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

218 thoughts on “Guano (3)

  1. Entropy:
    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.

    You and your buddies Corneel and Adapa are just squatters. I have yet to see any original idea coming from your dead brains.

    Instead of brain dead comments like that, why don’t you show “fitness separate from survival” and be done? Also, what “contradiction”? Are you sure it’s not just in your dead brain?

  2. Nonlin.org: What “common ground”? The only thing common has to be the observable. And one thing we have never observed is exquisite design just popping into existence for no reason whatsoever, aka the evolutionary mythology.

    That’s not evolution you idiot, that’s creationism.

  3. CharlieM:

    Only our physical senses tell us this. Otherwise there’d be no sound understanding of birds as existing in one clade.

    You need to have a think about the difference between our sense experience before and after our thinking minds interpret what is sensed.

    Gee, dumbass, I have. That’s why I can discuss generalizing from the facts, while you’re blithering stupidly about “archetypes.”

    “Bird” is a concept, not a bare perception.

    Well, chump, that’s why I discussed them as different, like,

    No, the differences are objectively real. The concept comes from generalizing from the observed characters.

    Of course it’s more complex than that, but that gets to the gist of empiricism. Your projection of your ignorance and incompetence, rather than discussing the issue, only shows how little you’ve thought about these matters.

    You would do well to consider the difference.

    You would do well not to project your failings onto others.

    Glen Davidson

  4. colewd:
    Flightless animals don’t have aerodynamic wings, feathers properly oriented, bones the right size and the proper joints etc.

    Yes they do you willfully ignorant fucking moron.

    Gradual Assembly of Avian Body Plan Culminated in Rapid Rates of Evolution across the Dinosaur-Bird Transition

    The fossil record is FULL of non-flying theropods with all the precursor part. All that had to happen was wing assisted incline running (WAIR) evolved into gliding evolved into longer and longer flapping glides evolved into primitive powered flight.

    Wing-assisted incline running and the evolution of flight.

    Right now you’re behaving like a petulant child who won’t eat his vegetables because he thinks they’re icky.

  5. CharlieM:

    Well I would say that it is still a fact that this blog is littered with unnecessary, off-putting remarks that do nothing to further discussion. Comments like these are best ignored and this would be a better place without them. Do you agree?

    Readers already have the power to ignore comments. They even have the power, via the Ignore feature, to ignore commenters.

    It’s up to them whether they choose to exercise those powers, and that’s how it should be. The last thing we need is some doofus like Neil running around closing comments on threads.

  6. I am also blocked, so I have this to say about…

    Oh, wait I can’t. I have to wait for Alan and Neil to make sure I can post.

    If I agree not to embarrass them maybe I can be unblocked…

    Nah.

  7. phoodoo: I am also blocked, so I have this to say about…

    No, you are not blocked. I guess you had not yet discovered that.

    If I agree not to embarrass them maybe I can be unblocked…

    It wasn’t about embarrassment. It was about you dumping lots of off-topic moderation complaints into a discussion thread. And if you had agreed to not do that, you would have been removed from moderation much earlier.

    If you want to respond to this, use the moderation thread. And apologies to others for my posting moderation notes here.

  8. Neil, to phoodoo:

    No, you are not blocked. I guess you had not yet discovered that.

    Christ, Neil. Why didn’t you announce it, so that phoodoo would know?

    You and Alan were the ones who screwed up, so it was your responsibility to fix the problem and announce that you had done so:

    a) You singled out phoodoo for censorship, even though the rules don’t permit you to do that.

    b) You offered to unblock him only if he would make a promise that isn’t required of anyone else.

    c) He wisely declined to make that promise.

    d) You finally backed down and fixed your screwup.

    e) Yet even when you finally got around to fixing it, you didn’t announce it. Were you ashamed to admit it?

    As a result of your actions, phoodoo spent more than seven weeks under censorship.

    What the hell is wrong with you two?

  9. colewd: The design argument is an argument from analogy and not from ignorance. It is not a god of the gaps fallacy

    O’RLY?

    colewd: Now we have no explanation inside our space-time for life and its diversity. If you add to that the problems with explaining the origin of matter and its incredible predictability an outside space-time solution seems logical.

    How fucking retarded can you be today, Billy?

