Guano (3)

Dirty penguin

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

249 Replies to “Guano (3)”

  1. TomMueller says:

    J-Mac: You obviously have no idea what quantum tunnelling is…
    Isn’t everything, including life, on subatomic level, dependent on or based on quantum mechanics?

    ROTFLMAO!

    For hunmanity’s sake, your parents should not allow you to breed

    You have decided delusions of adequacy.

    You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

    You are definitely a gross idiot- 144 times stupider than a regular idiot!

    Perhaps you have been working with glue too much.

    If ever, your IQ reaches 50, you should sell.

    If you were anymore stupid, you would have to be watered twice a week.

    It is impossible to believe that the sperm that created you, beat out a million others

  2. keiths keiths says:

    Jock,

    I’m still laughing at your failure to see that having “one or two” threads be gloves-off is different from having the whole site be gloves-off.

    Who said there was no difference? What I’m laughing about is your supposed knowledge of exactly how much flaming a “net positive commenter” will tolerate before leaving. One or two threads? Perfectly fine. The whole site? IRREPARABLE DAMAGE! How do we know? Because DNA_Jock, the world-renowned expert on the psychology of “net positive commenters”, has researched the issue and determined the precise thresholds. Or not.

    It’s the usual pattern. You make a claim, I point out the flaw, and you try to cover your ass instead of just admitting the mistake. Sometimes it leads you to dishonesty (as in the recent quote mining incident), and sometimes it just leads to you squirming (as we are witnessing now).

    So tell us, since you’re so concerned about “irreparable damage”, why haven’t you been up in arms about the moderator abuses, meta-discussion, and rules that punish honesty and reward dishonesty? Perfectly fine if a “net positive commenter” leaves because of those, but not if they leave because of no guanoing?

    The obvious answer: You pulled that “irreparable damage” argument out of your ass. You didn’t think it through, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

  3. J-Mac says:

    GlenDavidson: Well, at least he didn’t write “intellectual progress.”

    You wouldn’t know what that means would you, unless it meant to express your ingrained hate towards anything but your beliefs…? It’s obvious…

  4. GlenDavidson says:

    J-Mac: You wouldn’t know what that means would you, unless it meant to express your ingrained hate towards anything but your beliefs…? It’s obvious…

    The stupidity of your bullshit progresses.

    Slightly, since your ignorance has always been nearly total.

    Glen Davidson

  5. J-Mac says:

    GlenDavidson: The stupidity of your bullshit progresses.

    Slightly, since your ignorance has always been nearly total.

    Yeah…yours has just been confirmed… Congratulations!

  6. keiths keiths says:

    Butt out, Neil. We’re in the middle of a discussion here.

    ETA: And by the way, asking someone about what they do (or did) for a living is not against the rules. Why do I have to explain this to you?

  7. keiths keiths says:

    So the statement “Behe accepts common descent” was meaningful to you, you did argue against it, and you did (by your own admission) find it difficult to cope, all of which you now deny.

    Is there anything else you’d like to say to make yourself look even more ridiculous?

  8. Acartia Acartia says:

    stcordova: Just as a heads up, for logistical reasons I may not be posting here that much at TSZ anymore even though I really love this place a lot — almost too much.

    The ankle bracelet and court injunction won’t allow you much time on the internet?

  9. keiths keiths says:

    walto,

    This is an example of trolling, IMO. If you want people to interact with you, you should cut the shit.

    What I wrote is true. You are the one who resorted to false accusations (of quote mining and equivocation). You are the one who lied by characterizing my criticisms as “lame”, when in fact you haven’t been able to refute them.

    It’s a consistent pattern with you. I point out an error that you’ve made. Your insecurity kicks in. You resort to dishonesty, hoping that if you lie about me, that will somehow lessen the impression that your error makes on the readers.

    It’s childish and counterproductive. Grow up, walto.

  10. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Please go away again. You’re fucking things up.

    TSZ does much better in your absence.

  11. keiths keiths says:

    walto,

    If you don’t want your false accusations pointed out, then don’t make them. If you don’t want your lies pointed out, then don’t lie. If you don’t want your mistakes pointed out, then why are you here, where the whole point is for people to discuss their disagreements and voice their skepticism?

    The people who do well here are those who are capable of making arguments and responding to criticism without falling apart and resorting to dishonesty.

    It’s clear that you want special treatment, and it’s possible that you get it in real life by being prickly and combustible. That won’t work with me. I’m not interested in coddling your ego or giving you special treatment of any kind.

