Well, gang, the voting is closed on our first Survivor event. I would never have expected such a dramatic turn-around. From out of nowhere, John Kwok surged out of fifth place in the field — I had written him off as a bad bet — to rally astonishingly by doing one simple thing: commenting. He clobbered Pete Rooke and Simon, even, just by writing one threat (to sic his facebook friends on me), and doing his usual irritating name-dropping nonsense. He showed real heart in this race, and I’m sure that if he just continues to babble, he will eventually win his place in the fabulous Pharyngula dungeon.
In the end, though, he could not stop the juggernaut. One person stood out as a universal target for opprobrium by virtue of her homophobia and her cheerfully evil views. She was described as the Dolores Umbridge of Pharyngula. And for that reason, Barb has been found unfit, and is cast into the dungeon for all time.
Now, on Day Three of Survivor: Pharyngula!, you get to vote on who you’d next like to evict. You may notice some changes in the list.
Africangenesis
Barb
Facilis
John Kwok
Piltdown Man
Pete Rooke
Silver Fox
Simon
A few people on the first list who garnered little enthusiasm have been dropped. On the other hand, a few have been added. It’s a remarkable thing: these threads represent an opportunity for readers to vent their spleens over some of the more obnoxious commenters here, and thus represent a dangerous circumstance for the pesky little goblins — you’d think, if they had an sense at all, that they’d realize this is the time they should be lying low, keeping as quiet as possible. But no! I guess if they had any brains in the first place, they wouldn’t be quite as annoying. Maybe if I’d called this Shark Week: Pharyngula!, they’d have realized that jumping into a well-chummed lagoon full of vicious beasts champing their razor-toothed jaws was not a good idea.
Now vote by leaving a comment here. Or, if you’d rather, you can always send the thread off in unusual directions — the last one seemed to be all about oral sex, lesbians, and bacon. I’ll tally the votes on Friday, if I can manage to pick them out of the non sequitur salad.
How about an immunity challenge for our contestants? Since the last runoff was characterized by an astonishing lack of self-awareness on the part of the victims candidates, we should test that. The challenge for the seven surviving candidates is to write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future. This will be a tough one for this crowd, I’m sure. Let’s see if they can wake up enough to do some honest self-assessment.
They have until 1pm tomorrow to complete the immunity challenge, and then we’ll open those up to the crowd for honest evaluation.
I was going to search, but Feymaniac’s summaries pretty much did it for me. I’d have to go with Simon, without a doubt. That dude is scary stupid beyond all reason.
It was a coincidence. I don’t read David Sedaris. The post was mostly inspired by MST3K.
John Kwok, he annoys me
He was in the Seattle farm-club organization for years. Now he’s in the Atlanta system. Even so, I suspect he’ll have to break into some kind of assistant coach in the majors before he gets a shot at managing a club. And that’s not so easy to do.
OTOH, he’s won three titles in the minors, so maybe he’ll make it. He’s certainly gone further than anyone (in my family), in professional athletics, since the 1970’s.
Janine @ 500
I want to be seduced!
Perhaps. Though I’m guessing not by the types portrayed in the video.
1 vote for “What happened to my butt hymen” Simon
PZ needs to give us an annual Pharyngula International Self-Aggrandizement thread. Banned or not, John would always be allowed to post there.
All of us could then talk about the famous people we know and how great our senior kindergarten class was.
@tony [#463],
From what little I’ve seen of Survivor on TV (and I’ve intentionally seen very little of it), only one survives — meaning all others are voted off — and that’s a good result, I’d say.
——————–
@Nominal Egg [#472],
I’d also enjoy a(n evolving) take from Cuttlefish on this whole Survivor game.
——————–
@Tark [#479],
You forgot to change the blockquote width.
——————–
@Dustin [#483],
I agree. That’s why I reserve it for special cases; and now I’ll have to devise a Day 4 way of voting…
Maybe we’ve been taking the wrong angle on these guys. Maybe they’ve all just got very thin myelin.
Science and insult! It’s perfect.
More please: oral sex, lesbians and bacon.
Off the island: Simon. Sanctimonious doofus.
Ahh. The old “I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body” ploy. That won’t fly here, Captain Shameless!
As for Rooke being a man of the cloth: First, no way am I confusing him with Fr.J. Second, it’s likely I read someone else’s facetious comment and taken it seriously. Third, Rooke’s opinions on women and their place in society are so stygian, I’d have believed nearly anything about him – up to and including a claim that he’s an undead witch-hunting Inquisitor, one of the Nazgul.
(Ahem. In the event that the latter turns out to be true, I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that “I am no man!”)
Knowing that he’s a couple of years younger than I am, as opposed to 20 years older, does make him a little easier to take.
Like yesterday, I vote for John Kwok. I *really* want to see what the effect of his Facebook threat is going to be.
Still voting to throw Simon off of Pharynguland. He’s disgusting, and nothing more.
I think Pete Rooke’s comments on the Survivor Day 1 thread about his lack of sexual experience and sexual hangups made me feel some pity towards him.
I used to image he was just a crotchety, dried-up husk of an old coot whose brain cells were beginning to rot. To learn he’s a 22 year-old student who’s obviously lived a very repressed and sheltered life, honestly makes me feel for him. So, I’d keep Rooke.
John Kwok ✓
Quite a feat. He’s not even a creationist, he is just an interminable blowhard, and while some of the others are annoying, his comments are the only ones that make me want to hurt kittens.
Pete, while clearly failing his first attempt at the immunity challenge (try again!), I agree with Feynmaniac: he has been showing some signs of self-reflection lately in other threads.
Must you shout that every time you stab me in the face?
I vote John Kwok – “himself”.
Why?
well – this is reason enough….
*******************************************
Posted by: John Kwok | February 26, 2009 12:08 PM
@ sng,
Whether or not PZ wishes to admit this, Ken Miller has done far more work than PZ has in exposing the illogical, unethical behavior of creationists (If that’s not the case, then why do you think Ken received the AAAS Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award? There is nothing in PZ’s past history which suggests that he, too, is worthy of such recognition.).
********************************************
To the readers of Pharyngula,
I sincerely apologize for my reprehensible behavior while on this weblog. In retrospect, it was quite inappropriate to graphically expose my private sexual fantasies of defecation and homosexual acts to the readership here. I sincerely regret any feelings of discomfort and disgust this may have created. Also, when I was quoting large blocks of texts without adequately providing citations I was committing intellectually dishonesty. Finally, my question to Dr. Myers on his wedding anniversary reflects quite poorly on my judgment.
The American philosopher Henry David Thoreau once wrote ‘I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor’. I will endeavor to elevate my standing with the readership of this weblog by making my commentary more substantive in the future.
Sincerely,
sImon
Simon is evil. Boot his cruelty as hard as you can.
Most of the others make me think–not think that they are right, mind. They make me think about how I know what I know, and how I can express my thoughts to others. Getting some things into words in order to argue with those guys is a good thing for me.
But Simon doesn’t listen, so I don’t need to think to disagree with him. He just makes me feel all smug for not being like him. Which isn’t good for my intellect. If someone must be kicked, make it Simon, and make it hurt.
To the homophobes, and for lovers of bacon and lesbians, (and lesbian bacon lovers!) I present a youtube video, and an image, mostly NSFW.
An excerpt from Zappa’s film 200 Motels, Penis Dimensions, and a novel use for bacon
Ooooo, another go-round. (I never watch those reality shows, so I don’t know what the rules are.) On the first day I had voted for the horrendous Barb before I was exposed to the twisted imaginings of simon (or ‘slime-on’). But a vote is sacred (I know–not really), so I didn’t feel I could take it back. Now that we get to vote again, I say ‘Get rid of that creep, simon!’.
Remove Kwok please. The thread #189 mentioned was enough evidence for me. He pissed all over it.
Dustin @ #502 – Even more nicely done then!
Bonez – re blockquotes, I realized. Haste makes mistakes and your fu is much better than mine anyway.
Nothing like topping off an evening with some Redbone,
Janine, your fu is better than all. Shine on.
Tax Religion. (Insert something pithy here on your own, I am tired.)
Tark
Simon. The continuous homophobic attitude adds nothing to anything discussed here, though I have to addmit Facilis’ condom comment yesterday (my time) was appalling, misogynist and ignorant enough to get my vote. Well, fortunately for me there is a next round.
Simon, for his lousy sentence structure.
After reading the profiles given by feynmaniac, I’m going to cast a vote for Simon (I mean, getting rid of this sort of trash is just simple house cleaning)
Is it too much to hope for John and Simon to end in a tie?
Please?
