RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Cool (sticky)

Gonna have to remember this one next time Philip claims he never said there was an EVILutionist conspiracy. --Kels (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark it sticky? ħuman 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you do this magic? Does it involve sacrificing goats? --Kels (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One does as I did above, fair damsel. PS No goats were harmed during this edit. --PsygremlinSprich! 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even evil goats? --Kels (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavens no! Then I'd have nothing to stoke whilst plotting world domination. --PsygremlinRunāt! 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Whirled domination", hehe. You said "whirled domination". ħuman 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"I've said multiple times before that creationists are not claiming a conspiracy." Here's one.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

“[Conspiracy is an] elastic, sprawling and pervasive offense, ... so vague that it almost defies definition. Despite certain elementary and essential elements, it also, chameleon-like, takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid. It is always ‘predominantly mental in composition’ because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and an intent.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 445–48, 69 S.Ct. 716, 719–20 (1949) PJR describes a conspiracy over and over and over and over again but objects to use of the word "conspiracy" and then deflects. I no longer have any doubt whether he has shit between his ears or is a liar. 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From the main page(!): "widespread suppression of alternative views and even efforts to deny believers of alternative views positions in academia." Jaxe (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(I've reminded him of that, Jaxe - good spot)   ^Contribs_Talk 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the Demon-Haunted Bradley trying to be cute, it takes a special sort of liar to claim all that shit and then stand there and say he'd never suggested a conspiracy. But then, it takes a special sort of meathead to persist in Creationism after being slapped in the face with the sheer amount of evidence Philip has, as well. He's got his head so far up his own ass, he's looped around and started a second try. --Kels (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kels - please draw us an ouroboros of head-assery to refer to in occasions like this. Kthxbai. 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarfati, scientist or philosopher ?

Philip lined to THIS in response to a suggestion to take a logic course. One of the interesting quotes "...christians...but to use their God-given minds in subjection to God’s Word, e.g. Isaiah 1:18"
Psalm 14:1: 1 The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

If this is his guide to logical argument all I can say is YIKES! Hamster (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a diff-link to the edit? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

dunno if this works [1] Theres a fair bit in that. Hamster (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha, he calls that a logic course? Any class in calculus will teach you more logic than that in three lectures, and pound it into your skull so you never forget it. I like how Sarfati tries to make an inductive scientific argument look like a deductive argument in formal logic. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Phil noticed that he accidentally coughed to circular reasoning in that particular string of rambling nonsense? I'm going to go with "no". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that shit will notice he tq'd me out out of context in order to say "another evidence-free claim" while omitting to tq the part where I discuss why the CMI/Sarfati article discussing circular arguments makes its argument circularly? Yes. Yes he noticed because he's a liar to the core of his being. He knows exactly what he's doing when he lies for CMI and his god. 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably more of a problem of Philip taking the Bible as true and diverting anything that conflicts with that. Logic doesn't matter at that point. Šţěŗĭļė poodle 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Point making

Will people please stop trying to get themselves blocked over there? I do not relish being the last one left. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It did seem to me that some of them actually were trying to get blocked and/or reverted just so that they could cry foul and say that it is just like CP over there. --T1mS (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I kinda agree with T1mS here. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PJR has every right, as we all do, to opinion his ideas no matter how foolish. Sometimes I feel people forget that. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He certainly has and, as long as he lets us, we've got the right to mock him. The man's a loon. 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

We certainly have the right to mock him but we don't have the right to tell him not to say what he thinks. Perhaps I am thinking tangentially, due to whisky no doubt, but I get the feeling sometimes that some don't respect his right to say what he believes. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he should continue to promulgate his claptrap to poison the minds of the vulnerable unimpeded. I wouldn't stop him, but I think he ought to be ridiculed, denigrated and mocked publicly so that others can see what an absolute idiot he (and you Tim, and demons Bradley, and the rest) is. 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And don't we, Ace, have the right to say what we think? Don't we have to right to point out how stupid and/or dishonest he is? Don't we have the right to denounce his double standards, where he can insult anybody while our non-insults are taken for insults and punished accordingly? Maybe we don't these rights - in that case, I fail to see the difference with CP. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

