Guano (1)

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.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)

  1. So, you have no idea what ‘reflexivity’ means, Patrick? Add that to the long list of things you are unaware of.

    Patrick is the creepiest TAMSZ moderator, by far. Why not simply repeat again for about the 10th time the same questions, without understanding why they are the wrong questions? You’ve been told this multiple times, but simply creep on.

    It is hard to be graceful to atheist assholes. (Granted, there are a significant number of atheists who are not assholes; unfortunately TAMSZ is highly biased by militant atheists and anti-theists, who are largely assholes.) We are only human, after all.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. 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

  5. Richardthughes:
    Frankie,

    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…

  6. 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.

  7. Patrick:
    Gregory,

    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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Poor lonely Mung. He’s the only one here with morals because hey, he’s such a good Christian boy. Never mind all those lies he tells for Jesus, the ends justify the means.

  12. Mung

    You can, of course, as a “good atheist,” offer support for your claims. You apparently have morals. Did you steal them from someone else?

    I bought them cheap from a hypocritical Christian bigot like yourself. He wasn’t using them any more either.

  13. Mungie,

    You’re cute when you try to provoke a response. Unfortunately, we already have you figured out.

  14. That Mung,

    Mung

    Atheists aren’t immoral, but they sure as hell can’t muster an argument in favor of objective morality, in spite of their repeated claims that there is such a thing as objective morality.

    That Mung, besides being the Butthurt King he sure loves himself some strawmen. I suppose it’s his way of coping with his feelings of scientific inadequacy.

  15. Gregory: Alan, one of your 3 atheists, has proven himself unworthy of an answer

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a straight answer from you to anyone here. Who the hell are you to judge on worthiness, you pompous prick.

  16. Grace is open to many, should they choose to seek it and commit themselves. Welcoming all others of faith doesn’t make me their judge.

    The thing you don’t seem to want to understand (though you appear to try very hard to remain stuck in hatred and anger towards believers), walto, is that I am joining THEIR team too. We are not as stupid or as small as your little Farm College teaching resume makes you pretend you have some kind of egoist (now do you see what I mean, Lizzie?) authority to make.

    “how stupid these people must be! What a sweetheart!”

    Apparently I hold much greater hope in humanity than your petty elitism (what, as an accountant, bureaucrat, philosophist?!). How damaged this human being must be. 🙁 🙁 We should pray for him (which will only make him angrier!).

  17. “Several other participants have complained”

    Gee, does that surprise a selfish, clueless, atheist fool?!

    Apparently ‘Patrick’ is too imbecilic or anti-religiously activistic even to accept Lizzie’s ‘suggestion’ to let it go.

    Uh, yaha, I fink me do it agin, cuz maybee thy did n’t c it b4! Repeat ad nauseam.

    Will this finally be the last time, Patrick? Or do you plan on rubbing it again?

    The admin ‘Patrick’ is one of the saddest of human beings I’ve witnessed. He simply doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and DOESN’T CARE to know it.

    There are egoists and narcissists and then there are TAMSZ admins:

    “I heard there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the Lord, but YOU DON’T REALLY CARE FOR MUSIC DO YOU?”

    The ‘obligation’ Patrick seems to think he is entitled to as a sad, angry, skeptical atheist and anti-theist is a testament to the emptiness and ultimate despair of the core mission of this blog and its admins.

    Continue to support this line of thinking, please do it! It shows how unimportant Lizzie’s attempt is.

  18. Gregory,

    Your comment at 2015/11/29 5:59 pm is exactly the type of material I would move to Guano if it were made by someone agreeing with me or directed at someone other than me. Go run off and complain about biased admins some more, please.

  19. Mung: Faithful Elizabeth. Missing the point entirely in order to protect her cute little minions. No wonder “moderation” here at TSZ is such a joke.

    Lizzie’s site. Lizzie’s rules.

    Actually it’s you who is the joke here Mung with your constant whining about every little thing and your holier-than-thou attitude.

    You must go through a 55 gallon drum of Preparation H a week to soothe all that butthurt.