I think Pete did pretty well with his essay. Some of his points were pretty obvious: this is a rough-and-tumble place where passionate people argue a lot, and the anonymity of the internet makes it easy to be rude. But he did reveal some promise, I think, when he talked about how hard it is to look objectively at your strongly-held beliefs . . . and maybe let them go . . . even when you know there’s something wrong. The “scientism” thing? Look, that’s where he is now. The last few days have given us some hints that it might not be where he ends up. And damn, folks, he did try.
But, Pete, please eschew obfuscation. Also, brevity is the soul of wit.
I do wish, JeffreyD, that I could join you for that, what was it, orange squash? Though I’d be drinking a martini, of course. I’m no 22-year-old innocent.
Oh, and RealName? Way to go, dude or chica!
Kseniya,
Why is this?
Is it that you’d be sadder that someone older would have these views (which sounds more reasonable) or would you be more challenged in your own views by the simple fact that someone that age held those views?
Kseniya,
Why is this?
Is it that you’d be sadder that someone older would have these views (which sounds more reasonable) or would you be more challenged in your own views by the simple fact that someone that age held those views?
Still SIMON, for the many good and sufficient reasons cited above.
Then maybe Kwok for being repetitiously repetitiously repetitiously tiresome. I think I’ve changed my mind after all about being able to ignore his posts; the incessant mosquito whine of his name-dropping, nothing-new posts has me desperately seeking surcease by swatter instead of just pulling the blanket over my ears.
AfricanGenesis is quickly climbing the charts, and I haven’t even had much exposure to him.
Already voted, but how can anyone read the comments JKwok has left on this single thread and not want him to enjoy life very, very far from wherever they are? He’s sort of like Eric Idle at his very worst, except without even an echo that intelligence or humor ever existed as positive virtues. He’s a sort of over-the-top parody of some Dickensian character – one whom, when found as a greasy, blackened stain due to having spontaneously combusted, you cheer the author for disposing of, finally.
Again, if the John Kwoks of this world happen to be on my side, the world needs more sides. Preferably without doors or connecting vents.
Well Kseniya,
Since I asked you twice, just assume I really want to know.
Facilis for sure.
Kwok…
although banning him will probably just feed his delusions.
Dear Africangenesis,
Please keep commenting in this thread so that more people will see the necessity of voting for you.
May I suggest you explain how anthropogenic global warming is a liberal conspiracy, and scientists are misrepresenting the consensus?
Thanks!
My vote goes to Africangenesis. He gives my continent a bad name.
a few weeks ago it might have been tempting to remove AG, but after the incident with the River Main, in which he insisted it was spelled Mein, and then refused to accept that he fucked up and instead kept digging himself in deeper
That is quite false; you misrepresented his behavior in that very thread and continue to do so. In http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/i_marvel_every_time_at_a_presi.php#comment-1404044 he admitted his error, which you surely saw because you posted immediately after him and later commented on his post. But you took him to task for his comment about the spelling having changed, which was likely a joke, and never acknowledged that he admitted the error and chastised himself for not looking it up. AG is terribly wrongheaded about a number of things, but none of them justifies banning — especially not an error that he admitted to and you are lying about — or, you’re doing just what he did but copped to, namely not looking it up before making a claim.
A good teacher might have taught you that the consistent version of that expression is ‘Jack of all trades and ace of none’ – keeping the playing card motif all the way through.
What other neologistic back formations would you have good teachers mislead their students with?
I vote for Simon, because I had to disinfect my screen after his anal leakage got on it.
Simple Simon. He needs to spend less time on the internet, and go get his butt porked, for the good of his mental health.
John Kwok must go
nothing’s sacred, #537
For someone so caught up in pedantry and fact-checking, you might have bothered to check all the posts in this thread. Try reading through again and maybe you’ll find the post where I admitted my error and apologised.
Yeah, pretty sloppy work there, truth machine.
I say kill all the trolls in the list, except for the female virgins among them. After all, God asked of Moses:
But if PZ thinks it is more fun to dump them one by one I would say Simon deserves to go first.
More like a cheap clone,really.
Tor is blocked, then?
I am changing my vote from Simon to Facilis.
It was close for me before, but after Facilis’ revolting comment in the “The pope is an evil quack” thread I have changed my mind.
Here
Time for flaccid Facilis to go…
Withheld @237: That was a very wise and kind post.
Pete, read that over again, please. Withheld has your best interests at heart.
No, it’s him, I’m fairly sure. See this thread (which I just checked and now see that I’ll have to go back to – argh) in particular:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/another_option_for_obama_to_do.php
I had suspected (and hinted at) it earlier, but that one pretty much convinced me.
SC wrote:
I reckon you’re probably onto something. On one of the other threads ‘nothing’s sacred’ posted a few comments in a row – a trademark of tm.
But why bother with the handle change? He wasn’t plonked, was he?
Checked the other thread out….
Truthy,welcome home !!
No. If it is him, it’s kind of amusing. It would be exhausting to have to try to remove all distinctive marks from your comments (tone, vocabulary, issues of interest,…), but if you’re not going to there seems little point in changing your moniker.
SC, the evidence is pretty persuasive (I’d not followed that thread as it’s internal US politics); I concur with your assessment.
Wowbagger, tm withdrew voluntarily.
The changed handle presumably is to avoid the baggage that the old monicker had accumulated, and to turn over a new leaf.
If this is so, I hope our noticing doesn’t drive him off again…
You really must get over this crush, John. :)
John Kwok
… because I just threw him off my facebook.
I liked having Truth Machine around, it’s always good to have commenters who will take others to task. Speaking of which, whatever happened to BobC?
Hey non-aussies,can someone check out RD.net and see if they can access it please? Im having an attack of internet censorship paranoia….
And to the Seed IT guys,can we fix the submission thingy already??
BobC who called for the destruction of every person in Iraq, and I believe Afghanistan as well; and who, while he considered abortion “murder,” thought all fundamenalist “subhumans” should abort? I expressed my concern to him the crazier he sounded, but I also suggested he should be banned. Wherever he is, I hope he’s getting the help he needed.
Isn’t he still here under the name bobxxxx? Certainly sounds the same to me.
Clinteas, I also see richarddawkins.net as down at the moment. But we don’t actually *have* censorship yet so it’s probably only an admin thing. Or perhaps a hacker attack.
(And support the EFF via http://nocleanfeed.com/ )
I’m glad you said that. I’ve only read one or two comments by bobxxxx, but I had a similar feeling. If it is, so much for my hopes.
Cath,
Yes we do.I just posted this on the “what the heck” thread too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/18/aussie_firewall_wikileaks/
Kel wrote:
BobC, as SC noted, got a bit indiscriminate in his attacks; this put him at odds with a few of the other commentators, who asked him to pull his head in. He might have resented that.
truth machine had his moments but was also prone to unneccessary vindictiveness and spiteful attacks. In a way I miss having him here to tear strips off the deserving – but I also understand that a lot of good people aren’t upset he upped stakes and left town.
clinteas & Cath: I also get a internal server error and I’m not in Australia.
SIMON – should be gone next, I’m pretty sure his real name is Ted Haggard.
But, I think Kwok really sucks too. Maybe all he needs is a list of ‘warning words’. He can write out his whole post, then erase any sentence that mentions any of the following:
high school
alumni
alma mater
stuyvesant
anyone famous that he personally knows
anyone not famous that he personally knows
And, if after doing that, there are any sentences left, then hit POST, otherwise try again. Of course, I tried this on every Kwok post in the thread, and not a single sentence was left over, :(
Voting Facilis, for his beastly little comment on the Pope-condom thread.
Simon
Silver Fox
Has to be Simon as he seems to be the only one deliberately trolling. Facilis gets a special mention for his comment on the Pope thread.
Simon.
I remember BobC getting offside with people, though my personal dealings with him weren’t too bad (probably because I didn’t talk politics with him)
Simon. Even in his “apology,” he still doesn’t get why he is a vile troll.
simoN. This guy may enjoy pummeling his straw man, but for the rest of us, it’s boring. And if you can’t learn from experience, what can you learn from?
Simply Simon.
Silver Fox
He only has one trick: purposefully misunderstanding the difference between a bare assertion and a proof. Time and time and time and time again, without showing any sign of improved comprehension.
/delurking
Simon. There are enough bigoted fools in RL without having to encounter them here in one of my safe bastions of rational thought. He needs therapy, but he’s not going to find it here.
Do we get to hunt and shoot anyone? (Java applet concept there for the taking, no royalty required.)
/lurking
I confess to being something of a lurker here but I cannot help but vote here
Mr Kwok you do seem to hold thyself in high esteem sir – I am sure you are a lovely chap really but calm down, ranting on a thread where your freedom to post is currently narrowing is positively silly. If you enjoy posting on this site, why not fight for that right? You do not have my vote though, no, not you.
