I mentioned before that we’re a bit full up on commenting kooks, and it’s time to purge a few. Here’s a short list of our contestants this week, a few of the obnoxious people who are lurking about in the comments right now. We’re going to get rid of some of them, one at a time.
Barb
Alan Clarke
Facilis
John Kwok
Pete Rooke
RogerS
Simon
Everyone gets to vote them off the blog — just leave a comment with the name of the competitor you like least, and I’ll tally them up on Wednesday morning, and the winner gets evicted.
But wait! There’s more! We have to have an immunity challenge, don’t we? Our 7 intrepid dingleberries have an opportunity to save themselves by meeting an appropriate challenge by 1:00pm Central time tomorrow. After 1:00, I’ll ask the readers here to vote on who best and adequately met the challenge (and you’ll all be fair and honest about it, I hope), and that winner will be exempt from eviction this round. Sounds fun, right?
Here’s the challenge. In a comment that isn’t longer than about 200 words, that is grammatically correct and logically coherent, and that does not cite the Bible or other religious authorities (and does not rely on tales about who you went to high school with, or tortured analogies involving necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen), explain how evolutionary biologists resolve the trivial conundrum represented by the common question, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” Remember, answer as a biologist or intelligent layman would, not like Pat Robertson or Ken Ham.
Go! Voting will continue until Wednesday morning, our contestants have until 1:00pm Central on Tuesday to meet the immunity challenge.
Thank you, Pete, for justifying my faith in you. While you can be an odious little twit, you do have a sense of humo(u)r. I’ve argued that you are salvageable and, like your fellow callow Brit Walton, just suffer from being naive.
Ray Ladbury,
I would never inflict oral sex on a women.
No. 5 was a little joke.
That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget.
Jean-Paul Sartre
I too cry out for God. Whether he hears I cannot be certain. I believe he does, and I pray he does. That he might not will, in the grand scheme of things, make little or no difference to this world as long as belief in such a being is exists as a lighthouse.
Dang, my irony meter blew another fuse. Pete talking about fighting the tyranny of being banned when his blog is by “invitation only”. Way to be the hypocrite Pete. We didn’t invite you.
i also think than those guys make the
thread more fun.
I would keep them for the lulz.
And while its pains me to see people
which is impervious to logic, its also
great to realize than there are plenty of
people which just cant stand that inannaty
and cant help themselves but to jump in
when idiocy appears.
Yay! Scott from Oregon has shown up (468)! I’m so proud of him for bringing up high-school. That’s where everything in life that matters happens after all. Plus, we all know that if you’re intelligent and rational you must not have been getting a ton of ass back then, played sports, or had any real friends etc. He probably knows this because he’s watched Porkys 64 times now.
He even used the term “Geeks”. Oh my!
Poor Scott. I think he’s just upset that once again the big kids ignored him and he didn’t make the list.
Pete @ #502
Noted that your point 5 was a joke.
What about your opening statement of #502, though? Not so obvious…
Not even if she wanted to? And you two were married to each other?
I would never inflict oral sex on a women.
*facepalm*
@John Kwok:
Hah! I’ll thwart your plan by befriending PZ on facebook!
your move!
Dear, dear, sweet child.
Some women actually enjoy giving oral sex.
We like to think so…
Silver Fox can’t be expected to comment very often; he’s got a very special assignment to complete. In order to prevent Christianity from being invalidated by his own argument he has to disprove all the other gods who’ve ever been posited. This will, obviously, take a while – so don’t be too hard on him.
Besides, all you have to do is remind him of this egregious fuckup and he runs away. Apparently, he’s a huge fan of the Sweet song Fox on he Run…
Brian @ 392:
“Excuse me, but what the hell is this garbage? I’m usually very hesitant to purposely antagonize anyone, but are you -really- saying what I think you’re saying? That anyone who comes in here to try to defend your piggy (to use Mark#315’s fitting allusion) of the hour, is a “Concern Troll” and should be ridiculed? I hope not.”
I’m fairly sure, Brian, that my words were quite clear. As a matter of fact, I’m almost certain that I wasn’t at all ambiguous.
Your pearl clutching and lame attempts to paint me as some hate-filled person “out to get” anyone are certainly dramatic, but they’re not in any way true.
A game was proposed. Rules were laid out. Play or don’t play, that’s your choice. Defend whomever you wish, but don’t get all up in my shit about something I have not done. I chose Barb for her unending stupidity. I voted for her because she has absolutely no redeeming qualities as a poster on Pharyngula. She adds nothing to the discussion, and only serves to detract from the debate. This is a well established bannable offense, as you may or may not know, and I see nothing wrong with voting on that basis.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, perhaps you can tell me what part of my comment was directed at you? I think the salutation indicated that I was directing my comment to Janine, and I don’t think Janine suddenly got a sex change, so how this came to be all about you and your shrill asshattery is a bit of a mystery to me. Care to explain?
Barb. The sheer vacuousness of her comments did it for me.
Brian Hertz,
To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible. Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another? (a rhetorical question the power of which is diminished by response)
Interesting. I read Pete’s statement the other way around to you…
Ahhh. Mayhempix @ #495
I see clearly now that you are much more of a cunning linguist than I.
Tax Religion. (and what a long way to go to set up that joke…)
Tark
Wow. Pete Rooke in #502 wrote what should be an award winning piece describing god as completely meaningless. Although, the cited quote from Facilis, if true, keeps “that one” (using a McCain-ism) in the lead.
How.. um, noble of you. May you, in return, never have to endure receiving oral sex.
Janine, 463 was just terrific.
It’s your blog PZ, and if you want to ban someone, you should.
But personally i would say.. none of them.
My reasoning is, that even though they may be godbots, bible thumpers, quoting the bible, rude, obnoxious, and many other things, they are also the examples that make more moderate christians doubt if they’re believing the right thing.
So please let them post so they can be debunked and people can read it and see the value of their believes.
Pete said:
Oh he hears you allright, Pete. He just doesn’t listen.
Unnatural? Shit, we see dogs licking their genitalia all the time.
Rooke,
Dude, seriously, answer the immunity question BEFORE you start with your analogies.
Pete
I insist on “inflicting oral sex on a woman”.
If there is anything that I can do to bring on the yummies, I’m doing it with gusto.
Life is short kid. Treat it like an orgasmathon.
Yours, hers, theirs, on it , in it, at it, toward it…dude!
There are few things in life as satisfying as being a good and generous lover.
Can a godless pervert get an AMEN?
Damn, now I’m all sweaty.
In light of new evidence I change my vote to John Kwok. Pete is apparently just a little clueless, and Barb is a terrible bore but not dumb enough to try and intimidate people.
Credit where credit is due: why are there clouds was pretty funny, Pete.
I’d ask you not to ban John Kwok – he’s a good guy, a good evilutionist, and a vocal opponent of ID and such nonsense.
That said, I’m not a frequent commenter, so I don’t know if his comment #403 was abnormal or typical. I really, really hope it was abnormal.
D’oh @ my #518. I didn’t look at the post he was replying to, and I thought he was claiming he’d never give a woman oral sex.
Methinks Petey boy could learn something from 2 Girls 1 Cup (no, I’m NOT linking that).
SteveM,
Oops, You’re right. My Bad. I’m at work and was trying to keep abreast of the voting while waiting for my afternoon cluster f… meeting, and I totally missed it. It’s also Monday and my brain not work good.
Is that grounds for banishment? I hope not.
Brian-
?
Pete
“Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”
That’s cool, I’m pretty sure it was my own.
If you exist, why is your uncle still alive?
Petey:
I really hope 5 was an attempt at humor. As for crying out, etc. Let’s use a common event. You call a friend and nobody answers. You repeat this experiment as do others. There is no answer. Now what can you gather from this?
(1) Your friend has no intention of talking with anyone, no matter how urgent or…
(2) Nobody is home. Period.
Your beliefs and prayers do not have the effect of creating the reality, except in your own mind. Why do you need a lighthouse? Do you really need one when quite apart from any religious context most people including most on this blog have well developed ethical senses.
No need for lighthouses, we have a good set of internal charts. Now go get a pint.
Child
Ever hear of condoms? Not swallowing?
Ooooh. Other Adam @#499
Nicely done. Salute!
Tax Religion. Juices flowing.
Tark
I read it the same way as you…
#403:
BWaahahHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Oh noes, PZ is gonna lose his Facebook friends!! I mean, all his previous posts made me roll my eyes, but this one! Hahaha!!!! *gasp* Seriously! “Don’t bounce me or else I’ll make my friends not be friends with you! Oooo!!”
*wipes eyes*
Honestly, Kwok, if you had simply given your essay without the petulant threats, you probably would have been fine. wtf.
#454: “5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.”
…
Seriously? You wrote that … seriously? *blink*
Okay. Okay. So gravitational theory is not correct? Why do YOU think there are clouds? I await enlightenment; please proceed. I am asking you to tell me your hypothesis for cloud formation. I’m a biologist. I had no idea that the existence of clouds was at all in contention.
Hmmmm. Well, if gravitational theory isn’t correct, why are there clouds?
Thus speaks the true virgin. As BMS pointed out, some women enjoy it, just as some men (I am one) enjoy giving oral gratification to women. As long as a particular sexual behavior is consensual, it should not be condemned by non-participants.
BDSM (google it) is not attractive to either my wife or me, so we don’t indulge. However I will not say anything about other people doing the whips and handcuffs thing if it’s consensual.
Or in other words, don’t worry about what other people do.
Hey, I second the vote to not dump any of the dingbats. Maybe someday I’ll get a chance to practice takedowns before too many posts have gone by. The more dingbats, the more practice.
That would make Pharyngula a geek martial arts dojo. What is the Molly, a black belt?
Note to self:
do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.
-shudders.- Okay — after that, I’m definitely glad I cast my vote for Petey.
Re: “inflicting” oral sex on a lady…
I have news for you, honey. Contrary to what you have been raised to think, your preferences and needs are NOT the perfect paragon of “normal” in the universe. Just because you can’t understand something from your own perspective doesn’t make it wrong or evil.
And yeah, a lot of us ladies are more than happy to do that for our men. And a lot of men are happy to return the favor. In a monogamous relationship it’s just another way to be intimate and loving. It’s just too bad you can’t understand that because of your sheltered upbringing.
This is why I said that you were dangerous — because your kind are SO severely repressed that, many times, it explodes in an atom bomb of badness later in life.
“5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.”
For the same reason that the smoke of your cigarette or the steam coming out your morning coffee doesn’t plum down to the ground: difference in density with respect to the contents of our atmosphere. Somewhat analogous to the water-oil mixture.
Gravity is a rather weak fundamental force, compared to other things like electromagnetism. Test it yourself: a small magnet is sufficient to pick up a coin; winning the gravity-battle against the entire Earth. It’s an unfair comparison, though. Gravity does create some really beautiful structures over large distances and various time-spans.
All this debate over whether oral sex is fun for women, whether it’s too gross to be fun, etc., completely misses the point. Objectively, sex is gross. You put what in what now?! But you’re not supposed to enjoy sex from a rational, detached perspective. It’s meant to be enjoyed in the moment, not analyzed. So all of you people saying oral sex is gross (to give, receive, or whatever) – judge by experience, not by hypothesis.
Work to do this evening.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
*sniff* that’s just tooo adorably cute and innocent!
I guess I better not mention all the other things some among us do voluntarily and with joy even. our poor rookie might faint!
My boyfriend did attend a party once though at which the host, in his wickedness, wanted to get him to eat one of the “special cookies” he baked with his girlfriend for their private enjoyment. guess what the “icing” was….
Barb. And then Kwok next week, because c’mon, fucking Facebook? Really? Really really? That’s your best threat? Pussy.
Scott from Oregon: When was the last time you had consensual sex? You sound like an asshole.
P.S. You don’t get to say “it was a joke” to back out of it every time a comment backfires. I thought you were a grown-up; you should know this.
As to the issue of sex, some people enjoy enacting extreme rape fantasies/role play… Is this to be allowed an legitimized in the eyes of the law???
Based on what, exactly? If it’s ‘unnatural’, how is it possible? Surely if your god hadn’t wanted us to do this then he would have made it a) more difficult and b) less pleasurable. I might be swayed by the argument that your god wouldn’t want me to perform such an act on myself, since he made that impossible*.
And things are only degrading if the person doing it is forced, coerced or manipulated into doing it. A willing participant doesn’t find it degrading.
That you think this way answers quite a few questions, Pete. I’m guessing you’re one of those people who, thanks to a repressed, sex-phobic upbringing, spend a lot of time feeling guilty about the thoughts you (and we know from your analogies you have them) have – and that it’s right that you be punished for them.
No wonder you believe in the Christian god. Sex-hating, women-hating, guilt-ridden – that’s Christianty to a ‘t’.
*Well, for all but a few fortunate guys…
Oh, man. Overshooting thread growth. Is anybody going to read this anymore… <sigh>
John Kwok.
Why?
Because all the others can provide teachable moments, sometimes even to themselves (see below). But when that guy shows up, he neither contributes to any discussion nor feeds anyone’s SIWOTI syndrome. All you can say is “stop name-dropping”, which is just as boring as his comments themselves. He’s nothing but a nuisance. Insipidity — “a great crime”, it is written on the dungeon gate. Also, wanking; and then there’s his creepy public lusting after ERV. Away with him.
The strange thing about her is that she used to be a drive-by troll. She deserved bannination at that stage. Strangely, she has stopped that!
She makes nothing but arguments from ignorance — even her vilest, most hideous statements follow logically from her ignorance. Thus provides one teachable moment after another. It’s even possible that she’s capable of learning — she hasn’t tried to defend the incredible stupidity of the heart beats without any external source of energy which earned her a FSTDT entry, and I have to check if she has now reacted to my pointing out that homosexuality is 1) innate and 2) by no means limited to humans, as she implied.
Also, she’s at the moment limited to a single thread, right?
Mentally ill. Has a very, very Freudian-looking father complex. Should seek therapy.
Limited to one thread; should be allowed to stay for providing teachable moments, if he reads this article on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective and then demonstrates he has understood it. We tried to get him to read it for eight hundred comments on the now closed Titanoboa thread and, as of last night, another eight hundred comments on the Science of Watchmen thread.
Comments very little most of the time, and appears teachable on evolution. That may not be true on presuppositionalism, though.
As long as he doesn’t return to making analogies that are not merely deeply disturbing (in terms of what insights they give into his mind!) but completely miss the point, he’s actually harmless. I was surprised by his performance on the bacon thread; he appears to be where Walton was two or three years ago, only a bit crazier — more scared, that is.
A less persistent version of Alan Clarke.
Hasn’t commented for days, AFAIK (hmmm… I seem to be wrong about that, judging from comment 209). Seems to be a drive-by troll who has lost interest. If he comes back, though…
———————————————–
The idea is to feed the trolls till they choke, explode, or something like that. Also, the game “Dance, trollboy! Dance!” can be fun.
Please. Their IP addresses are banned, too, and I don’t know if that’s even all. Did you believe the blogosphere was invented yesterday?!?