    If you can defend your ideas, then defend them. If not, acknowledge that you can’t. Like a good philosopher would.

  12. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Why are you interfering with the discussion? Surely even you realize that moving those comments from one thread to another does not make TSZ a better place.

  13. keiths keiths says:

    walto,

    What causes issues is that, whoever may be right or wrong, some people get really upset about being disagreed with…

    I enjoy it when people disagree with me, and I like debating these issues. That’s what’s great about TSZ!

    I have a huge advantage over you in that my self-image is not threatened when someone claims I’m mistaken. I can calmly consider what they say without responding the way you do. If I think they’re right, I say so, and if I think they’re wrong, I say that too, and I explain why. It’s called discussion, and it’s something that mature folks enjoy engaging in.

    Reread this thread, and take a good look at yourself. The problem is that you fall apart and resort to dishonesty when I challenge you or point out your mistakes. It’s ridiculously childish for a man of your age, and its certainly not a trait that a would-be philosopher can afford to indulge in.

    We get it: you wish you had a better handle on the topic of objective morality, and you’re upset that you don’t. Fine. Be honest about it, and don’t start lying about your opponent, as if that could somehow make things better. It never does.

    Your immaturity and dishonesty are real problems, and I wish you’d finally acknowledge that and address them.

  14. keiths keiths says:

    And so Alan once again punishes honesty, rewards dishonesty, and disrupts discussion, all in a single ill-advised moderator action.

  15. keiths keiths says:

    Butt out, Neil. Like Alan, you are interfering with discussion.

  16. Nonlin.org says:

    Entropy: I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t get it.

    You’re an idiot unresponsive to simple logic. End of story.

  17. phoodoo says:

    Neil Rickert:
    Moved a post to guano.

    Please comment on what is posted, rather than on the person that wrote it.

    That’s the only offensive comment you could find Neil? None of the previous five stood out to you?

    Are you doing your best bad imitation of Alan? Shame on you.

  18. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: Are you stupid? If you think I’m been nasty is because you don’t talk to yourself. Otherwise you’d be nauseated at your own intellectual stench.

    Neil: “No problem!”

  19. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: , in that bullshit of a blog of yours, that Darwin presented it as an example of natural selection? Were you just trying to demonstrate that you could not care less if you misrepresented Darwin’s point? Was your intention to make sure that people who know better would conclude that you’re a pretentious ignorant idiot?

    Neil: “Love it! “

  20. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: It’s written by an ignorant fool who pretends to make fun of scientists and ends up ridiculing himself/herself.

    Neil: “Cool!”

  21. phoodoo says:

    dazz: He’s that special kind of retard

    Neil: “Righteous!”

  22. phoodoo says:

    Neil Rickert: Please comment on what is posted, rather than on the person that wrote it.

    Neil: “Wink, wink.”

  23. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: Since you’d fail evolutionary biology then you have no business trying to argue against it.

    Neil:”You are on my side right? Go on, please!”

  24. phoodoo says:

    keiths: Why not learn some evolutionary biology first, and save yourself some embarrassment?

    Neil: “Totally impersonal. Sounds good!”

  25. phoodoo says:

    Neil Rickert:
    Moved some posts to guano.

    Discuss moderation in the moderation thread.

    Oh no, I think you misunderstood, I wasn’t discussing moderation, I am of the belief that moderation doesn’t exist on this site, so I wasn’t discussing that. I was discussing your intellect. So please restore my comments, they were about your inability to understand. A concept which you find perfectly reasonable to discuss, as I have just shown.

  26. phoodoo says:

    Entropy:

    Are you stupid? If you think I’m been nasty is because you don’t talk to yourself. Otherwise you’d be nauseated at your own intellectual stench.

  27. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: , in that bullshit of a blog of yours, that Darwin presented it as an example of natural selection? Were you just trying to demonstrate that you could not care less if you misrepresented Darwin’s point? Was your intention to make sure that people who know better would conclude that you’re a pretentious ignorant idiot?

  28. phoodoo says:

    Neil Rickert,

    Quoting people is now discussing moderation?

  29. phoodoo says:

    keiths,

    Its now against the rules to quote people, if it embarrasses Neil.

  30. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: I suspect that you write with derision. You don’t care about whether you’re making sense. You just care about whether something sounds ridiculous enough. Unfortunately for you, it ends up backfiring. It shows you missing the point, and the ridicule you wanted to land on Darwin landed on your intellect, or lack thereof.