God fucking damnit you weirdos miss my point. Fuck, Ed @ CP, be cleverer. We may certainly mock but I feel some wish he had never opened his mouth to start with and that his poject should never have come to light. This is the fucking internet - we welcome dissenting voices. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Ace. Most of us were quite positive with him at the beginning. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ace is spot on, even with the whisky. And all this talk of rights is misplaced. It's PJR's site - he has a right to do whatever he wants there (within the law). Your rights on ASK are limited to what PJR will allow and what you can get away with. Your "unlimited" rights apply to the Internet as a whole, not to individual private sites. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ajkgordon, you are perfectly right. PJR has every right to do what he wants as Andy has over at CP. And we have to right to have fun with them express our opinions here and there (as long as we aren't blocked). Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. But complaining about rights when you are blocked is hardly appropriate. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly appropriate? Put a sock in it with the pontificating from someone who I'm assuming hasn't spent hours putting together posts over there only to have them dishonestly Fisked to death, with even sentences and parts of sentences being pulled apart to be grossly misrepresented by a guy with a high school science education who cites a CMI article as a "logic course." Nearly everyone else who's active on this page has been spending way too much time up to their ears in bullshit over there. If AJK is secretly someone Teh Asp already knows from aSK, let me know and I'll apologize for telling him to mind his own fucking business. To anyone wondering what the score is or claiming that any of the current editors is complaining inappropriately about anything, here's my take: our only expectation, ever, was that PJR would (a) be an honest person and (b) follow his own rules. He's not doing either. When it comes to misrepresenting science and muddling his way through explaining what he takes to be the necessary conclusions of his own holy book he's just about as dishonest as you can be. And it's not a "worldview" problem. We're familiar with the feigned indignance, sideways insults (yet he's quick to block if you intimate a CMI "scientist" is unqualified), intentionally misleading analogies (the man talks about refrigerators so much you'd think he's got a front yard full of them), logical fallacies, fallaciously pointing out others' alleged logical fallacies, etc. From what he's explained about the way he approaches both what he calls his "science" and his faith, I have no confidence he's capable of being honest in any sense we'd recognize. As for the rules at aSK, they're a moving target in the few ways that have mattered. The active non-creationists have always come out getting blocked, and sometimes for significant periods, as new rules get interpreted.

I don't know about anyone else, but here's why I'll pop back over to aSK from time to time: PJR's a liar, his website is filled with lies, and it takes me very little time and energy to abide by his rules more or less and make the points I think are important to make. You all do of course realize that his recent move toward simply deleting talk page comments is a thinly veiled attempt to cull the weak from the herd, so to speak? He's as aware as we are that his shitty website doesn't get any better because there's a robust debate going on in the talkpages. I believe from the relatively few times any of our arguments have actually been integrated into articles that PJR can only view us as a distraction from his project of building a website filled with lies about science and people he is programmed by his religion to disagree with. 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well put, Nutty. Only thing: Ajk, not to be confused with Akj, is a good and respected user at RW since a few years. I'd be very surprised if he were a parodist at aSK. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand, NR. I agree with pretty much everything you said above. My point was purely about rights. You might not like it but it is his site. You have a site here where you can say pretty much anything you want to ridicule and argue against PJR. But at ASK your rights only extend as far as PJR wants them to even if that conflicts with his written policy. What I mean is that it's pointless complaining about rights on ASK. No offence meant. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree. PJR can do whatever he wants on his wiki. The point I was trying to make is that if he's going to run an open wiki, unlike CreationWiki for example, and go so far as to solicit collaborators, and he's going to pretend to be honest in his rhetoric and have a written policy on various matters, he better damn well do it right. What he really needs to do is just shut down registration and block us all so he can get back to the important work of misrepresenting science and atheists for jesus. As an aside, I simply cannot believe that a guy who grew up reading the English language could be confused about what consensus means in the scientific sense. No. I can believe it. He's not confused. He's doing the same thing he does with "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis." He's incorrigible. 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But my point was neither pontification nor was it not minding my own business. I've had plenty of "debates" with PJR where I've become as frustrated as you evidently have been. Most notably being told that my son's ignorance of Creationism (a post-grad marine biologist working on his Masters in Marseille) is down to him essentially being brain-washed by an atheist education system. In the nicest possible way of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel some people are making points by example that are worth making, and points that would otherwise be lost without example. So TalkerX can shut the fuck up and mind his own business. Furthermore, that mother fucker would love nothing more than to be the only one left at ASK so he could indulge his delusions of reasonableness and "opine" about whatever bullshit he keeps repeating. But maybe he does want you to stick around, so he can use you for perspective to compare just how much higher his road is than yours. But I digress... PJR can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to watch someone be intellectually dishonest (or lie to you when you both already know the truth). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone opens up a fairground coconut stall and then complains that people keep knocking his nuts off, then he should either shut up or shut up shop. 18:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

That reminded me of the australian advertising for a nut company. "Nibble Nobby's Nuts" . Fiear rime I saw it in print I just said Whhaaattt~ Hamster (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hee: "One such commercial is the advert for Nibble Nobby's Nuts featuring Slade frontman Noddy Holder". 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

As a reminder to anyone who thinks Philip is honest, re-read creation-evolution controversy at ASK (or Candardistan, as I think of it).

