Guano

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. :)

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

991 thoughts on “Guano

  1. phoodoo: Not caring about what is true or not true in science, and only caring about what you what to be preached getting preached makes one scientifically dishonest.

    “One” is you, phoodoo.

    Defend your statements on scientific arguments and not on insults.

    What scientific theory do you accept for the origin of biodiversity?

  2. Allan Miller,

    You don’t care that Wikipedia clearly paints a one sided, dishonest portrait of the JFK killing. Its censorship designed to brainwash people with stupid false information. And you are fine with that. That makes you scientifically dishonest.

  3. You souldn’t be going for death by cop, would you phoodoo, with that thrice-posted Guano-bait?

  4. ***** figure tied with journalist Denyse O’Leary fails. Will pseudonym ‘Timaeus’****** distance itself from Denyse idiocy? Show us please if/when you ever do, ****** make known your many Canadian pseudonyms.

    ******** (happy Discovery Institute supporter in *****, even in Catholic Institution) works pro-Behe intentionally against atheism in his little ***** history. He is an obvious fanatic idiot for IDism. ***** has cleary demonstrated not balance criticism. But he sure makes you folks upset! = )

    How about this? [link deleted]

    Will you find any more ‘fanatic’ than *****? He hides his strange personal ideas because his thoughts are simple low-level ***** religious studies in *****. But he will try to fight TSZ forever. ***** (aka Kantian Naturalist – he revealed this here already) low-brow is anti-theist or anti-theist low-level ‘philosphers’ for Timaeus/*******.

    Kantian Naturalist is disenchanted Jew.

    ******(‘Kantian Naturalist’ as he admitted here) one of intentional most saddest person at Catholic University. This is guy is dog-low kennel in Washington. Low level naturalism dirty deep. He is not cutting edge nor inspiring.

    They live closet to each other Kantian Naturalism and TImaeus. Maybe they will someday meet?

    Timaeus/***** = sad discussion in electronic era. Both empty tricksy (they really want to convince you). Both sad. Both show their dis-welcome to atheists. KN loves his matheism, empty theology.

    [AF edits by request]

  5. Gregory: *****. This is guy is dog-low kennel in Washington. Low level naturalism dirty deep. He is not cutting edge nor inspiring.

    I leave it to the judgment of the moderators whether or not this post should be put in the Guano forum.

    *AF edit

  6. It’s fair game b/c he knowledged it on-line.

    ‘Kantian Natural’ is *******. Quick, easy discovery of biased atheist.

    ****** (he tricked them) empty atheist. Reality exposes TSZ faker.

    * AF edit

  7. Ah, TSZ defense TSZ that is why they block and refuse truth. Fake intellectuals. ***** fantasy is just such a person. Oops, *****. Forgot to pluralise. But happy him here at TSZ fake reality.

    *personal details edited out by AF

  8. Gregory:
    Ah, TSZ defense TSZ that is why they block and refuse truth. Fake intellectuals. ******* fantasy is just such a person. Oops, . Forgot to pluralise. But happy him here at TSZ fake reality.

    Outing yourself as a Markov bot are you?

    * AF edit

  9. Admins, please move Phoodoo’s comment and this to Guano. Phoodoo, for general pointless sniping please use the old thread, where you have several questions requiring answers. Thanks.

  10. phoodoo:

    It doesn’t matter Lizzie, because we have already leaned this week that the way to conclude there is design on Earth is to simply look at it and come to the conclusion that it looks designed, just like keiths and Alan taught us when looking at carvings.

    Um, no.

    By the way, phoodoo, how is your “Lizzie hates TSZ” hypothesis holding up?

    phoodoo:

    Haha, even Lizzie can’t stand it here, why would you think he would want to.

    And:

    Lizzie made a site full of partisan liars that even she can’t stand to read.

    And:

    I can certainly understand why Lizzie can’t stand her own site she created, it is full of people who are scientifically dishonest, and who simply want a world which preaches their worldview.

    Another phoodoo flameout.

  11. Whilst you may, for various reasons, not like the answers we give, Phoodoo, at least you got answers. You never answer any questions posed to you, like “how old is the universe | earth | life and how do you know this?” I suggest you up your game and show us how it’s done rather than moan about a level of discourse you yourself are unable to meet.

  12. “When Martin Luther King argued that segregation was unjust, he did so by appealing to one set of norms (moral norms) against another (legal norms).” – KN

    He did so by appeal to the divine Creator:

    “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” – MLK, Jr.

    He was not a Jewish atheist/agnostic like (myth of the given) [redacted AF] who works (again & again) thanks to a Catholic University.

    You are obviously using him for your own deviant purposes to promote an anti-theist (skeptical) worldview. Why not admit this publically?

  13. Acartia,

    “…Truth Bringer, who deserved to be banned).”

    Oh really?

    I’m truthbringer.