Why are you surprised at ordinary Christian doctrine? Here goes: everyone is a sinner and therefore deserves to go to hell. Nobody deserves to go to heaven, so we all need a savior who lets us in for free. See comment 217.
You’ve been promoting extreme mental shortsightedness (presuppositionalism) and ignorance (ID is a form of creationism and is not science, and you’re simple-minded and ignorant enough to believe the really lame propaganda on this being an academic-freedom issue — start here).
Correct!
See? PZ’s plan is so cunning he could put four pairs of tentacles on it and call it an octopus.
What? Where was that?
It works perfectly. Think about it. What is Ahmadinejad other than a Barb with a beard?
And that in comments 229 and 231. Dude, why do you comment on a thread you haven’t read? There have been several links already!
Oh, I’ve seen worse. They’re all already banned.
Near the top of this page there’s a list to the dungeon. To its gate is nailed the list of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Read it.
Ban me or you’re off my blogroll!
guess what the “icing” was….
Faeces?? I defy anyone to tell me that that is appropriate!
Yeah, me too. And I was gonna go with ‘Oh, c’mon, dude, you can’t be that bad…’
But then he clarified…
And I guess, now that I think about it, I can’t entirely disagree with him anyway. Since I would never inflict Peter Rooke on a women either. Or on a woman, for that matter.
And hey, what’s with that plural, anyway, guy? Somethin’ we or someone (or a few someones) special should know?
Anyway, even tho’ he’s actually being pretty funny here, intentionally or otherwise, I’m keeping my 1/2 vote from back there. Y’know how this works. Sure, he’s funny today… But then tomorrow, he’s on about lampshades again…
(Okay, yes, I guess that was sorta funny too, in a kinda disturbing, ghoulish, I’m gonna be reading about this guy in the paper in a few years, right? way. But you really have to be in the mood for that, methinks.)
One more vote for Barb.
(Although I hope Brian from Edmondton is on some future list. What a douchebag.)
This is why I could never vote for you. Sometimes your cluelessness is just too cute.
John Kwok
dude, it WAS a joke, and some of us even got it. attacking where no attack is warranted makes you look rabid.
Oh, wait. So #5 was a joke?
Was the other stuff a joke, too?
Actually, that “he” might not “hear”, but that belief in “his” existence is sufficient–this makes no sense.
If there are no ears to hear, then what is the point of praying to such a god? Or believing in “Him”, even? What is the point, then, of following all those rules and causing a whole bunch of misery based on what “He” thinks?
Belief in of itself is not a lighthouse.
The concept of God in of itself does not make a person any better by default.
If the only way a person is able to choose “moral” decisions is by fear of third degree burns after he dies, is that really the best that religion can do?
If the concept of God makes you adhere to better moral decisions, then fine. Do what works for you and doesn’t harm anyone else. But don’t think that your concept is any better than anyone else’s concept of morality, with or without a deity.
Well, Pete, I for one imbibe my lover’s ejaculate with great gusto.
It’s not a nasty, dirty thing. It’s a way for me to bring pleasure to my man and affirm our sexual intimacy. I get to please him, while CONCENTRATING on pleasing him. I’m not distracted by the lovely sensations of intercourse with him. I can focus solely on his pleasure, listening, feeling and hearing his subtle indications of “faster”, “deeper”, “more tongue”, or what-have-you.
It’s an act of love, Pete. Honest to goodness, heartfelt, enduring love that does not deny the wonders and pleasures of the human form. It’s a chance for me to give of myself, to give to the man I love a pleasurable experience ending in the nicest physical feeling we humans get.
Someday, when you meet someone you love, respect, trust and desire you will understand that you and your partner will be far happier if you find joy in your bodies instead of shame.
While we are on the topic of sex here is an interesting, funny and informative lecture on Primate Sexuality (remember primate includes humans):
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/13/stanfords-sapolsky-o.html
The speaker is Prof. Sapolsky from Standford.
@543
If you learned how to make jokes, maybe somebody would get them. If they’re already little, they’d better be good1. As I suspected, it was a Poe – a self-Poe, nonetheless, but a Poe. That would make it a form of mental masturbation. I take it you prefer masturbation to cunnilingus?
Oh, and I guess that would make you anti-vulvatarian.
1. Still don’t know what fundamentalism is, eh? Or was that a joke too?
I think Pete Rooke should hereby be granted immunity for his spectacular proof of Poe’s law provided in this thread via his point #5.
Well played!
Aaron @51
Not so. We would have monkey farms.
A joke for the RBDC:
A man stops at a farmstand to buy some corn. He notices a three legged pig in a pen nearby. The man asks the farmer, what happened to that pig’s leg?
The farmer says, that is the most amazing pig to ever live. One night our house caught fire while the whole family was sleeping and that pig broke out of his pen and came in the house and woke us up. He saved the whole family.
The man replies, so he was injured in the process and lost his leg?
No, he wasn’t hurt in the fire.
You see, a special pig like that you don’t eat all at once.
(btw, It would be trickier to do the bacon extraction)
Feynmaniac@334
That is a win.
Rooke @#502
I believe you. But I am going to go home and make my face look like a glazed donut. I’ll ask the Mrs. How traumatic it was when I’m/she’s done.
“Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”
Umm… you mean like out of a cup because that’s kind of yucky. But otherwise, umm… I bet quite a few among us would :/
yes. actions between consenting adults, should always be legal, even if you don’t approve.
roleplaying rape-phantasies != actual rape
You’ve get a self-noter? Have you read the instructions?
“Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?”
Actually, it’s the word “knowingly” that throws me.
Pete, is there a story you’re trying not to share?
Remember, god knows all. He even knows if you enjoyed it.
PZ, and all, I must heartily apologize if my OCD has led this thread astray. As we should do with Petey…
Tax Religion. What’s that slurping sound?
Tark
I am going to go home and make my face look like a glazed donut.
LOL
…and I bet the missus likes making donuts alrighty.
Mine only complains when I forget to shave.
;)
As long as it is between consenting adults and kept in private, what is the problem?
I am sure you would be shocked by the number of different things all of us engage in. But guess what, few ever go into detail about their exploits here.
Well, see, it all started when he was hanging curtains in the nude…
While Kwok is making a strong case of his plonkhammering for the possibility of witnessing the hilarity of a Kwok engineered Facebook boycott of PZ by all his super important friends, I still stick with simon.
And Pete made a funny.
The Kwok threat still has me rolling.
Drink the semen from another….what?
John, you deserved being bounced just for making such a mind-numbingly stupid threat like that.
We know you’re a name-dropper; a syncophant; and a cyber-stalker who seriously needs to stay away from erv.
I just didn’t realize you were stupid, too. Well, live and learn.
I vote for John.
n….nnnooo, Pete. Not “faeces.” Do try to keep up. And not so much Latin, please.
I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).
Barb
And then I fell doc and that can of hairsrpay was just…
I am reposting this merely because I recognized two slight errors and am correcting them (I’m ignoring inane comments about my former friendship with Abbie Smith, my friendship with Ken Miller and my relationship to my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless. Though I will note that his current wife is a great fan of evolutionary biology and keeps abreast as much as possible on current research.):
“If evolution is true, why are still monkeys?” That’s rather an easy question to answer IMHO. Although we – humanity – and monkeys are both primates – and thus are related relatively closely by common descent – we have undertaken our own separate evolutionary histories as different Primate clades utlizing vastly different ecological niches during the Cenozoic Era (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South and East Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period)).
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Your evidence for this claim is what?
John Kwok.
The Facebook threat put him over the top.
Don’t know much about ‘nature’, do ya, Pete? Animals bugger each other in the most entertainin’ ways.
What a prude.
Mr Rooke cannot answer the immunity question.
His fear of teh pusseh licken is due to his contempt for his genital-licking tetrapod forebears.
Pete, do you also blog as Ace of Spades? Ace’s execrable blog post also has a bacon reference.
I am reposting this merely because I recognized two slight errors and am correcting them (I’m ignoring inane comments about my former friendship with Abbie Smith, my friendship with Ken Miller and my relationship to my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless. Though I will note that his current wife is a great fan of evolutionary biology and keeps abreast as much as possible on current research.):
“If evolution is true, why are still monkeys?” That’s rather an easy question to answer IMHO. Although we – humanity – and monkeys are both primates – and thus are related relatively closely by common descent – we have undertaken our own separate evolutionary histories as different Primate clades utlizing vastly different ecological niches during the Cenozoic Era (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South and East Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period)).
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Petey all orifices seem to work pretty well. At least in my experience. I could ask the wife her opinion if you’d like?
Facilis – Because he actually named Discovery Institute as a
here
This thread went from being Pharyngula Survivor to a debate about BJ’s, etc.? Barb might be so offended she’ll leave of her own accord! WIN-WIN!
Pete, relax your inhibitions a bit. If it happens between two consenting adults, it’s all good. Not liking oral is like not liking bacon. You stay out of others bedrooms and they stay out of yours, unless you’re the type to invite them in.
Not a friend of yours then?
Janine (#521)
Kittens also will sometimes mistake a sibling’s penis for a nipple, even after they’re weaned. The owner of the penis rarely complains and sometimes you have to separate them to prevent infections or permanent tissue damage. I’ve even caught naughty adolescent cats fellating one another before.
And sorry to everyone who never wanted to know that about cats.
~*~*~*~*~*~
Pete Rooke (#543)
Lots of people have made jokes similar to that on this thread and most saw it as a joke. If you didn’t continuously torpedo your own credibility, more people would recognize your intentions behind the gravity bit. Go figure.
Hmm.. Now i’m curious.
I wonder why pz posted this thread.
Was it to see which of the commenters is hated most and why, or is it to see who will post to his question (and possible posting something that’s not their opinion) just for the sake of being able to keep posting here.
I guess i’ll never know.
My hands did not evolve for the purpose of typing on my keyboard, yet I am doing it. What is your point?
and that explains that the pancreatic pleasure center is only accessible via anal… how? not to mention that as far as sexual “deviancy” goes, we humans have nothing on some animals. you should read some of the biology threads sometimes, rookie. it would be enlightening to you, i think
Hasn’t signed up for Facebook, so Kwok doesn’t know.
“Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina.”
Not really. The penis fits in an awful lot of places… and let’s not even get to what gets women off!
vote: Pete Rooke
Kwok sure is campaigning for my vote.
@ #592: Not only will you burn in hell for offending me with such a paragraph, but I guarantee you those were no normal kittens, as no animal truly created by God can catch gay.
No, those were Satan kittens.
*sigh*
I’ve given this quite a bit of thought, read through all of the comments (at the time of writing), considered it from a number of angles, taken the matter far too seriously, and I’m still on the fence about voting to ban anyone. If it were anyone, it would be Barb. Not for her religious idiocy (she makes me furious in the same way heddle does – she reminds me of the people in my childhood church whose badgering made me cry upon leaving my first pop concert because I thought I was going to hell – and at least she’s more honest about her church than he is). Not because she’s a nasty, detestable bigot (though perhaps that should be enough…). But because, as someone said above, it’s like having a conversation with a tape recorder – she’s barely engaged in the same discussion. And banning her wouldn’t prevent her from reading, only from posting, which would perhaps give her an opportunity to read and learn. On the other hand, Kenny went on like this for months before he got the hook, so it may be premature. On the third hand, he never made any progress and could’ve gone sooner than he did had the lynch mob had its way ;)…
Nat the cut-&-paster absolutely, but other than him I’m finding it hard to nominate anyone. (John Kwok is creepily amusing, but actually made me do some research at Google U. on stalker personalities. I truly think he needs professional help. These characteristics aren’t at all funny.)
***
For anyone thinking Molly, I’ll remind you that there is an open Molly thread.
***
Sven, Feynmaniac, and Grendels Dad – Thank you. I needed that this week.
***
CathTCC:
I’ll join you, and I suggest we do so using the most explicit language possible. That would have the added benefit of driving Walton off those threads.
***
Blake Stacey:
It sure is. I’ve argued with a good proportion of the regulars, and I think a substantial majority of the OMs. I’ve argued with Sastra, ffs, and she’s like coated with flame teflon.
“Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.”
So you were told, apparently. Very sad.
Ever herd of Bonobos (or any of the other animals, etc) that also engage in oral sex? Evoution has made us wish to please our mates. That you believe that can only happen one way naturally is just terribly pathetic.
Remember, your fingers were made for peeling bananas, don’t touch your partner with them in a way to give pleasure.
Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.
I’m curious. Has anyone here actually unknowingly imbibed semen? I mean, sure, I can think of a couple plausible frat party scenarios. Most of us have seen American Pie.
I’m beginning to think he’s doing it on purpose.
Pete Rooke #579 wrote:
The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics. Clearly, nobody is performing a paranormal stunt here, or claiming to. That’s what “unnatural” would mean — against nature. Beyond natural abilities.
I think what you want to say is that the actions are wrong: they cause unnecessary harm to someone. But if it’s consensual, then it’s not causing anyone any harm.
The “this part was made for this purpose and this purpose only ” argument doesn’t work — even for theists. Carried to its implications, it would mean that we mustn’t wear earrings, because ears are for hearing with. We shouldn’t play the piano, because there were fingers before there were pianos. Nor should we have invented airplanes, because “if man were meant to fly he would have wings.”
“Natural law” arguments which ignore whether or not there’s harm in favor of whether something was “intended” don’t work. Virtually anything could be called “unnatural.”
John Kwok:
John, you deserved to be bounced because you’re an egotistical little weasel. Abbie thinks you’re creepy ’cause you ARE creepy. Folks who spend their entire time droppin’ names in an apparent attempt to make themselves important are simply pathetic.
Can I vote twice?
These are not Satan kittens. But they are Cats that look like Hitler.
So it looks like both Facilis and John Kwok have so far done very good jobs of meeting the immunity challenge. They are however the only contestants who have commented at all on this thread so it isn’t clear what to make of that.
Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.
I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.
Poor pathetic Pete Rooke says he would never “inflict” oral sex on a woman:
Petey, if you aren’t supposed to eat it, why does it look like a taco?
Oh noes! I never ever thought I’d sign up for Facebook, but now it seems I may have to! Poor PZ! How mercilessly they make you suffer!
*wanders off mumbling about poes*
Sven:
Yeah, in like a year when you get around to it.
Well… I guess… not so far as we know…
(This isn’t gonna turn this into another one of those inane solipsism threads, is it?)
“I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.”
So is skydiving.
“Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”
Looks like we better start the “Give Rooke a Blowjob” fund.
John…
seriously.
Let’s show some pity for poor birther John Kwok who’s been placed on the shit list over at Abbie Smiths’ blog. Just so he ceases and desists from nutty comments about President Obamas’ birth certificate and about all the famous people he went to school with.
that would be a “yes” then. I sure hope your future wife won’t be a virgin(for her and your sake), she might teach you something; otherwise, you’ll probably die the worlds worst lover, as well.
Sastra,
I would then appeal to natural morality and the societal implications of such activities.