I honestly don't know why anyone ever thought he was reasonable and honest, even back in his CP days. Yes, he's not as outright looney as Andy, but other than that the only thing that made him stand out was his politeness. Of course, as we've seen that politeness merely masks a contempt for science. --Kels (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I'm fairly sure he believes absolutely everything he says, that at no point does he think he's lying or being contemptuous of science. While we might find his rationalisations bizarre, he doesn't. I could be wrong though. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he actually is contemptuous of science that disagrees with the huge structure of lies put together by folks like CMI, it's just he has this thin overlay of politeness and faux-reasonableness that he seems to think makes it all perfectly acceptable. Clearly some of the extreme rationalizations he puts out there go way beyond simply being duped. --Kels (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear at all. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My point, Ajk, is that there is a fundamental difference between supporting your view and misrepresenting the views of your opposition. There is little in that article to say that Philip understands evolution, and most of it is a character attack under thinly veiled "reasonableness." Most of it is making a huge deal over small issues while ignoring the corresponding or worse issues in creationists. A scant part of it is even from ahistorical perspective (what actually happened). Even if an encyclopedia is "biased", it still ought to be "objective." It's the same garbage that other denialists use from tobacco-lung cancer link denials to HIV-AIDS denialists to global warming. Also, if you follow the history, all edits other than Philip's have been "rejected" by him. Is that at all realistic? Šţěŗĭļė poodle 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but objectivity is hard to come by when your fundamental belief system is faith-based. But I really do think that PJR believes all this stuff. Take my opening sentence. He would completely accept without question that "evolutionists" also have a faith-based belief system - that they believe in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. in a similar way to him believing in 6,000 years and the Flood. To him, what you call him misrepresenting your views, is actually him pointing out the flaws in your views.

I don't want to defend PJR's nonsense any more than you do. What I object to is calls of "rights" and accusations of lying mainly because it's shrill and falls into the trap of making the rational appear anything but.

But all IMVHO of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be more willing to accept that Philip honestly believes what he's saying if he didn't work so hard to avoid pinning down his own views to anything definite. He's entirely too slippery when it comes to defining his own beliefs and positions to accept that he's simply bought the party line. --Kels (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He is very careful not to make absolute statements so he always has an escape route. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you say "Two-faced arguments" is a "strategy" of the "evolutionist" movement? Use evolutionists "claim" just to make it sound like the evolutionists are crazy for making their point? Say that schools "suppress" creationism when it is, in reality, legally problematic to include creationism in a science class? Change your definition of information from moment to moment to fit your needs? And most important, if you were called on it, would you change it? It's not just that he believes in literalism, which I agree does affect what he writes; he is also dishonest in his characterization of people he doesn't agree with; it's a constant straw man from Philip, and from someone who accuses others of doing the same. Šţěŗĭļė poodle 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And lo, Philip obligingly provides a lovely example of what Ace and I are getting at. He's quite happy to say what he thinks consensus isn't (in the context of support for evolution), but good luck trying to get him to tell you what he thinks consensus is. Presumably he knows it when he sees it, like meaningful information. --Kels (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys just don't get it. Look, PJR knows he is right. He knows God created the world some 6,000 years ago, let a talking snake fuck everything up, then feeling a bit pissed off threw a tantrum and killed everything except an old bloke and his floating zoo. All the evidence suggesting that this isn't the case is simply wrong or misinterpreted.

The fact that he knows all this simply means that he doesn't get his arguments right all the time or fails in the art of persuasion. He would, I believe, genuinely feel that what you see as his lies is either you misunderstanding the truth or his lack of skill in persuading you of his argument's veracity. Indeed, in many cases, he knows it is you who are lying and deliberately misrepresenting him, not the other way round.

Again, the accusations of lying are mistaken. I don't believe PJR believes he is dishonest.

It is important, I think, for you to recognise this. Because a person who believes in his own honesty when he believes in such obvious bollocks is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a liar. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree more than we disagree, actually. I would say that Philip is dishonest, but doesn't necessarily lie. Although, the word lie has more than one definition:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

The one I get caught up on in Philip's case is definition #2, but not #1 or #3. Šţěŗĭļė poodle 15:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawdy, Lawdy!

