liar (1), a hypocrite (2), an intellectual coward (3), and a fool (4).  And yes, kairosfocus, I can back up every one of those statements.

(1) Example:  Claiming to have calculated FSCOI or one of his other alphabet soup acronyms.
(2) Example:  Continuing to post at UD despite that site being infested by mouth breathing, vulgarity spewing, trolls like Joe and Mung, while complaining about the behavior of people at TSZ.
(3) Examples:  Refusing to leave the safe haven of UD and banning people from his threads.
(4) Example:  Pretty much everything he's ever written.

Date: 2012/10/19 07:28:24, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 18 2012,13:11)
Like debate with gpuccio is going to convince these mythical "onlookers".  Aint no onlookers reading through 1000 post threads dispersed among 3 blogs

I can be plural if I want to!

Date: 2012/10/22 14:02:35, Link
Author: onlooker
I'm already skirting the limits of Lizzie's rules at TSZ, but I have one final point about gpuccio's latest UD comment:
Quote
My attitude is, IMO, completely justified. . . . I am obviously right

gpuccio, think for just one moment about the fact that your main supporters at UD are Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus.  You are clearly more intelligent than they are, but that's a low bar to clear.  It certainly doesn't justify the arrogance you are demonstrating as you stand in the smoking rubble of your claims.


"My dFSCI argument is not circular."

Date: 2012/11/05 08:56:21, Link
Author: onlooker
I was just catching up over at The Skeptical Zone after a couple of days cleaning up from Sandy, and I saw a reference to something I thought was too offensive even for UD to host.  Turns out I was wrong.

Here's Mung explaining how he'd justify an omnibenevolent god allowing rape:
Quote
I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what?


So now what?  So now I know that I was correct in choosing to ignore Mung on every UD thread.  He's as ignorant as Joe, no more intelligent, but as thoroughly unpleasant and ethically challenged as Barry.  Quite the combination there.

Date: 2012/11/30 11:51:37, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 30 2012,06:31)
Ras: "bung is a deepcover poe or fully retarded spiteful self-loather.  knows nothing and is viciously proud of it.  also polluted TT before it died a PSCID like death"

He was also instrumental in killing ARN.

Bung went full retard.

I may have to check out the old ARN threads for the lulz.  After a few bracing drinks, I imagine.

I see Mung as combining Joe's intellectual prowess with Barry's charm.  It took about two comments at UD before I stopped reading anything he wrote.

Date: 2012/11/30 12:34:41, Link
Author: onlooker
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 30 2012,12:15)
Quote
25 Mung November 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Quote
Say the fetus is at two months, and developing normally… Abort, or not?

Say the fetus is at two months and developing normally but you’ve been invited to be in a wedding and don’t want to look fat. Abort, or not?

... because that happens all the time.

Say the fetus is at two months, and developing normally but will be homosexual.  Abort, or not?

Date: 2012/12/03 10:23:33, Link
Author: onlooker
This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
Quote
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I’ll pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

 

 

 

=====