Ah, the joy of seeing our potential plonkee’s plead their case. And they make the case against them even worse. Folks, there was a reason you were on the list. Arrogance in thinking that we wanted to hear your opinions in the first place, and arrogance in thinking we wanted to hear your opinions even after it was clear we didn’t want to hear those opinions in the second place.
Pete. You seriously have never wanted to even try oral or anal sex? That is, putting your weewee in a mouth or butt?
Now, THAT’S unnatural. Even the most prudish boy I’ve ever met really liked oral. I mean, REALLY liked it.
Man, I’ll bet foreplay with you is incredibly boringzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Can I pick two? Why can’t I pick two?
Before I saw Pete Rooke’s comment, I was going to say Barb. But now, I can’t decide.
Well, okay, Barb – at least for this round.
Pete? If you’re “inflicting” oral sex on a woman, you’re doing it wrong.
Oh my. Both Cath and SC are coming on to me. I am getting hot and bothered in my little corner of the electronic world.
Well, I have been in a git in a few restaurants….
One of these days Pete is going to snap one off during a prostate exam filling him with so much shame that it sends him off on a killing spree.
That, or he’s going to come out as a poe.
I’m keeping you in mind for the next Molly nominations.
@ Rilke’s Granddaughter –
It’s funny, but most women I know personally – and also on Facebook – don’t think I’m creepy. As for Abbie, I’ve said I’m sorry I pissed her off. What more can I say?
As for “name dropping”, I have seen more from you and others who have made sarcastic comments regarding both my high school and undergraduate alma maters than I recall reading from anyone, including PZ, with regards to either his or my famous friends (You simply have no idea who they are and I don’t think it is rather germane to this discussion thread either.). But, in fairness to my high school teacher, he’s not someone I regard as a friend, but instead, as my “Dad”. Moreover, I haven’t had a chance to see much of him because he’s been busy promoting his books.
/Note to self: when ordering Won Ton soup, be nice.
SC, OM #601 wrote:
You did?? Ok. That’s it:
I vote ban SC, OM
“I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.”
How can anyone possibly think about banning Rooke? He’s endless entertainment!
the first says nothing about how to have sex, and the second are nonexistent.
on the other hand, the teachings of the catholic about how, when, where, with whom, and why you may have sex are both naturally immoral (it’s kinda like forced annorexia), and have grave, documented consequences for the people and societies in which they exist
therefore: be a perv, not a christian. it’s the moral choice ;-)
WIN!
My vote for Barb has been made on a few threads. If she could add anything to the debate I would reconsider, but all she does is hijack threads, spew crap and claims nothing could ever shake her belief in the sky daddy. She is a waste of everyones’ time and her arguments are the same as every other troll that does a drive-by (although somewhat better articulated than many). Archived arguments alone would suffice for our (early) training. Maybe we need a sandbox for newbies and regulars could throw a few of these pre-canned arguments at them. Allowing Barb on here just serves to hone her arguments to take and inflict on the more gullible.
Janine’s argument re the damage ppl like Barb do to their children is well made and deserves punishment. Dungeon. It is important to clean house every now and then (eg libertarians) and make an example. Otherwise the blog goes to shit.
Facilis I can tolerate, John Kwok is so boring I didn’t even notice him until a few days back. I can’t help but think his facebook threat was his idea of a joke, if so, it fell flat and ended up making him look like a fool.
Peter Rooke (as obnoxious as he can be – and exclusionary on his own blog) still has hope (imho).
and at least has a sense of humour. Just get him off the potato peels and someone buy him some bacon will they? Pete, take the challenge. Facilis and John have both done so and I figure passed (though for John this is no hurdle). I assume that Barbs response was identity theft?
At the local pub, banned drinkers get unbanned on a set day each year. Maybe after dungeon duty we should unban people like Barb (but leave on probation). If they even care, they may be inclined to contribute instead of just ranting once unbanned. Darwin’s Birthday maybe? PI day?
Pete Rooke wrote:’
No doubt your loathing of women en masse, and unwillingness to learn anything about showing them a good time will have them lined up around the block.
Sadly, though, I imagine that there probably aren’t as few brainwashed-into-self-hate women as there should be (i.e. zero), and you’ll find some unfortunate who doesn’t realise there’s plenty more (and far better) fish in the sea and take you on.
@ 610: “Petey, if you aren’t supposed to eat it, why does it look like a taco?”
I really think that is a beeyootiful piece of logic. And it made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair.
I know this whole sex discussion is a random tangent and incredibly silly, but it has definitely made my Monday suck less. I thank you, everone, for all teh funny.
Ray Comfort says a banana is perfectly designed for eating. Therefore a blowjob is not ‘perfectly unnatural’, it’s an aspect of perfect design.
ps I vote
P. D. Q. MaiersFacilis, for his total dishonesty.CAT FIGHT! Hiiisssss! Yoowwllllll!
I think John Kwok (AKA Johnny Kookz) fails the immunity challenge. The first attempt included a “facebook threat” (I can’t be the only one still laughing at that!). The second included name-dropping even though the requirements quite clearly state “not rely on tales about who you went to high school with”.
Honestly Kwok, right after that threat you shot up to number 2 on most people’s list. If you wish to remain the best thing for you to do is simply stop typing.
hmmm…Off to crank up the Google and learn something new!
You know, it’s just so difficult to restrain myself from teasing J*hn Kw*k (e.g. his favorite high-school teacher who is both famous and remains nameless), but it just isn’t very fun. He is oblivious to sarcasm and even to point-blank mockery. He’s not “doing it on purpose,” he’s really that way. IANAΨ, but I have to agree with SC that behind the superficially amusing over-the-top name-dropping and alma-mater-bragging and O/C phrase repetition and goofily narcissistic persona, there is something genuinely creepy and essentially not funny going on. I’m not playing with him any more.
i need to slow down when posting. confusing the pancreas with the prostate is proof. :-p
Barb.
PeteRooke: I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.
Ahh, don’t tell me — another barely post-pubescent child raised in a repressed family who hates Mommy (but puts her on a pedestal to keep her naughty bits away)? Or do we have the forty year old virgin, who pretends he’s a virgin for “moral” reason, but in truth is afraid of the vagina dentata?
Ya know, ‘ol Petey, traditional good Christians married at 16 — at least the normal ones who want to stay virgins till they marry, but don’t have deranged sexualities.
Let me just say, I don’t like the idea of banning people. But holy Horus, Barb’s “gay = paedophilia + liberal upbringing” comments make me want to cast her down an 80 foot well with Titanoboa.
Please don’t ban John Kwok, he may be a pompous, self-important, name-dropping numpty, but his delusions of grandeur are hilarious! I’m literally shaking with laughter after reading his “mobilizing forces on Facebook” threat. I mean, forealz!
frog,
Fuck off.
SC, OM
Not sure what I did, but I’m glad it helped!
Joshua Zelinsky,
Well, Kwok’s answer included a threat. Rooke has commented but hasn’t answered the immunity challenge yet. Come on, Rooke!
Wow. Just, wow. I think Rooke and the other trolls who’ve showed up on this thread make me certain that PZ should ban them all. They need counseling, and they shouldn’t be posting on the internet or communicating with almost anyone until they get that help. Pete, get thee to a psychoanalyst, and make sure they are Freudian! FSM only knows what you’re going to find out!
There’s nothing I like more than to sit here discussing John’s friends…
Though that internal penile swab was close.
Kwok. Can’t happen soon enough.
I take it you prefer masturbation to cunnilingus?
of course he does.
that’s why he said he wouldn’t drink another’s semen.
he’s too used to drinking his own, right Pete?
Please do not use other people’s names. It is neither cool nor funny.
Pete
It almost doesn’t matter whether or not they find the prostate.
As long as the search is vigorous.
Ok, so Peter, Facilis and John have all commented on this thread and so far Facilis and John have done decent jobs at the original challenge. (Incidentally, Pete’s attitude about oral sex seems to have odd homophobic undertones)
John, you probably wouldn’t even be on this list if not for your a) extreme political views and b) vaguely trollish remarks like the Facebook comment. I suspect if there were no issue with b) then you wouldn’t even have been nominated. I mean seriously, threatening that if you get banned you’ll get rid of some of PZ’s Facebook friends? This sounds like something out of middle school only more pathetic.
Pete Rooke #618 wrote:
“Natural morality” would still have to relate to causing harm — and the societal implications of allowing free choices between consenting adults in private are all positive. You’re in the same position as an ancient sage insisting that allowing young men to put a design on the hem of their togas is destroying the purity of the culture. It becomes arbitrary: a matter of taste being tricked out as “law of nature.”
@ #644, Peter Rooke: Calm down, my sibling of the Lord. God will cast him into hell where he will be tortured for all eternity because he offended one of Jesus’s followers, while we in heaven will get to watch and laugh at him. That’s part of what makes it heaven.
disapPOINTment! I could find nothing on this purported “pancreatic pleasure center” on the Google. I also verified my initial reaction that nobody’s getting anywhere close to somebody’s pancreas via the anal route.
SC, I posted something to my “blog” just (*checks*) two weeks ago!
‘Sensitive’ Pete Rooke wrote:
Oooooh, someone’s getting angry. Touched a sore spot, have we Petey? And such language. You know curse-words make baby Jesus cry.
But what if they find the pancreas?
I am sorry Jadehawk. I had to do it.
James Randi will pay you a million dollars if you can prove that blowjobs are possible under controlled experimental conditions.
I read this and immediately thought of the Robin William’s line in Good Morning Vietnam:
Kate @562
And in any other kind of sexual relationship its a fun thing to do. But I don’t expect Pete understands that people have sex because its fun. Nor that relationships have to be monogamous to work perfectly.
Please, oh please, with sugar on top, make it Barb.
Pete, I hope that you did not type that message on a keyboard with your hands, because that would be DEEPLY unnatural. Our hands clearly did not evolve to be used on keyboards. It’s an abomination.
Chemotherapy and space exploration are also DEEPLY unnatural. As a child I had appendicitis and instead of letting me suffer the horribly painful natural death that God apparently wanted for me, my parents had a surgeon remove my appendix in a DEEPLY unnatural way (by cutting a hole in my abdominal cavity). In any event, I am grateful that you and your loved one have apparently never needed the benefits of unnatural modern technology or medicine.
And probably get someone banned at Pete’s blog. We should do the same for you Pete, golden rule and all.
Don’t worry Pete, remember that frog’s going to hell and you’re going to heaven, where there aren’t blowjobs all day long.
this fuck-up is going to stick, isn’t it…? *sigh*
*covers head in shame and leaves thread* there was work I was supposed to be doing, anyway…
He threw a smoke bomb and escaped before I could deliver the finishing blow, of course.
Now I’m envisioning Pete popping up in all sorts of situations asking that. Kind of like the cheezburger cat. We need a macro!
I’m beginning to think that little Petey and Walton, both having such similar attitudes about the horrors of sex and the ickiness of girls, should probably settle down into a nice little bromantically chaste civil union so that they need never fear Teh S3X.
Rookester, for the happiness of every woman in Blighty, stay single. Either that or learn that foreplay involves more than taking off your trousers.
(/smartass)
The MadPanda, FCD
Janine
“But what if they find the pancreas?”
I like a go getter, but perhaps some boundaries should be drawn up.
My safe word will be banana.
Petey sez:
To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible
holy crap! I think we have a time traveler from the Victorian Era!
Here, Pete, learn about the secret underbelly of victorian life:
http://www.my-secret-life.com/
ya might larn sumpin.
Okay, dinner’s in the oven.
*cue melodramatic music*
*scene: The Rooke bedroom, the evening of their 10-year anniversary*
*close-up: Pete’s orgasmic face*
Pete: Ahhhhhhhh. [rolls over onto his back] That was brill, dear. Happy anniversary. I hope it was good for you.
Mrs. Pete: “Good for me.” “Good for me!” Pete, you cad. You have no idea. It’s never been “good for me.”
Pete [puzzled]: Whuh?
Mrs. Pete: Look, I’ve been patient because I love you, ya knucklehead. But – Pete. I can’t come with just your John Thomas. You have to (or I have to and you won’t let me) put your fingers “there” or your mouth “there” or for cryin’ out loud a vibrator!
Pete: But . . . dear! God designed it all! It’s supposed to work this way, me on top, you on the bottom, little children and angels sing . . .
Mrs. Pete: I’m getting a vibrator or I’m getting an annulment. Honestly, you’d think sex was dirty or something. [gets dressed and goes to chip shop]
*close-up on Pete*
Pete: Khan! Khan!!!! Khan!!!!!!!!!
Safe words are for wusses.
ooooooooooh, the prostate. Right. Carry on.
You’d be surprised where the penis fits…
Masturbation is a type of sex.
Kel? Are you speaking from experience?
What the vertical gene transfer. Two hundred comments get posted while I write mine. Will I be able to catch up within the next two hours?!?
No, the ancestors of the platyrrhines must have rafted to South America, because Africa broke off of Outer Gondwana just before the end of the Early Cretaceous, 105 million years ago to be precise.
Oyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
Just like I said: insipidity, wanking. I hope we won’t get to see the “overwhelming creepiness” that FtK was banned for.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
I always wondered where all the highschool bullies who kept pestering anyone who ever went to the library eventually wound up… you know, the bullies, the ones lacking anything resembling a personality or a spine…
…answer…
…trolling on Pharyngula.
I’ll vote you off next week, for trolling. <pats on Scott’s little head>
Not the other way around? I mean, Barb votes, and that in the USA.
Erm… this is the Internet. We don’t hear your voice, and we don’t see your face. You either have to make your joke sufficiently obvious or include a smiley. That’s the way things work cyber-here.
That Enlil and Ninlil do not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for…
Hang on a second.
Blah, blah, blah. “Unnatural“? See comment 521. I’d also bet money that bonobos do it, at the very least.
Mind you, I’m not saying you need to have oral sex in order to be some kind of normal, or something. I’d find it rather disgusting, and I can’t imagine I’d like it anyway because I’m so ticklish — it would probably be a very unpleasant feeling.
But at least that’s a reason! Waffling about “surely reprehensible” isn’t a reason, it’s a lame attempt at an excuse.
(…though… bringing myself up as an example of normality was not a good move. For example, I don’t drink any alcohol whatsoever — it stinks. :-| )
Oh, I did read it as a joke — poking fun at the silliness of the question.
As long as no actual rape is involved and nobody gets seriously hurt… <pft>
Rooke,
You won’t eat the puss, because that’s not natural.
So, since breasts were made for feeding babies, are you going to keep your filthy mouth off those as well?
Listen, I’m not worried about you, your wife will show you what’s what and where to put what where and what to do with this and that. I strongly suggest if you want a strong marriage that you listen to her about what she wants you to do to her body.
*Sigh*
John Kwok,for general creepiness.
Keep Barb,for all the world to see what religion does to the human brain.
The others are easy to ignore,killfile is your friend.
Yes, though not much is personal experience. Most of it was experienced vicariously…
There’s more to being a lover than ramming your cock into someone. Perhaps if you allowed yourself to think of that it might help.
As in PZ’s “talk among yourselves thread”: Definitely Barb. Disgusting and hateful. Too bad to just killfile.