How many askees are in direct contact with the Lord?
Excerpts from Content Review Committee/cases:

1. "Hi, I'm going to leave Conservapedia, mainly due to issues with the Obama article and other things that the Lord has been speaking to me about" JY23
2. "i am grieved about the CP Bible project, and I felt aSK is where the Lord would have me put it" Daniel1212

20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

They are being rather narrow-minded if they suppose that an omniscient, infinitely intelligent God would only speak to people via direct oration. Even the Norse pantheon have other methods. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say any intelligent deity wouldn't be wasting time with a bunch of Creationists anyway. Maybe it's actually Satan they're hearing, or possibly...well, I don't want to say the "D" word for fear of scaring Bradley. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Kelseigh, it must be nice to have a world so easy to mould to one’s own memes. When did I ever give any reason to think I would find demons scary? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't be afraid of a malevolent spirit.? My, ain't you brave confident of your own invulnerability. Better send for an exorcist to check you out, you might be already possessed to be so carefree. 06:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I'm not invulnerable, no.167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Demons do tend to be rather nasty little buggers who can land you in hELL if you are not careful. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You try to be nice to the mentally disadvantaged, and see what you get? I tell you! --Kels (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that Dan isn't "grieved" enough to actually put his money where his mouth is. 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Another (!) boycott?

I don't usually call for boycotts, nor should I now that I am blocked for a week (why?), but many users left Parthians in the last few days, so... should we? Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye!!

• ^Contribs_Talk 08:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Boycott Canardistan. Šţěŗĭļė poodle 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay!

• Whatever. Is that site still up? Is PJR still writing massively tq's screeds that say nothing? ħuman 03:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

yup[2] Jaxe (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally improoved their little uncyclopaedia. Sorry. Also, Bradley, fuck you and the high horse you rode in on. ħuman 05:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, in Soviet Russia, aWK boycotts you! ħuman 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

last time boycott planned people were banned and then the server broke. Maybe server will break again ? Hamster (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Did the last one accomplish anything useful? Is there any reason to think another will? Phil isn't hurt by not having people around who disagree with him and his delusions. --Kels (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When we're not there, they're like fish out of water. It's a little fun to watch them flop around, but that's the extent. They don't learn anything when you're there, why would they learn anything when you're gone? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should word that differently. Why make a big statement with a boycott (that won't bother Philip or his conjoined twin, Kuato Bradley) when you can simply just not go there? --Kels (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think most people are getting to that point. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Phil isn't hurt by not having people around who disagree with him and his delusions". Actually, I think he is. Without us there is only him and Bradley, and it becomes a sad place full of trains and conventions. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They can always pretend to debate Oscar. Plus, Daniel1212 is there, and his Christianity is inevitably going to butt heads with Phil's Christianity, which will make for an interesting (albeit wayyyy too fucking long) discussion, butthurt and LANCB. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one thing that makes me wonder at this point is, what makes PJR any worse than Andy? People kept trying to engage him for longer than they do PJR, and hell they still try to engage TK even though it's obvious he's doing nothing but trolling. But PJR really gets people's ire up in a different way, it seems more personal or something. Why is that, exactly. --Kels (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because he makes it personal by lying about what editors have said while also in the grand gesture of things lying about other stuff that's important to editors there. Oh wait. You were asking rhetorically. 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Jackingson and GordonLightfoot

Parodists? Šţěŗĭļė poodle 03:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk singers. --Kels (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did I put that hammer? ħuman 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another ...

... homophobe?. Ken Ruylopez & Dan'll be all over him. 04:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Whodathunkit? "Semen" is a redlink at the whorehouse! ħuman 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Jury's out right now. It could simply be he doesn't know the subject (as he says), and is just going by what he's been told. Although in fundy-land, I wouldn't rule it out. --Kels (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some "truth" to the "article". Also wrote a redlink I made. Moar brainz to come! Maybe. ħuman 05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell kind of "enpsychlopedya" is awk, anyway? Every fucking link I create is red except Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome! ħuman 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who hasn't been blocked for a week for expressing the truth that PJR has a penchant for lying for jesus go express contempt for Daniel's conclusion that atheism leads to being Pol Pot? I'm sick of this no absolute basis for morality shit, though I'm glad I don't live in fear of pissing off a bearded phantasm. Kthxbai. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

I asked why the high rate of sexual misconduct charges among the clergy, catholic preists and Ted Haggard considering they should be models of morality Hamster (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anniversary