Mr Rooke – Oh dear, poor chap, oral sex is oral sex – even without bacon – I can quite happily report it is a very good idea no matter what sexual orientation you are, if you don’t enjoy it, no problem, don’t do it – but not doing it because your religious mind wont let you is daft. Live a little.
But my vote goes to Simon.
I just happen to be heterosexual but don’t expect any gold stars for that announcement. I am so comfortable with my own sexuality I have not the slightest worry about what other consenting adults who are not related are getting up to. Go for it, I heartily encourage it – in the words of one of Stephen Fry’s characters, Donald Trefusis, “If you have been, I’m most awfully pleased!”
What I think is one of the more poisonous aspects of religion is the hang up about sex and how humans should go about it. I often wonder if the sexual frustration of most religious fundamentalist groups were eradicated would the world not be a safer place? I am sure most religious batshit ideas are the result of not being able to express sexuality properly.
Simon says it is not ok to be gay cos his God says so and seems to take great delight in pouring scorn upon those who are. That is extremely insulting, nasty and vile – what a horrible thing to do.
I hope he is removed to the dungeon in the style of my favourite Shakespearean stage exit of all time.
Exit pursued by a bear
:)
OK, not read through to the end of this yet (I can only get away with reading so much in my lunchbreak before I have to get back to work) but simply for inspiring Real Name at 448, surely John Kwok has to stay. Who knows what gems he might lead to in future?
I don’t think I’ve read comments by everyone up for banning today, but based on Feynmaniac’s edited highlights, Simon would seem to be a deeply objectionable person in the same vein as Barb. Therefore, my vote = Simon.
BTW -??? is probably Scott from O’s sockpuppet.
Wrong, moron. Wrong state, wrong country, wrong person. How did you manage to make three mistakes in one sentence?
???
You really are most grumpy today, cheer up.
This is an interesting claim coming, as it does, from someone who contributes nothing of value and who appears to be unsure of his own name. I believe that misidentifying a person is one mistake. The other inaccuracies follow from the single error.
??? is probably DaveScot. He’s down on his luck these days. You know how it is — one minute you’re rubbing elbows with the great luminaries of our day like William “Fart Foley” Dembski, Denise “Dr. Zaius” O’Leary and Steve Fuller (President of the Junior Paul Feyerabend League for Flunking Science and Crying About It). The next, you’re out on the street, drinking sterno and shouting at the parking meters.
Ok, so DaveScot has always done that, but you get the idea.
Why is there so much Facilis hate on Pharyngula?? Hmm.
I guess I ask difficult question. It’s not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic, but back during my presup phase I did that a lot. It did not help that I repeated myself a lot. many people just do not have the patience.I also hold strong views on topics like sin, sex and abortion that most posters disagree with.People hate it when there worldviews are challenged
I probaly won’t bring up my presuppositional arguments here any more. I think anyone who looks at one of the previous threads will be able to get the essence of it.
Oh good. A notpology.
If presuppositionalism is your shtick, then it doesn’t take too long to figure out how you came up with that screen name, oh facile one.
Great, we have the “I am a martyr for the cause of righteousness” defense.
The reason you are disliked is easy, you repeated assert the same disproved arguments over and over again as if you are brandishing a huge broadsword. That is not a sword in your hands, it is a hot dog.
Yeah. That’s it, all right. *eyes roll around uncontrollably*
Facilis, the incessant repetition is only half of it. Incessant repetition _of known errors_ is the really tooth-grinding part. It’s nice if you don’t bring up the presup thing but it would be even better if you showed some awareness of its logical flaws.
No, facilis, it’s because you never learn or move on. You’re also grumpy and sullen – you know, you don’t have to post here – and are unwilling to have your views on sex and abortion even slightly challenged by..reality.
Oh and you’re tryong to proselytise. Which makes all your posts a lie anyway.
But I won’t vote you off, seeing you get spanked, time after time, is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Yes, it is.
… by flawed and previously-refuted arguments that have been recycled hundreds of times, put forward by someone who advocates against encouraging a vulnerable population to utilize prophylactics to protect itself against highly-communicable fatal disease.
simon
I agree with SC that this Survivor game is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I enjoy it but at the same time wonder if it really serves a purpose other than to ridicule those who tend to cluelessly ridicule themselves.
There is something almost naive and childlike in the way that Facilis, Rooke and Kwok have tried to convince us that they should be allowed to stay. While that doesn’t negate the insipid, foolish and/or bizarre things they have stated, it does make one wonder what the threads would be like without them. We would turn our scathing guns towards each other, as happens time to time, and the resulting carnage can be pretty nasty at times.
That said I was leaning towards Simon until AG posted “I show that there is an intellectual defense to conservatism and libertarianism that is not easy to dismiss.” That inane statement makes AG “easy to dismiss” and moves him to the top of my list.
Africangenesis is my vote.
I do agree with some previous comments that Scott of Oregon needs to be added to the list. His drive-by shootings after PZ slammed the one note idiocy of the Libertarians are angry and obnoxious.
Oh and did I mention bacon eating vagitarians make a straight male seriously consider a sex change?
The notpologies come thick and fast; we’ve already seen AG and Rooke play the you-fear-the-force-of-my-arguments card, and Kwok repeatedly insist that we just don’t understand how _important_ his high school is to world peace and justice. I guess a healthy strain of narcissism is a prerequisite for trolling.
I vote Facilis. I have no sense of humor when it comes to the AIDS in africa issue. Even if he’s not serious and just saying things to provoke people, to quote jon stewart, this is not a fucking game. The rest of the trolls on the list are just frustrating blatherers. People like Facilis, their attitudes cause real damage and death. Score another hypocrisy point for the pro-lifers.
The sad thing is facilis’ non apology @ #581 is the best one yet.
Honestly, since these guys can’t self-criticize I say next round they must criticize one of their fellow contestants.
Untrue. Theists are often asking atheists to solve “problems” that only exist in their minds because of their religious beliefs. They then typically reject our simple explanations of why their problem is nonexistent outside their imaginary framework. See the recent abortion thread for numerous examples.
On the contrary, I love having my worldview challenged. The neurological experiments that indicate that my free will may be nothing but after-the-fact rationalization are disturbing, yet there they are. And I’ve been reading some fascinating reviews of recent work in loop quantum gravity and the holographic principle, which indicate that the universe, at its base, works in a way that is fundamentally non-intuitive.
Your empty babble, however, is nothing but boring assertions which were answered dozens of times with no indication you even noticed. I didn’t even learn anything from the refutations because they were so basic and simple.
I don’t hate you, Facilis. If I hated you, you’d at least be interesting.
Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 18, 2009 11:34 PM
“I want to be seduced!”
Do you prefer vagitarians,?
Erectarians?
Or will either suffice?
“Why is there so much Facilis hate on Pharyngula?? ”
You give yourself too much credit. It’s not about hate. It’s contempt.
To quote myself, “Facilis is merely stupid.”
Getting on the nominees list is probably the most significant thing you’ve ever done.
Naked Bunny
Where can I find this stuff? Sounds very interesting.
These people seem to be under the mistaken impression they are on the list because people disagree with their views. No, you are on the list because people disagree with your behavior. The fact that you used the opportunity of self-assessment to blame everyone here should clue you in on that.
New scientist has an overview last month, I think; it’s basically a boundary-values thing, what’s happening within a volume of space is fully describable/determined by what’s happening on the boundary of that volume, so there’s this “holographic” thing going on where the physics of a 3-D volume is kind of a projection of the physics of the 2-D boundary.
nothing’s sacred#537,
Thanx for caring about accuracy and fairness. I wish it wasn’t so rare a commodity.
On a science blog perhaps those characterizing a contributer should have to document their characterizatiions with links to evidence that could survive peer review as being a representative sample. I don’t watch survivor or american idol or other manipulative and exploitive programs. What is going on here is pretty disgusting and I refuse to vote. If someone is spamming the forum and refusing to participate in good faith, then it is reasonable to block them. The rest is censorship and mob behavior and PZ should reconsider what he is doing here.
I hate to say this, but this whole theme is bringing out a competitive streak in me. I could make a better self-critique of why I annoy people than that. And name drop more effectively too (especially if I’m allowed to make things up…which, as far as I know, John Kwok and others aren’t.)
Yay, AG spans the forum with climate-change denial then says that spamming is grounds for disposal. So that’s clear then :)
Facilis shows he is a Fallacious Fool again with his non-answer to the challenge. He is oblivious to why he is on the list. So, he goes up a notch for my vote, but so did all the people who have answered so far.
That may be true, but I’m still voting for Kwok for purely political reasons. I wonder if the Secret Service has paid him a visit yet.
kamaka, here is the article Stephen Wells spoke of: Our World May be a Giant Hologram.
