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.

1,266 thoughts on “Guano

  1. Alan Fox: [redacted].

    An interesting review. It ends with “redacted.”

    Although he doesn’t use these words, the reviewer seems to see [redacted] as spewing bullshit, with enormous confidence in the high quality of that bullshit.

  2. Adapa,

    Your grasp of your nutsack is amazing-especially considering its all the way down your esophagus.

    (Note Alan, I did ask you to remove his guano but you didn’t)

  3. Alan Fox: Remember you are on a short leash, Joe/Frankie. Anyone else, remember Brer Rabbit and the tar baby!

    Fuck your leash- remain ignorant. Good luck with that

  4. Richardthughes:

    Indeed. Before dismissing Joe as just another internet crank I think you should all know that he is a self-declared “ID Leader” (uncorroborated by anyone else) and is “leading” in “Intelligent Design Evolution”. I presume his works are forthcoming.

    Unlike Richie who is just a belligerent ass…

  5. Gregory, wherever that post (or this one) may end up, it remains true. You are an utter nitwit. Every single post of yours is stupid. It’s an incredible percentage: I congratulate you!

    ETA: Oh, also your paper was really stupid too, so it’s not this place or the internet or anything like that.

  6. Patrick:

    You are mistaken.I’ve been repeatedly asking for clarification so that I can understand exactly what it is Erik is claiming.

    Here is what Erik claimed:

    He followed this up with:

    He has since reiterated that position several more times.

    So tell me, Gregory, what language in Erik’s claim am I refusing to learn?He is making an assertion about an historical fact.Because of that he has an obligation under the goals of this site (and of rational discourse) to clarify his meaning and, once that meaning is clarified, support his claim with evidence.

    Two reasons.First, that’s not true.Second, Erik’s claim is not about a spiritual reading of anything.It is a claim about a supposedly historical event.He should explain what he means by answering my simple questions.You should stop defending his refusal to do so — it calls your character into question.

    Patrick, do you realize you’re attempting to have an intelligent conversation with an utter nitwit? What is the point?

  7. OMagain: We already know how the design was implemented Frankie! It was implemented via design, because design is a mechanism, remember?

    LoL! Yes, design is a mechanism and if you could actually read you would have read that design is not a specific mechanism. Just as natural selection is not specific.

  8. Alan Fox: Rather a giveaway, Joe. “Would include”? Sort of suggests you are saying:

    A theory of ID [if there were such a theory] would include all of the questions that come later, after design has been detected.

    In which case I agree with you. I also wonder how you plan to detect “design” before deciding what it entails.

    Alan, I have already told you what the design entails. So if you wonder you do so out of willful ignorance.

  9. Adapa: Joe your clown buddies used the term “theory of Intelligent Design”.Maybe you should lobby them to change the words if you disagree.

    Your clown buddies and you use the term “theory of evolution”. Maybe you should change the words you use.

Comments are closed.