    So, two-faced backstabber, I deserved to be banned for defending myself and others against [redacted AF]’ lies and false accusations? It’s pretty funny that you’re bitching to mung about [redacted AF]’ unsubstantiated accusations against Elizabeth Liddle, and arrington ignoring the accusations, and arrington banning Piotr for speaking up, yet my speaking up and challenging [redacted AF] and arrington deserved my being banned? You’re fucked up.

    I know what’s going on with [redacted AF], and why he’s accusing Elizabeth Liddle, me, and others. I’m the only one who knows the whole story. I can prove that [redacted AF] is a liar and false accuser and I know that he cannot prove his accusations. Tell you what, backstabber, since I “deserved to be banned”, you must think that [redacted AF] has evidence to support his lies and false accusations, so how about you take the 10,000 bet that I proposed to [redacted AF]? I'll up it to20,000 if you like. Since you think that I deserved to be banned that shouldn’t be a problem for you. You can even get together with [redacted AF] and go over all of his evidence (that doesn’t exist) and then you’ll feel confident (NOT) in putting your money where your big mouth is. [redacted AF] is too chicken to do that so you can take up the bet for him, okay? If any of the other two-faced backstabbers over at AtBC want to get in on the bet, bring them on.

    This comment is likely to get me banned from here (Oh no! I used [redacted AF] real name! And I called you and other backstabbers ‘deserved’ names!) but here’s something to think about: [redacted AF] will never explain his accusations against Elizabeth Liddle (or anyone else) and he will continue to spew and magnify them. Elizabeth Liddle and the rest of you should decide whether you want to stop him or just keep on playing games with him that allow, enable, and encourage him to smear whoever he feels like smearing with lies. Push me away and you’ll never know the whole story, unless I reveal it just to defend myself. Frankly, I’m feeling inclined to just walk away from all this and let you all take your lumps from [redacted AF], arrington, etc.

    Something I’ve learned from all this is that at least some of you (and others at AtBC) are only interested in continuing and wallowing in the drama, and aren’t interested in actually stopping the likes of [redacted AF] and his ilk from spewing lies and false accusations. Just wait and see what accommodating and catering to [redacted AF] and his ilk gets you. You’re just emboldening him and his ilk to spew even worse accusations.

    What’s your reputation worth, Elizabeth, and how about the rest of you whose real names are known and on [redacted AF]’s list of targets?

  14. Frankly, Piotr, spewing propaganda is easy; being called out on it by a neighbour is admittedly hard to face. So I’m not surprised by your claims to ignorance as if you don’t understand English language by a native English speaking scholar who has lived in Poland, interacted with Polish scholars and calls out your anti-tradition, anti-theology ideology that is obviously hidden behind your ‘linguist’ talk here as if ‘evolutionism’ is a required worldview…because ‘SCIENCE’ dictates so.

    The only straw here is made of Piotr himself.

    If you knew anything about ‘naukovedenie’ or ‘nauka o nauce,’ you’d perhaps try to elevate your argument. As it is, hiding behind English ‘Darwinism’ and/or ‘evolutionism’ as you do is a rather poor currency.

    You are not a ‘man of straw,’ Piotr, admittedly. I treat you as a person (not an ‘object’ as you treat language). But you are also not a man the way you speak as if an ‘objectivist’ robot with no humanity. Please find a middle ground and rejoin humankind, which includes the universality of religious beliefs.

    Your ‘ideological inclinations’ are quite obviously inseparable from *how you talk* about the ‘phenomena you study’. Let’s not kid ourselves, ok?

    For you, Piotr, as it so far seems because of a pre-commitment to ideological naturalism and positivism, you do not allow perception that language is an artefact of human agency, that it is largely intentional and a product of choice. This view plays out in criticisms of your opponents:

    “language structure is to a vast extent accidental and illogical, seems to bother them. I don’t think the evolutionary approach that I prefer dehumanises language.” – Piotr

    That positivistic view, to me and many others actually *is* dehumanising. It is impersonal and empty of soul or spirit. Why try to sell this disenchanting slop as if it’s clever or correct? There is no ‘self’ possessed by [a] language; it is not a pure ‘object’ ‘out-there’ and separable from the people who use it.

    It would seem that your naturalist (anti-theist mimicking) approach to linguistics sadly does not allow you to think any other way; but my anthropic reflexivity *does* allow for that, as it does for most human-social scientists who aren’t just aping natural-physical scientists. Honestly, Piotr, fellow scholar, please think carefully through what ‘dehumanisation’ might actually mean when you advocate anti-theist Polish-English linguistics.

    Your report back here on dehumanisation would be much appreciated. Maybe even start your own thread about it?

    The ideological evolutionist approach, and certainly ‘literary Darwinism’ based on naturalism, is a prime example of dehumanisation. Perhaps the most disturbing one, in contrast with roboticism and post-humanism.

