Guano (2)

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.

[New page 30485 created as an antidote to the page bug – AF]

396 Replies to “Guano (2)”

  1. phoodoo says:

    Robert Byers,

    Robert,

    When Patrick says its intentional abuse He knows a thing or two (or three yo) about intentional abuse!

    Is there anyone on this site who knows more about intentional abuse than Patrick? I mean he has probably informed all of the schools in his area about child abuse. Probably his neighbors too!

    Patrick not only knows intentional abuse, he practices what he preaches. And practices, and practices. Carnivals, ChuckECheese,… look where he practices is not important. The pointy is, animal balloons don’t make themselves, but if you can get some animals and some balloons (and maybe some Nutella), Patrick is here to tell you, he won’t just tell you what is child abuse, he will put on a one man (or two soon to be men) stage show complete with hand signs for the hearing impaired (do you think he is prejudiced), and evil goblins that will scare your knickers off.

    So don’t you dare question Patrick’s experience with child abuse. He is the Pied Piper in green leotards, with the velcro openings, of child abuse, ok?

  2. phoodoo says:

    dazz,

    Is it worse than the Pied Piper teaching them?

    When Patrick says its intentional abuse He knows a thing or two (or three yo) about intentional abuse!

    Is there anyone on this site who knows more about intentional abuse than Patrick? I mean he has probably informed all of the schools in his area about child abuse. Probably his neighbors too!

    Patrick not only knows intentional abuse, he practices what he preaches. And practices, and practices. Carnivals, ChuckECheese,… look where he practices is not important. The pointy is, animal balloons don’t make themselves, but if you can get some animals and some balloons (and maybe some Nutella), Patrick is here to tell you, he won’t just tell you what is child abuse, he will put on a one man (or two soon to be men) stage show complete with hand signs for the hearing impaired (do you think he is prejudiced), and evil goblins that will scare your knickers off.

    So don’t you dare question Patrick’s experience with child abuse. He is the Pied Piper in green leotards, with the velcro openings, of child abuse, ok?

  3. Frankie Frankie says:

    Is it our fault you’re too dumb to know ice is made of water?

    LoL! Water turns into ice and ice turns into water. They have different matrix and different surface tensions.. They are not the same. By your “logic” we can say water is made from ice

    Is it our fault you dishonestly equivocate over two different definitions of ‘code’?

    That is a lie as that never happened

    Is it our fault you don’t understand transcription and translation are both complicated chemical reactions that wouldn’t work with just any arbitrarily selected materials for codons?

    That is a retarded statement. The genetic code is arbitrary in that it is not reducible to mere physics and chemistry. So again yours is a retarded statement

  4. phoodoo says:

    TristanM:
    It is certainly an abuse of Sal”s position of authority over children

    This post is against the rules, according to Patrick’s new rules.

  5. phoodoo says:

    Mung: I doubt that I ever said you were ignorant in that thread, that would be against the rules. I actually think you are quite intelligent. So if I did, I apologize.

    Sorry Mung, I just want to inform you, Patrick has rewritten the rules. Your post is addressing Sal, this is now against the rules, according to Patrick.

    You will need to adjust going forward. So will Patrick, as he always addresses the poster.

  6. phoodoo says:

    Adapa: Yes you do say some amazingly retarded things.

    We’ll be looking forward to your published scientific research where you take a Lego gene and have it produce a Lego amino acid.The material doesn’t matter in FrankenJoe land, remember?

    Sorry Adapa, this is now against the rules (actually your posts breaks several rules, some that already existed).

    Patrick says all posts must now address only the post, so your is clearly in violation. Just wanted to help you out.

  7. phoodoo says:

    walto: Sal says he read Russell and the idea of a world without redemption, etc. Made him feel bad. So he decided on a different view–one that made him feel better.

    He was honest about it…for a minute, which is longer than most theists can manage.

    Walto, please understand, your post is in violation of Patrick’s new rule, which says all posts must only address other posts, and not the person posting them.

    In this post, you appear to be talking about Sal, so that would of course be against Patricks new rule, which he sometimes applies.

    Just wanted to let you know. I am addressing your post, not you.

  8. phoodoo says:

    newton: Did you arrive at your belief because of the EV of Christianity?

    Are you asking about Sal? That is not addressing the post, I am afraid. His beliefs are irrelevant.

    You must address his post, not him.

    Again, I am talking about your post here.

  9. phoodoo says:

    dazz: Many theists also haven’t run their numbers. Namely those smart enough to know that pulling figures out of one’s ass is a futile exercise

    Again, please see Patrick’s new rule in moderation.

    Thanks.