  10. walto:
    You should have written your last post first. If you go back and read your OP …

    Walto, You can “kiss” (sic) my ass!

    You represent exactly the mindset I execrate in my OP

    You clearly lack the cerebral capacity to grasp more than simplistic binary juxtapositions

    You also clearly lack an attention span beyond that of a gold fish… otherwise you would have realized before posting that my earlier follow ups have already categorically contradictied your pathetic attempt at rebbuttal

  11. Adapa: Shipbuilders have for centuries.That’s why they don’t build flat rudderless unpowered boxes for ocean transport.

    So… you are a moron…ass expected..

  12. Neil Rickert:
    Moved a post to guano.

    You should refrain from removing comments from angry atheists who want to disappear from this world no matter what…If they have no hope, just like you, shouldn’t they be respected? You wouldn’t like anyone to tell you to change your mind about the final destination, would you?

  13. Neil Rickert:
    Moved a post to guano.

    Why, because it’s true?

    Is having a troll like J-Mac shitting over all of the threads with nothing more than stupidity and dishonesty that important to you? It’s not like I called him a liar, although I properly characterized his dishonest output, but since when has that been against the rules here? Just more making up the rules to protect egregious trolls again.

    And how many posts has J-Mac ever written that haven’t been claiming in some manner or other that a person hasn’t been posting in good faith? He can’t back that up, either, although apparently endless lies are what are supposed to be protected here. Are you really just trying to drive out everyone who contributes intelligence, in order to just leave completely dishonest and stupid people like J-Mac? WTF?

    So put this on Guano, too. This one does break the rules, stupid and pro-dishonesty as they are, although the first one didn’t. J-Mac’s lying ad hominems do, but you don’t care about the fact that a dishonest troll is shitting all over the place, just that someone calls him on his lies. I think that lies are the only thing that moderators care about protecting by now.

    Glen Davidson

  14. GlenDavidson: Why, because it’s true?

    Is having a troll like J-Mac shitting over all of the threads with nothing more than stupidity and dishonesty that important to you?It’s not like I called him a liar, although I properly characterized his dishonest output, but since when has that been against the rules here?Just more making up the rules to protect egregious trolls again.

    And how many posts has J-Mac ever written that haven’t been claiming in some manner or other that a person hasn’t been posting in good faith?He can’t back that up, either, although apparently endless lies are what are supposed to be protected here.Are you really just trying to drive out everyone who contributes intelligence, in order to just leave completely dishonest and stupid people like J-Mac?WTF?

    So put this on Guano, too.This one does break the rules, stupid and pro-dishonesty as they are, although the first one didn’t.J-Mac’s lying ad hominems do, but you don’t care about the fact that a dishonest troll is shitting all over the place, just that someone calls him on his lies.I think that lies are the only thing that moderators care about protecting by now.

    Glen Davidson

    I told you Neil… Glen beliefs are stronger than reality… which proves that the great majority of misdiagnosed delusional schizophrenics in this land should be on medications…

  15. DNA_Jock:
    Moved a post to guano, in fulfillment of my obligations.

    How did I break the rules of this blog?
    Make sure you provide details, not as you see them…
    So, you are pissed because I reminded you about the OP that has been sitting in the moderators box for few days now?
    Pity…NAD-juck

  16. J-Mac: I told you Neil… Glen beliefs are stronger than reality… which proves that the great majority of misdiagnosed delusional schizophrenics in this land should be on medications…

    See, you just get more lies from J-Mac with your idiotic “moderation.”

    Is anything ever going to be done to facilitate discussion and quell dishonest attacks here, or is this going to be a shithole dominated by some of the most dishonest people on the web?

    If you actually used the rules against J-Mac’s dishonest attacks this wouldn’t be a problem. But you’ll protect dishonest attacks like they were golden.

    Glen Davidson

  17. GlenDavidson: See, you just get more lies from J-Mac with your idiotic “moderation.”

    Is anything ever going to be done to facilitate discussion and quell dishonest attacks here, or is this going to be a shithole dominated by some of the most dishonest people on the web?

    If you actually used the rules against J-Macs dishonest attacks this wouldn’t be a problem.But you’ll protect dishonest attacks like they were golden.