Rookie, clearly, is a child, and as inexperienced and warped as he appears to be, perhaps some of his delusions will correct themselves with time and good company (that’s you-all). As it is tho’, I have to say to him that if he thinks the vagina and penis co-evolved to properly fit together, how does he explain (a la Comfort?)the similarly perfect ‘design’ of the moden banana?
So you were egging the poor schmoe on. I see your game.
“Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”
I think we all took this wrong.
What Pete’s saying is that the christian thing to do is to cum on her tits.
Is that it Pete?
Kwok,
Facebook friends or not, you are creepy.
Are you sure you’re thinking of the right sex act?
Oh, Oh, Oh…Can we vote on libertarians next?
I must temporarily quit lurking to cast my vote for Barb as well. I’d say she’s got it cinched, but her level of casual hatred warrants a blow-out.
Jadehawk:
You jumped down my throat for not catching up on a Poe (in this case, a joke by someone known for being nutty adn having no sense of humor, resulting in an accidental self-Poe)? That’s the pot calling the kettle rabid. …Wait, that doesn’t work.
In light of his previous comments, I skimmed over it, and I’ll have to concede that he was indeed joking just because it seems to be a case where I’m the only one who didn’t catch it as a joke.
I’m afraid as crazy as Petey is, it’s hard to separate his inanities from real humor. I don’t deserve to be barked at for that. Anyway, let’s not bicker.
….and as for vicarious sex acts, they’re not really my thing. I enjoy it when other people do it, though.
“Don’t worry Pete, remember that frog’s going to hell and you’re going to heaven, where there aren’t blowjobs all day long”
In Hell, of course, there ARE blowjobs all day long, but only if you don’t like them. So it is vitally important to keep your story straight.
(This is the adult version of Atheists’ Hell)
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/657
I personally love the kooks and do not wish to vote any of them off. However, I really want to mention how awesome this topic/game is. Very creative and may actually be a learning experience (well, we hope) for the “contestants.”
David: The “you don’t get to say ‘it’s a joke’ comment was directed at Pete, not you. I was in a hurry and didn’t label it. :) But now it’s been pointed out to me that Pete did, indeed, make a pretty hilarious joke. Can’t blame me for assuming he was serious.
After reading John Kwok’s threat regarding friends on Facebook I decided to take a look.
hmmm….as off right now:
PZ Myers – 4,036 friends
John Kwok – 415 friends
Somehow I do not believe even a dent could be made by Kwok.
Pete Rooke @579
“I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”
If by unnatural you mean that it does not happen in nature then I think others have given adequate examples to lay the claim to rest.
If by ‘unnatural’ you mean to say that orifices other than he vagina were not evolved for the purpose of procreation, then you may have a point. This is why I am very much against those perverts who use their God given noses for the base purpose of holding up their spectacles. God Hates Four-Eyes and Four-Eye Enablers!
Kill the pig!
Facillis may be leading the challenge but that’s because he’s a Poe. (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it)
Barb is horrible, but…
My vote is for John Kwok since he’s just a bore! How many times have you finished reading one of his
paragraphssentences wishing you’d just gone tl;dr?Baaaaaaaaaarb!
Pete Rooke @579
“I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”
If by unnatural you mean that it does not happen in nature then I think others have given adequate examples to lay the claim to rest.
If by ‘unnatural’ you mean to say that orifices other than he vagina were not evolved for the purpose of procreation, then you may have a point. This is why I am very much against those perverts who use their God given noses for the base purpose of holding up their spectacles. God Hates Four-Eyes and Four-Eye Enablers!
The real question is, do these reviled individuals provide endless entertainment, or eternal frustration?
I can’t decide.
Pete Rooke continues to amuse, even as I recall some of his more medieval attitudes about women.
On the other hand… “Inflict”…
[ * laughs merrily * ]
The “cloud” quip was pretty funny, too.
This Simon character sounds contemptible, but as I’ve never really encountered him, I don’t have an opinion.
Kwok? Really?
Was the Facebook threat for real, or a droll joke? Weird. Is he a stalker type? Eh… from what I’ve seen so far, I’d say no. Narcissistic? Perhaps. The Abby stuff is kinda creepy, though. Who knows what he’s doing behind the scenes? I’ve had friends stalked by men who came across as affable and sweet in public fora.
Oh, I’m sorry, John! I didn’t see you there. Sorry to be discussing you as if you weren’t here. No, you can’t have my phone number.
I, too, have mixed feelings about voting to ban someone. Have all these candidates actually qualified based on the criteria for plonkdom as defined by PZ? If so, then perhaps a vote is appropriate.
At least Clarke, and even Barb, act as a catalyst for discussion. Just look at all the great info posted by people like Josh and David M. in response to these nutsalads. Barb’s take on homosexuality, rooted in base ignorance and fear, is reprehensible, but does provide an opportunity to refute. Maybe someone reading along will actually follow the links and learn something about why same-sex couples are every bit as good at parenting as hetero couples, and that the determining factor is not gender mix, but quality of relationships. (Yeah, I know… “Duh”… but people who fear such changes to their society need to understand these things!)
Sorry, I’m soap-boxing. I’ll stop. (Ban me! Ban me!)
(Sven for Molly!)
I haven’t been very present lately. I will abstain. Events will play out according to the will of the voting public, who are ever so more informed than I. :-)
I think the girls are just jealous ‘cos god didn’t give them a prostate…
Well . . . how many times can you come in one session?
‘snicker’
;)
Hmm, apparently Bard has now fulfilled the challeneg in comment #168. This is starting to look interesting.
“Silver Fox can’t be expected to comment very often; he’s got a very special assignment to complete. In order to prevent Christianity from being invalidated by his own argument he has to disprove all the other gods who’ve ever been posited.”
That old issue has been laid to rest long ago, at least to the rational mind, of which there are few on this blog site. There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.
I am not unaware that this fundamental reasoning escapes most on this site, but again, that’s not my fault. Go back and get your money from the college or high school that claims to have given you an education.
Yeah, I was. It’s amazing how sexually repressed some theists are, with all those hormones swimming around it must be hell to be one.
Actually if you click on Barb’s name you get notraellybarb.com. I hate it when people post under someone else’s name.
FAIL. Find a new argument.
Only once, alas. But I exit a happier man.
it’s neither fundamental, nor is it reasoning. besides, I’ve conclusively demonstrated that perfection must be dual, therefore the Christian god either has a girlfriend/evil twin, or doesn’t exist.
go back to the drawing board.
Oh, man did this thread get long Fast!! Just…can’t…read it…all…
Stupid Barb, smarmy and bigoted.
I’ve hated her since the “oh, I’m in a pit of vipers” comment. Stupid bitch, you godbot on a notorious atheist blog, then play the victim when the vipers bite. A passive-aggressive abuser who maybe could be tolerated for educational purposes, except for the bigotry.
I call Closeted Lesbian. It’s the strap-on for her.
And why do we put up with Rooke here? Doesn’t he have a blog? Go home, Pete, just go home. We promise to visit.
Obviously that one god is not the Christian construct of the deity. If you disagree, find holes in my argument on the “Satan, et. al” thread, it was approximately #480
“There is only ONE God”
Silver Fox, please prove it. It’s ok, I’ll wait.
@ #704: Exactly, my brother in the Lord. That is why there are so many pantheons that exist with multiple Gods: because he went through a schizophrenic period a while back. Because there is one God with many names.
And of course God is perfect. That’s why he was smart enough to make Satan, who by his omniscience he knew would betray him. Because God perfectly wants there to be sin in the world so he can send people to hell and watch them squirm for all eternity. Because he’s perfect.
And another two hundred twenty while I write the next comment. <headdesk>
On the last few Molly threads I voted for Feynmaniac without even knowing this comment of his. Read it. Especially Facilis.
And the banana fits into…
Yeees, Mr Comfort, that too.
Well, actually… mammal ears contain a jaw joint…
Again, it’s funny if I say this, but if two people don’t know each other outside and inside, I don’t think they should marry… granted, getting divorced is bureaucratically easier than getting married, but… :-S
Point at the link that is her name. (Actually clicking on it would be pointless.)
Wow. Progress. Told you there’s hope for him.
LOL! Someone please find the YouTube video and the Wikipedia article, so Pete can enjoy the context. I’ll… try to go to bed.
Janine, didja see my little script at #670? (Got lost in the shuffle I fear.)
The sad silly goat is feeling left out. He wants oh so badly to be flogged. He needs to set up an appointment with Patricia.
@Fox 704
“There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.”
First you have to define ‘God’.
If you can, then it isn’t.
So heddle and SfO have both shown up. Yuck.
***
Janine:
If that one was indeed you, I’m flattered. I think I may start using “eat the puss,” which makes me smile. Especially when I think about Janine, who’s freakin’ hot…and cool. In fact, I get all wet and lathered at the very thought…
On the other hand, rough men are sexy, and semen is yummy…
Still with us, Rooke?
***
Feynmaniac:
I liked the synopses and representative quotes.
***
And prior to that, when? (And was this most recent only because I reminded you of its existence?) :P
***
Calladus:
But not anal. Ask any virginity-pledge signer.
Exhibit A, exhibit B
Regularly quotes the Bible and AiG.
FSM forgive me, I read that at first as quoting AIG, you know, American International Group, the company we US taxpayers keep bailing out.
It looks like Barb is out. Not only did she get the most votes, but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t even understand the immunity challenge. The next to go should be Simon. He’s just dumb, hateful and worse, boring. Kwok does most of his um, best work on other blogs and really isn’t worth bothering with. The rest, for amusement, spectacle or sparring practice can stay. Facilis, though needs to move his argument past repeated assertions or he should get the hook.
But not anal. Ask any virginity-pledge signer.
Saddlebacking
Heh.
I am a bit bemused, though not displeased, to have this unexpectedly turn into a lesbian sex thread…..
Innit fun? ;)
Silver ‘By my own logic Christianity is invalid because I can’t disprove the existence of other gods’ Fox wrote:
Once again, Silver Fox, it has to be pointed out that your assertion that there can only be one god doesn’t count as an argument.
Where is the support for your claim of the necessity of there being only one god? Where is the support for your claim that, if there is only one god, that that god must be perfect? Whence comes this knowledge, Silver Fox?
You haven’t answered these questions, only dodged them. As you will dodge them again by running away as you always do when you can’t answer. So it’s time to sing your song:
Fox on run, foxy fox on the run…
Aww, I kind of like the trolls.
Mainly because I enjoy watching them get thwomped.
And silver fox just keeps saying the same shit over and over again because, of course, it’s *SO FUCKING OBVIOUS*, he just can’t get why we don’t get it.
“It’s apparent” is no arguement. You will never have evidence. There can be no evidence. Shut up already.
SC @ 719,
*FAINTS*
windy (@#710) wins the Weird Link award for this thread. Something about vanilla pudding.
No carry on ladies, carry on, just don’t mind us…
Well, BMS, with the yelling of “Khan!”, I was assuming that the Rookie was James T Kirk.
‘being very sheepish’
I’ll vote for Barb.
I’m also very happy that I am not on the list of dingleberries. Hooray! Of course, I’m also not a religious troll. :)
I know.
That’s unfortunately correct…
I was thinking of the presidential one. Apparently you’re thinking of the linguistic one, where of course it doesn’t matter whether I am ticklish… though I can’t imagine enjoying that either. :-/
Nope — she’s bisexual. That’s shown by her inability to imagine that anyone is not bisexual, which she has made very clear.
I vote off the Island PAUL NELSON, except that he’s too much of a coward to comment in an open forum.
So, Barb it is.
Colour me confused, but I thought GWIAS was in the dungeon?
There can only be one god. Because, see if there were two, then there would be more than one, but there is only one. See? Plus, there could be no logic or reason (of the sort just displayed) if there were no god. Or gods. But because one is the
lonleiestperfect number, there is only one. Because one god would be perfect, while two or more would be impossible, there being just the one. It’s elementary logic, on loan from the one and only god.Tee hee hee.
Madam, it has been a pleasure. I have to be off now.
See you in another thread, another day.
Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.
Unnatural? You want DEEPLY UNNATURAL? Try…the internet! You’re communicating with hundreds of people in many parts of the world, simultaneously (unnatural), by means of a highly unnatural set of “tubes” (aka fiber optic networks), unnatural satellites and cell towers. You’re using a completely unnatural computer with unnatural silicon chips in it to produce your communique, probably writing at night using unnatural lighting sources, almost certainly in an unnatural shelter, possibly propping the computer on your unnaturally large belly (and no matter how thin and fit you are, you’re probably unnaturally fat compared to humans in their natural state). And even the core piece of your communication: the written word, is quite unnatural. And you have the nerve to call mildly creative sex unnatural?
I vote to ban Facilis to the dungeon.
While Alan Clarke has yet to answer the challenge he offered this:
Why Alan’s mind went straight to bestiality handjobs I don’t know.
He is. There are ways past security, but I also felt there was a bit of morphing/Poeing using trolls names this afternoon, and his may have been one of them.
Silverfox-
“Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.”
Ok, I know those intro philosophy courses tend not to be too clear on this point so I suppose you can be forgiven this little stumble, but you should know that philosophy has moved on a bit since the time of the Greeks. These days, if you want to say something woogly and mysterious like ‘a square circle lacks perfection’ then you are going to have explain what that means before you can use it to prop up your argument.
Silver Fox has run away, crapping himself in fear – as usual. He can’t stand being reminded of the massive fuckup which rendered his already invalid religion even more so.
Ok, dealing with the fallout of my posts at least one more time before I forget about his thread. I’m sorry my attempt at defending poor bigoted Barb were the cause of so much anger for some people.
First for the concern trolling.
Kate @ 512
I’m sorry for the excess of emotion in my previous post at #392, but I took your categorization of all people disagreeing with the trend in comments here to be “concern trolling” as a personal attack in much the same way that homosexual persons reading Barb’s statements may take it as personal. I did not try (at least intentionally) to portray you as “some hate-filled person.” My post was merely an expression of the general outrage I have worked up reading this thread, and what I perceive to be the intolerance for dissenting view.
As I mentioned previously, I disagree with this and won’t get into it again. Of course as you say, a game was proposed, and if you wish to participate you are well within your right to do so. My initial rant defending Barb was against her landslide nomination and I did not mean to single any one person out for that.
Now this… this I find a bit childish. Sorry. Your comment was posted publicly on a blog so that anyone could read, and I assume, take issue with it.
I’m sorry if that got incoherent at any point, it makes sense to me reading it over but then again I’m getting a little tired. You did ask me to respond though, and I felt I owed you that after my previous outburst.
And lastly,
AdamK @ 559
I’m sorry something I said caused this reaction. If it was my Barb rant, do I really deserve lumping in with her just because I didn’t jump on the ‘BAN BARB’ bandwagon? I knew when I was writing that I was representing a minority opinion, and aside from my lashing out at Kate earlier I thought I presented my opinion in as undouche-like a manner as I could. You obviously disagree… sorry?
Oh dear… that really is a huge block of text I just posted isn’t it. Well, I’ll leave this thread alone from here unless someone asks me to respond. My apologies for taking up so much space.
