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
Now is a good time to repeat this suggested rule:
Three more guanoed comments can be found here.
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
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.
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.
Yeah…yours has just been confirmed… Congratulations!
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?
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?
The ankle bracelet and court injunction won’t allow you much time on the internet?
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.
Please go away again. You’re fucking things up.
TSZ does much better in your absence.
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.
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.
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.
And so Alan once again punishes honesty, rewards dishonesty, and disrupts discussion, all in a single ill-advised moderator action.
Butt out, Neil. Like Alan, you are interfering with discussion.
You’re an idiot unresponsive to simple logic. End of story.
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.
Neil: “No problem!”
Neil: “Love it! “
Neil: “Wink, wink.”
Neil:”You are on my side right? Go on, please!”
Neil: “Totally impersonal. Sounds good!”
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.
Quoting people is now discussing moderation?
Its now against the rules to quote people, if it embarrasses Neil.
I would just like to say “Arrrggh…ahhh, Nei arrrrr, take your hands….ahhhh…”
I think that…Mmmmm, whaaaa…Ricker….ggggaaa
allahu akbar Neil……
Now that’s an interesting point, I think that..grrrrrrrrr god…….dammm you Nei…..grrrrr!
Glenn, it is against the rules to quote others. Please post comments about moderation in the moderation forum.
It’s not the silliness, it’s your hilarious arrogance. 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?
Neil says YES!
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.
Not really. All creotards fail at pinpointing their pathetic projection, that’s for sure
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.
Great content. Don’t you think so Neil?
Neil, since you have blocked me, maybe you can explain this?
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!
Then why did Lizzie say this Alan?
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?
Christ, Alan. You have a magical ability to fuck things up.
You had no reason, other than protecting your ego, to move this comment:
Which reinforces the point, of course.
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.
Again, did you even try and read what I wrote? Maybe you have some mental disability? Oh! Yes! presuppositional bullshitologetics!
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.
Again, it’s not whether I find “God” acceptable. The magical being is, obviously, a fantasy, and I can do nothing about it.
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.
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.
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.
No thanks. I’d rather stay honest. You can keep the crap all to yourself.
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.”
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.