How true! This whole idea is a sick, twisted attempt by the Darwinist PZ Myers to force some of his commentators to evolve. It’s intellectual eugenics – no longer will the likes of Barb have the right to spawn, or Simon to..however he intends to reproduce…it’s all down to mob rule, and the survival of the facetiousist.
Are you up for it AG? Are you more than a one trope pony? Dance Rand-boy dance.
It it makes it any better, imagine you’re living in an oppressive state where they make you…..
Oh, sorry, I forgot.
Just wondering, but does anyone know what the final numbers were yesterday? Did I miss the bit that told us how much Barb won by, or how closely fought it was?
What a load of horseshit. PZ can’t censor anybody, he isn’t the government. This blog is a private, not public place. So PZ can set rules for those of us who post here, and if we wish to post, we need to follow those rules. Since this is a private individual setting policy at his place, the libertardian philosophy should be his place, his rules, and go along with it or not. What a fucking hypocrite. AG gains +5 on my stupidity ranking, and is now tied with Simon for the lead.
Keep telling yourself that. I’m sure it has nothing to do with your complete misunderstanding of logical argumentation and your absolute refusal to address the weaknesses of your own argument.
If I were in charge of immunity challenges, you’d be typing up that full formal explication of the universal, absolute, unchanging laws of logic, in their universal, unchanging and absolute form. Perhaps Sye could help you with it, since he hasn’t turned in that assignment, either.
Presuppositionalism and the TAG are not challenges to metaphysical naturalism. The obtuse rhetorical style of their adherents is an invitation to lose my temper online.
??? you seem a charmning fellow. Why won’t you stop being so coy, and show us a little more of your mind? Such a magnificent organ deserves not to be hidden from view!
“The challenge for the seven surviving candidates is to write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future.”
I reread this challenge, and then reread Facilis’ reply at #581:
I think this is a proper and reasonable response to a pretty insulting “challenge.” Most of the hostility towards Facilis is indeed because we don’t like his views. Saying that it’s really because he won’t change his views is more or less restating that. And I think that saying it’s because of the methods he uses in promoting them is also a bit disingenuous.
One of the things that always annoys me in any religious debate is when the religious person suddenly shifts their defense of their belief, to an attack on the nonbeliever, by using the old “the real problem isn’t what you’re saying — it’s the way you’re saying it.” You see, they’d be just fine and dandy with atheism and listening to atheist reasoning and considering all the arguments against the existence of God IF ONLY the atheist were doing it the right way.
But oh dear, the atheist isn’t doing it the right way. They’re being shrill or arrogant insensitive or insulting or aggressive or passionate or disrespectful or dogmatic or childish or repetitive or they swore or they committed some other stylistic breach that makes everything else they are saying completely ignorable, because now the focus just has to be on on the person, and not the argument.
I hate that. It’s a rhetorical trick. I refuse to employ it myself. If there’s some kernel of a reasonable argument in a post, then I don’t give a crap about the way somebody said it. I think Facilis should stay.
“I’ll say it again. The first tactic to avoid addressing the hard question of the validity of religious belief is to reply with a criticism of those who don’t believe. Don’t fall for it.” (PZ Myers)
I’m not in love with this Survivor gambit either, and have never seen the TV show (or any show like it, for that matter). Nor am I a big fan of banning commenters except in the most extreme cases of egregiously anti-social bloghavior, but I think our contestants are missing a critical point here:
You’re all in line to get banned anyway, based your commenting behavior and the cumulative effects thereof. This voting isn’t really a witch hunt, it’s just PZ’s way of giving his readers some say about the order in which you presumably doomed commenters will be plonked.
However, there is a Dickensian aspect to all of this. You are being shown your transgressions, sometimes in great detail and with the aid of flashbacks (hat-tip to Feynmaniac, among others) with the hope that these revelations will somehow change you. As someone recently (and correctly) pointed it, you are being censured not for your views, but for the various dull, vile, or intransigent ways in which you repeatedly promote them.
I’ll vote Kwok again this round, even though I am tempted to vote for a couple of others. Kwok bores me.
Let’s keep this game up and find the ultimate Pharyngula Survivor troll. There can be only one!
Stephen Wells#54,
“Yay, AG spans the forum with climate-change denial then says that spamming is grounds for disposal. So that’s clear then :)”
Do you really think people are going to think you are clever? I discuss the science and the peer review literature and you engage chiefly in mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks. Who is really the one spamming the forum? I can show where you’ve lied and mischaracterized, do you think you can make a reasoned and representative case for your characterizations?
Thanks for thr link, Aratina.
It worked! My brain hurts now.
AG, your false anti-AGW claims just got you another +2 points in the stupidity race. You are now ahead of Simon.
presuppers are as close to varelse as one can be without ceasing to be biologically human.
I wasn’t going to participate, although I’ve enjoyed reading the comments the past few days. I’ve changed my mind. First, I petition to change the game from Survivor to Lost, because putting some of these folks on a plane and crashing it in some part of the world no one will ever find again is a lovely thought. It’s not cruel, they would be getting their own little fantasy island where women who have the sex and get pregnant die, there is no taxes, and the scientists are evil.
Now my vote, which is for Simon, because he was my inspiration for this post after reading more of his proselytizing tripe on the AIDS/condom thread. I vote for him to get lost.
At what point does refusal to discuss the argument cross the line into “arguing in bad faith”? Doesn’t “reasonable argument” presuppose some kind of give and take? Unless I’m missing whole chunks of Facilis’ posting history here, I don’t see any give and take on his part. His entire schtick is to repeat assertions he learned from Greg Bahnsen. There’s no challenge in this, nor is there any growth in either sophistication or clarity.
I didn’t vote for him and I don’t want to see him banned, but clearly PZ thinks that “argument by repeated assertion” contravenes one of the blog rules (my money is on “wanking”). I’d just like Facilis to make good on his promise by offering a serious challenge to metaphysical naturalism. He could start by supporting his initial proposition that laws of logic exist in an absolute, unchanging, universal form. In order to do that, he’d have to have to prove that he has access to them in their absolute, unchanging, universal form. That he refuses to do so is fatal to his credibility and so to the presumption that there is anything “reasonable” about his argument.
It’s night in America, so let me answer. I’d be sadder because it would mean someone has managed not to learn through much of his life, and it would mean he’d have had plenty of opportunity to inflict his arguments from ignorance on other people, even children perhaps. In other words, young as he is, he can’t have done much damage, and he’s more likely able to learn. Indeed, he shows signs of a learning process.
Challenged? By the fact that there are old coots who never learned a thing? Ha.
That apology is not by him. If you can’t see that by just looking at it, point at the link that his name is and behold the URL in wonderment.
Facilis, just because you haven’t thought about this issue much doesn’t mean it’s a problem.
There is no problem of induction!
Induction does not work. It is not scientific. It can be used to generate hypotheses — just as well as dreams, spurious aesthetic considerations, or hallucinogens –, but it is completely incapable of testing hypotheses!
The scientific method does not include induction. Instead (…repeating the beginner’s lecture that you’ve probably received 10 times already…), it has only two parts: falsification and parsimony. It is hypothetico-deductive: you make up a claim and then try to answer the question “if I were wrong, how would I know?”.
How do I know that the sun will rise tomorrow? By induction, right? The sun has risen so often that I can safely generalize, right?
Wrong!
I deduce the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow from the theory of gravity (or rather relativity, actually). And then tomorrow I’ll test it.
While I will not live in absolute metaphysical certainty since then, the theory of gravity (let alone relativity in general) has already survived so many tests that I really don’t need to worry.
Morality has no metaphysical foundations, period. It follows from my own egotism and from natural selection — I hope you won’t call those metaphysical.
Logic… you seem to claim that without a god logic wouldn’t work. Show me. If you were wrong, how would you know?
Come on Nerd of Redhead#606,
“PZ can’t censor anybody, he isn’t the government. This blog is a private, not public place.”
Of course he has the right, but blogs are part of the media now. Some would like to have the reputation of being a place where the science can openly be discussed, let the evidence fall where it may. If the open science discussion content gets too low, if the blog gets a reputation for shouting down and banning open discussion rather than understanding and following the scientific evidence, then it will lose part of its mission.
“AG gains +5 on my stupidity ranking, and is now tied with Simon for the lead.”
Don’t pretend to be being objective. You know you called me a liar and were proven wrong, while I was able to show it was you that actually lied. That should be pretty recent in your memory. You won’t care to link to that discussion because your attempt to spin out of your lies was pretty pathetic.
the problem is, that induction naturally follows from parsimony, so science uses induction after all. ( and there is no problem of induction thus )
AG, you now gained +5 points for more stupidity. Fortunately for you, Simon is also being very stupid, so you are still tied. You morally bankrupt libertardians can’t seem to realize you are your own worst enemies. I don’t need to refute you, you own blather refutes you.