Simon should go.
Simon’s posts are good for…nothing. He’s not even useful as a bad example.
He’s perversely obsessed with writing about penises, feces, anal sex, homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia.
And his idea of a pithy or insightful post is to accuse other posters, or members of their families, of being the ones obsessed with, or engaged in, his own sexual preoccupations.
Combine that with his regurgitating what is probably the most simple-minded religious babbling I’ve seen in the year I’ve been reading Pharyngula, and the result is posts that, without exception, are juvenile, creepy, vile, and vacant of any redeeming value whatsoever.
For those not familiar with Simon, I’d post a link to some of his more vile comments, but, I can’t in good conscience do that. You’d have to disinfect your brain after reading them.
Pete’s analogies can be disturbing, true, but he can’t come close to the disgusting dreck that Simon writes.
Barb is a nasty, obnoxious, and odious piece of puffed-up piety, but IMO still has some value as a good example of the evil that can result from religious indoctrination.
I suspected there’d be some ollateral, um, whatever.
***
You know I adore you, clinteas. You’re the roughest of all, I bet.
;P
Ummmm…Brian, it’s unfortunatly not possible – or doesn’t seem to be – to justify oneself here. If you take offence, it just gets worse and worse. One of John’s main faults is that he is continually taking offence, in a more and more hysterical and amusing way.
I just don’t think you’ll argue yourself happy here – however
right you may be.
Seeing as everybody else is doing it, I bravely join the mob and vote to see Barb dumped in the dungeon.
Seriously, disagreeing with somebody is one thing, personal attacks are another. Barb is just a garden variety bigot with a nasty disposition. So off she goes.
And I’d like to apologize for my childish and immature behavior earlier today, when I referred to everyone posting on this thread as “poopy-heads.” It was merely a lame attempt to work simon’s MO into my schtick, and I fear that I caused offense. The truth is that I do not think that most of the people posting on this thread are poopy-heads, and I am sincerely sorry to have caused some posters to think that perhaps I really was calling them poopy-heads in a personal manner. In fact, I do think some of the posters here could fairly be called poopy-heads, but I would not normally do so if I wasn’t doing some kind of OTT Poeish thing at the time, which I was. So…sorry?
At the risk of being jumped on, I say let them all blather on. All of them are sometimes amusing, and Barb in particular is a wonderful example of how hateful Christians can be. They won’t do any harm here, I think, while they might if they’re out there dispensing their nonsense to a more naive or deluded audience.
The art of procreation and the members employed therein are so repulsive, that if it were not for the beauty of the faces and the adornments of the actors and the pent-up impulse, nature would lose the human species.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Btw, my vote is for Barb. I would vote for Facilis due to the Facebook threat and the fact that we are guaranteed to get rid of Barb sooner or later, it looks like Facilis is likely to win immunity so it would be a wasted vote.
I caught up! I caught up! :-)
Is that the same as Marshall Nelson, that is, Charlie Wagner the Banned?
Pete Rooke @ 579:
Even if we grant your point, evolution also involves something called exaptation, in which, to paraphrase Wikipedia (pause to dodge incoming missile attacks) structures originally adapted for one function, coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. In this case, an obvious “other function” might have to do with enhancing pair-bonding (even within the sterotypic entirely monogamous marriage preferred by conventional Christianity). Other interpersonal and social by-products may also apply.
I think that Sven should be awarded the keys to the Dungeon. Sven DeMillo, DungeonMaster.
JK gets my vote, btw. Only because I know that Barb is already gone.
Rooke @#502
“I would never inflict oral sex on a women.”
The funniest part of his “joke” is that he’s never done it.
[raises hand]
Wasn’t he gay…?
I don’t know how serious the immunity challenge is, but John Kwok and Facilis seem to have posted fairly okay responses (ignoring Facebook threats). Also Kwok is irritating, but he’s not a creationist unlike presumably all the others.
So far we have two entries for the male counterpart to vagitarian.
1) erectarian
2) phallusofer
Any more or should we choose between these two?
I know it’s a hard decision but I’m sure everyone is up for it.
Nerd:
“FAIL. Find a new argument.”
By FAIL I assume you you mean that you fail to understand the argument. Since the logic of the proposition would be understood by a reasonably intelligent high school graduate, I am assuming that 1) you are not reasonably intelligent, or 2) you’re not a high school graduate.
Jade:
“I’ve conclusively demonstrated that perfection must be dual.”
What that statement says is that God is perfect and not perfect at the same time. Again, any rational person would see the error there.
Kel:
“that one god is not the Christian construct of the deity. If you disagree, find holes in my argument”
The first hole in your argument is to think of God as a “construct”. Philosophically, God is Absolute Simplicity; God is in no way complex, made of parts, and consequently not a construct.
“Silver Fox, please prove it. It’s ok, I’ll wait.”
The proof is in the proposition. All you need is the reasoning necessary to understanding it.
WOW:
“it has to be pointed out that your assertion that there can only be one god doesn’t count as an argument.
It is not an assertion or an argument. It is a cogent, logical proposition that can be understood by any reasonably person who is not inclined to pursue an agenda contrary to logic and reason.
He was accused of being gay, although the charges were later dropped.
I’m with Blake Stacey and you can call me a semenarian of the most unholy kind.
@Hank Bones #757 JK gets my vote, btw. Only because I know that Barb is already gone.
Pray tell. How do you know that Barb is indeed already gone?
You can’t ban John Kwok! He knows some very distinguished African Americans from his very prestigious alma mater! And Frank McCourt!
Did you even read my argument? I in no way referred to God as a construct or talked about complexity.
BMS, lovely wedding! I liked your and your lovely bride’s outfits, and Dave made a very handsome guy of honor!
Sven, #59 would be a sure Molly, except that Janine should get it for the Barb takedown rant. PZ, can we do two this month?
And, of course, Barb has got to go. It’s one thing to debate, and we NEED our trolls for their entertainment value. But it’s another thing altogether to post the kind of crap Barb did. That’s way, way over the line. We just can’t let evil bigoted people come in here and launch nasty personal attacks on our friends.
Besides, I missed the thread on which Barb attacked Janine. If Barb comes back, I will go atomic on her worthless ass, and I am trying to give up profane and intemperate posting on the intertubes for Lent. Obviously I’m already not doing too great with that spiritual discipline thing, so I need all the help I can get.
Ok, I’m late to the party but really, if they’re all grouped together on a Survivor type island can’t we just strafe the whole friggin lot?
..failing that, I vote Barb because she’s consistently shown herself to be a dumb and ignorant bitch with no class and the comments to Janine of the Many Personalities was totally fucking wrong on all levels.
Janine #595:
I would never inflict typing on a women.
TheBlackCat #754:
They call it “bumpin’ uglies” for a reason.
Is it just me, or is the “the penis and vagina were made for each other” argument kind of the flipside of the “if God didn’t want us to masturbate, he would have made our hands shorter” arguments I used to hear in Junior High?
Note to Pete Rooke. When you attempt tomake a joke make sure not to be the joke. There is an art to telling a joke that requires that your audience is on board.
…Why are people voting for Sven DeMilo? What did Facilis threaten about Facebook? Who is John Kwok?! I leave for three days and everything goes epic? I vote for Barb. What an evil fucking woman.
I for one feel sorry for Silver Fox. He does everthing he can to be wrong and he doesn’t even make the short list.
You’ll need to be more offensive – in fact, I’d positively encourage you to attack our gay friends ;) – or get mega-huffy and go on all about your friends. Well, try the first of those anyway.
I’ll vote for you to be on the shortlist next time, boyo!
First the lezzies are running amok. Now the gayz are coming out. This thread is a bad influence on the distressed gentle folk.
Delurking here to vote Barb off the island. Her preaching, her imperviousness (is that a word?) to argument, her equating homosexuality with incest and pedophilia all fill me with the desire to bash her in the head with a virtual baseball bat. Get you hence, Barb!
And now that I’ve done my duty and voted, I’m going to read all the comments. :)
What? When did he say that!
@Decrepit Fox:
The proof is in the
propositionpresupposition.fixed.
fucking moron.
I thought Silver Fox’s task was to show why the “one god” had to be the Christian god specifically and not any other god? He seems to have dodged this time by pretending people were saying more than one god could exist.
Also, Silver Fox, a proposition is not necessarily true just because it’s cogent and appeals to you. One of the rules of logic is that, for an argument to be sound, its propositions must be true. So if you want us to accept a proposition (and then your argument if it’s valid), you must show why it’s true first. “I like it” or “it makes sense this way” are insufficient. Try again.
Sastra @ 606 “The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics. Clearly, nobody is performing a paranormal stunt here, or claiming to. That’s what “unnatural” would mean — against nature. Beyond natural abilities.”
Actually, there was this one girl back in high school…
John Kwok.
Threating people is really pathetic, especially when you threaten them with Facebook.
Silver ‘still trying to dodge his invalidation of his own religion’ Fox wrote:
It is nothing resembling a ‘logical proposition’; it is your assertion, one made with no evidence or argument to support it. I understand that you think it’s reasonable – but you haven’t at any point provided any rationale for your doing so.
You are making assumptions about the qualities possessed by a supernatural being, a being that you know nothing about other than from your holy book and your daydreams. And the only reason you push monotheism and not polytheism is because you weren’t born into a polytheistic religion.
So, once again, you haven’t answered the questions – why must there only be one god? why, if there is only one god, must it be perfect? All you’ve done is cite pithy aphorisms – which also aren’t arguments.
For example:
How is this an argument? Where did you find this description of your god, and how do you know that it’s accurate? If you can’t answer that then it’s an assertion.
@Angel Kaida #773
Actually, it was John Kwok who made a threat that if he were banned he would cause PZ to lose friends on Facebook. A few commenters have misattributed the threat to Facilis. Take a look at post #371 for the origination. John is a name dropper of dubious validity.
Sven Milo is nominated for a Molly for his brilliant posts tonight in this thread beginning with #59.
They won’t do any harm here, I think,
oops, you thought wrong.
Rowan (#783)
He doesn’t just drop the names, he weaves them into his identity like a bad trip through a teleportation device.
So when ones partner is calling out “Oh God, oh GOD!” would that mean that any sex between people who invoke the name God during relations are infact taking part in unnatural sex? You know, because you’re doing all the hard work and God’s getting the credit – unless God is involved in the process.
Vote late, vote often:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/good_golly_its_time_for_molly.php
***
[art history major]
From what I’ve read, it’s very difficult to tell. I may not be attuned to the signs, and I may be out of the art-historical loop, but I’ve not heard or seen anything definitive. He had a fascinating relationship with the rest of humanity generally. His Notebooks is a great read.
[/art history major]
Alright! I admit it. The Devil Is My Friend!
He is nothing less than the cornerstone of all reality. All flows from Kwok, and is connected to him. He met Andy Warhol at a really chic party.
@Rowan #783
Thank you! I thought people were voting Sven off the island, which was a terrifying notion.
Janine said:
Hear hear! They didn’t even give me time to don my trenchcoat and grab my binoculars for the close-ups.
All this talk about vagitarians makes me hungry.
Hi SC!
I’ve been absent of late but didn’t see much of you when I had time to lurk.
I vote for Barb.
@Janine #789
If only I had a nickel for every time I heard, “Work that pole…Go, Go Boy.”
As a straight man, I wouldn’t like the gay ladies to stop talking about sex. I feel I can appreciate it on an intellectual level…
@Rowan
I suppose I don’t actually know that Barb will lose. But if I were a betting man, I’d put my money on her landing in the dungeon, and soon.
…
Come to think of it, I am a betting man. Having not read more than the first 100 or so posts, I’d still be willing to bet my newly won “Friendly Atheist” wristband that Barb loses Round 1. Got anything you’d like to put up against it?
On seeing the topic, my first reaction was “Barb!” But after reading the entire thread (OMFSM, it’s bedtime!) I think I changed my mind. One of my rules for life is when faced with a choice the popular one is usually wrong. I think Mr. Kwok might actually learn something by being banned. Barb has a better chance of learning something if she stays; besides, if she’s in here, she’s not outside trying to infect others with her toxic memes. My second choice would be Simon.
Why ban anybody? Without a few nutters, places like this can become quite boring.
I’ve watched a few places boot nutters out then a few weeks later complain there are no trolls to feed.
That said, Barb sounds to be more than a nutter, giv’er the boot.
I think there’s little doubt that, although the orifice preceded the intromittent organ, human penises and vaginas are coadapted. I also doubt that the same can be said for anuses, mouths, or wherever the hell Kel was alluding to above. But so what? If the shoe fits (so to speak)…
Put your penis in it?
“All this talk about vagitarians makes me hungry.”
You and me both.
Marry her!
I think Ray Comfort is onto something when he holds that phallic fruit and talks about how well it fits in the hand…
@Sven
Sorry for misspelling your name a few posts back. To apologize, I’m gonna go and belatedly nominate you for a proper OM rather than the DM I suggested. Although you do deserve the DungeonMaster award as well.
I’d just lose the damn keys.
teh ENd! Yay!!!!
I’ve laughed. I’ve cried (well laughed harder, actually). I’ve had lots of really nice images dancing behind my eyes (and lots of great ideas for sharing with my wife in a few minutes! Note to self – SHAVE before bed! Yo quiero Taco, ma Belle!)
Barb is ugly. I vote for Barb out of solidarity (and I mean solid – I need a shower… later!) with my hot lesbian friends, here.
I also vote for Kwok. Utterly inane, self-aggrandizing asshat.
Rooke is weak. Facilis is dull. Alan Clarke & RogerS appear to be limiting themselves to specific threads (so can be killfiled as needed). Simon is just a pain in the ass, and is permanently killfiled. Maybe if I looked, I’d see something worth voting on.
Now – time for bed – and thanks for the energy boost!
@Hank Bones
I misunderstood your comment about Barb, then. I read it as indicating she shouldn’t be on the list to be voted a ban as she was already gone.
My apologies.
If the shoe fits
ummm…
aw, fuck it.
:p
Awfully late to the party here, but –
Barb is my first choice, for all the myriad reasons listed above. Even though she has served an an excellent illustration of just how evil her kind are, I doubt she has anything further to add to the self-portrait.
Pete Rooke a nose-close second. He’s hateful scum. No redeeming value whatsoever. I’m embarrassed to live in the same spiral arm as that empty, pitiful excuse for a man.
Close third, John Kwok. He was a narcissistic, sanctimonious, creepy stalker before, and he’s one now. And the “Facebook threat” is going to be a classic, easily supplanting his previous trick of mumbling “mendacious intellectual pornography” over and over and over again.
Facilis brings up the rear, which is where I suspect he likes to take it if he could only bring himself to admit that.
The rest can wait their turns…
Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.
#451 – Rick Schauer – Thank you for your compliment!
I assure you that my 931 page bible will afford many more barbs of reason to be cast at the christian fucktards.
“Surely I come quickly.”
Ahhh, the sweet last words of jezus to be printed.
