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.

939 thoughts on “Guano

  1. @ Gregory

    You mean ‘naturalistic,’ ‘materialistic’ or ‘physicalistic’ origin-of-life theories instead, don’t you? That’s what ‘reality-based’ means to you and most others here at TSZ.

    Alan Fox’s atheism demonstrated as moderator at TSZ. That’s what this place has sadly come to be about.

    Just for the record, it wasn’t me who moved your comment to guano. Where your posts let you down is you keep assuming what others are thinking rather than asking them.

  2. petrushka:
    I simply don’t believe William. If his wife gets appendicitis or a toothache, she will be taken to a modern medical practitioner.

    William’s faith healing is only relevant when the doctors have given up.

    Looks like gauno to me.

  3. What you and everyone else here demands is that category B be examined in the same way, with the same assumptions and mental framework as that which works for category A.

    No, I asked for another method to reliably determine that “category B” exists. You just repeated your appalling belief in junk that can’t be reliably studied, as if that were in question.

    Why don’t you just admit that you have nothing but your bias to commend your tripe?

    Glen Davidson

  4. keiths,

    Keith, was this comment intended to illustrate my point?

    Calm down, Walt, for both of our sakes. I would much rather debate someone who is at his intellectual best.

    Please edit this out or I’ll have to move the comment.


    In response to Keith’s comment immediately below, you are assuming Walto is upset and that it is affecting his judgement. It’s unnecessary and provocative. It’s directed at the commenter not the comment.

  5. OK, Alan, but I don’t see how asking someone to calm down is against the rules.

  6. Walt,

    Anyhow, eloquent and clever as Hitchens was, I’m with Holmes on this matter (or at least await something better than the mention of a few Yiddish speaking socialists to convince me.

    Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.

    Jesus, Walt.

  7. Yeah, that’s what I meant, obviously.

    This is why it’s stupid to interact with you. You’re a shmuck, pure and simple.

  8. And ridiculous accusations of keiths(hmendric’s) kind are exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined. It’s hurtful and he’s an annoying dildo that spends most of his time here baiting people.

  9. Moderators,

    Please don’t move Walt’s two comments above to Guano. Yes, they’re clearly in violation of the rules, but no one needs to be protected from them.

    ETA: It looks like I was too late. Here’s a link to the Guano’ed comments.

    ETA2: Also, I’d like to hear an explanation of why my comment was Guano’ed.

  10. But, of course, the world is a better place for these kinds of interchanges, as Hitchens eloquently points out.

  11. keiths,


    Right. As I’ve said here a couple of times, getting called names like shmuck or crazy aren’t actually hurtful. Other stuff is, though. Besides, (i) you’re anonymous, and (ii) I’m guessing you’re aware of these traits of yours. So what the hell? Make a ruckus, get a thrill, who gives a shit.

  12. Thanks for that link. But no links are needed for pointers to keiths’ sophomoric know-it-allisms: you can pretty much pick any thread and any comment of his at random. He’s full of shit pretty much everywhere you look.

  13. “….than on the issue supposedly being discussed.”

    But just what IS the issue being discussed? You were discussing my character, and I’m discussing your character.

  14. There is nothing of any intellectual worth here. I think you’re a sophomoric nudnik who likes to bait people. You think I hate “Yids.” My view is correct, yours is ridiiculous, but so what? It’s my view the whole confab is useless fighting, Drivel. The theory of this site is that “it’s all good.” Moderators move stuff they don’t like–like “Calm down, Walt” and leave other stuff, because, as I’ve said, it’s impossible to set forth rules against being obno. So if no one is thrown out, one of us will leave. And you will be able continue to tell people just how much smarter you are than Alvin Plantinga (which I know is very important to you) without me calling bullshit on your bogus “arguments.” So, congrats.

  15. keiths: ETA2: Also, I’d like to hear an explanation of why my comment was Guano’ed.

    I moved that, and the others. I’ll shortly move some more. It should be obvious why I moved those.