  10. Adapa says:

    keiths:
    What’s your beef, Mung?He was commenting on the illustration and the stentorian title:

    Since when has Mung needed an excuse to behave like a horse’s ass?

  11. Frankie Frankie says:

    DNA_Jock: The primary rule is “assume good faith”

    LoL! Evos do not exhibit “good faith”

  12. phoodoo says:

    Dr. Moron,

    When are you going to explain to Mung why your very first question is asking about a “non-photosynthetic chemoautotrophs” when all chemoautotrophs are by definition not using photosynthesis?

    Its like saying, how many non-arthropod giraffe species are native to Africa. Wait, its even more Moronic than that, its like asking how many organic non-arthropod ungulate type giraffe species are native to Africa?

    You are a teacher, right Mr. Moron?

  13. phoodoo says:

    Patrick:
    Moved a comment to Guano.Calling other people names, no matter how cleverly you think you’re doing it, is against the rules.

    Calling someone an IDiot is Ok though right Patrick? Fat is also Ok right? Chubs? Portly?

    Please let me know which names we are allowed to call people here Patrick. Because I think you are a child abuser.

  14. phoodoo says:

    Phoodoo wrote:

    Dr. Moron,

    When are you going to explain to Mung why your very first question is asking about a “non-photosynthetic chemoautotrophs” when all chemoautotrophs are by definition not using photosynthesis?

    Its like saying, how many non-arthropod giraffe species are native to Africa. Wait, its even more Moronic than that, its like asking how many organic non-arthropod ungulate type giraffe species are native to Africa?

    You are a teacher, right Mr. Moron?

    newton: Unfortunately for you phoo, not a miracle worker

    I guess I could have just called Moran a Fat Idiot, then Patrick would have had to be even more of a hypocrite to move my post, since it has been established that we are allowed to call people that here. Also child abuser is ok. So Moran is a Fat Idiot Child Abuser, just like Patrick. All of those are within the rules, right?

  15. dazz dazz says:

    stcordova: according to the gospel of Larry.

    You know when you, creos, use terms like gospel, or religious in a derogatory sense to mock evolution, we can only point at laugh at you, right? Do you realise that exposes your pathetic inferiority complex?

  16. phoodoo says:

    dazz: You know when you, creos, use terms like gospel, or religious in a derogatory senseto mock evolution, we can only point at laugh at you, right? Do you realise that exposes your pathetic inferiority complex?

    Remember when Alan removed Frankies post because he claimed it was insulting to evolutionists?

    Yea, me too.

    He will probably forget though.

  17. newton says:

    phoodoo: I guess I could have just called Moran a Fat Idiot, then Patrick would have had to be even more of a hypocrite to move my post, since it has been established that we are allowed to call people that here. Also child abuser is ok. So Moran is a Fat Idiot Child Abuser, just like Patrick. All of those are within the rules, right?

    If it bothers you quit doing it, if it doesn’t quit whining about it.

  18. dazz dazz says:

    phoodoo: Remember when Alan removed Frankies post because he claimed it was insulting to evolutionists?

    Yea, me too.

    He will probably forget though.

    Butthurt much?

  19. phoodoo says:

    newton: If it bothers you quit doing it, if it doesn’t quit whining about it.

    Or just play by Patrick’s rules? You know, Fat Patrick, the Idiot child abuser?

  20. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox: Just in case you were thinking they did, as you apparently think they have intentions.

    Lizzie had intentions for this blog, Alan. Perhaps you should read about those for ten first time. Just click on “about this site” and “Rules”. It’s all there and you and yours don’t follow what she had in mind

  21. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano. Moderation issues should be raised in the appropriate thread.

    The post you moved didn’t have anything to do with moderation

  22. Frankie Frankie says:

    Alan Fox: Just in case you were thinking they did, as you apparently think they have intentions.

    Lizzie had intentions for this blog, Alan. Perhaps you should read about those for ten first time. Just click on “about this site” and “Rules”. It’s all there and you and yours don’t follow what she had in mind

  23. Patrick Patrick says:

    stcordova: Accusations of lying, Patrick?

    No, an observation of lying by omission.

    Your history is your undoing, again. You know the scientific consensus, and how strongly it is supported by the evidence, because you’ve have the opportunity to have your nonsense addressed by numerous experts over the years. You avoid presenting that consensus and evidence because it solidly refutes your ridiculous YEC beliefs.

    You’re not a good person.

  24. Frankie Frankie says:

    Take a look at dazz’s ignorant spewage:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/book-release-naturalism-and-its-alternatives/comment-page-4/#comment-164158

    And now we know that dazz is not only ignorant but also a coward

  25. Frankie Frankie says:

    TristanM: Find me a single forensic scientist who has any earthly clue what CSI or a UPB are and how to use them in their field of work.As far as I can tell there are none.Likewise, ID proponents aren’t seeking to identify human-specified activity exactly, but design by something else entirely.