Sven DiMilo at various locations:
Dude,if you’re going to do christo-rant, you need to remember to close with a blessing from the allmighty or “warm regards” at the end of your post, or it doesn’t count as a Poe.
“Kwok sure is campaigning for my vote.”
He managed to change my vote (if I have one.) On another blog there was a regular who did the same sort of thing, altough possibly to a lesser degree and more strategically (to every issue he’d try and evoke the most convenient personal relationship possible, even if it didn’t make much sense.) Kwok is doing it to such a degree that it looks involuntary, but I still can’t stand it.
I vote for Kwok.
DLC–you’re right!
I’ll pray for you.
Errrr…Tegretol?
You stupid piece of shit. Do you not understand what an assertion is?
You’re just saying that X is so, without providing any evidence that it is.
I can’t stand this guy. Why wasn’t he on this list of fucktards to toss to the sharks?
You’re a slimy, fucked up piece of shit, Silver Fox.
Cough up some fucking evidence of any of your assertions. Until you do, they are only assertions.
Fucking moron.
Since he’s unfortunately not on the list, I vote for Barb, although the John Kwok nonsense moved him up to #2. Which is somehow appropriate.
Anyone saying that none of these people should be banned please read the following quotes from Simon:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/what_if_god_disappeared.php
These quotes are fairly typical of his commentary.
Hi, mayhempix-of-the-cool-shaped-face! I was asking about you recently on the Molly thread (would’ve voted for you, but you weren’t around so much in Feb.).
I’ve had a sad week, but I’m trying to put it in perspective and not feel sorry for myself. Have been bickering on the “Islam hates women” thread, but am not in the mood to return there right now. Worse, not up to punning…or even rhyming.
:(
Glad to see you back!
***
Stephen Colbert just called Mark Sanford “incredibly boring…a vanilla envelope glued to a beige wall.” Heh.
Pete “Weinerboy” Rooke is sexist, but it so twisted in his analogies and disapproval of any sex act that isn’t penis penetrating vagina that he amuses me. However, writing “I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then,” then posting several times since would normally have earned him my vote if it wasn’t for stronger contenders.
I was going to vote Barb. For most of this long, long thread it wasn’t even close despite Pete “Lapitup” Rooke’s broken promise. But then John Kwok came along and not once but twice made threat’s involving Facebook friends…
And that clinched it. Such asinine assholery can’t go unpunished, so I vote John Kwok.
Kwok. I’m so tired of hearing him calling himself “Aristides the Just”. Although banning the blowhard might just be the ego boost he needs to reach critical mess. His efforts at revenge should be amusing. And maybe he’ll learn a good lesson.
Some of the others would just get swollen up with even more hate, and not learn a damned thing.
I’m too far behind to catch up tonight.
Good night you naughty darlings!
I agree totally. Simon is a no-brainer – literally; whatever happens he should go.
“Why wasn’t he on this list of fucktards to toss to the sharks?”
His extremely low degree of content might be making him into a stealth troll?
You don’t understand… some of his friends went to the prestigious Stuyvesant High School! They’ll defriend us! And Frank McCourt will hate us!
My vote for the dungeon addition:
Still don’t hate Barb, but I also don’t have to read her. Voting her.
I guess this means I should consider trolling this blog and try to get on the list.
I have seen some of Barb’s posts, but missed the one referenced by Sgt. Obvious @#32. After a quick read, I would say case closed for my choice. Barb it is. It does stir up a thread whenever a godbotting troll appears,and for that reason, as others have stated, I don’t really want to see anyone banned. But reading that post made my jaw drop, then I started to lose focus, then get bored and soon, zzzzzz…..
Barb, because I just can’t tolerate homophobia.
and now all together: “Dunning-Kruger Effect!!!!”
Barb is hilarious. Can we get rid of one of the less entertaining tools?
Joe
That’s some work bonez-brigade – he must have really out-argued you…
I admit I had to look up “Dunning-Kruger Effect.” But then I found the wikipedia definition and it made my night:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.
Yeah, yeah, yeah – manila envelope. I still think he said “vanilla.” Makes far more sense. They should change it.
:)
See, judicious use of the killfile had kept those nuggets of simon-spew out of my brain until now. Actually I’ve had everybody on the list (except J*hn Kw*k, who fascinates me in a rubbernecky way) killfiled for a long time, and so they (like the libertarianistas) therefore don’t bother me until somebody else starts quoting them. I haven’t voted for that reason; it’s really people engaging with the trolls that interfere with the pleasure of my reading more than the trolls themselves. I’ve even killfiled a few “friendlies” for that reason–troll-stomping gets old (to me).
I have previously brought up the idea of a permanent libertarianista thread, where comments that threaten to hijack threads in that direction could get kicked (by PZ and maybe a few of the more active and trusted irregulars). Maybe a series of such limbo threads could be set up, linked from the sidebar, so that godbots and silly philosophizers could be corralled someplace where they wouldn’t get in the way of the fun and interesting conversations. Kick ’em off the Big Island and onto their own little peripheral islet. Folks who wanted to metaphorically bang their heads against a brick wall could go over there and do it. Maybe we could get the trolls to arguing among themselves…that might be fun.
Nah, AnthonyK. Spew 0′ Facilis is just that annoying (IMO, at least).
Barb.
They never will, though. They all regard the others is noxious trolls. And none of them “plays well with others”.
BTW, mewonders if Silver Fox (and/or Nat) will be the obligatory, last-minute, surprise-twist-addition to the current line-up of 7.
I thought that was what this whole Survivor: Pharyngula thing was for! I want to see RogerS and Alan Clarke and forming an alliance against teh evilutionist name dropper John Kwok (AKA, Johnny Kookz). I want to see Rooke and Simon try and out ghoul each other. And who will Barb not give her rose to…..actually that last one might be another reality show.
Man, I’ve had WAY too much fun with this. Off to bed.
P.S. Apologies for the Simon quotes.
Pete Rooke:
Okay, now that you admit your virginity, I take back my comment about your likely inadequate foreplay. ‘cuz now that’s guaranteed, but it’s unfair to put a standard on you if you haven’t done it.
That said, when you DO get married (or, when you do decide to have sex, whichever comes first, preferably while sober), I hope that you eventually learn that there are many ways of pleasing you and your partner. Solomon had, what, over 300 concubines? I’ll bet that dude did more than just thrusting into a woohah.
I, too, started out thinking that anything beyond missionary was degrading or yucky. Ooooooh, man, was that a long time ago …
John Kwok must go!
Oh,the bible is also some sort of christian kamasutra? I never knew !
God saying penis in woohah is only cool in missionary position?Cool,might have to reread the thing.
*isnt familiar with the term “woohah” and hopes it doesnt have any misogynist connotations,but liked the sound of it*
Kel:
“I in no way referred to God as a construct or talked about complexity.
Kel@713
“that one god is not the Christian CONSTRUCT of the deity.”
Construct necessarily implies complexity since it infers being put together. The Christian has no constructed (complex) God. Their God is Absolute Simplicity – not constructed. Their’s is a God that is in complete unity with itself.
silverfox, stop pretending you know what the fuck you’re talking about
Silver Fox, it would be wise of you to presume everybody here is smarter than you, and more degreed than you. You had a phony presupposition argument, which was why it was a fail. Wowbagger pointed this out to you in detail. I have a few degrees past high school. From your logic, your education is questionable.
How’s about this for Day 2 immunity:
Talk tougher than a wardrobe-with-a-hangover.
Maybe Jonny-Boy, himself, will make a special appearance to defend his ITG belt.
Another logic fail SF, your god doesn’t exist as you have presented no physical evidence for one. YAWN. Get your act together.
All of them. Of all the posts I have read by these contestants, none had said anything of value. One could argue for the entertainment value of any of them, but a case is more easily made for the entertainment value of The Simpsons. There will undoubtedly be more to take their places. Why would one consider willfully getting irritated by reading the nonsense of another anyway?
Besides, I’m certain most of them will find another way to post here or otherwise try to make themselves feel better by demonstrating their “intellectual superiority” over atheists elsewhere.
Silver ‘I might as well worship Ganesh from now on because I can’t disprove him’ Fox wrote:
Citation please. How did you come by this precise description? Where, exactly, is it said/written that your god has these qualities?
This is our point, Silver Fox – once again you’re pulling meaningless, nonsensical ‘definitions’ of your god’s attributes out of thin air and calling it an argument. Why should we accept that your god has these qualities if you can’t provide any reason for us to do so?
You have to back up your claims. If you don’t back them up they remain assertions.
@SC
I went to the OM thread after you linked to it… so sorry to hear about your dog.
I’m floating around in the Northern Hemisphere for the next month or so navigating various projects… Venice Beach CA right now… tomorrow I’m off to Hollywood. Was pleased to hear Paul Haggis attached his name to a project we recently finished and also attached his directing skills to an upcoming one.
“Yeah, yeah, yeah – manila envelope. I still think he said ‘vanilla.'”
Does that mean that Filipino Catholics eat Manila Wafers?
Noyd @779
“So if you want us to accept a proposition (and then your argument if it’s valid), you must show why it’s true first.”
Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.
That’s really bad equivocation… construct was meant in 713 as the same way that gravity is a construct or that germ theory is a construct. As a construct of the mind in order to explain reality… In now way was I talking about God as being complex, just a potential metaphysical explanation.
And beyond that, I was talking about the argument I made on the “Satan, et. al” thread at ~#480 where I argued against the Christian God using the properties ascribed to God. To have a monotheistic god, it cannot be the Christian one for reasons I laid out in that aforementioned post.
@Menyambal: “Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.”
Good lord, no. Just a sign of many highly receptive nerve endings and a propensity to be easily amused. Both very good things, indeed!
SF,are you really that thick?
You are one making the extraordinary claim here !
Gotta vote for Rooke.
Silver Fox, you pup, you are not making any sense. If there were a logical god necessarily in charge of the universe, it certainly wouldn’t be the raving asshat Jehovah.
Theirs is a triune god, constructed of cobbles and bits from a dozen different myths, self-hating, contradictory and barking mad. No wonder you are a fan.
That was really bad equivocation SF, really really bad equivocation. If you are going to complain about the use of logic in others posts, please make sure you don’t fall into that same trap.
John Kwok, but Barb has clearly won the flinty hearts of the masses here.
SF, you make ah the claim, you support ah the claim. Or shut the fuck up. Proof positive or nothing. You have shown nothink.
Good night folks, I’m finally wound down enough from picking up the Redhead after an opera to get to sleep (for those of you who think I post 24/7).
Blah blah complexity blah blah fuckwittery blah blah bullshit nonsense blah blah simplicity and unity and useless pointless gibberish blah blah I don’t realize I’m spouting pseudo-Zen, wannabe-intellectual drivel blah fuckity blah….
Silver ‘All hail Wotan, one of the many gods I’m forced to acknowledge because I can’t disprove him’ Fox wrote:
That’s easy – the existence of many different polytheistic religions; the gods of which you cannot disprove, and the concept of which you cannot logically defeat with your unsupported assertions.
Rooke’s suggestion that some people decided to be gay so as to avoid “committing the naturalist fallacy” is still the most aggressively stupid thing I’ve ever read here. He gets my vote.
Another vote for Barb, here. She needs to go. What reason could she possibly have for being such a pigheaded troll other than having something in her own life gone horribly wrong? She even manages to make one of the calmer Christian cults, the Methodists, look like rapacious beasts (although that may be a modern trend in the Methodist church).
I would be happy to see this game of Survivor extended to the traditional team format with only one winner. Alan Clarke and RogerS are already a pair and Simon could easily join them on team Vagitarians*. Rooke, Kwok, and Facilis could be in the other team, the Semenarians*. None of these trolls add any factual knowledge or intelligence to conversations from what I’ve read and they usually end up getting their asses handed to them by the OMs (and many others! like Sven, Janine and Ken) in the end.
*:D To whoever created them, I love those terms.
Who is this Ken you speak of?
If for no other reason than the inane belief that the heart is a perpetual-motion machine,
Barb.
I would be tempted to vote for Silver Fox or Stimpson over any of these. Especially Silver Fox. Or Peregrinus if he was still hanging around — what a repugnant creep.
WOW
” why must there only be one god? why, if there is only one god, must it be perfect?”
Let me give you a crude and very imperfect analogy. If you have five pounds of sugar in a five pound bag and that’s all the sugar there is – the bag is full. Now you propose to pour the sugar equally in two five pound bags. Each bag now has two and one-half pounds. Neither bag is full. Of necessity God must have fullness; so there is nothing left for the other God (bag). If you decide to pour the sugar into two two and one-half pound bags then each bag will be full but neither bag would have the fullness of the sugar -five pounds. If God does not have the complete fullness, then it is not God.
This is a crude analogy of how one might go about conceptualizing God. It’s onlyan analogy; not a univocation.
Posted by: SLW13 | March 17, 2009 1:21 AM
“Blah blah complexity blah blah fuckwittery blah blah bullshit nonsense blah blah simplicity and unity and useless pointless gibberish blah blah I don’t realize I’m spouting pseudo-Zen, wannabe-intellectual drivel blah fuckity blah….”
Borette’s Syndrome
Silver Fox (#853)
Nope, burden of proof and all that. You make the claim, you support it. There is currently no reason to accept that your claim is true and all other possible claims are false. Now shoo, the failboat needs a good swabbing.
think about it
Never mind, I just read #857.
Simon.
“Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
@ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.”
My vote for the “sincere Mr. John Kwok”, with loads of friends on Facebook who will march off in solidarity with him over this, is vindicated!!!!!!!!!!!
Barb for sure. Just say no to homophobes.
This is becoming all too much like Zeno’s tortoise. I read, I reload, I read, I reload…
#541: However I will not say anything about other people doing the whips and handcuffs thing if it’s consensual.
You horrible, unnatural pervert. It’s whips and chains, damn it, whips and chains.
BMS: Yes, a lovely wedding. I much enjoyed the pictures.
Re: Barb, for whom I have already voted: It’s precisely her brand of Xtianity that is most insidious and evil. We gave house-room to a classmate of my son’s whose loving Christian father tried to stab him to death after said kid came out to him, because ‘God wanted [him] to’. Because God hates sinners. Etc., etc. My son began to realise that he was far luckier in his family than he’d known, especially after he got involved with LBGT peer counselling. [What became of the classmate? The former A student, college hopeful? He moved in with an aunt for a while, dropped out of school, was dragged by family members to be “saved” [read: reprogrammed], fell into deep depression, got into drugs, got into selling himself for money to buy drugs, is now HIV positive.]
I feel the impulse, in light of the Kwokiness and poor Pete’s unnatural thoughts to admit that I have, in fact, given a blow job to a World Famous Author Whose Name Will Not Be Mentioned. Take that, you social climbing prudes.
And in honour of St. Patrick: Happy Green Monkey to geeks and nerds everywhere.
Of course, this is not the Christian God, as the Christian God as described by Christians is inadequate. If you actually read my argument as to why that is, maybe you could be a bit more constructive.
Silver ‘Marduk is my homeboy’ Fox wrote:
Focus on the bolded sections, SF.
