Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 151 of 1725 (518391)
08-05-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Admin
08-05-2009 4:38 PM


Re: Completely Unrelated
Fair enough. See Bilingualism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Admin, posted 08-05-2009 4:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 152 of 1725 (518834)
08-08-2009 5:30 PM


SO in the Relativity is Wrong thread
As Admin begins to crack down on the poor posting practices of our resident racist and geocentrist, the hilarity continues.
Apparently SO thinks that beign asked to produce the calculations that support his argument means he has to redo all of the work his source originally performed...as opposed to simply copy/pasting the numbers his source presumably provides and explaining how they support his position.
Or, you know...just conceding that he has nothing at all to base his wacky beliefs on.
This, of course, has inspired a temper tantrum from SO, such that he has instructed Admin to ban him.
quote:
Thou shalt not tempt Percy thy Admin.
I anticipate his request to be granted very shortly. I'm not sure if I'm more happy to see the little racist disappear, or sad at the loss of the constant stream of humor as the forum's favorite target practice is taken away.

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2009 8:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 153 of 1725 (518846)
08-08-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rahvin
08-08-2009 5:30 PM


Re: SO in the Relativity is Wrong thread
Or, you know...just conceding that he has nothing at all to base his wacky beliefs on.
But Rahvin he has provided "sources".... What more do you want?
I'm not sure if I'm more happy to see the little racist disappear, or sad at the loss of the constant stream of humor as the forum's favorite target practice is taken away.
Personally I find him hilarious and I will miss him dearly. Alas I suspect that his current suspension is just a sign of more permanent things to come.
Oh well. Next.......
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2009 5:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 1725 (518895)
08-09-2009 9:57 AM


Ark Bigger On The Inside Than The Outside?
Can anyone remember the name of that ingenious poster who tried to solve the problem of life on the Ark by suggesting that God miraculously made it bigger on the inside than the outside?
Thanks.
ETA: Never mind, I found it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by xongsmith, posted 08-09-2009 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 155 of 1725 (518916)
08-09-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
08-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Ark Bigger On The Inside Than The Outside?
ARK: an obvious precursor to the TARDIS
ARK =
Ark of
Recursive
Kinematics
It cannot be done without recursion.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2009 9:57 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4805 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 156 of 1725 (518973)
08-10-2009 7:28 AM


Three Cheers
Greentwiga is to be congratulated for the Message 183 below. Here's to hoping he sticks around for a long, long time.
greentwiga writes:
I was thoroughly chastised by myself when I read through the site I posted to realize that it was a creationist hoax. Everyone very kindly told me what a dummy I was to believe that scientists originated the hoax. I couldn't respond to this thread till my face stopped flaming red.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 1:27 PM lyx2no has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 157 of 1725 (519013)
08-10-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by lyx2no
08-10-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Three Cheers
Second. See Message 8 for more.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by lyx2no, posted 08-10-2009 7:28 AM lyx2no has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3947
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 158 of 1725 (519148)
08-12-2009 2:08 AM


My last comment on RAZD the deist
In RAZD's message 4 reply to my message 1 at the "Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?" topic:
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
If I had it to do over again (and here I do) I would reply to that:
The atheist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Deism and atheism is functionally the same thing.
I proposed a "Great Debate" to try to explore the above. My message 1 ended with the question:
So RAZD, the question is, how does your deism effect your day to day life?
RAZD declined the "Great Debate", saying:
Not interested, sorry. My faith is personal, and everyone's worldview affects their day to day affairs.
And so it ends, leaving me at "Deism and atheism is functionally the same thing."
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by mark24, posted 08-12-2009 3:03 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 08-12-2009 6:44 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5284 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 159 of 1725 (519149)
08-12-2009 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Minnemooseus
08-12-2009 2:08 AM


Re: My last comment on RAZD the deist
Moose,
RAZD writes:
Not interested, sorry. My faith is personal, and everyone's worldview affects their day to day affairs.
Excuse me, I thought RAZD banged on about his "faith" ad nauseum making it impersonal? Glad to see it's become a "faith" now, & not an evidentially supported conclusion, though.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:25 AM mark24 has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 1725 (519167)
08-12-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Minnemooseus
08-12-2009 2:08 AM