    Totally clueless. Thank you for admitting that you fibbed. CSI and UPB are ONE method and not the only methodology ID has. The explanatory filter is standard operating procedure used by anyone who is investigating root causes.

  26. PaV says:

    AhmedKiaan,

    Ahmed, once an idiot, always an idiot.

  27. Frankie Frankie says:

    Finally Richie has given up on trying to pretend to be honest. (Kind of strange there is a blog post here titled How to Test Intelligent Design )

  28. Frankie Frankie says:

    Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    This is an excellent example, thank you. Open your playbooks at #75: “Take a phrase from the last post and turn it around. Click ‘post’, doing a kind of self-satisfied head-wobble as you do so.”.

    Blame your empty-headed rhetoric. I bet you do that self-satisfied head-wobble every time you post

  29. Frankie Frankie says:

    So Richie can’t actually formulate an argument? No surprise there. Richie cannot do what it asks of others? No surprise there.

    All Richie can do is spew false accusations. Again, no surprise there.

  30. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    Another keiths keeper! Anyone else here adopt positions based on the argument that their position can’t be refuted?

    Both walto and KN have stated that they can’t refute it. If you think that you — of all people — actually know of a refutation, then let’s hear it.

    But remember, Cartesian Skepticism isn’t about the veridicality of the senses.

    Here’s what I wrote, doofus:

    The initial problem was getting you and KN to understand what Cartesian skepticism actually is. KN kept mistaking it, again and again, for the claim that the senses are not veridical. It isn’t.

    You don’t even see the difference, do you?

  31. Adapa says:

    FrankenJoe is still hung up trying to explain how blind and mindless gravity, blind and mindless erosion, blind and mindless plate tectonics all work. It got his tiny little toaster repairman brain all confusimicated. 😀

  32. Frankie Frankie says:

    newton, I don’t think that I am winning. There isn’t any doubt about it. Robin is frantically trying to define its way out of having to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That alone proves you guys aren’t interested in science, which requires that the claims be testable and tested.

    You people have to be the biggest intellectual cowards ever

  33. Frankie Frankie says:

    davemullenix: I thought you didn’t speak imbecile.

    No, but I am sure that you do

  34. keiths keiths says:

    Dear Jesus,

    You must have been scraping the bottom of the barrel when you accepted Mung as a follower. I know you’re all about loving “the least among you”, but even you must have a lower limit.

    If you’re having second thoughts and would like to offload Mung, I hear that the Scientologists are short of members these days. Don’t worry about the believability issue — Mung will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

    Sincerely,
    KeithS

  35. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    Both Patrick and keiths appear to be confused. Patrick seems to think the problem is the logical problem, keiths denies his argument has the nature of the logical problem, yet Patrick appeals to statements by keiths in support of his [allegedly] mistaken notion that the problem is the logical problem.

    Far be it from keiths to post any correction that might clearly contradict anything Patrick says. It’s the way the game is played here at “The Skeptical Zone.”

    Keep in mind that by all indications, Patrick is far more intelligent than you are, and capable of grasping the fact that the logical problem of evil is just a limiting case of the evidential problem.

    If someone actually produced a good rationale for a benevolent God’s tolerance of evil and suffering — say, if Vincent’s “promise defense” had actually worked — then I’m confident that Patrick could see the implications and take that into account.

    With you it’s the opposite. I have to spell everything out for you, including the obvious, and even then you don’t get it because your reading comprehension is so poor (see the preceding comment).

  36. keiths keiths says:

    The second pointlessly guanoed comment can be found here.

  37. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Stop inventing your own rules and stick to Lizzie’s.

    I shouldn’t need to remind a moderator, of all people, that there is no rule against linking to guanoed comments.

    There is also no rule requiring complaints to be lodged in the Moderation Issues thread. And even if there were such a rule, it would be idiotic to guano a comment based on the single word ‘pointlessly’, as you have done.

    Back off, Alan.

    Here is a link to the second comment guanoed by Neil.

  38. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Stop abusing your moderator privileges. You are bound by the rules, just like the other moderators.

    Here is a link to the comment that Alan just guanoed, and another to the earlier comment that was guanoed by Neil.

  39. keiths keiths says:

    KN,

    The fact remains that doubts based on logical possibilities that cannot to logically refuted are still artificial doubts that cannot play any role in regulating or improving actual epistemic practice. They are not the kinds of genuine doubt that can lead to improvemebts in inquiry, whether scientific, ethical, political, etc. They are idle doubts.