    The ‘spontaneous’ and ‘unguided’, ‘accidental’ and ‘illogical’ schtick English linguist Piotr is pushing is actually rather silly in global agent-influenced realms because human beings live and act predominantly with purpose, plan, goals, intents, etc. It is thus completely reasonable and understandable for 90-95% of humanity to reject Piotr’s speculative ‘scholarship’ that is based on ideology opposed both to his religious countrymen and countrywomen, but also to most people’s theologies/worldviews worldwide. Trying to propagandise anti-theist evolutionistic linguistics as ‘good science’ when it is really just flimsy ideology brings a disservice to humanity. Poland should be no exception to this academic ethic.

    But if you’re going to continue to act like an impersonal natural-physical scientist in a human-social realm ([English] linguistics), Piotr, like a real obvious and irresponsible objectifier of human language, then no convincing you of the agency-orientedness of language will work. Perhaps others might think twice. You’ve nonetheless declared yourself immune to reasoning, even outside of Polish rationality. It is *only* ‘evolutionist’ ideology, even in linguistics, that arrests your attention. Or maybe that is a character (non-natural) oversight?

    Only by taking a merely statistical approach to agents, which discounts their agency, does your approach make any sense…and still it is a very weak explanatory among decision-making people. Once agency is included, your agent-empty linguistic ideology simply must change (or face embracing unreality). For most people, everyday citizens, when looking at historical language change even today, intentional agency is not so easily discounted and for the responsible human-social scientist (in contrast with the naturalist poser), it simply cannot be denied.

    In the previous post I twice mentioned neologisms. Piotr’s position seems to be that ‘they just happen’, i.e. by accident, chance or anomaly; ‘evolutionarily.’ In my perspective, that is nonsense; they are usually intentional, with inherent reasons by people in their choices to neologise.

  15. Mung:

    explain. please. non natural evolution is a search?

    Sorry, you’ll have to do your attention whore trolling elsewhere.

  16. Mung:

    explain. please. non natural evolution is a search?

    Sorry, you’ll have to do your attention whore trolling elsewhere.

  17. hotshoe_

    Fuck that shit.

    Not my thing. But if that’s what gets you off…

  18. Mung,

    I thought you’d care to know as you had commented before and been quite opinionated. Any particular reason you’re pissy now? 😉

  19. Richardthughes:

    Avoiding any threads, Mung?

    Why your posts don’t end up in Guano is beyond me. Now that the slum lord is back there are no slums?

  20. OMagain:

    You obviously have a lot of hate in you (insert basically anything you’ve said to non-ID supporters at UD quote here). Have you discarded your religion accordingly?

    Well, first and foremost, you’re a liar. That’s a form of hate. You’re a hater.

    But no, I have not discarded my religion, and why would I?

    I am a Christian. If I fail to live up to what it means to be a Christian that is not a reason to discard Christianity. That’s just silly talk.

    But someone who hates and has no reason to change? Fear that person.

  21. Mung:
    OMagain:

    Well, first and foremost, you’re a liar. That’s a form of hate. You’re a hater.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Mote. Beam. Eye.

    Take your pick.

  22. Waaaambulance, Phoodoo. Can you get anything right? I see you dodged my question. Is that a defense mechanism born of being wrong all the time?

  23. Mung: Is the hate for Muslims here just not as strong as the hate for Christians?

    For you and phoodoo I mostly just feel pity. A sad waste of potentially productive lives.
    When you do something worthy of hate I’l be sure to let you know.

  24. How much ‘CSI’ is calculable for the identity crisis that stcordova seems to be currently experiencing (after apparently having lost his posting priviledges at UD) from acknowledging the ‘positive case’ delusions of ‘IDists’ and ‘YECists’ while at the same time doggedly claiming that he an IDist & YECist? Would anyone offer a CSI number? Is there a CSI number why he avoids the psychology of denying a ‘positive case’ for IDism & YECism while at the same time embracing it?

    Right on cue, stcordova is back to coin tossing! 😉 Yet for some strange unspoken reason, he simply won’t address the problems with ideology that he has (perhaps unknowingly) identified about himself in his IDist YECism. stcordova is thus a classic case of a man who doesn’t yet recognise that he can be an orthodox man of faith and still reject both YECism & IDism as ideologies that damage and distort more than they benefit or elevate Abrahamic theists.

    Is stcordova as gullible, naïve & full of hubris as Dembski was to suggest a human being can ‘eliminate chance’, regardless of what wiser men than Dembski have warned about such simplistic logic?!

  25. Joe Felsenstein: There are of course many studies where people have measured the differences in fitness between animals (or plants, or protists, or bacteria) with different phenotypes, and/or different genotypes.

    No there is not Joe. Another one of your lies.

    There are studies that show what happens to bacteria in petri dishes.

  26. phoodoo: No there is not Joe. Another one of your lies

    Please read the rules of the blog Phoodoo as you are trouble following them.
    Now I’ll watch a know-nothing with an expensive watch get schooled by a scientist.

    Do you think you are helping ID, Phoodoo? Are you the best they’ve got?

  27. Text removed from Mung’s OP Here

    Well, not just that, I also think Elizabeth is being dishonest [EDIT: but not deliberately misleading: dishonest, defn. not worthy of trust or belief].

Comments are closed.