    Glen Davidson

    Glen,
    Why don’t you provide the empirical evidence for your beliefs?
    You can preform any experiment you want and If it is successful; you provide empirical evidence for your beliefs, I will refund your money.
    No excuses. Let’s see how much faith you have in your beliefs. You have faith, don’t you?
    How about mutagenesis experiments to start us with?
    Are you familiar with the law of recurrent variation, Glen?
    It is the elementary textbook for starters…
    Are you ready, Glen?

  18. J-Mac: Glen,
    Why don’t you provide the empirical evidence for your beliefs?

    I do, lying retard.

    So shut the fuck up.

    Or, actually, why don’t you take over the forum by lying, attacking, and being the hideous, vile piece of shit that you are and that the moderators like.

    Your lies are protected.

    Attempts to return to honest discussion are punished.

    And you can be the lying sack of shit that you have always been. J-Mac’s place for shitting on everyone is what this worthless forum is becoming.

    Glen Davidson

  19. Neil Rickert:
    Moved several more to guano.

    Yeah, why don’t you actually get ahead of the shitstorms that J-Mac stirs? He’s been doing nothing but shit-stirring, attacking the person (supposedly against the rules, yet he gets away with it almost every time), and making dishonest charges against those better than him (which is almost everyone).

    Oh, but let him be an evil rule-breaker, then move a bunch of posts to Guano because you haven’t given a damn about the rules, like, ever.

    Is the problem that someone won’t put up with lying trolling forever? The rules apparently don’t matter, never have when it comes to J-Mac.

    Not that I care about the posts going to Guano. The real point is that I shouldn’t have to write them simply because the moderators don’t care about the rules, or dishonest, unwarranted attacks on the individual.

    Glen Davidson

  20. I know I’m supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt, but here I just have to say it. Nonlin is amazingly and unambiguously stupid. So seriously stupid that next time I feel like really insulting someone I will call them “nonlins.”

  21. Can someone please tell OMgowno that I have not been reading his comments forever…Unless I’m using an public computer, like when I was on vacations…I didn;t really read his sh.. but I have seen it before I disposed of it…
    Does anybody even care what OMgowno writes other than kitchs?
    I wonder…

  22. Byers:

    Yes he has seen, I have read his stuff, folks having loss so much “btain’ that yet they are fine in thinking.

    You seem to have lost a lot of “btain’, as well, yet your thinking is not fine. Not fine at all.

  23. colewd: As you see he pivoted but he did support the claim that humans have never created FI from scratch with “Mozart sometimes copies music from other people” and “there was a pre cursor to the C computer language called B”

    Coward.

  24. Hi Folks,

    Not much time these days for such writing. Thanks for the few comments that have been on-topic & constructive, as well as the humour.

    There are a *LOT* of things Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass doesn’t ‘get’ though he tries hard & changes his mind, opinions & words a lot. The saint humour is priceless! Like a wooden elf.

    Regarding Josh (the kind of pretentious person who tries to belittle you by using one’s name in the diminutive uninvited, like some pretentious Californians), he’s frankly one of the woolliest thinking people I’ve met in this entire space (e.g. “I am not ‘attacking’ any position. I personally don’t really care one way or another on the genetic bottleneck question.” He’s instead just in this special year ‘peace-ing’ every position, also not attacking any wrong positions or even possibly ‘evil’ ones!). And that truly is an award of notoriety, given some of the people I’ve met in many travels, events, workshops & conferences in dozens of countries! He’s like Denyse O’Leary trapped in a Lab Coat & doesn’t ‘get’ why his genuine goodwill sadly isn’t accepted outside of ‘the movement’ he is attempting to assemble right now at his site. keiths has already joined the site – bravo for Joshua!

    “I have not asked for money” – S. Joshua Swamidass

    Not directly. But you’ve asked for ideas for potential sponsorship & a home base, which implies money & talked wildly about expanding, not that anything is wrong with that. And you are welcome for traffic from atheist-skeptics, as you’ve asked for more ‘sides’ to get involved than just the largely evangelical Christians who are there now.

    “[I] have zero affiliation with Gregory. I did not ask him to write this post, nor did I screen it. Much of the details in it are not correct.” – Swamidass

    Which details? Please be more specific. I stand by what I wrote above and the reason I wrote it is explained below. Yes, it is true that Joshua and I have “zero affiliation.” He didn’t ask me to write it. And I didn’t send it to him to ‘screen’. Why he brings that up is unclear.