  20. Patrick,

    Your “three simple questions” demonstrate you are depraved. Nothing more. If you had a desire to understand, you would have read the links provided to you and responded to them.

    You’ve been quote-mining a single thing Erik said as if that is the ONLY point of your ‘desire for understanding.’

    Grow up. It is pathetic. It is misguided. And it is boring. Obviously, as a man without faith, you cannot assume Erik is posting in good faith. We understand your personal disbelief. You’ve said it more times than the most DEAF person needs to hear.

    Lizzie made a suggestion. Do us all a favour. Stop. But you in your ignorance and idiocy don’t care to listen.

  21. petrushka:
    Science vs religion.

    Yes, that’s exactly the way most of your silly depraved kind here at TAMSZ frame it. Dehumanising to say the least.

  22. Allan Miller: in

    Allan, you have nothing to explain the genetic code. All you can do is deny that it requires a designer. And you do that due to your faith not science.

  23. Richardthughes,

    Did you just post an abstract from a study after complaining about abstracts that other people posted (not me!) and then whine that I said the abstract didn’t say what you claimed (and I was of course right)?

    Can I just point out here that you are such a fucking shithead, that you make people who are merely dipshits seem brilliant?

    Now what about the Chimps eating other people’s babies, shithead???

  24. Joe Felsenstein:
    Frankie ought to talk to a guy named JoeG.JoeG used to make exactly that argument about evolutionary algoirthms and frontloading.Furthermore he was very sure of himself, even though not one other “ID proponent” ever agreed with him about that.JoeG will probably be happy to hear that now there are two people in his camp.Two, because there are now two names associated with that view, and as we know, .So support for this unusual view has now doubled, and with a modest number of further doublings, should become the majority view.

    So your view is that GAs are not goal-oriented targeted searches? Really? Do you have an actual argument or is innuendo the best that you can do?

  25. Evos need to firm out their ideas and answer the difficult questions. However it is a given that you never will. Heck you can’t even find the alleged theory of evolution. So perhaps you should start with that.

  26. Joe knows all about ‘front loading’ – he’s been repairing washing machines for years.

  27. Richardthughes:
    Richardthughes,

    I see Phoodoo had a bit or a rant that went to Guano. Phoodoo, you might want to learn the differences between abstracts, articles, etc.

    Did you just post an abstract from a study after complaining about abstracts (an article about an abstract) that other people posted (not me!) and then whine that I said the abstract didn’t say what you claimed (and I was of course right)?

    Can I just point out here that you are such a fucking shithead, that you make people who are merely dipshits seem brilliant?

    Now what about the Chimps eating other people’s babies, shithead???

  28. “Did you just post an abstract from a study after complaining about abstracts (an article about an abstract) that other people posted (not me!) and then whine that I said the abstract didn’t say what you claimed (and I was of course right)?

    Can I just point out here that you are such a fucking shithead, that you make people who are merely dipshits seem brilliant?

    Now what about the Chimps eating other people’s babies, shithead???”

    Question- Why was this post removed, whilst the meaningless shit posts from Richard are allowed to stay? Who decides this?

  29. So, you don’t know wha an abstract is, Phoodoo?

    I guess your way of learning is lead with whatever you come up with then wait for correction.

  30. Lulz, Phoodoo, I just saw the mess you made in Guano. Seriously though, you might want to learn what an abstract is 😉

  31. Reciprocating Bill,

    First, I think its not possible to have an intelligent conversation, when someone says how to know if a God is good, then asked what they mean by good, then ran away from that question.

    Secondly, an intelligent discussion is not possible, when jerk offs like Richard are allowed to derail conversations, and not be admonished (even when I asked Alan directly to remove the off topics ad hominen remarks he refused to do so!) and then you have Patrick, who is unqualified to be a moderator of any kind, uses his fascist power to ONLY censor those he disagrees with. Until Patrick is removed from that post, there is no way to have a fair two way discussion.

  32. And I can’t even post a reply, because MY comments have been held in moderation!!

    Blow me Patrick. Put that wherever you want.

Comments are closed.