    I have (I think) removed the ability of keiths and walt to post. I’ll revisit that tomorrow. Consider it a 24 hour cooling off period.

    [I moved this to Guano, too, since it is a reply to a message in Guano.]

  16. “What does that have to do with our dispute? You told us that you’re “with Holmes on this matter”, and that you need something “better” than the false imprisonment of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” to make you reconsider.”

    Yeah, right, dickhead, I wrote that I need something “better” than the false imprisonment of a few “Yiddish speaking socialists” to make me reconsider. Excellent use of selective quotation. Go “fuck” yourself.

  17. And, I remind you, what our dispute is actually about is our respective characters. I say that you’re an arrogant asshole, and you say that I’m disrespectful of “Yids.” I invite everyone here to judge for themselves on this terribly important matter which illustrates the extreme importance of Hitchens’ “argument” regarding the horror of prohibiting people from yelling “fire” in crowded theaters where there is no fire. My “counterargument” (I know you love those) is that you are a sophomoric asshole with no real interest in much except baiting people with whom you disagree because you enjoy this kind of thing.

  18. Neil, what you did was eminently sensible. I would have continued to point out keith’s stupidity and dickishness for another half-hour to no one’s benefit except my own. As to your suggestion that we continue this via email, I think that’s also very sensible, and I’d be happy to do that if I had keiths’ email address. He, however, enjoys making a public dick of himself, so I’m guessing (and his re-baiting above confirms this) that he’d much prefer to continue here.

  19. keiths:

    You didn’t answer my question,which was:

    You seem to be arguing that it is somehow illogical for Hitchens to warn about the unintended consequences of censorship laws, but you never explained why. Could you elaborate?

    How does Hitchens’ warning amount to “Christopher’s brand of illogic”?

    Sorry, boyo, your questions are as boring as Christopher was.

    IF you’d like, do feel free to be more interesting.

  20. Condensed version of my exchange with hotshoe:


    What a terrible speech. Hitchens was so illogical.


    Really? How was he being illogical?


    What a boring question.

    Well, that was persuasive. You could’ve taught Hitchens a thing or two about rhetoric, couldn’t you, hotshoe?

  21. keiths: Condensed version of my exchange with hotshoe:


    What a terrible speech. Hitchens was so illogical.


    Really? How was he being illogical?


    What a boring question.

    Well, that was persuasive. You could’ve taught Hitchens a thing or two about rhetoric, couldn’t you, hotshoe?

    Heh, exactly the response I (privately) predicted from you.

    Can’t you at least try to be a little interesting in the future?

  22. Patrick, to walto:

    I suggest you take responsibility for your own experience here.

    Yes, it’s really all about taking responsibility.

    Hotshoe sneers at “Christopher’s brand of illogic”, which is fine. But when she’s asked to take responsibility and support her statement, she suddenly finds the question too “boring” to answer.

    It’s a shame that it’s so boring to take responsiblility for your statements, isn’t it, hotshoe?

    Neil volunteers for the role of moderator, oversteps his authority, and is called on it. Yet there is not a word of explanation from him for why he felt free to invent a new rule instead of sticking to Lizzie’s. No word from him on whether he still feels he was right to do so, or whether he now recognizes that he was wrong and will refrain from inventing new rules in the future. And still no explanation from him of why he Guano’ed my two comments, whether he still thinks that was the right decision, and why; or if not, whether and when he will rectify it.

    Like hotshoe, Neil is refusing to take responsibility.

    And walto, of course, throws out accusations without taking responsibility for them, as I just demonstrated. And though he claims I am wrong about Plantinga, he refuses to say why. Like hotshoe, he enjoys tossing out criticisms without taking responsibility for backing them up. Perhaps he is as bored by this sort of responsibility as she is.

    The three of you are responsible for what you write (and in Neil’s case, do) here, just like the rest of us. If we accept responsibility for our statements and actions, why won’t you?