@kamaka: I found a brief overview of those ideas in Lee Smolin’s “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity”. It’s not the biggest book, or the newest, or the most in-depth. However, it clarified a number of ideas for me that I kinda-sorta knew from other reading because Smolin’s descriptions were brief and clear.
Some of the topic covered include:
* Black holes, entropy, and information.
* Quantum spin networks and relational models of space.
* String theories as high-level abstractions.
* Reality seen as processes and information flow.
Dead on. There is no reason to justify induction as a valid method of drawing a conclusion because we do not use induction to draw conclusions. We may induce as a way of generating predictions, which are then put to experiment, but we do that exactly because reasoning by induction may be faulty.
I think philosophy instructors do a tremendous disservice to the whole human race by teaching it in a historical way, and then stopping at Hume without serious examination of the problem of induction. It leaves scores of people blundering around mumbling about their own epistemological crisis when all of the evidence is against that kind of skepticism: they clearly know something.
Lurker vote for Simple Simon
I discuss the science and the peer review literature and you engage chiefly in mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks.
Oh you miserable, pathetic little lying sack of shit (and no, that is not an ad hominem). First you say you are here to learn. Then you complain that nobody understands your perfect points. Now it’s just wanting to discuss. Sure. All about science. Take your tired, vacuous wanna-be windbag routine and shove it.
this is not true. We use occam razor, and experiment results need statistical evaluation, so we still use induction ( not that it were really a problem though )
Yes, it is so late that when I stare up at the sky, I suddenly can’t see anything. :P
OK, how long were you sitting on that one? It was enormously ironic, but I liked it.
heliobates #617 wrote:
Ah, but you’re discussing presuppositionalism, which (as you know) is a “bad faith” argument. Facilis’ failure to answer your challenge is not his own failure, due to any personality flaws — it’s the failure of presupp apologetics itself. He can’t do better than what he has to work with.
Agreed with helio @ #617.
Facilis has repeated his “argument” over and over and over while completely ignoring any criticisms of it. He doesn’t seem interested in honest debate.
I don’t want to see him banned either, but I hope he takes this Survivor thing as hint to either stop spamming or actually respond to criticisms.
I think the accusation is that you like to bring up global warming on completely unrelated threads. The name of that crime is threadjacking.
There are pragmatic reasons for appealing to an economy of description, not least of them is that we are trying to put things to experiment. You don’t assume things which don’t add to the predictions entailed by your theory. There is no inductive reasoning here.
Which is not even close to being the same thing as using induction. Probabilism and experiment are not simply different from inductive reasoning, they are what we use instead of inductive reasoning.
Delurking to vote for the Kwokster. Fuck me, but that guy is seriously tedious. No-one CARES where you went to school or where you went to uni, absolutely no-one. Do you stand on street corners with a placard saying ‘I know Ken Miller, please be my friend on Facebook!’?
From reading an old thread on Panda’s Thumb, he’s also a birther. How he can call IDists liars and then say that Obama isn’t a US citizen in the same breath is fascinating.
*Right, back to lurking*
The reason, Sastra, that facilis finds himself on this list, is that after every response to his repetitive demonstrations that he knows fuckall about logic, being utterly incapable of reason, his nonsense is refuted by multiple posters, many of them of the quality shown by DM OM above, @619, and then the little prat turns around, declares victory, even asking to be awarded a Molly because he has shown us all the error of our ways; then he cuts and pastes the same drivel on a new thread, as if nobody ever responded to him.
As for the way he says what he says? I don’t see how posts from facilis pass the Turing test.
Fymaniac, this is, what presuppositional apologetics amounts to.
Use the radical skepticism to dismiss anything the enemy says, then declare that because he failed, you are true about god, flat earth, 2+2=3 , he owns INFINITE amount of money to you, and what ever shit you want to believe. Refuse any objections by radical skepticism. If the enemy objects against the obvious double standard you are using ( radical philosophical skepticism against his claims, unquestioning unthinking acceptance of bs you make up as you go ), then dismiss his objection with radical skepticism.
Entire presuppositionalism is just a denial od service attack on the listener. Not real communication.
Kseniya,
You’ve got it right. When Pete Rooke first showed up here during Crackergate he claimed to be a religious authority. That’s why I sometimes call him Pastor Pete.
From his now defunct website for St. Chad’s Omega Evangelical Church:
Here’s one of the threads where Pete’s ministry was discussed: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/so_this_is_what_a_witchunt_loo.php
There’s definitely something fishy about the limited biographical details we have for Pastor Pete. A 22-year-old British college student with an evangelical ministry?
I think he also claimed to have a wife and kids at some point in discussing what he allows them to read on the Internet, but I’m not 100% sure about that.
Definitely a strange guy.
Naked Bunny w/whip
Hahaha… well, that makes things easy, that book is on the top of my ‘to be read’ stack! I read Smolin’s “Life of the Cosmos” not too long ago…my head is still reeling from that one… and enjoyed it so much I had to buy “Quantum Gravity.”
Thanks
of course there is. If you cut the things that dont add to the predictive power, you end up producing neat generalizations the same way as induction does.
I still think the problems w/ Facilis lie as much with the argument as with the person making it (presuppositionalism reduces to “the other person doesn’t need to be convinced: they need to be reminded of what they already know — repeatedly — till they are eventually woken from their stupor.”) But you can’t say that he’s not willing to improve:
Facilis #581 wrote:
There now.
And there was much rejoicing …
I don’t see how posts from facilis pass the Turing test.
*sprays coffee*
I don’t think I get your point, Sastra. If all that Facilis has is a position that is childish in its inadequacy, and he clings to it tenaciously, why shouldn’t the grownups banish him to the kiddie table? As far as I’m concerned, refusal to know one’s audience is a personal flaw.
It is NOON in America… Damn. If I’m already too lazy to count to six, why am I too stupid to look at the time tags!?!
<headdesk>
Well, as long as it isn’t mourning again in America…
You seem to be using at least one of these words in a wider sense than I.
(And it’s not likely we’ll ever find out how Facilis uses “induction”.)
Also, where else should we start? At the most munificent hypothesis?
Oh, yeah. Good example. Facilis, why is this wrong?
Because of the way the symbols “2”, “+”, “=”, and “3” are defined.
—————-
Comment 634 is Molly-worthy.
Oh. Okay, gotcha.
You’ll get my fairy-powered Martian abiogenesis beams when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Uh… ours claims to be Catholic.
How?
Nice.
The Religiofilibuster
Thanks for that link Lowell! That’s the Pete I remember disliking. I also thought he was older and had a ministry. Perhaps he was lying then. His whole tone has changed some what. Lying is a sin, isn’t it? I can’t remember. Something about those curried chickpeas warmed my heart, but also made him very… odd.
Has he expressly made that claim? I know it seems like the obvious conclusion from his vigorous defense of communion wafers, but I’m not sure.
In any case, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was either (a) lying about one or more of the details he’s chosen to share publicly or (b) really good at compartmentalizing contradictory beliefs.
Simply count to seven and give up early. Just as lazy.
Alternatively, devote your life to proving that “6” does not exist, and evade forever you personal sextet attaining responsibilities by asserting that no one can attain a number between “5” and “7”.
Admittedly, this approach is unlikely to save time in the long run, which may be a factor in your considerations.
I’d forgotten quite how horrible Pete’s attempt at analogy were. Not so much torture of the language, as extraordinary rendition of English to a hostile territory where every single tool of pain, subtle or bloody, was applied to it.
Why did I look at them again? I feel dirty and used, and not in a good way.
Is it possible we have two different Peter Rookes? One being a past for a Southern Evangelical church, the other being a sexually repressed English schoolboy who happens to espouse many of the same views as the good Pastor? Yes, it’s possible.
Or is it possible that someone Googled “Peter Rooke”, came up with the pastor, and incorrectly applied this identity to our schoolboy?
Of the two, I’d go with the second, though I do recognize the existence of a third possibility: shameless lying.
The godbots annoy me much more than AG does.
Well, at least his espouse won’t have to suck his knob.
Is it possible we have two different Peter Rookes? One being a past for a Southern Evangelical church, the other being a sexually repressed English schoolboy who happens to espouse many of the same views as the good Pastor? Yes, it’s possible.
Pete Rooke is Walton?
ZOMG!!11!!11!
Point of order, PZ: if we have a challenge round in which all remaining candidates pass their immunity test, do the executions stop? :)
Janine, Insulting Sinner at #500 – “I want to be seduced!”