Re: My last comment on RAZD the deist
Well I still don't understand RAZD's position.
On one hand he seems to say that his faith is deeply personal and independent of logic or rationality. (Fine. No argument from anyone there.)
Yet on the other hand any suggestion that believing in one immaterial unevidenced entity over any other is irrational and the result of special pleading and he will start banging on about the value of "subjective evidence". Whatever exactly "subjective evidence" is in relation to entities that are wholly materially undetectable?
I find it all very contradictory. And all very ambiguous. I hope to rectify this here Immaterial "Evidence"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 1725 (519185)
08-12-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by mark24
08-12-2009 3:03 AM


My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar
Hi mark24,
Excuse me, I thought RAZD banged on about his "faith" ad nauseum ...
Nope.
You have confused Straggler's confusing continual misrepresentations with my actual position on the validity of subjective evidence: all I talked about was the validity of subjective evidence. It seems Straggler was completely, and likely still is, unable to separate this from talking about gods and faith, etc, a problem I don't have.
Most of what I "banged on about" was Straggler's continual misrepresentation of my position on subjective evidence to involve and be central to my faith, when it didn't and isn't.
Glad to see it's become a "faith" now, & not an evidentially supported conclusion, though.
Curiously, my personal faith has always been a "faith" -- it is something that I just do not talk about -- a point that renders all of Straggler's comments about my faith, hidden agenda, larger argument, etc., etc., rather ridiculous, because whatever he thinks it is, it is necessarily a fabrication of HIS own making. This point should be obvious to anyone when they realize that he has been unable to find a single -- not one -- quote about my faith that he can use to prove his point, even though there were literally hundreds of posts on the topics in question. Not one. Not a single one. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Don't you wonder why that is?
Faith is a personal journey, and I can no more tell another person how to find their path than anyone can tell me, which makes discussion of faith rather irrelevant and pointless, hence my declining of moose's invitation.
Nor will I be party to any more of Straggler's silly games about "but you said" to my "no I didn't" - as he has demonstrated to me a level of dishonesty in those debates that is pointless to try to continually refute. He will continue to post false statements about things I've said in spite of challenges - and his failure - to substantiate them. Until the day he can, or acknowledges that he can't and apologizes, he will be a dishonest debater and a liar in my book.
But this is not the thread to air dirty laundry, it is a topic to discuss debates on other topics.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by mark24, posted 08-12-2009 3:03 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 08-12-2009 9:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 08-12-2009 9:12 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 164 by Admin, posted 08-12-2009 10:29 AM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 162 of 1725 (519189)
08-12-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
08-12-2009 8:25 AM


Re: My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar
I am not, and never have been, overly interested in your faith. I am however very interested in what can be evidenced and what cannot. I am also interested in whether atheism or agnosticism is the rational conclusion. It should be noted that it was you who raised the issue of "subjective evidence" in a thread about deism and atheism. Not me. It was you that created any conflation between faith and evidence. Not me.
Personally I think your little hissy fits, wild accusations, mock indignation and personal attacks are just a means of evading the real issue at hand. Namely that you are simply unable to justify your assertion that agnosticism is the rational position with regard to some unevidenced gods whilst remaining totally atheistic to equally unevidenced immaterial concepts like our old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn.
Special pleading. Indisputably. But you would rather put pins in your eyeballs than ever actually concede that fact, or tackle the issue of how immaterial entities can be evidenced.
Immaterial "Evidence" has been specificaly setup to discuss evidence independently of any conflations with faith. Maybe you should take your comments there.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Immaterial Evidence thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5284 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 163 of 1725 (519191)
08-12-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
08-12-2009 8:25 AM


Re: My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar
RAZD,
Curiously, my personal faith has always been a "faith" -- it is something that I just do not talk about -- a point that renders all of Straggler's comments about my faith, hidden agenda, larger argument, etc., etc., rather ridiculous, because whatever he thinks it is, it is necessarily a fabrication of HIS own making.
Not really, the whole subjective evidence thing came up because of the deism threads.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 164 of 1725 (519199)
08-12-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
08-12-2009 8:25 AM


Re: My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar
To RAZD,
If you cannot discuss a topic without ad hominem then please don't discuss it here.
To you and Straggler:
This is a peanut gallery, not a discussion thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:25 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 08-12-2009 8:34 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 1725 (519268)
08-12-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Admin
08-12-2009 10:29 AM


Re: My (hopefully) last comment on Straggler the Liar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Admin, posted 08-12-2009 10:29 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024