  23. keiths:
    [snipped expansive tedium]… refusing to take responsibility … [snipped expansive tedium]

    I see this whole comment of yours is guano.

    If you are not getting replies which satisfy your demands, that still does not give you warrant for breaking the very first rule of this site:
    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.

  24. No sign of William for a couple of days.

    I wonder if he has become “satisfied with the debate” and left with his tail tucked satisfyingly between his legs.

  25. keiths: This entire discussion wouldn’t have happened if Alan had simply left it up to William to decide whether he wanted to complain.


  26. “Evolution scores again.”

    That could be the idiotic title of this Blog by Elizabeth Liddle, yes. She’ll come back eventually of course, not as busy as many others who are more philosophy competent and engaged than she is.

  27. Steve,

    Lol, the anonymous poster known here as ‘keiths’ appears to be incorrigibly obtuse and dispiriting (thinking that loud and repetitive equates with right). It’s proud, posturing and arrogant obtuse and materialistic, granted. But it sure doesn’t seem to be what Elizabeth Liddle had in mind calling this site TSZ, as quasi-Buddhist as she is.

  28. Whatever happened to Elizabeth Liddle? She was hot!

    I suspect that she has been distracted by the real world.

    How unfortunate a loss for us all.

    (She was hot! Did I say that?!)

  29. Rock:
    Whatever happened to Elizabeth Liddle? She was hot!

    I suspect that she has been distracted by the real world.

    How unfortunate a loss for us all.

    (She was hot! Did I say that?!)

    Jesus fuck, Rock. Are you an ignorant sexist pig or are you a deliberate sexist pig?

  30. walto:

    (I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but you think that EVERY proposition you don’t agree with is incoherent –as well as “obviously and unequivocally” false–in spite of both your oft-claimed fallibalism [sic] and your prettiness.)

    C’mon, walto. The idea of a god isn’t incoherent — it just isn’t supported by the evidence. Likewise for the idea that terrestrial life is designed, or that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this season.

    Making stuff up doesn’t score you points, it just makes you look pitiful. Is that what you want?

  31. keiths:

    C’mon, walto.The idea of a god isn’t incoherent — it just isn’t supported by the evidence.Likewise for the idea that terrestrial life is designed, or that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this season.

    Making stuff up doesn’t score you points, it just makes you look pitiful.Is that what you want?

    Trust me, it’s very hard for any of us to come to terms with the fact that we may look pitiful, when we know you’re so pretty.

    BTW, my own (pitiful looking) mind has often (no doubt confusedly!) suggested to me that most ideas of God–including those seen in these parts–actually ARE incoherent. But you non-pitiful-looking people probably know better, being all obvious, unequivocal, incontrovertible and, especially, pretty.

    Best wishes always,


  32. phoodoo:
    Gee Jock, doesn’t this present a problem for the WHOLE POINT being discussed?


    You not getting the point is a huge problem when we try to debate with you.

    phoodoo: What do you mean to a degree?

    Fitness is not an absolute condition, imbecile!!!!

    “In this contexts, “fit” refers to “most well adapted to the current environment,” which differs from common notions of the binary ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’”

    phoodoo: And what do you mean depending on their location?

    That you are an idiot who doesn’t understand that survival depends on the conditions an individual faces.

    phoodoo: This is the whole point professor.

    Yes, it is: your question is extremely vague and you pretend to make a point with that. We described you a real experiment, asshole. And you also asked about the conditions of the experiment. And if we ask about the conditions of your example it’s wrong? You are an asshole, man.

    phoodoo: They are fit until they are not fit.


    phoodoo: Fitness is a rubberized concept which changes with every possible circumstance. You don’t know the circumstance until you have the circumstance

    Way to go, fucking genious. A medical diagnosis changes from patient to patient, and you don’t know it until you study the patient and know the diagnosis. Medicine is not science, according to you? Is medicine a tautology?

    phoodoo: So you are the one who avoided the question-how do you eliminate luck from your description of fitness

    No, you arethe idiot who has ignored our answer: SAMPLE SIZE!!!!!

    phoodoo: Steve just reiterated that survival and fitness mean the same thing. The exact same thing!