(wafting the aromas toward her) Janiiiiine. I have chocolate and martiniiiiiiiiis.
Ouch! Oh, I also have a spouse, never mind. Anyway, gotta love Leon Redbone. Summer coming, time to get out the hat and the white linen jacket.
Leigh, at #527, I plan to have a martini, whatever Petie wants to have is up to him. I mentioned orange squash in order not to spook him. Wish you could join. If ever in your neck of the woods, spousal unit and I will buy you a fine martini.
Ciao y’all
Janine @500 – Good ol’ Leon, my favorite singer. *grin*
Hi JefferyD!
Watchman:
Good point, but way back in October 2008 Pastor Pete admitted that he was the “Pastor Pete Rooke” from St. Chad’s Omega (after I pressed him on what happened to the site). See posts #126 and #127 on this thread http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/theres_probably_no_god_now_sto.php
I wrote:
Pete Rooke responded:
Now, I guess it’s still possible that our Pete Rooke has assumed the identity of the real Pastor Pete Rooke from St. Chad’s Omega Church. Maybe he’d like to clairify.
if we have a challenge round in which all remaining candidates pass their immunity test
You’re joking, right? Have you READ how badly they have been sucking so far?
I just read the thread about the pope and AIDs.
Ugh, Simon.
My vote is for: Facilis
Because he approves of the church’s preferred method for killing Africans.
Patricia, OM – Hiya darling lady. How are the chickies?
Ciao
JefferyD – Good news on the Pullet Patrol. We have a contract with an organic company and are selling them about 30 dozen eggs a week. So finally, some income!
Haven’t really read the thread, because I’m not that young any more. So this comment is made without considering what anybody else has said.
I’m voting for Piltdown Man this time, because he’s plain mean. He says nothing of value, couches it in the meanest language he knows, then has snits when he’s called on it.
I also ask that AfricanGenesis be dropped from the list. His opinions and understandings are often misguided. However, at the same time he is sometimes right, and sometimes well spoken. On rare occasion he is both. In my considered opinion rousing fits of tizzies in certain parties (Knockgoats’ fondness for becoming irate duly noted) is no cause for bannination.
(Knockgoats singled out because he is fond of becoming irate.)
Patricia, re #662, great hon! Hoping things continue to get better.
Off to drinks and dinner. Ciao until later.
Hello Michael X! It’s nice to see you prowling around here. Regarding Pete Rooke and how his age affected my view of him, you asked:
That’s a fair question. Your first proposed answer is closer to the truth. It’s definitely not the second.
I believe that he is not so much locked into a worldview which has been calcified by years of inflexible adherence to its defining doctrines and dogmas, which might have been the case if he were twice my age (which is what I’d assumed) as he is trying to define himself, discover his place in the world, and develop his worldview. Unfortunately, he appears to have been indoctrinated with some dreadfully medieval attitudes, and seems to be handicapped (though perhaps not critically) by a tenacious combination of limited life-experience and a paralyzing fear of the outside world.
This is “easier to take” because I optimistically believe he is teachable and, in his heart of hearts, wants to join us all here in the 21st century, even if it means shattering and discarding some of what he still holds as sacred and true.
I could be wrong in my optimism, but it does hearten me to know he’s not a twisted old tree, beyond change and redemption. That’s where I’m coming from.
He is not unlike Walton in some of these respects, but I’d never accuse Walton of being “medieval”, and aside from his tendency to cling desperately to his favored social, political and economic philosophies even in the face of contradicting evidence from the real world (to a degree that flirts with willful discompassion for his fellows) I believe he’s neither intransigent nor heartless, and is essentially a kind and intelligent person who is also searching to find himself and his place in the world. (As are we all?)
Aside from his admitted problems with depression, Walton doesn’t worry me. Rooke does. Someone broke him. He’s only two years older than my brother. It makes me sad.
There you go, Michael. The long answer. :-)
I don’t know what to make of the “two Rookes” problem.
Ply me with chocolate martinis and I will follow you anywhere.
Wait, I actually respect other people’s commitments.
Thank you for making my workday more enjoyable. I love interesting analogies, and I love it that you took this one so far. This is almost as good as my analogy that spanking during sex is like putting salt on melon. A lot of people think that a little bit enhances the enjoyment, but I personally don’t like either.
Haw! Ha! Hey Janine, you got #666! Does that make you the Vile Anti-Christ now?
I forgot to lift the ban on Sven for the spanking couch yesterday… did you remember, or do I owe him one extra round with oak paddles?
Kseniya,
Thanks for the answer. That is of course what I figured, but it wouldn’t be the first time a young vibrant freethinker was abnormally deferential to age. I was discussing the idea with a friend just earlier and thought I’d ask you.
If it’s worth anything, my thought was that when someone grasps something early on in life that they find a powerful argument – evolution of example – they have a hard time believing that anyone so much older could doubt such an evident truth without very good reason. And thus they are more likely to doubt themselves when questioned by an older person than a younger. That, though, is just my very non-expert guess and I’m happy – and totally unsurprised – that it is not the case with you.
So here’s my long post to match yours! Good to see you around lately as well!
I actually find Pete Rook very entertaining and only a little irritating. He seems like the kind of guy who just needs some sciencey liberal intellectuals of poor taste like my friends and I to expose the world to him and uncover his eyes.
Facilis, you fail at your immunity challenge. I’m not an atheist and I still think you’re a troll, so you can’t just blame it on me being some close-minded immoral person who doesn’t like to be challenged.
David,
Your answer to my question is also unsurprising. Of course you’re not swayed by anything! You’re, like, David fucking Marjanović!
(+1 if David now becomes self conscious, +5 if he blushes)
David, dustin,
this article served me as a starting point, it should serve you as well http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.54.9286
After slugging through the threads this week, I’m beginning to realize what the final immunity challenge will be like. It’s going to be the Pharyngula equivalent of a SNL “Celebrity Jeopardy” sketch.
Time will pass. Answers will be given, and this shall be how PZ is forced to respond:
Simon
Knockgoats singled out because he is fond of becoming irate. – Alan Kellogg
You filthy… cornflake! How dare you make such a monstrous and unjustified accusation? If ever we meet, I’ll pull you inside out and make you swallow yourself, you demented rice crispy!
(Note: despite my extreme dislike of Africangenesis for his unpleasant and ludicrous ideology, and for his egregious smugness, I agree with Alan that he should not be dungeoned.)
Maybe Pete started to drop some of his internet persona over time… like so
Knockgoats – I actually like it when you get in a snit. ;) You do some of your best work then.
Was going to mention ol’ Piltdown Man for almost the same reasons as Alan. He doesn’t save his meanness for me, but some of his battles with you verge on epoch.
Real Name 448 – WOOOT! POTW!
Oh wait, maybe this is the wrong blog???!! What with Icthyic and Louis I thought I was over at ATBC again for a moment!
OK Back on target – Jim is the one you want gone! Throw him right off the island for stupidity. At least Kwok is more on our side – generally – and I can handle the friends and high school thing.
Now. Can we all get back to the oral sex, bacon and lesbians?
Kwok was my second choice behind Barb after day two so I will stick to him as my first choice in this round. This must be especially noteworthy for someone who only recently started posting regularly. Though I think that may be to do with him being banned from other sites for much the same ‘sins’ as has condemned him here, such as over at our Abbie’s. It will be interesting to see if he finally ‘gets it’.
Second choice, if one becomes necessary, has to be Africangenesis now that he has been added to the roll. He is one of the few I actually have killfiled due to ruining so many threads with reams and reams of screen space devoted to his brand of libertarian wanking.
I did some checking in the archives, and found that Simon has been trolling on and off for quite a while. Since he is a habitual offender, I’ll throw my vote to Simple Simon. AG is in second place for his constant threadjacking.
Note: despite my extreme dislike of Africangenesis for his unpleasant and ludicrous ideology, and for his egregious smugness, I agree with Alan that he should not be dungeoned.
And what about my blood pressure, hmm?! DAMN you!
Scott From Oregon just because he annoys me the most.
Janine at #666, I am just a shameless flirt, but harmless in the true Southern cultural tradition. There, my secret is out.
Should you come to Charleston SC, spousal unit and I will take you to “Choclatini Heaven” at The Thoroughbred Club at the Charleston Place Hotel. We try to spend 3 of every 4 Sunday evenings there, when I am in country, listening to piano music and enjoying the good life.
Ciao
after that display of complete lack of self-awareness @243
Peter, Peter feces eater needs to go find another sandbox to bury his crap in.
I’d agree that that alone is no cause. However, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php Africangenesis stands accused hundreds of counts of felonious Insipidity, as well as dozens of misdemeanor counts of Wanking and Slagging (“left anarchists”).