    Nonlin.org:
    You’re certainly not going to like what you read,

    Of course not. It’s written by an ignorant fool who pretends to make fun of scientists and ends up ridiculing himself/herself.

    I would just like to say “Arrrggh…ahhh, Nei arrrrr, take your hands….ahhhh…”

  31. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: You keep missing the point. So here it goes again: if you knew that Darwin was using that as an analogy, then why the hell did you say, in that bullshit of a blog of yours, that Darwin presented it as an example of natural selection? Were you just trying to demonstrate that you could not care less if you misrepresented Darwin’s point? Was your intention to make sure that people who know better would conclude that you’re a pretentious ignorant idiot?

    I think that…Mmmmm, whaaaa…Ricker….ggggaaa

  32. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: All I need to do is exactly what I did: point at your pretentious ignorance.

    Well, fffuuuggggaaaa…

  33. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: Was your intention to make sure that people who know better would conclude that you’re a pretentious ignorant idiot?

    Sharia laaaaaaaawwwww…gagaga

  34. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: Are you stupid?

    allahu akbar Neil……

  35. phoodoo says:

    Entropy: You seem to be incompetent at understanding

    Now that’s an interesting point, I think that..grrrrrrrrr god…….dammm you Nei…..grrrrr!

  36. phoodoo says:

    GlenDavidson,

    Glenn, it is against the rules to quote others. Please post comments about moderation in the moderation forum.

  37. dazz dazz says:

    fifthmonarchyman: a silly annoying Christian on the internet

    It’s not the silliness, it’s your hilarious arrogance. You wouldn’t know logic if it took a dump in your mouth

  38. fifthmonarchyman says:

    dazz: You wouldn’t know logic if it took a dump in your mouth

    If God did not exist how could you ever establish a claim like that?

    peace

  39. phoodoo says:

    dazz: Ahh, argumentum ad populum. Another creotard fan favorite fallacy

    Neil says YES!

  40. phoodoo says:

    Other things Neil can do:

    1. Cheat on his taxes
    2. Kick small chickens.
    3. Make naked boy mannequins.
    4. Get drunk and punch his neighbor’s daughter.
    5. Tell his children their real father hated them, and paid him to raise them.
    6. Sell photos of his wife to Zoo Weekly magazine.
    7. Give his kids college money away to Indonesian strippers.
    8. Make up more shit.
    9. Kiss a seal pups nipples.
    10. Get Alan to be enough of a pussy not to call out his mockery of the rules.

    Well, its a work in progress, I am sure there is much more Neil can do.

  41. dazz dazz says:

    colewd: It seems like mosts evolutionists recognize the problem with natural selection as a mechanism.

    Not really. All creotards fail at pinpointing their pathetic projection, that’s for sure

  42. keiths keiths says:

    colewd:

    Do you think that anyone at this point thinks that random change to the genome can gain fitness over time even with the selection mechanism?Many posts here try to argue common descent without a specific mechanism.

    It seems like mosts evolutionists recognize the problem with natural selection as a mechanism.

    Bill,

    The next time someone asks you a question about evolution, answer honestly. Say something like: “I don’t know. I’ve tried and tried, and smarter folks have explained these things to me again and again, but I simply can’t get it. I’m not bright enough, and there’s no reason for anyone (including me) to trust my opinions on the topic. Ask a smarter person.”

    You have no clue.

  43. phoodoo says:

    Adapa: Do you make these stupid Creationist proclamations just to make yourself sleep better at night?

    Great content. Don’t you think so Neil?

  44. phoodoo says:

    Adapa: Do you ever try thinking before posting your creationist idiocy?

    Neil, since you have blocked me, maybe you can explain this?

  45. phoodoo says:

    Lizzie, quote:
    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

    Neil, are you accusing Lizzie of being a senile old woman who has lost the capacity to understand what she had written? Or perhaps you are now holding Lizzie captive, sort of like Richard Simmons caretaker, and you know what she really wants to say and do?

    Did Lizzie actually mean to write, “Feel free to comment on them on any peanut gallery of your choice, but Neils won’t actually let you because he makes his own rules?”

    Hey look, its another thing Neil can do. Block posters and subvert Lizzies own decisions. Hooray for Neil!

  46. phoodoo says:

    Alan Fox:
    Moved more comments to guano. The moderation issues thread is for discussing moderation actions.