    Yes, you moron!!! The point is checking if it depends on the characteristics of the organisms. How many times are we gonna have to say this for you to get it?

    phoodoo: But in this (non existent) theory that the best will survive better than the worst, the VERY DEFINITION of the best, are the ones who survived. THAT is your tautology professor

    Good!! Because it’s fucking wrong!!! Survival is the way WE DETECT the best. But they are the best because of their characteristics!!

    Again, chloroquine example. Chloroquine resistant parasites have a higher survival rate: they are the best. They are the best BECAUSE THEY ARE RESISTANT TO CHLOROQUINE, ASSHOLE, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER SURVIVAL RATE!!!

  33. Guillermoe,

    There is a reason why I don’t bother responding to you most of the time. It is clear to me that you are not well educated on the subject I am discussing, so its kind of pointless. You think that if you just read wikipedia, you must have some kind of answer. Everything you have ever believed you have learned, you get from wikipedia, or you just make some wild guess and hope it sounds right.

    You write things like this, without knowing what it even means:
    “the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist”

    How do you test if something is fitness impacting? I will tell you, you test it by seeing if it survives. Therefore everything that survives and passes on its genes is fit. Because the definition of being fit is surviving and passing on your genes. Just because Steve says that unfit organisms survive, and fit ones sometimes don’t doesn’t make it so. If an unfit organism survives, by what standard are you saying it is unfit? Because previously other organisms with the same genes didn’t survive?

    Again, I am not really asking you because I a waiting for you to answer this, I am simply showing you that you are wrong. But it gives me no pleasure to show when you are wrong. Its boring. Its pointless. You have no ideas to present which pose a dilemma or starting point for discussion. You post things, and then ask Steve or Joe or Jock, Is that right, did what I say make sense?

    You can google wikipedia, that is the extent of the contribution you can provide here. I got news for you, Wikipedia is not the final word on knowledge. Its not even an accurate source of knowledge. In fact Wikipedia is INTENTIONALLY a biased source of information, with an actual agenda to promote a worldview in line with its founder. That is not a conspiracy theory, its well documented. But you don’t know this, because you don’t think, you copy and paste. Wikipedia can’t make you think.

    The fact you actually think Wikipedia is an accurate source of knowledge shows me just how uneducated you are about the subject. Before I didn’t really feel like insulting you by telling you how dumb I think you are. But now I don’t mind.

  34. Richardthughes,


    I don’t mean to brag, but my Aunt one time gave Billy Beanes father a blow job in the back of his Volkswagen van, so I think I know a little more about Sabermetrics than you do!

    BTW, do you know WHY Beane got a job as a scout? Because he was PREDICTED to be a baseball star as a first round pick, and flopped. Whoops Keith!

  35. “I follow Brandom too closely”

    Well, indeed that’s possible.

    It’s ironic that Carl Sachs is currently employed by Marymount University with its “Direct Us by Thy Light” (Tua Luce Dirige) motto as he continues to push naturalism (cum empiricism) and atheism/agnosticism in his works. The disenchantment from TSZ’s resident philosophist still reverberates electronically. Like Georgetown before, they must have been desperate for philosophistry.

    Any suggestions that KN could possibly elevate seem to hit rock bottom. The secular Jewish story KN told of himself here seems to anchor the disenchantment. ‘Skeptical’ in this sense means skeptical of theism, not skeptical of atheism. Even skepticism has its limits in this worldview.

    Return again to hugging KN at TSZ, cherish the disenchantment, because elevation of spirit is obviously not what his nihilistic philosophistry has to offer. Elsewhere perhaps you’ll find what his ‘Kantian Naturalism’ is blind to recognise and embrace.

Comments are closed.