    Your tendentious use of “artificial”, “not genuine”, and “idle” is noted. However, these are real doubts that you have been unable to refute, logically or otherwise.

    To ask the question “What can we know, and how?” is extremely important philosophically. Your unease regarding the answer is no reason to lie to yourself about the importance of the question.

  40. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist says:

    keiths:
    Your unease regarding the answer is no reason to lie to yourself about the importance of the question.

    And with that unnecessarily personal remark, I’m putting keiths on ignore from now on.

  41. Mung Mung says:

    Kantian Naturalist: And with that unnecessarily personal remark, I’m putting keiths on ignore from now on.

    I’ll be sure to quote him if he says anything interesting. But it could be awhile.

  42. keiths keiths says:

    As if Mung, of all people, would be in a position to judge.

  43. keiths keiths says:

    This is the third time that KN has flounced from a discussion of Cartesian skepticism. Apart from a short-term self-righteous glow, what does it gain him?

    Here’s some advice I gave him after the second flounce:

    KN,

    By flouncing, deflouncing, and reflouncing, you’ve put yourself in an awkward position. You want to engage my argument, but you can’t address me directly lest you lose face by deflouncing yet again. Hence the need to refer to me in the third person in a comment directed ostensibly to walto.

    Why not drop the pretense, address me directly, and chalk it up to a lesson learned?

    The moral of the story: Think before flouncing. It may have undesirable consequences for you.

  44. keiths keiths says:

    KN,

    While you’re off in Flounceland, please take some time to ponder why you get so emotional and irrational about Cartesian skepticism. Why, for instance, did you write that Cartesian skepticism is “existentially devastating and utterly nihilistic with regard to all thought, meaning, and value”, when that is obviously false?

    Could we have less of “KN as drama queen” and more of “KN as philosopher”, please?

  45. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    It’s too late for you to walk back the lie, and lying about the lie just makes things all the worse for you.

    Don’t lie next time. If doing the right thing isn’t motivation enough, then remind yourself of this episode and how crappy you felt when you got caught.

  46. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    Now look at the rest of that sentence:

    Novel functions can be achieved with little or no change in functional information.

    And the next sentence:

    Any claims that nature can produce a non-­‐trivial, statistically significant gain in functional information needs to be supported by some actual numbers.

    Intelligent folks can see what Durston is getting at. Why can’t you?

  47. Tom English Tom English says:

    keiths:

    I agree with you entirely, up to this point:

    Intelligent folks can see what Durston is getting at. Why can’t you?

    Please don’t do that here.

    Mung: Please do not go tit-for-tat.

  48. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    Read this again.

    You wrote a program. It failed because it ran out of memory. You gave up at that point.

    Afterwards, you got caught lying about the fact that the program ran out of memory.

    Dazz and I diagnosed the problem, and I fixed your program for you. Now it works.

    End of story. Time to move on with your life.

  49. keiths keiths says:

    Mung,

    If you want respect, you’ll have to earn it like everyone else.

    Want to be seen as honest? Then be honest.

    When you get caught lying, and then lie about lying, and then lie about getting caught lying, you aren’t doing yourself any favors.

    Want to be seen as a competent programmer? Then learn to be a competent programmer.

    You’ve learned some languages and some tools, which is good. But that doesn’t make you a competent programmer, any more than knowing English and how to type makes you a competent novelist.

    You gave up when your program failed due to running out of memory. Good programmers know how to debug and fix problems. Dazz and I had to do it for you.

    And again, lying about all of this isn’t doing your tattered reputation any good.

    Crave respect? Then be worthy of it for a change.

  50. keiths keiths says:

    The answer to your three questions is that you’re playing the keithsian game of misrepresentation here.

    walto,

    Why is dishonesty your tactic of first resort? Couldn’t you at least try to act like a genuine philosopher, for once?

    I understand that you regret your earlier position, which you now regard as weird and ridiculous. That’s fine; you’re free to change it. Don’t pretend that you didn’t hold it, however.

    For one thing, moral values seem to me to have to be a matter of what it would be (morally) good to occur. So it’s a contradiction in terms to call them “actual states of affairs”: they’re certainly not that.

    You know perfectly well what I said:

    In other words, your position was that objective morality was derivable from a state of affairs, and that when that state of affairs changed, so would objective morality.

    [Emphasis added]

    Again, why immediately resort to dishonesty? Don’t you see how it backfires on you?

    My questions stand:

    1. How did you manage to stumble into a position that you now regard as weird, ridiculous, and on the fringe?

    2. How did you manage to forget that you had taken that position?

    3. What happened that caused you to completely reverse yourself?

Comments are closed.