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 as links no longer work properly on Guano (2)]
Post n° 56711
Look Sal, I am sure there are a lot of dark skinned people like you that actually work hard and don’t rape white girls. There must be. But frankly, I don’t like my tax dollars going to them, just because they have never been caught stealing cars in east L.A.
Do you know we send 300 million dollars in aid every year south of the border, so those deadbeats can use that money to buy avocados and then sneak through the desert like rattlesnakes to come steal American jobs and suck off America’s tit?
I notice you didn’t mention anything about border security when you said where you want your tax dollars going. And when your cousins come here to sell burritos, who is going to teach them English, you expect the government to do that? Aren’t there enough Americans who want to get into colleges now as it is, we gotta let those who didn’t help build America take those spots?
When is enough enough Sal?
Especially when they’re true, and made by someone whom Alan personally dislikes. So the truth gets moved to guano, and the lie remains.
As everyone reading this knows, you did not move this comment for the sake of TSZ.
You did it for Alan.
Are you pitiful enough to move this comment, too?
You are pitiful, Alan.
And as I keep reminding you, you are not obligated to guano rule-violating posts. Nor are you obligated to “remind” people of the rules, particularly when they are speaking the truth, as Woodbine was.
(And if you had any sense, you would guano much less often, and much more fairly, than you do. TSZ runs more smoothly when you are occupied elsewhere and are unable to guano. Ponder that.)
Glen, otoh, is just aggressively obnoxious.
Still vomiting out that blatant lie even after the dozen of so ways to falsify evolution you were provided?
Why do you think lying for Jesus is acceptable adult behavior?
Let him make a fool of himself. Guanoing would accomplish nothing.
You’re indulging your grudge, Alan. Why not act for TSZ’s benefit instead?
Phoodoo; Tom is clueless as he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement… Don’t waste your time and wait for my Mystery #17 😉
Neither do you. You’ve just read some fancy phrases you have no fucking clue about. You disagree and think you’re a hotshot? Then explain to me in your own words what kind of data can be relayed by utilization of “spooky action at a distance”.
There is only one correct answer. Have fun trying to google it.
So…you, just like Tom, have no idea what QM Joe was talking about?
Nah, but I can recognize a total bullshitter like a candle in the dark. And you my friend, is positively flourescing.
Thanks phoodoo! I missed that one…
Tom is so clueless that it is painful to watch… 🙁
That wasn’t shouting; I was enunciating slowly and clearly so that you could no longer plausibly pretend to misunderstand my question.
Species selection does not cause differences in the speciation rate, John.
The question, yet again, is:
That’s a violation of the rules. It’s also insulting.
The process is called species selection. Just like natural selection, one could argue about whether it should be called a process or a result or a phenomenon or an explanation or whatever. I find such arguments sterile. Of course the cause of differences in speciation rate could be chance, or it could be something that has nothing to do with characteristics of a lineage. Or it could be some characteristic that a lineage possesses, for which there is no selectable variation within the lineage, and that would make species selection*. Again, species selection is analogous to within population selection, except the units of selection are species rather than individuals. It’s a process. The causes of a process may be considered different from the process. As with within-population selection, one might not be able to point to a specific cause of differential reproductive success, but that would be a subject of research. I really don’t like arguing pointless semantics, and that’s all you have here.
*See the Jablonski paper for an example.
You don’t understand the fundamental concepts of Quantum Physics, you claim that quantum entanglement is not basic QM, so how would you understand the concepts that go beyond that involved in mitosis, mutagenesis, etc?
Are you, or the majority of physicist you refer to, ready to discuss backwards causation, nonlinear time concept, illusion of time, infinite dimensions etc?
How about your buddy Joe or other big mouths here?
Don’t be a hypocrite, John.
If you choose to dish it out…
…don’t whine when someone returns the favor.
Joe Felsenstein: The same way quantum mechanics could govern processes such as rocks rolling down a hill. Which it does.
I’m not saying that it is totally impossible for quantum mechanics to be involved in some parts of gravity…After all, Einstein and many other experts today have tried to unify the gravity and quantum mechanics into quantum gravity…
So, if Joe Felseinstein, Tom English or some other arrogant big mouth here has been able to accomplish what the best have not been able to, please let me know…
I will be the first one to bow my head down to the one who receives the Noble Prize for it…
Until then however…
Why did you move my comment and not the others? Don’t you think it is relevant to the discussion going on? I can’t defend my previous comment… obviously…
Tom, to Mung:
Please tell us that you aren’t just now realizing that Mung is a chronic and shameless quote miner. He’s been doing it for ages.
That isn’t even his first quote mine of the day. He did it to John earlier.
Allan, to phoodoo:
I will say what needs to be said:
a) understands evolution, and
b) reads this thread, will
c) conclude that phoodoo couldn’t pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
It was a blatant quote mine. Denying it is just more dishonesty on Mung’s part.
You never learn, do you?
I suppose next you’ll be denying this quote mine, too.
Your bias and inconsistency are showing again, Neil.
You are supposed to be acting on TSZ’s behalf, not your own, when you exercise your moderator privileges.
If you don’t want to be seen as a bottom feeder, then stop acting like one. Your reputation is entirely self-inflicted.
Why don’t you just fuck off J-Mac?
It’s UNIVERSAL common design you doofus.
Don’t worry your little head over it, Mungie. Now run along and play with phoodoo until dinner is ready.
Mung: Right. Sorry. I tend to forget how superior you are. Forgive me.
Everybody in the world is superior to you, including The Human Shit Stain and Edward Feser. Possibly even The Donald Trump.
If you can’t find anything useful to do (and we’ve been waiting over ten years now), you might consider suicide. Think of it as a field trip to heaven.
P.S. Sorry if the above suggestion violates any blog standards, but it’s nothing compared to the damage Mung and Friends have all ready done.
In case you haven’t noticed, phoodoo isn’t around.
You have no idea how stupid that statement sounds to a knowledgeable person, do you?
Exactly. Now run along and play with phoodoo, dear.
A knowledgeable person would agree with me. Obviously.
Educate yourself. Or at least try.
Poor Mung has no idea why I’m laughing at his statement.
I’ve addressed your actions here.
J-Mac, to PaulC:
J-Mac is aiming for “most flounces by a TSZ participant in a single week.”
Sure it does.
Let the grownups talk, Mung.
Mooommmmeeeee! Allan and keiths are making me Google things for myself. But I don’t want to. Don’t want to! Don’t want to! Don’t want to!
Why won’t they spoon-feed me?
Thank you for your opinion.
Please follow Rumraket’s instructions.
Meanwhile, you wrote:
We aren’t. We’re simply addressing it, while you continue to flail about in the weeds. If you aspire to be a “philosophy guy”, you need to cultivate a bit more discipline.
You’re still off in the weeds, failing to grasp what is being discussed, which is Feser’s claim that genuine explanations cannot rest on brute facts, and that the PSR must therefore be assumed (at least implicitly). He’s wrong about that, and we do not need to assume the actual existence of brute facts in order to demonstrate that.
Will Rumraket be banned for this post, the same as Frankie?
One door closes and another opens
Why, does this one also get your little knob hard?
I think in his picture it was the same door doing both.
Well, good news, the penalty for pornography has been lifted!
It wasn’t a comment about moderation, it was a comment about pornography.
I think your conduct is obscene however, but I guess that’s allowed now.