It is soon, right? ħuman 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone can prolly find it easier than me but this was the first edit on Phil's user page (21 Mar) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Something seems to be wrong, the earliest edit is number 3. - π 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It was 21 March - the spring equinox. I'm not sure why Phil chose a Neopagan holy day to launch his Christian website. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

my birthday gift:

views vs. rank per name-spaces

views vs. rank, some titles added

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How did Philip survive so long on CP without being banned for talk talk talk? I guess bullshit bullshit bullshit doesn't count. Jaxe (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk talk in support of Creationism and other CP-friendly delusions doesn't count. --Kels (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually he was booted out of the soopah seekrit discussion forum a couple of times, because they didn't like his talk, talk, talk... most of which was 'Obama is a Muslim" and "TK is a lying little shit" (although not in those words). --PsygremlinPrata! 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually "Obama is not a Muslim." And where do you get this information? --aSKTim 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! My bad! That's what I meant. As for the how... lucky guess? --PsygremlinTala! 15:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That would explain it. I should have guessed. --aSKTim 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, my block will end just in time for me to join the festivities! ħuman 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, saying that Philip does not understand science in any way is a personal attack? It's a freakin' statement of fact, you can reference every statement he's ever made about science to back that up. Hell, just provide a link to his User Contributions, there's damning evidence right there! --Kels (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip's new interest in information is pissing me off. He's either an ignoramus because he doesn't realize that Davies isn't talking about creationist meaningful information or he's dishonest in his distortion of what Davies says. Šţěŗĭļė poodle 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

er, is BOTH out of the question ? stupid or dishonest isnt much of a choice. Hes back to his "science could have supernatural explanations, you lot are just arbitrarily not allowing them" complaint. Hamster (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wonders of the Solar System

This is a new BBC documentary on at the moment presented by the most excellent Prof Brian Cox. Well worth a watch (BBC2 and iPlayer in the UK). Of course he talks completely blithely about millions and billions of years. It's just a perfectly normal consequence of talking about astronomy. But because I've been exposed to YEC (which I'd never given a moment's thought (cue PJR's accusations of atheist education) before reading CP then RW then ASK), the millions and billions of years thing can't be heard without reacting to it. I feel dirty. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit I have the same reaction. My life was so much better when I thought that YECers were as real as Santa. Sure, some people dress up in that red suit and all, but they don't actually believe that stuff. Do they? Bondurant (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The same thing happens to me whenever I watch these sorts of programs. I'll often remark outloud something like - "That can't be, the world is only six thousand years old." or "Don't you mean Jesus did it?" --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 12:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply apply the standard Creationist test to find out:

Do I agree with it? Jesus did it!

Do I disagree with it? Satan, Hitler and probably homosexual atheists!

Easy! --Kels (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

billions of apparent years shrink up a lot under Gravitic Time Dilation. Dr Jason Lisle , creation astrophysician says so. Hamster (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PJR's total ignorance

Not meaning to pimp myself but here PJR shows his total and utter lack of knowledge save for a few quotes. Fucking idiot. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Same old, same old? All he's ever had is a few quotes, and since he gets most of them from CMI, they're not honest quotes to begin with. I suspect that honesty in this really isn't important to Philip. Not that he's trying to lie, it's just he doesn't seem to care. It's almost like a logic game or something, the "anti-creationists" are wrong by definition, so they've got to be shown they're wrong. It doesn't matter what's thrown up, it's all fair in the name of proving the "anti-creationists" wrong, and mundane, day-to-day things like logic, honesty, etc. don't enter into it. I suspect you've gotta seriously compartmentalize your brain to pull crap like that off. --Kels (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

but Phil has studied creationism for 30 years. He must have learned something in all that time ... surely... I mean must have done , how could you NOT ... hmm ? Hamster (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Same way homeopathic "patients" can claim to be under medical care, I suppose. --Kels (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same man you are all speaking so highly of, about his discerning good judgment, on the WIGO-CP talk page? One might think people here are highly selective in their memories! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote Philip: As for RationalWiki badmouthing everyone else, please take note that they also badmouth me. But they badmouth me about my /beliefs/, not about my /fairness/. If they are badmouthing you about your fairness, then perhaps that needs looking at.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Worthy of a quote miner! People here, some of the same ones badmouthing PJR for his supposed closed mind, his fairness, and how he runs his wiki, say the exact opposite when it is to their liking, as I said. This isn't anything we all don't already know, LArron....why the need to rush in and seemingly refute? I won't be a part of the usual rat-packing ways here anymore, so go find someone else to pick a argument with. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Catching On

Well, you can't read something as lurid and over the top as this rot without asking yourself "what's really going on here?" So I did, of course, and Google was kind enough to show me this lovely link. Make of it what you will. --Kels (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help it. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It does make you wonder about Australian society. Hamster (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian and, more particularly, as a Victorian, I resent that comment you... you... RODENT! --Horace (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)