Your analogy might work if we accepted your assertion that you are aware of what your god must or mustn’t be. Who are you to say what a god can or can’t be? How, exactly, did you ascertain knowledge of these ‘necessities’ of which you speak?
Until you can support your claim of knowledge of gods’ necessities, your argument remains 10 pounds of a substance in a five pound bag. And that substance ain’t sugar…
God has to encompass absolute reality for God to be God, I can accept that assertion. So if evil exists, God has to encompass evil. So God is both good and evil in order for a monotheistic God to encompass all reality, and since the Christian God is classified as not being evil at all, it can not be the God SF is talking about.
My vote is for Kwok, if anyone. He provides the least of any of the trolls. When he pretends that knowing someone means anything about him, it doesn’t really allow for much discussion and learning, just a monumental roll of the eyes for anyone reading.
I’m rather new, so I must have missed most of the things Pete Rooke has done to be considered, but as he is now, I see no reason to ban him. He is a prude (although the fuck you upthread shows there is possibility to grow), but he seems rather like a young man lost, who could eventually come around to the right side, so banning him would be a waste.
And hopefully it won’t be another 200 posts between where I started posting and where this ends up (on 866 at the moment)
Nerd:
“your god doesn’t exist as you have presented no physical evidence for one.”
With “a few degrees beyond high school” you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem very bright, does it?
You know, giving it a second thought, I’m with Jenny.
I seriously doubt PZ is keeping track of all of our votes individually but is rather getting the gist of the majority. Regardless — taking back my vote for Rooke, putting it in for Kwok.
Jenny’s right; Rooke scares me, but he has something to contribute to the conversation and keeps us talking, discussing. Kwok is a little boy with nothing to offer and very few thoughts in his head. Rooke’s thoughts are messed up in a Timecube kind of way, but at least they’re thoughts.
So you don’t believe that God interacts with the physical world then? If you do, then surely you can see that we can indirectly infer his existence the same way we can a force in nature. By interacting with the world, that makes God scientifically testable. And if God doesn’t interact with the physical world, then how is it we can even possibly know anything about God?
Silver Fox,
You’re still making claims for your god’s attributes. Whence do you come by this information?
Okay-okay-okay-okay.
First. Thank you so much to those of you who’ve enjoyed and commented positively on our wedding pictures (you should have seen the original slice of cake she wanted to shove in my mouth!).
Second. SC OM – for the love of FSM thank you for your work on the “Islam Hates Women” thread. I surely did not mean to abandon it after my 2nd comment but life intervened. (a) I meant to clarify my short list, and just now read through the thread (I did begin to skim toward the end). You deserve a second honorific for that thread alone. I suggest “Dragon Slayer.” You would be, then, SC, OM, DS. Thank you. You said all I would have and more. (And thanks, too, to brokenSoldier and JFK for that.) (b) Had I known that Louis would crawl out of the woodwork I would have refrained.
Third. For the next round of bannings: I heartily nominate Louis, from the “Islam Hates Women” thread, for his continued, interminable, thick-headed defense of, well, if you read the thread you know what I mean (and please, readers, do not bring that discussion here, I beg you), as well as for his remarkable ability to completely miss the overall, looming, large, megapoint. And on Louis’ coattails in Banning II, the Sequel, clinteas, for his jumping-on-the-bandwagon in defense of the linguistic construct as well as for his ongoing eschewal of spaces after punctuation marks. As a woman and as an LGBT, neither of these men gives one whit about the offense and hurt they cause folks like me, even when we say or imply “Please stop,” and their unapologetic nature and their easy misogyny is sufficient to make me not read here for weeks (until I miss the rest of the erudite banter – and someone simply must teach me how to killfile for those who shall never be banned).
Anyway.
Sorry. Late + beer + “Islam (and just about everything else in modern society, witness this comment thread) Hates Women” + lonely for my limbo-wife makes for a verbose morose BMS.
>>clinteas: I meant Ken Cope. But there is also Kel and you (I could have sworn you were an OM already). Dammit, all that name-dropping is starting to make me feel Kwokky. Let me just state that I love the Pharyngula crowd.
Clint:
“SF,are you really that thick?
You are one making the extraordinary claim here”
Yes, I am making the extraordinry claim. And what I am suggesting is that a counterfactual analysis supports the claim. If you want to challenge the claim, show me the analysis that would point to it not being true.
I am sure aratina means Ken Cope.
Sorry aratina, I should have refreshed the page before I answered the question.
BMS,
I notice with interest that you would like to see commenters that disagree with you banned.That tells me all I need to know about you really.
I would really ask that you keep your insinuations and suggestions about what I think and dont think to yourself,when you know absolutely fuckall about the person youre directing these suggestions at.
Silver Fox writes:
Since it seems to be something other than matter or energy, please describe in detail the nature of “spirit,” and since it appears to be beyond human senses and/or understanding, how you know it exists.
BMS, just pointing this out, clinteas and SC are friendly towards each other. SC will go after people if they are wrong on something and clinteas wrong wrong on that point. All I am saying is the clinteas is a good bloke. Give him an other chance.
clinteas,
Whatever.
I’ve read enough of your comments to know more than fuckall about you.
And that comment just cements my opinion.
If you had some sort of decent comment to make that would have been great. You didn’t, I’ve never read anything of yours that was worth reading, and I’ll say whatever the fuck I want just as you feel free to do here.
Go Cheney yourself, fuckwit.
And for the record, clinteas, I have disagreed with other posters here and have not suggested they be banned.
It takes a special sort of douchebag to earn that from me.
Fuckwit.
And learn how to use the spacebar. Dillweed.
clinteas, I was trying to defuse this. And I think you know that I would not do such a thing if I did not think you were worth it.
BMS and clinteas, please stop and give each other some space.
Janine,
I appreciate your insight. I did read the exchange b/w him and SC and I see the friendship.
However.
His response here, and his comments and opinions on other threads, have taught me enough.
I do value your opinion highly, though, so if he can prove my opinions wrong then I’ll change my mind. I don’t think he gives a flip though. [Is there a way I can email you?]
BMS:
If you’re using Firefox, you can install the Greasemonkey add-on, which “Allows you to customize the way a webpage displays using small bits of JavaScript.” The killfile people around here use is one such small bit of JavaScript; you can download it via the “Dungeon” page linked just below the Pharyngula banner.
Much appreciated Janine !
I dont think we will get anywhere with this now,so I will just let it rest.
Blake Stacey,
Thank you!
BMS you can send it to janphar at yahoo. Yes, I have just created it. Anyone else who wants to can also send me an e-mail.
Gee,way to derail a nice thread….
aratina,
yeah sorry,I thought you meant Kel,then realized you could be talking about Ken Cope too !
Check inbox!
My ears are burning and in really good company, too (thanks, aratina cage). I’m not Kel, either, but I’m up doing my logic homework (symbolizing and deriving proofs, joy) or I’d be playing whack-a-mole with the late night shift.
Handing these guys their asses isn’t all that difficult, since these scabrous trolls such at doing The Fish Slapping Dance.
Clinteas, you know that around this time, we americans are winding down and Oz is getting ready to go.
Oh screw you. I’ve written here all day and all you can do is whinge about a minor scuffle instead of having something otherwise insightful upon which to comment?
Grow up, man.
And didn’t you tell Janine you’d give it a rest?
Man of your word I see.
Silver Fox (#889)
Errr, in #853 you asked for “the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true” (empahsis added). So are there two counterfactual analyses–one that supports your claim and one that shows it’s not true?
Maybe you could save all of us poor high school dropouts a headache and articulate yourself any analysis that supposedly supports your claim.
such=>suck
It’s late/early.
Indeed. Almost midnight here. I have a 3 hour exam at 8:00 am. Whoopee.
Janine, I emailed you at your new yahoo address.
Pete, why do you assume oral sex is unnatural? I’m a primatology undergrad, and I can tell you orangutans and bonobos both engage in oral-genital stimulation with sexual partners.
Of course not, for if you were Kel then who the fuck would I be?
Of course not, for if you were Kel then who the fuck would I be?
~~Kel
My mind… has blown!
Silver ‘Thor, Thor, he’s our god; if he can’t do it, no-one…can’ Fox wrote:
No, what you’re doing is babbling incoherently, even by your standards of nonsense.
Your arguments are based entirely on what you want to be true of your god and have asserted are his ‘essential qualities’ – and you have provided neither evidence nor argument (beyond your presupposition) to support it.
Until you can provide the source of your information and account for its validity, please stop making claims that are based entirely on the characteristics you assume – without any supporting evidence – your god has.
Yeah,I must have missed the memo god sent out to say that SF is his official spokesperson and scripture interpreter on earth.
My mind… has blown!
I hope it was unnatural for you, too!
“Anythynge You Want To! A play in five acts! Three of them unnatural, and two of them against the State!” –The Firesign Theatre
How can you be in two places at once when you are at no place at all?
New rule- unless you are getting it or planning to get it from someone with full facial hair, no complaining about it being “ticklish”!
—
Boo! Hate speech! *blows raspberry on a sensitive spot*
That ontological reasoning presented by SF refutes itself. If God is perfection, then God all God’s creations should be perfect. Since the universe is not perfect (I think the bible describes it at “very good”) then God cannot be perfect. And by SF’s standards, a non-perfect God cannot by definition be a god and thus it must be concluded that there is no god.
Ken Cope,
what say you??
:D
And let us not forget Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice, an Opera in One Un-Natural Act by PDQ Bach
I’ve enjoyed ticklish, and I’ve enjoyed squeaky. Even scratchy is fun.
Janine,
thanks again for stepping in before.
Thought about saying thanks via mail,but I think that probably wouldnt be appropriate,so Im doing it here again !
Hm. If not Iphigenia in Brooklyn, then it’s time for Fish Fish Gotta Swim from The Abduction of Figaro
I wasn’t going to comment on this thread, as I mostly lurk, but I had reason to re-read a bit of the hilarious Lenski-Schlafly correspondence today, and happened across this choice, creeptastic comment from John Kwok:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html#comment-159919
Oh please oh please oh please can we vote 2 off?
1 Barb, the unteachable Godbot troll
1.000000000000001 John Kwok, blowhard, e-stalker, OMG Facebook-defriender OMG
Blake Stacey @759- “[raises hand]”
Besides, everyone knows guys do it better.
Um, did I say that out loud?
Do you have evidence to back up your claim?
I’m very late to this party and don’t have time to read it all!
I vote for Barb. Her treatment of Janine was inexcusable.
Holydust @884- “Kwok is a little boy with nothing to offer and very few thoughts in his head.”
And he’s a republican. Or is that redundant?
I got fed up with his schtick at Panda’s Thumb. Same old, same old.
“Be anything you want, but please dog, don’t be BORING.”
Roger S.
I don’t want a creationist with my given name and surname initial around these parts.
“Do you have evidence to back up your claim?”
I tried to write a reply to this, really I did.
But I just can’t, in any good conscience, subject y’all to it.
@David Marjanović, OM in #554…. about my voting for Simon for just copy and pasting Wells (without offering anything of interest in the process)
Life in a Bottle
From Apes to Humans
They All Look Alike: Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
Or do I have my Simon(s) mixed up?
Oh, look, the clinically insane troll is off his meds again.
OK:
1) Alan Clarke is annoyingly thick AND creepy, so I wish he would go away. I am pretty sure that he is at least borderline psychotic, and has crossed the border at irregular intervals over his past month+ of posting here.
2) I am pretty sure that RogerS is not a sockpuppet for Alan Clarke, because PZ can see IP & e-mail addresses.
3) However, RogerS almost certainly has some sort of relationship with Alan (same congregation? same workplace? both?), and is almost certainly here because Alan asked him to be.
4) I am less opposed to RogerS, but if he leaves because Alan is banned, that is a twofer.
5) I still want Barb to answer the question of why she cites Behe if she thinks he is wrong about common descent, and why she thinks common descent is false if God-believing biologists (in addition to Behe) that she mentions accept it. But it looks like the votes are in for banning her, and I doubt she would have ever answered anyway.
LOL.
I don’t like banning, so I’m not going to vote.
All the people on the list are, each in their own distinctively unfortunate way, afflicted by varying degrees of ignorance, stupidity, bigotry and (in the case of the laughable Pete Rooke) the clunking, transparently juvenile wannabe sophistry of the not-nearly-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is young western male contrarian. Unlike others here I was not in the least surprised to learn that this po-faced, functionally literate dimwit is in his twenties. I can recognise the type from a hundred paces, on a foggy night. Blindfolded.
Well I’m happy Pete dropped by to remind everyone to vote for him. While apparently he really can’t beat out simon in sheer homophobia, or Barb in plain vileness, or Silver Fox in deluded thickheadedness. I still support you Pete, because you should be able to do better and yet refuse to put in the effort.
Barb, for insinuating that the reason I am a lesbian is because my parents were either paedophiles, liberals or I am “rebelling” against them for life.
I’m a little confused (honestly, and not trolling). John Kwok seems to be, over at Panda’s Thumb, a pro-science, anti-creationism kind of guy. I’m perhaps missing something. Is this a different John Kwok? Perhaps I’m too new here, but the poster using that name at PT seems quite reasonable.
I think this is the best thread I have read in maybe forever.
So awesome!
PS: Simon is the biggest douche on Pharyngula, he get’s my vote. Then Barb.
Please keep Rooke, he is frickin fantastically hilarious.
I vote to drop Barb into the memory hole. She refuses to listen, learn, or answer questions. Basically just a hateful person in general, the type that pronounces Negro with two g’s when out of public and glories in her rightness. She takes up valuable time and space, to wit, the three lines I have herein written.
Silver Fox wrote:
OK
So…. you’re saying that a god that created the universe, life, and allegedly can create miracles that defy physics… would have no physical effects?
Now that doesn’t seem very bright.
Aaaawwwww crap. I came to this party at three posts, went out to get the beers, and now it’s at nine hundred…
Re #877
And no subsequent defence for me I note? Thanks for your support! ARGH! ONLY JOKING DON’T KILL ME!
BMS, I’m sorry but you have a) misunderstood what I am arguing for, b) projected opinions/arguments onto me I simply do not hold or am making, and c) seen insult where none is meant or intended.
I am sorry to, very briefly, add a derail to this thread, and I would say that if you take simple and polite disagreement to be something resembling hostility etc then what am I to do? I am not defending the things you think I am, and I have stated repeatedly that I don’t intend to give offence. AND I’ve apologised if any has been given. I would ask, very nicely, that you come over to the relevant thread and discuss the issue if you are of a mind. But could I please ask that you not throw accusations and insults around without merit as you have been.
Thanks
Louis
Knackers! I meant post #887 in post #947. My bad.
Louis
Long-time lurker de-lurking to toss yet another vote in for Barb.
Thread-jacking, inane posts, and creationist/libertarian babble I can (for the most part) ignore. She, however, is a cruel, twisted excuse for a human, as her diatribe to Janine illustrates.
And now back to lurkdom.
You’ve missed the point. This isn’t about kicking out people because they aren’t toeing a line. This is about getting rid of annoying, trollish commenters via an amusing little stunt (it is also an interesting opportunity to see how people respond to the proposal).