ZOMG Simon.
I think that you should make these episodes weekly, so that you can take the time to find the “best of” for all the contestants and include that in the post.
Knockgoats #676
I agree. Much as I detest libertarians and much as I despise people who pretend to know economics but really don’t have a clue, I cannot vote for banning AG. Killfile works for him.
I think that’s one of the papers that abb3w mentioned… the other one was:
Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity (1999)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.17.321
(Note: use the cached PDF link on the far top right; the www3.oup.co.uk on the left is 404-ing)
Hm.
For some reason, PDF at the link T_U_T originally posted was not from 2000, but was from 1996.
The PDF on this one is from 1998 (same title and authors):
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.50.3424
Even if there is inductive logic, so what? I’m sure facilis didn’t mind using inductive logic when he turned on his computer this morning and logged onto pharyngula as opposed to going anywhere else. Even if the problem exists, it’s not a problem. Science works, the fact that we can make computers with more mathematical capability than the entire human race combined or predict to meticulous accuracy the time and place of solar eclipses well into the future demonstrates the validity of the scientific endeavour.
It’s only a problem of certainty, and that’s what makes it appealing to people like facilis. He’d rather be certain than know. facilis, watch The Ascent Of Man episode Knowledge or Certainty. In fact what the entire series, it’s science programs like this and Cosmos you should be watching as opposed to propaganda films like Expelled.
I vote for John Kwok just because I want to see PZ depicted in a novel!
Be it resolved that Stuyvesant High School is just fucking awesome in every way, so amazing that mere words cannot give it its due, and therefore we can STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!
That said, Kwok is annoying, but not worthy of elimination. Get rid of Africangenesis. What a stuck-up fool.
Well, d’oh. One of the authors (Paul Vitanyi) has his publications online:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~paulv/publications.html
including the full PDF of P.M.B. Vitanyi and M. Li, Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov Complexity, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-46:2(2000), 446–464
Clinteas: no, we do NOT have censorship yet. The list in question is to be used (is being used??) for a trial at a couple of small ISPs. If Conroy’s idiotic legislation is passed, which fortunately seems doubtful now, then all ISPs will be forced to use it.
It is not too late. Go to http://www.nocleanfeed.com/action.html to see what you can do.
@667 Thanks, Catgirl.
Analogies are like my life, in that both have a superficial congruence to reality that vanishes on closer examination.
Metaphor, of course, IS my life.
Yes, I have a disturbing tendency to tell the same joke twice.
Owlmirror, I didn’t know this stuff is already doing its rounds here. I discovered it just a few weeks ago, and I am still excited about it. (why david rejects the idea of inductive logic is a mystery then to me )
truth machine, AG’s “when did they change the spelling” wasn’t a joke, it was digging himself in deeper by not admitting being arrogantly ignorant. to his credit he LATER admits that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but that’s after 2 posters had to point it out to him that the spelling was in fact NOT changed
No immunity should be awarded to any of them, so NONE OF THE ABOVE gets my vote.
JasonK, #686,
I sort of agree with you. I have yet to meet an anarchist who was a functioning leftist. But that means AG has a point, thus there is no call to oust him.
It comes down to this, the party in power tends to conservatism as time goes by. What was once progressive and far sighted becomes doctrinaire and takes on the color of conformity. Once the party of challenging and upsetting establishd truth, it becomes the established truth. Where once it looked forward to the future in the hopes of changing things for the better, it becomes focused on the past out of fear the outsiders will upset and overthrow their cherished truths.
Knockgoats,
You dare exhibit humor at my outrageous challenge to your personality? Sir, had I no sense in any measure of the word I should issue a dare of real portent and potential embarrassment. I shall stifle these weakly struggling urges that do wander vaguely in the general area of that I call my cognition, and proceed to engage myself in matters of little more importance.
Go ahead and try that again, I doubt me very much that anything will change come a reiteration of your utterance.
It’s been referenced, but it is not well-propagated or well-understood. Most of us are not information theorists.
I’ve noted it as “this looks like it might be really interesting and applicable to the epistemology of science… if I understood it well”. But I haven’t had a chance to digest it well myself, yet.
The information is too highly compressed, for most people. Heh.
And I think it needs to be unpacked into more basic English, anyway.
Presumably because he’s thinking in terms of falsifiability and parsimony being rooted in empirical deduction, thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_method
Information theory may well address the issue of induction so as to weld it comfortably to hypothesis generation and deduction… but I think it needs to be expressed better in basic natural language in order for it to be understood.
That being said, I wish to add my approval for the phrase:
“Presuppositionalism is just a denial-of-service attack on the listener.”
SIMON – retreats back to lurk spot
… …mmmmm… …I find the whole concept so alien that I don’t think I’ve quite understood it. I mean, I do think I know myself pretty well. Is that different with other people? ~:-|
Michael X: +6, or something. But what do you mean, I’m never swayed by anything? Just yesterday, Tianyulong just tore an idea I adhered to to shreds.
Even the abstract goes way over my head. I don’t understand what it talks about. Could you help…?
…and may truth machine have…
Naaah.
Well said.
Owlmirror, could you please translate the Unix?
Bugger.
Been a bit distracted and missed all these recent developments. Oh well.
Since I’ve already flunked the immunity challenge, I can only say (in the words of Major James Innes Randolph) –
… I don’t want no pardon for what I was and am —
I won’t be reconstructed and I do not give a damn
However I was taken aback by Alan Kellogg @ 663:
… backed up by Patricia @ 678.
Mean???
I don’t know what I’ve said here that could be construed as cruel or hurtful, but since that obviously is the case, I apologize unreservedly.
I really can’t vote for Kwok. He’s like a high school football star–so caught up in “remember that *great* pass I made in ’75???!?” that he stopped living, learning or anything else from that point on. He’s stuck back in high school, treating it like it was an end in itself and not the means to an end. It seems to be all he’s got and it’s just…..sad.
Simon, on the otherhand, well. Simon writes his vitriol with such utter relish; every “anus”, “screwing you in the backside” and such that he’s more than a little creepy. I get the impression that he gets such enjoyment out of typing it that he’s sitting their wanking away at his computer (“wanking” in this instance being used in it’s classic sense).
Simon gets my vote for sheer creepitude.
If a computer or router is on the receiving end of a denial-of-service attack, you change the network settings (on the computer/router itself, (and preferably, on “upstream” routers as well — the farther “upstream” the better, obviously)) so that no packets from the attacking system get through.
What I wrote are just the commands to cut off all communication with a particular network address (which properly goes where I wrote “Facilis” on the command line), using one particular type of Unix-based IP-address filtering system.
There are other ways as well, of course. On Windows, you can use the built-in firewall (assuming you have Win XP SP2 or higher), or use a big routing table (see the “route” and “netstat” commands )
Greetings. I wonder…may I play Devil’s Advocate for a moment?
I’m new here and I may be missing something but I’m curious about the Survivor idea, when viewed in the context of last months kerfuffle, the “We made them cry!” thread. It seemed to me that a number of folks on this blog were telling Greg at TDG that he had no right to protest what anyone did on his site because he didn’t restrict access to it. I agree, in fact, but what makes Pharyngula different? If anyone can
post here, is there a rational basis to complain about what they post?
Personally, I love folks like Simon and John Kwok because they allow me to take a much more charitable attitude towards some of the cretins I work with; it’s partly “there but for the grace of Finagle go I” and some “things could be much, much, worse.” But I am puzzled as to what good it does to ban them, rather than simply shun them…does berating them, responding to them in any way, not merely encourage and legitimize them? Do they not then go to other blogs and crow about how they must be right, since Pharyngula banned them?
I’m not trying to tell anyone how to view anything or anyone but I am curious about the wonderful world of blogging. I’d appreciate it if an old hand could explain the rationale behind banning to me.
Oh, and if I were to cast a vote it would be for Simon; to err is Human but he raises it to a new level. I wish I could shake the feeling that banning him may only attract even more egregious wingnuts. Thank you, I now surrender the floor.
I’m stealing this line. Leave a response if you want any particular attribution for it. :D
Kugelblitz, did you read the text of the thread topic and follow the link to:
fabulous Pharyngula dungeon
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
?
The above has no relation to what is
—–
below. (laziness has combined two comments.)
a..Hi ,
umm, I haz bin preparing to cast my wish but, I can’t find one guy’s comment where he casually mentioned one time that he had attended Stupidant(sp?) School. He sounded really important and he casually mentioned that he had some VERY important friends. I would like to find that one comment because I want to ensure that I don’t wish for him, because he is so like WOW. A google has been done on “Stupidant” but the comment might have been lost because of the spiderweb so that would be very sad. Too bad he didn’t post more than that one time so one of his comments wouldn’t be lost. Anyway one guy did a bad thing because the WOW guy said he wouldn’t let his friends be friends with the one guy any more. So there. Ha! Well, the WOW guy won’t be one of the survivors getting wishes anyway cause, well, WOW!