    As for some things Joshua wrote:

    “The Empty Chair is a symbol of inclusion, that we have a space at the table for you even before you come, and even if others are preventing you from being here … I also encourage advocating on behalf of positions not our own, for those that should be among us, but are not. That is advocacy on Behalf of the Empty Chair.”

    This is complete and utter nonsense! S. Joshua Swamidass is a hypocrite of the Empty Chair; it is a ploy, rather than a genuine attempt. In fact, he pushes people off the chair when they reveal his errors, simply because having his errors revealed plainly, simply, clearly & directly in public repeatedly is apparently a very difficult thing for a trained geneticist who runs a laboratory with ‘great success’ who is an MD also to take for their pride. So he lashes out angrily at the offense. So there is the factor of wounded evangelical pride, wounded while evangelising specifically – because there can be no doubt that is the ONLY thing Joshua is doing there, and which is now at issue here because Swamidass, just like Venema, sadly on the most important issues involved, couldn’t argue himself convincingly out of a wet paper bag without getting it all over himself.

    Just watch & see what Joe Felsenstein would do to Swamidass’ ‘genealogical Adam’ philosophistry. Joe is a much clearer and accurate thinker and communicator than Josh. In this, Swamidass is no different than Kantian Naturalist. We shall see how Swamidass’ heretical channel that denies heresy is even possible (!) can handle the atheists of The Skeptical Zone. I notice keiths is there already.

    As for “California-born & accented,” keiths, it might help to go back to 1931, read Boris Hessen’s paper on Newton. It would benefit Swamidass too, because the chances are as remote as him winning the day with his relativistic “genealogical Adam” at ASA this weekend that he has already read it. Swamidass likens himself on the level of Newton as a creative genius for simply having ‘come up’ with the idea of ‘genealogical Adam’ and for the cleverness of calling it a “Science of Adam.” He’ll of course deny entirely and even perhaps aggressively that his ideas have *absolutely nothing* with his being an evangelical non-mainstream Protestant. Reading Hesssen will likely provide for keiths the answer he seeks.

    “I am not a “scientific genealogist” nor do I know that is.” – S. Joshua Swamidass

    Right, Joshua; yet you promote a “Science of Adam” that you call “genealogical Adam”. So basically, you are contending that there is a “genealogical science of Adam.” Are you not? No, you won’t answer here or there or anywhere (just like Dr. Seuss was probably too difficult for your level of abstraction!) because the idea itself, dropping all pretense to ‘scientific’ knowledge, is a dead end. And that is why you are not a “scientific genealogist.” Let’s at least speak truthfully here, since Joshua is not ‘skeptical’ enough to join in.

    My goodness, how much mud has already been publicly slung & criticism spread – science, philosophistry and evangelical theology, among them. Dr. Dennis Venema & Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass have become the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of the evolution, creation and ID circus! As a sociologist, there really is no shortage right now of jaw dropping moments at BioLogos, Peaceful Science and in the ASA’s entire network as a whole. So, in short, that’s why I wrote this OP, to expose the bizarre situation that evangelical protestants like Swamidass find themselves in even now in 2018.

  25. Bruce,

    If KN were at least consistent, then you might have a point. But he isn’t, and he tries to cover up his mistakes instead of simply acknowledging them and learning from them. The hole just gets deeper and his digging and dishonesty become more frantic.

    A guy who proudly announces his rejection of physicalism, comparing it dismissively to theology, is in no position to come back later saying “Why won’t someone tell me what ‘physical’ means? It’s all I’m asking!”

    If he doesn’t understand what physicalism is, then he has no business dismissively rejecting it. And if he does understand it, then he has no business dodging walto’s question.

    It’s been a pathetic performance.

  26. keiths: Are you arguing that I shouldn’t disagree with people when they lie?

    Nope, just noting that you’ve gone entirely round the bend. Cray-cray as they say nowadays.

    {note to mods: Come and get it!!!!!}

  27. Entropy: Nah. To you the point is what you want to believe. If something cookoo agrees with you, then you think it’s great and the best of the best evidence in the planet. If something disagrees with your preferences, then you don’t even care to understand it. Thus you end up ridiculing yourself, as you do in the OP and elsewhere.