John Kwok is a strange conributor, insofar as he could easily be a work of fiction designed to be deliberately grating. He is apparently unable to post without name-dropping, or at least implying that he knows people of worth and influence. He also seems to have a very unhealthy obsession with the blogger ERV. However, not least of all, from his longevity, prolificacy, and consistency, he might well be real.
Perhaps he is an elaborate Poe, I don’t know. However, his posts are often banale and repetitive, and have little content beyond some fairly literate, superficial argumentation. I think that, as much as anything, is why he is amongst those names.
Personally, I’m not very keen on witch-hunting. Any of the various bigots listed above could easily have qualified for the Dungeon on the basis of specific comments. Having said that, they often provide a sounding board for many of the most articulate post-ers here.
Appart from simon, who is morbidly obsessed with anal sex. But, he is funny. To laugh at.
Have slogged, well high speed scanned, the current 949 posts and my vote for Barb still stands. Among other reasons I forgot to mention is her personal attack on Janine of the many names. Like with SC, I admire and have a crush on Janine’s beautiful mind. Oh crap, hope that does not make SC jealous. (grinning) Waves to beautiful minded SC to distract her.
That all being said, John Kwok moves into a close second just for general creepiness and hubris.
Petie the Rooke, although I doubt it is intentional, you provide me far too much entertainment to want to see you banned. Your oral sex comments earned a new record for coffee spitting, both distance and accuracy.
Ciao y’all
Bwahahaha! Good Lord, that’s some funny stuff!!! Who said anything about ‘fæces’, Pete? From your inference, YOU are the one assuming that fæcal matter is at least a marginally acceptable cookie frosting. From the context of the original story, it’s pretty clear that poo isn’t what they’re alluding to (I won’t spoil the surpise for you, you up-and-coming filthy little kinkster, you!!) Evidently, when people talk about sexytime frosting, the first thing *you* think of is a generous dollop of solid animal waste. I knew British cookery was notorious, but this is really quite extraordinary. Akward!!!!
Shitbiscuits are not on the menu anywhere but in Pete’s head and a few, select establishments…
And, there is nothing wrong with Britsh cookery; we have some of the best Indian, Thai, Chinese, French, etc, etc, food on the planet… erm…
Who doesn’t have crushes on the beautiful minds of many people here, Janine and SC foremost among the crush objects?
I know I’m not immune.
Louis
Louis,
Dont pull a Kwok on us now,will ya…..thats just creepy.
Ewwwww hardly my intent or my point!
{sigh} Is everything I say destined to be misunderstood?
Oh you’re probably joking Clinteas, but I’m weary of being misunderstood for no good reason, so:
I merely meant that I admire the posts of many people for their clarity of thought, wit and insight. Janine is someone who’s posts light up a thread up for me, I read them, laugh, and my day is usually made measurably brighter because of their insight. The same goes for SC, even when we disagree. The same also goes for a number of other posters of a variety of types. Icthyic is one of them, he and I go back a ways.
There. Clear enough?
{sigh again}
Louis
I must admit, I was a little bit sick in my mouth with all of that foamy sycophancty…
Otherwise, Louis, if I had a penny for every time I’ve felt misrepresented or misunderstood on the internet, then I would have some multiple of pennies. Really, it doesn’t matter.
Some people will dislike you for a comment, others will just express distaste, and some will ignore you. Just remember, they are actually falling out, first and foremost, with an online persona of yours which is probably poorly representative of you as a person.
If you feel critically self-aware, and you feel that you aren’t doing the things you’ve been accused of, then it isn’t really worth dragging out a debate. It will only serve to further inflame passions, and attract criticism. Don’t treat the internet like a popularity contest, because you will upset someone at some point, and you will find yourself ina situation where you feel equally as right as the other person involved.
One thing that separates useful commenters from trolls is knowing when to let a point go.
Amen,man.
If just they could realize.
SF, if your imaginary god is simply spiritual, then it only exists as a delusion between your ears. We do not wish to share your delusions, so take them elsewhere like a good elementary school dropout.
Bernard Bumner #957:
I suppose that last point is the best.
The popularity contest I care nothing for. Being misrepresented (especially as something vile) annoys me. It annoys us all I suppose. But you’re right, it happens all the time especially on the ‘tubes.
Foamy sycophancy? LOL So if I disagree with someone then I must perforce allow them to cast whatever aspersions my way they feel like, but if I genuinely agree with and like someone’s posts in general I am not allowed to say so? Thanks for clearing that up!
I’ll make sure I restrict my comments to what you allow me to.
Do I need a humour smiley for that bit?
Louis
BMS
While I too disagreed with Louis big time – see the other thread – I have to defend him.
He’s verbose and very sure that his posts are
right“misunderstood” but that is not enough to get him banned.He’s in some sort of ivory tower about the use of language and you should do what I’ve done – leave him there and move on if it upsets you.
(Nice pictures by the way).
Louis
This is in no way meant to encourage you to partake in any more rambling, repetitive rants. You need to move on too. Life’s too short to spend days trying to get everyone to agree they are misinterpreting everything you write.
BB at#957 has it right.
Anyway BACK to the relevant bit: Survivor.
I think PZ’s challenge is too easy. You heard me. Too fucking easy.
200 words on a basic bit of evolutionary biology? Pffff.
I still think that they need to demonstrate an epistemologically valid method that distinguishes between the actions of their chosen deity and my new deity of the week: The Almighty Dildo and Her Vibrating Anal Love Eggs.
Next week it will be Santorum and the Amazing Self Cleaning Magic-Lube.
Louis
Barb is a hate filled bigot who sees no weakness in her beloved book despite strong evidence to the contrary. Her dogma will not allow her to develop as a person, something she desperately needs to do.
Her attack on Janine alone is sufficient to get her banned, although it is not the only reason.
Bye, bye Barb.
Silver Fox @883
Replace “very bright” with “possible” and you’re getting somewhere. Does the request seem unfair? Should we desist from asking for evidence out of politeness? In an atheist-themed forum like this, it’s not taboo to ask these questions.
Please provide an argument for your god that couldn’t be adapted to any other supernatural claim. Relying on theological tenets such as “God must be perfect and singular” makes your argument circular: you believe in this kind of God and use this aspect of your belief to argue for his existence.
We could start off with “God must be made of pasta and meatballs” to argue for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can say this with as much authority as you can say that God is perfect and singular, i.e. none at all.
I would vote Peter Rooke off. Planet not just site but we do what we can.
I know Barb is bad but that Rooke, well he is just special in a “If Ann Coulter had a love child by ken Ham it would be him” kind of way.
Kitty,
Fair play.
I don’t think EVERYone is misrepresenting EVERYthing I have written. Just SOME people misrepresenting SOME things. Does EVERYthing have to be black or white? I agree BB @ #957 has a good point or two…but we are derailing a useful thread with this.
From my ivory tower I thank you for your qualified support.*
Louis
*Self mockery again. I’m making a series of disclaimers for every post from now on. This too, is a joke.
YOU’RE WRONG!!11!!
God is made from pasta, smoked salmon and asparagus. HERETIC!!!111!!!!!
I’ve always felt rather ambivalent about smileys.
On the one hand, it is very difficult to convey dry humour via this kind of conversational written format (and particualrly so, in the presence of so many utterly humourless trolls and Poes, who will often offer the same sentiments, but without a trace of witticism intended). On the other hand, a smiley always feels a little juvenile to me; the written equivalent of that exaggerated inflection used to such poor effect by ten-year-olds trying to be sarcastic.
This ranks among the most stupid claims I’ve ever read.
“God exists.
Therefore, God exists.”
Also, you should think about whether your definition of perfection makes sense. Make sure not to end up with Gaunilo’s Island!
How true, how true.
Good points.
We get new nutters every week. You must be new here.
Then you need to meet more people! I’m generally sensitive. I’m almost capable of tickling myself on the belly, can be tickled by being touched in the most unspectacular places in the most unspectacular contexts, and I’m extremely sensitive to water temperature: under at the very least 27 °C, and I need 20 minutes to get in (I’ve repeatedly got sunburnt while entering a swimming pool), over body temperature, and it’s so searing hot that I can’t go in either. I can’t take the lid of a pot on a hearth with bare hands, I can’t hold a fresh cup of tea except at the handle, I can’t drink anything halfway hot, taking a shower is a nightmare when it’s difficult to regulate the temperature and even more so when the temperature doesn’t stay stable, and I hate wearing jeans because they’re like armor plates.
Have to go, will finish reading the thread later.
the lid off a pot.
@BB #968
I agree. Ahhh the Smiley Conundrum. I fear it could be more controversial even than….
…I’d better not. The humour deprived might miss the allusion.
Louis
P.S. @ Kitty #967. You shall burn in the fires of a thousand pizza ovens for all eternity. Salmon? Such an abomination has not been heard of since the Great Schism of 2005 when….ohhhhh why am I bothering, your soul, such as it is, is already lost.
You see!
This is what happens when you deny the Great Cheese Sauce and all her denizens their rightful place in the pastriarchy!
Heretics I say!
May your meatballs scorch and your tomato sauce curdle.
Pete Rooke a nose-close second. He’s hateful scum. No redeeming value whatsoever.
I disagree. His response to the immunity challange included the line “If gravity is true why are there still clouds.” That suggests a sense of humor. Plus his statements about sex are interesting in a car crash sort of way.
However, it is John Kwok who should win immunity for this round. His was the only answer that was generally correct. Actually, I’d like to make both participants who actually tried immune, if only because they showed an ability to interact as opposed to writing a diatribe then leaving (or republishing the diatribe.)
Kitty,
I think we can ALL agree that my meatballs are already thoroughly scorched.
LOL
Louis
P.S. You misunderstand*, I do not deny the Great Cheese Sauce and her place in the pastriarchy (good one btw), I honour her properly with Carbonara-like ingredients like pancetta. Your salmon in insufficiently venerable.
*Oh yeah, that was deliberate.
Wow. This was all just “Day One”.
Day two is going to be interesting. Libertarian derail, maybe?
But why should God, whom you claim is perfection itself, be finite? Assume that ‘bag’ of God is filled with the positive integers (Do you not know? Have you not heard? God can perform a bijection with Z!) We can easily split the integers into even and odd to fill two new bags, both as full as the original. In fact, we can split ‘God’ into a countable number of bags!
There you have it, SF – a proof that there can be at at least countably many gods, each as full of godness as the next, and which gives far more credit to your God’s greatness than your own proof.
“*isnt familiar with the term “woohah” and hopes it doesnt have any misogynist connotations,but liked the sound of it*”
it’s freaking cute, whatever it’s connotations. I’m totally using it from now on.
Having read this thread, I feel pity for Peter Rooke. He’s so willing to avoid some of life’s nicest pleasures for absolutely no reason at all. That makes me a little sad of him. Life’s to short to not try it all.
ooh.. take a look at John Kwok’s profile pic on Facebook.
Is Silver Fox arguing in favour of a Celestial Sugar Daddy?
How sweet.
It is unfair though, because Kel, busy man that he is, can scarcely be expected to have an argument against every god, especially the more recent carbohydrate-based ones.
Well, I once did chemistry, and knew some of the elements and their compounds quite well (like Kwok in this respect) – can I be of any assistance?
I mean, did you specifically intend a sucrose deity, or would it be the glucose god you were referring to? I’m sure there’s no god in either of them – or else my Organic Chemistry tutors were being very remiss..so could you provide some formulae with your claims. specifying which particular enantiomer is most sacred,if appropriate.
Thank you. I’m sure that if we put our heads together we can disprove all the gods, chemical as well as genocidal.
Alan Clarke is still posting creationist nonsense under the guise of “scientific” evidence in the Science of Watchman thread. The only true science he has presented was either quotemined or misrepresented. And he seems to be avoiding the immunity challenge like it was the plague.
Yes… But are any of your chemistry profs extremely famous people you regrettably can’t mention? Hmm?
Why… John Kwok is HOT!
My vote for plonk of the month has to go to Barb. She’s utterly useless, except perhaps as a kind of mindless animated wooden spoon that repetitively stirs the pot for no apparent reason.
In addition, I’d like to tip my hat to Alan Clarke, in recognition of his awesome powers of
denialdeduction and his unflaggingavoidancerationality.I seriously wonder… how PZ is going to count the votes.
Manually will be such a pain, but I know of no search function that would distinguish between comments.
… uh… not like this comment thread really requires counting to find out who won, though.
Of course, but I’m sorry, I can’t say who they are.
Oooh oooh! When does Day Two officially begin?
Day One broke Scienceblogs?
Although, to be fair, as always, if SF had argued a cyanide based God, that would have trickier to dismiss.
John Kwok; blatant troll who doesn’t even try to give the appearance of contributing to the discussion.
… thrusting into a woohah.
Now I may have to get into an extremely heated debate with Orac the next time he denounces “woo”!
I thought it was going to be a recipe for caramel.
As it is, I’ve reread it twice, and I still don’t have the slightest clue as to what it is meant to mean…
Imperfect analogy? Weights and measures gibberish.
Now, if the proposition was three pounds of chuck steak in a suet crust… Or, a firkin of ale in a hogshead… Wait, what does all of this food have to do with anything?
Four rashers of bacon in two slices of bread, with a dollop of HP = 1 perfect god.
Ah-ha!….
Damn! Strange blockquote FAIL!!
The tag boundaries randomly restricted themselves around just the first paragraph!
The message is one I got from the system while trying to comment.
Would PZ please move Day Two to another thread?
John Kwok – because I have never used ‘facebook’ (but know I know why)!
I voted for Barb earlier, but I want to change my vote to John Kwok, just because it would be hilarious to see him follow through with his childish threat. I don’t think PZ would cry if Kwok makes him wose all his wittle fwiends on facebook.
I vote for Simon.
Barb is useful in a negative example kind of way.
Pete Rooke is just too funny (take some PR and mash/cut-up with a page from “Naked Lunch” for some mindfuck humor).
Kwok might deserve it for being such a starfucker, and for being a creepy cyberstalker type.
But Simon is not funny or instructive or even tauntable, ’cause he’s just too dim and poop obsessed.
Hey folks – hasn’t pzdummy @ #s 931 & 934 leapt to the head of the queue for banning by posting an apparent threat against our esteemed host’s life?
That should be regarded as cheating in the race-to-the-dungeon, and (last of heard of the Rulez ’round here) punished by full publication of IP headers and more.
AnthonyK @985:
I don’t know, it’d be a pretty tough pill to swallow.
pzdummy is already banned – he’s David Mabus/Dennis Markuze. See the Dungeon.
@994:
You win. Comment thread over.
At #841, Feynmaniac wrote:
Too late now, and I’m running low on brain disinfectant.
Thanks a lot.
Ugh!
Could I just…I know it’s childish but…
I’ll believe in you Lord if you just..
Bernard Bumner @ # 995 – how can you tell?
The response here was a little overwhelming…a thousand comments? OK, sorry, I’m going to have to close this thread. “Survivor: Pharyngula! Day Two” will open later today, and day three will follow tomorrow.