    Then why did Lizzie say this Alan?

    FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON THEM AT ANY OTHER PEANUT GALLERY OF YOUR CHOICE

    And how can Neil now block all my posts for calling out this hypocrisy? I broke the unwritten rule “don’t embarrass the moderators by pointing out their failures, or we will block you?”

    Which of Lizzie’s rules gives you this authority?

  47. keiths keiths says:

    Christ, Alan. You have a magical ability to fuck things up.

  48. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    You had no reason, other than protecting your ego, to move this comment:

    Christ, Alan. You have a magical ability to fuck things up.

    Which reinforces the point, of course.

  49. Entropy Entropy says:

    fifthmonarchyman:
    On what basis would you “refocus” these things? If we can choose to change a particular value then it’s seems more like a preference.

    See what I mean? You could not read for comprehension if your life depended on it. I said it already: on the basis of what you discover about the world, and on the basis of what you want to accomplish, if anything, in your own life. It’s always your own life FMM. It doesn’t matter if you believe in the magical being, it’s still your life and your preferences. Remember that there’s Satan worshippers who believe that your magical being also exist. That proves that it’s about your values, not about whether the magical being existed or not.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I’m interested in the values that are nonnegotiable in your worldview.

    Again, did you even try and read what I wrote? Maybe you have some mental disability? Oh! Yes! presuppositional bullshitologetics!

    fifthmonarchyman:
    Folks reject God because they value other things and that internal conflict results in unhappiness. So by implication they value happiness more than God.

    I did not reject your imaginary friend. I just discovered, quite slowly, that it’s a fantasy. The thing about values. There the only thing you’re getting right is that each person has values independent on whether your magical being exists or not. So your question above is a contradiction of terms.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I would not describe God as magical but I could not agree more with the idea that folks find the evidence for God to be convincing if don’t find the idea of God to be unacceptable.

    Again, it’s not whether I find “God” acceptable. The magical being is, obviously, a fantasy, and I can do nothing about it.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    There is no such thing as epistemological neutrality in the end our beliefs are constrained by our desires and values.

    That’s just what you believe. But, from my experience, of course there is such a thing as epistemically neutrality. I went from strong believer and defender of the faith to atheism because of the evidence. If there wasn’t epistemically neutrality that would not be possible. My change was due to pure honesty. I cannot fool myself, even if I wanted.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I agree with this. The Bible calls your inability to choose God “being a slave to sin”.

    Oh crap. I have no say in the matter because your magical being is a fantasy. I cannot change reality to fit whatever I want. It is what it is. “Sin” has nothing to do with this. Understand what I say. Don’t twist it to mean what you prefer it to mean. Things like this are why I don’t give you too much of the benefit of the doubt. You cannot read for comprehension. You read for cues to input your insane bullshit.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    No one has the ability to choose God because we all love ourselves too much. Our only hope is if God supernaturally changes what we value in this life.

    Love yourself too much? You despise yourself and humanity so much that you prefer to twist anything people say, and remain perpetually characterless and dishonest. Anything to bend your knee to an imaginary dictator in the sky. You “sin” on purpose. You “sin” in “His Name.” Must suck being you.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I thank God that is what happened to me and I pray that it happens to you as well.

    No thanks. I’d rather stay honest. You can keep the crap all to yourself.

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I’m here to offer assistance if ever you feel God tugging on your heart.

    If the magical being wasn’t the absurd fantasy that it is, and such a thing could possibly happen, you’d be the very last I’d try and talk to. “By their fruits you’ll know them.”

    fifthmonarchyman:
    I really did not expect this to be so serious in this thread. I don’t expect you to answer, at least not seriously but I’m here if you ever want to talk. I’ll pray for you

    It was serious, but you wasted it. Pray for yourself. It’s a waste of time, but at least you’d be trying to do something for someone who really needs it.

  50. Entropy Entropy says:

    Corneel,

    Nonlin has a talent for contradicting herself/himself, and for being pretty hard to be shown so. She/he then just denies or goes to some tangential thing, also wrong. His paragraphs at the OP are filled with contradictions. I tried once to show Nonlin just one contradiction, and no way she/he would understand it. She/he would go on and on on tangents, until she/he decided that I was too impolite, rather than confronting her/his mistake. From my experience, I’d guess that even if you showed 1000 articles where fitness is defined apart from survival, you won’t convince her/him.

Comments are closed.