    If the information for a gliding snake’s “body plan” is in its DNA, that doesn’t mean that its DNA also has the information for growing wings. It just means that it has the information for a gliding snake’s “body plan.” So, no. it shouldn’t be a piece of cake to help it grow wings.

    That something so basic would escape you shows that you really have no idea about what evolution and natural phenomena are. You just project from your belief in a magical being in the sky. It’s ironic that you pretend to be ridiculing evolution, yet you’re just showing contempt for your very own beliefs.

    What? Have you lost your mind?
    I begin to sense something.. you get paid to spread this nonsense..
    How do you feel on your family vacations?

  28. KN,

    At this point it’s just amusing to me that you’ve ignored everything I’ve said about philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, metaphysics, and epistemology in order to prosecute this one little point that exists only in your own fantasizing.

    If my points were bogus, you’d be able to refute them. You can’t, as everyone can see. So you flail and make false accusations instead. It’s a pitiful and dishonest performance.

    As for insisting that I answer “walto’s question” when walto himself doesn’t think he asked me one . . . well, I have no words.

    So you’re telling us that you, a grown man (and a trained philosopher!), don’t recognize the following as a question?

    What are the sorts of things that could be claimed to count as non-physical, spatio-temporal, concrete particulars?

    Monads? Ideas? Minds? Bits? Ghosts? Gods? Pains? Desires? Goals? Puzzlements?

    Did you somehow miss the eleven question marks?

    Your meltdown is complete. You have shredded your remaining credibility. Congratulations.

  29. KN,

    You could have handled this situation so easily by simply acknowledging that your position was mistaken and needed some work.

    Instead, you’ve exposed yourself as someone who doesn’t have the maturity, or the honesty, to do that.

    You were trying to protect your ego, and instead your dishonesty has only humiliated you. When will you learn?

  30. Entropy: When curve fitting is done, two things are tested: (a) if the data fit some curve, and, if so, (b) what the shape reveals about the data.

    You’re too retard to go on with you.

  31. keiths: I notice that you use “she” and “her” to refer to Nonlin. Has Nonlin actually self-identified as female?

    Just PC retarded-ness. Even worse if retarded-ness without PC.

  32. Since Neil is now subjecting me to the same censorship scheme as J-Mac, my OPs require moderator approval before being published.

    I have submitted a new one, Neil. Please do your job and publish it.

    In the meantime, here is the text of my OP, for the benefit of readers who are being prevented from reading it by Neil’s illegitimate attempt at censorship:

    This OP is being carefully worded to avoid giving excuses to Neil, who has been trying to censor an earlier post of mine, which can be found here.

    Joshua Swamidass has made a large number of false statements and has behaved in a way that does not inspire trust.  I have pointed that out at his website, and I have been banned for a week for doing so.

    Since Swamidass has resorted to censorship, the appropriate place to discuss these issues is here at TSZ, despite similar attempts at censorship by the local moderators.

  33. keiths: I have submitted a new one, Neil. Please do your job and publish it.

    I will not be publishing that. If you want to have a public fight with Dr Swamidass, you will need to find another site for it.

  34. Okay, Mung. Tell us why the following OP, entitled “Swamidass’s falsehoods”, should not be published:

    In the meantime, here is the text of my OP, for the benefit of readers who are being prevented from reading it by Neil’s illegitimate attempt at censorship:

    This OP is being carefully worded to avoid giving excuses to Neil, who has been trying to censor an earlier post of mine, which can be found here.

    Joshua Swamidass has made a large number of false statements and has behaved in a way that does not inspire trust. I have pointed that out at his website, and I have been banned for a week for doing so.

    Since Swamidass has resorted to censorship, the appropriate place to discuss these issues is here at TSZ, despite similar attempts at censorship by the local moderators.

  35. Hi Vincent,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I’ve been away for a few weeks because I’ve been working on a review of Michael Alter’s book, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry. It’s a very powerfully argued book, and it’s taken a lot of my time to get through it, because it has quite a lot to say: it’s a real game-changer.

    I look forward to your upcoming OP on it.

    1. Over at his blog, Dr. Swamidass has silenced keiths for one week. Might I be so bold as to suggest that a one-month suspension at TSZ is a little excessive.