P.S. I think the WOW guy might be gradgeeated school. So I don’t know that part for certain though.
Notagod votes: John Kwok
David Marjanović,
This may help:
Minimum description length
They all fail the test. Kwok is still kweepy and Africangenesis is well Africangenesis. The Rookster was winning hands down with his cut and paste stream of consciousness until Facilis managed to blow the fuse on my irony meter. Facilis must go
I vote for (or against, really) Simon.
Feyny,
very interesting link,thanks for posting it !
+1 for John Kwok
There are others up for eviction who are either more stupid or more hateful, but Kwok simply bores me to tears. With his incessant name dropping and love of non sequitur he commits the high crimes of wanking and insipidity. It’s time he was given a one way ticket to PZ’s dungeon.
Mr. Kwok:
HIGH SCHOOL IS LONG IN THE PAST. GET OVER IT.
I remember speaking to a co-worker (engineering company) and he waxed lyrical about how great high school was and then asked me if I didn’t agree.
I said to him, quite honestly, that I hadn’t thought about high school in a decade. I was 31 at the time and just finished up a decade of climbing hundreds of mountains and most recently (then) a 2-year trip around the world by bicycle.
Listen to Springsteen’s song “Glory Days” and then go take a long look in the mirror. (Viewing 16 candles or some similar movie may make the insignificance, insularity, pettiness, and contingency of HS come home to you as well.) You are in serious danger of turning into a classic cocktail party bore. (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.) All this HS nonsense is just making you (bored) enemies. Yes, it’s great what the principal did, whoo hoo. Never mention it again.
All the best, JB
Feynmaniac#359,
“The biology wasn’t so troubling as the anarchist conspiracy theory for genocide. ”
Originally, you only quoted the biology part. The anarchist stuff was part of a running dialogue I’m having with the anarchists about whether anarchism is practical with modern human nature, or if like Stalin, they will have to change human nature by “artificial selection” to make anarchism work. Of course, this depends on what sort of society is most compatible with human nature, how mutable human nature is, and what the practical requirements are for an anarchist society to have hopes of working. There isn’t much information on the latter, and there is plenty to discuss about the first two.
With whom here, specifically? I am an anarchist, and have largely been ignoring your posts after pointing you to the relevant information (and pointing out that you are woefully ignorant of anarchism). Who are the other anarchists engaged with you in this alleged “running dialogue”?
Hilarious.
I’m voting to keep ’em all, no matter how dumb, young-and-dumb or otherwise annoying.
This is selfish on my part. I don’t post here much, so it’s no skin off my back if the regulars are forced to employ snark whips to keep the nominees in line. I’ve enjoyed the snarkiness and the occasional attempt to inject reason into the head of a nominee with a hypodermic.
Freedom to be dumb, I guess. The regulars and PZ may be understandably weary of them. If so, put them in the dungeon for a little rest — let them out whenever you think you can stand another dose.
Pete Rooke rejuvenated the “Nothing worse than a foul-mouthed woman” judgement, and that was good for a bout of ROTFL.
SC’OM#719,
“…modern human nature…
Hilarious.”
The intent is to specify the “modern humans” who spread from east Africa and displaced homo neanderthalis and home erectus their more recent their african homo relatives and have subsequently further evolved under apparent positive selective pressure from disease, agriculture and civilization. Based on genomic analysis, human evolution appears to have been particularly rapid in the last 10 thousand years.
“With whom here, specifically? I am an anarchist, and have largely been ignoring your posts after pointing you to the relevant information”
With you specifically, when I question the practicality of anarchism given human nature, you refer me, apparently to Kropotin. i have read parts of “Mutual Aid” and the Bread one. I found them to selective gatherings of “just so” stories, that don’t address the current understanding of human nature . I also noticed the site was pretty general, and included other authors that I had already read, e.g., Stirner and Chomsky.
Also, my human nature discussions address the practically of state oriented central planning, given that with the centralization of power, checks and balances invariably seem to erode and as von Hayek noted, the “worst” tend to rise to the top.
Africangenesis@721
“The intent is to specify the “modern humans” who spread from east Africa and displaced homo neanderthalis and home erectus their more recent their african homo relatives and have subsequently further evolved under apparent positive selective pressure from disease, agriculture and civilization. Based on genomic analysis, human evolution appears to have been particularly rapid in the last 10 thousand years.”
What’s a nubian?
Jon,
“What’s a nubian?”
I have no idea. If I mentioned “nubian” somplace, it must have been a typo. Apologies.
Then there is no “the anarchists.” So stop calling everyone you address an anarchist. Stop acting insane.
And we haven’t had a “running dialogue.” I’ve barely responded to your posts for weeks.
You can’t question anything about anarchism, because you know virtually nothing about it. I referred you to a site which can introduce you to a variety of anarchist writings. Your problem is that you’re incapable of deriving meaning from text, so even if you do read, you misunderstand in fundamental ways.
There is no such thing.
Whose arguments, if you have indeed read them, you don’t grasp.
None of this has anything to do with anarchism. If you had read and understood Kropotkin, you’d know this. You’re a joke.
OK, I’m running late to meet someone, but my ultrasocial/busy weekend begins now. Have a great one, all!
Africangenesis,
Over the weekend, please write 200 words describing Kropotkin’s position in and on central state planning in agriculture and food distribution. You may also reference his letters to Lenin provided on the site I linked to. Go!
SC,OM,
The discussions also include participants of persuasions other than anarchism, thus the “Also” in the text that you quoted. I agree that arguments on that front don’t apply to anarchism, although I’m not quite sure what does apply to anarchism in any practical working sense. One of the authors writing an introduction to Kropotkin was quite taken with the labor union movement, but I doubt that the way labor unions are organized and run could appeal to an anarchist. I tried Kropotkin’s major works and didn’t notice the letters to Lenin. Hopefully they elucidate some practical principles that will aid in assessing anarchism.
Ah, interesting: human nature in relation to social planning. I would like to say that you assuredly can have a scientifically informed conversation about this subject. Steven Pinker proves as much in The Blank Slate. I’ve found that many lefties like to paint the impression that the data is all ambiguous, and therefore the terrain is best suited to tactics from “traditional philosophy” and/or “humanities scholarship”.
Chomsky is perhaps the prime example. His work on politics is strikingly innocent of scientific methodology. He doesn’t demonstrate a willingness to use any statistical techniques beyond the crudest (e.g. raw body count). Many of his central convictions seem to boil down to boring semantics and subjective opinion. (Thus “the US is itself a leading terrorist state”.) He doesn’t seem to be enthusiastic about using the toolkit of cognitive psychology to shed light on the question of how we should structure society, which is very curious for an academic in his field. Some of his causal models are so ridiculously primitive that they honestly remind me of tribal superstition. Everything bad is imputed to a malignant conscious agent (“the United States”, or “the West”); more prosaic, “naturalistic” causes, such as chance, religion, and the universally dark side of human nature, are overlooked entirely.
Sorry, but IMNSHO there’s no way Kwok has Asperger’s. I mean, yes, the repeating yourself past sanity is a trait of sub-middle-aged aspergics (it took me ten or fifteen years to get good enough to spot the signs of total boredom in conversational partners in realtime), but it’s *also* a trait of totally arrogant and self-absorbed twonks.
One major argument against it is the subject of his obsession. I find it very unlikely that any strong aspie would have a pleasant or even tolerable time at any normal scholastic institution, because if there’s one thing that characterizes us in our teenage years it’s that we act *strange* compared to everyone else (simply because we haven’t kept up as everyone else zooms off into adult forms of social interaction). The other kids spot this and make our lives hell.
I sometimes think about my secondary school (expensive, prestigious, academically brilliant, just like Kwok’s, and I could drop a huge pile of names but I won’t because I know it’s annoying). Actually I sometimes have dreams about it. Actually, let’s call them nightmares, or perhaps combat flashbacks.
If there are any aspies here for whom school was *not* the worst time of their lives by a long chalk (and who are not currently in an internment camp), I’d be fascinated to heap of it.
Africangenesis #619
So? The media doesn’t have to publish anything they don’t want to publish. They have always refused to publish certain Letters to the Editor and they still continue to refuse to publish any comment on their online publications that they deem unacceptable for any reason. No explanation required.
Freedom of the Press, baby. Freedom of the Press.
Ack, screwed up the blockquote.
“Of course he has the right, but blogs are part of the media now. ” was part of the comment by Africangenesis.