Forum Oscars

Only if you can make me laugh at the same time.

OK CS. Now we know what you really look like.......

With pride.But seriously - What kind of a no life geek knows the proper spelling of the word "Anaorak"....?Dude. Get a life.

In truth I was just annoyed that you were better at spelling than me. In truth she doesn't need much of an excuse.......Frighteningly your pic looks a bit like my mother-in-law. So that is what I have to look forward to in my twilight years. Yipes!!

Drunken? Yes. Angry? No.In my own mind, at the time, I was the very definition of subtle wit and ironic humour with an undercurrent of post-modern sarcastic pathos.Reading back now I just sound like a wanker.

You are not supposed to agree with me! You were supposed to say: "No. Not at all. It was hilarious. I got it even if nobody else did". But that is obviously too much to expect from our resident scyther of BS.I will never drink again. Well.... Until next time. Posting drunk always seems like a really really good idea. Sometimes I read it back later and think - Phew! that sounds almost like you know what you are talking about" and sometimes I read it back and just cringe.

Once again I have a keyboard laced with **random alcoholic beverage** (Argie red wine in this particular instance) as a result of reading one of your posts.

Of course!!Like every English football fan I watched the World Cup draw live and direct.USA first game - No friggin problem. Bring. It. On.seriously cannot wait. Have lots of mates going out to SA for the competition. Alas these days I am too domesticated for that to be a realistic option.......But to bring this (very superficially) on topic - Biggest US "soccer" fan? Or are you all imbecilic philistines with no appreciation of the beautiful game?

Typical American. Choose the best team why don't you. For real sports supporters the trials and tribulations of heartache and joy are what it is all about. At the weekend I like to dress up in a min-skirt and play with pompoms. So sue me. I see some banter ahead............But England are playing South Africa at cricket at the moment and I can only concentrate on one sport at a time so that will have to wait.

Yep. SG and Cavey are soooo obvious as nominations that I didn't even feel the need to set a category for them. But yes. Of course SG and Cavey both deserve a nomination here for their contribution to education, understanding and making this forum a cut above the rest in terms of genuine scientific input.Some of SG's "QFT for idiots" has been truly inspiring. Cavediver is more than capable of equally inspirational moments. On an educational level it is hard to seperate the two. SG wins on patience. Cavey wins on cutting but funny remarks to obvious idiots.Take your pick on that basis.

The award for the most persistently pissed (in the British sense of the word) poster:Hic!Santa Claus Santa Claus.
Exposes all of RAZ's flaws.
A triumph of rhyme and reason.
Just in time for the festive season.
Faith based agnostic. With opinions.
The never endiiiing debate continues.
What's your take on subjective ev-i-dence?
Take a stand. Don't sit on the fence!!
Santa Claus Santa Claus.
Unable to be proven non-existent.
Unicorns and Pixies too.
No matter where you look. Or how persistent.
Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
Incessant agnosticism is so funny.
Lots of threads.
Lots or posts.
Telepathic dogs, superstrings and ghosts.
Who is right?
Who is wrong?
Who cares? Let's sing a song!!!
Agnostic or a-the-is-tic.
Evidential validity is the yardstick.
Santa Claus. Santa Claus.
Exposes Alllllll of RAZ's flaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwws!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh don't be such a humorless gimp!! Blah blah blah.I couldn't let this pass. Because we all now agree. We agree that there is not, and never ever can be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. All claims are made in the context of objectively evidenced human history, culture and psychology. No claim ever operates in a complete vacuum of objective evidence. As I have been telling you for quite some time now. And as you have finally had to accept. Thus blowing your entire argument out of the water.If you really want to go through this yet again start yet another thread and I'll see you there. But I am guessing that now your "absence of evidence" misapprehension has been dealt with you probably won't.And if you reply to this post you have to do it in verse. Them's the seasonal rules!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Grammar

I am honoured. You do know I only post here in the vain hope that I can supply you with material don't you? Prepare yourselves..... Actually I think we are done. But I have been wrong before.Back on the Oscars tip - Most impressive post formatting has to go to RAZ. As is obvious I only ever steal what he has already done. I'll be buggered if I could do all that flashing scrolling multimedia with knobs on stuff from scratch. I reckon a drunken sing-off I am off to nurse my hangover before my son wakes up and starts jumping all over me. Ouch!

Well how about a forum Oscar for the coveted award of most comedically quotable? As our resident pro you are disqualified from nomination. So my nomination goes to Dr Jones. For reasons that I think are obvious. But CS gets a mention too for some of his less intended gems.And while I am here another category to contemplate - Most challenging person to debate (I mean in a good "fearsome debator" way - not headbanging inducing idiocy). I think Rahvin and Rrhain both deserve a mention. I am actually a deeply conservative Christian rather than the wishy washy liberal atheist I portray myself as here. The only reason I pretend otherwise is so as to avoid debating either of these two I think Rrhain edges it as he seems intent on detailed fact based destruction rather than any form of conceptual consensus when he debates.

Oh yeah. I forgot about him. Some very funny and completely random, but still on point, comments. Often hilarious. This springs to mind: Ho ho ho. Disgustingly jealous most likely. As am I BTW. I really do genuinely try. And then what I try to do is work my way down to the underlying unjustifiable assumptions that lie at the foundation of the position in question. The assumption that there is no relevant evidence at all, the assumption that a form of evidence is necessarily more reliable than guessing, the assumption that examples of a law being badly applied necessarily equate to a reason to abandon the law in question, etc. etc. etc. Whatever. But that kind of thing. I don't claim to be infallible at all. But that is honestly my approach to this stuff.Then I try to force the person in question to confront those assumptions and that's when things get feisty and the fun begins. Because whether I am right or wrong in my analysis nobody ever thinks that their position is based on unjustifiable assumptions. Yep. I hope Rahvin is blushing again.