    Not just excessive, but outrageous. It’s a punitive action, and it amounts to censorship, both of which run counter to the TSZ ethos and Lizzie’s stated wishes. A shorter suspension would still amount to censorship.

    Accusations of lying should not be made lightly.

    I absolutely agree, and my accusations were not made lightly. I thought very carefully about the evidence before making them. That’s why it’s been amusing to see Alan and Jock trying to label my accusations as “baseless”. They aren’t; I’ve backed them up and can continue to do so to anyone who challenges me. I am prepared to defend my assessment, and I’m certainly not asking anyone to simply take my word for it.

    Another thing to bear in mind is that whether we like it or not, people tend to have different standards of honesty, and almost nobody is consistently honest in all things (or dishonest, for that matter).

    Agreed, and I leave it up to readers (here and at Peaceful Science) to decide whether they agree that Swamidass’s behavior was dishonest or whether they even care if it was. (I just urge them to look at the actual evidence before making a decision.)

    Here’s the larger context: Some comments of mine had been deleted by overzealous moderators at Peaceful Science. I expressed dismay and indicated that it would be hard for me to continue posting under such circumstances. Josh acknowledged the mistake and said that he had addressed it, and that I could proceed without fear of a repeat.

    My point was that I was finding it very hard to trust Josh’s assurances, given the behavior that I outlined in my complaint.

  36. Kantian Naturalist: Those books are concerned with an infinitely more sophisticated and powerful version of Skepticism than what we call “Cartesian skepticism”.

    Cartesian skepticism is usually bandied about as “can you trust your senses?” But that’s child’s play. The really interesting questions begin to open up when the question is posed: can you trust your reason? And if not, then what happens to arguments that tell you shouldn’t trust your reason? Or to arguments that tell you that the senses are not reliable?”

    Rene Descartes was a religious man. The person wearing the name ‘Kantian Naturalist’ here, otoh is a secularist, not ‘religious’, and talks little & usually confusedly about it.

    “Infinitely more,” according to professional ‘child’s play’ philosophistics! Sure, telling that to undergrads still allowed, are you?

    Does anyone here think KN might have exaggerated with his skeptic chest out?

    “Plato’s originality as a thinker consisted in realizing that the antidote for the moral and spiritual corruption of Athens before, during, and after the Peloponessian War had something to do with what was right and wrong about Parmenides, Heraclitus, and post-Parmenidean philosophers.”

    Sorry, Mung, what do appreciate about him dunking his sophisticated, soul-numbing donuts at this place, as he edits some book that will peddle philosophistry to a small enclave of people who embrace Sell-Out philosophistry? Please get a grip and go read better elsewhere. That woolly ain’t keeping people warm, especially in wintertime.

  37. walto: I really hope you’ve got that programmed into a macro. Save you a bunch of time, since you don’t care what anybody thinks, and that remark constitutes about 75% of your posts here.

    I mean, if you DO happen to care what one or two people think here, why not just email them your insights instead of clogging up this place with stuff that seems incoherent to everyone else? I mean, you seem to keep forgetting that 98% of the populace here (call them “the sentient cohort”) doesn’t care what YOU “think” either.

    Write something of value.. you sound like the farmer’s wives’ association… blah, blah, blah…
    You have too much time on hands? Pick up a hobby… or another addition…😉

  38. Erik: phoodoo:
    If we can all agree to have moderators do whatever they want, and there be no public scrutiny of their actions, then I would like to volunteer to be a moderator.

    By this statement you disqualify yourself from being a moderator, because you obviously don’t know what a moderator is supposed to do. Nowhere did anyone suggest moderators do whatever they want. You are confirming my suspicion that UD and TSZ form the totality of your interactive internet experience. That’s very sad.

    It is sad. You are so blessed man. How did you get to be able to have so much experience on so many blogs? You are like a blog-savant. I bet you even drink savantblog?

    Or is this somehow related to your inability to not click on things you don’t want to read? Maybe its not blog-savantism, but instead you have blogautism?

    Either way, you are so brave to talk about it here. Unless of course you don’t have the ability to not talk about it, then that is not exactly brave, since you have no choice.

    Brave. Afflicted. It doesn’t matter really. Could just be two sides to the same coin I suppose. God bless. Be proud.

Comments are closed.