Pharyngula

Survivor: Pharyngula! Day One.

I mentioned before that we’re a bit full up on commenting kooks, and it’s time to purge a few. Here’s a short list of our contestants this week, a few of the obnoxious people who are lurking about in the comments right now. We’re going to get rid of some of them, one at a time.

Barb
Alan Clarke
Facilis
John Kwok
Pete Rooke
RogerS
Simon

Everyone gets to vote them off the blog — just leave a comment with the name of the competitor you like least, and I’ll tally them up on Wednesday morning, and the winner gets evicted.

But wait! There’s more! We have to have an immunity challenge, don’t we? Our 7 intrepid dingleberries have an opportunity to save themselves by meeting an appropriate challenge by 1:00pm Central time tomorrow. After 1:00, I’ll ask the readers here to vote on who best and adequately met the challenge (and you’ll all be fair and honest about it, I hope), and that winner will be exempt from eviction this round. Sounds fun, right?

Here’s the challenge. In a comment that isn’t longer than about 200 words, that is grammatically correct and logically coherent, and that does not cite the Bible or other religious authorities (and does not rely on tales about who you went to high school with, or tortured analogies involving necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen), explain how evolutionary biologists resolve the trivial conundrum represented by the common question, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” Remember, answer as a biologist or intelligent layman would, not like Pat Robertson or Ken Ham.

Go! Voting will continue until Wednesday morning, our contestants have until 1:00pm Central on Tuesday to meet the immunity challenge.

Comments

  1. #1 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Honestly, I despise Barb’s idiocy and pig headed ideas about who is deserving of love but at least lessons can be learned from destroying her arguments.

    Simon is just a fucking idiot with nothing to add.

    Plonkhammer simon. The rest have the ability to be good teaching examples.

  2. #2 The Science Pundit
    March 16, 2009

    What about Mark that recently showed up in an old cracker thread?

  3. #3 IST
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, hands down.

  4. #4 DwarfPygmy
    March 16, 2009

    If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

    They should also explain why are there still PYGMIES + DWARFS!!!

  5. #5 Chiral
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

    I hope we get to vote again, because Pete Rooke makes me angry too. The rest are pretty easy for me to ignore, for some reason.

    Thanks for letting the lurkers play!

  6. #6 PaulW
    March 16, 2009

    Barb!

  7. #7 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    I have already made it clear who should go. But for the sake of this thread I will say it again. Barb.

  8. #8 JD
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. Barb. Barb.

  9. #9 Fred Mounts
    March 16, 2009

    In solidarity with Janine, she of many names:

    Barb

  10. #10 David Jay
    March 16, 2009

    Is there a way I can search the site for comments made by these contestants?

  11. #11 bsk
    March 16, 2009

    PZ: For those of us that haven’t been following the series that closely, perhaps you could include a short montage of each contestant’s most endearing moments?

  12. #12 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    Hi. I’m going to have to say Barb. Reading the threads she’s in just gets tiring and sad because it wanders so far from the point and always ends the same way.

  13. #13 God Retardent
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, Thumbs down!!!!

  14. #14 Randy Keating
    March 16, 2009

    I say Barb is the worst as she has a tendancy to ramble on and on.

    http://www.thenewatheist.com

  15. #15 PlaydoPlato
    March 16, 2009

    [sung in a high falsetto]

    Barb, Barb, Barb, Barb, Barb-a-ran,
    Barb, Barb, Barb, Barb, Barb-a-ran…

  16. #16 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    That should have been “they” instead of “it” but whatever. Good English or bad English I still vote for Barb, although Pete would be next.

  17. #17 Louis
    March 16, 2009

    More solidarity with Janine: Barb

    Louis

  18. #18 Steve_C
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke.

    But Barb is a close second.

  19. #19 Ale
    March 16, 2009

    Barb must be EXPELLED!

  20. #20 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    In solidarity w/ my sister vagitarian Janine, my vote is for Barb to go.

    (Runner-up: SfO.)

  21. #21 Sgt. Obvious
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. The Rookie may be annoying, but at least watching people argue with him provides amusement. Barb, OTOH, is just vile, and her attack on Janine in an earlier thread makes her well deserving of the hammer.

  22. #22 pcrthis
    March 16, 2009

    What Janine said.

    Barb.

  23. #23 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    David Jay, in the upper land hand of this page, there is a search engine. Just enter the name and follow the links.

  24. #24 David Lee
    March 16, 2009

    Great idea and contest! It would make a great game show too! I vote Barb. She makes no attempt at logic at all, even the tortured kind.

  25. #25 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    Pete Rooke freaks me the hell out, but he also goes away for long stretches of time.

  26. #26 Susan
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. And she will never be able to answer that question coherently and without Bible in hand. I’m looking forward to the various attempts, though!

  27. #27 mothra
    March 16, 2009

    Barb cannot have a landslide, Rooke is harmless fun so. . .
    I vote for Facilis, Facilis, Facilis the simpleton!

  28. #28 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Just for everyone’s benefit, anyone have the link to the exact comment from Barb?

  29. #29 Josh
    March 16, 2009

    Even if it were just to stand with Janine against her: Barb.

    I agree with Rev that there are things to be learned from decimating Barb’s “arguments,” but that’s far outweighed by the fact that she’s fucking evil.

    Barb.

  30. #30 Die Anyway
    March 16, 2009

    Well dang, I like them all (in a sort of circus sideshow sort of way). What I can’t stand are the troll-feeders. But since PZ laid down the rules for this game… I vote for Pete Rookie.

  31. #31 wildlifer
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, most def

  32. #33 Kate
    March 16, 2009

    This is tough. Pete Rooke is a sick, disgusting waste of skin…. But Barb is too stupid for words….

    Okay… Barb… for now.

  33. #34 ed
    March 16, 2009

    One can of Pete Rooke be gone please.

  34. #35 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    barb.

    though, if it weren’t for my vacation giving me a chance to recover, I’d have to do with Alan Clarke and the idiotic “shaking leaves make wind” analogy to disprove science. that was not just headache-inducing, it was downright tumor-producing.

  35. #36 Optimus Primate
    March 16, 2009

    But at least Barb is entertaining, in a frustratingly head-bashing sort of way.

    Pete, on the other hand, isn’t. Pete must go.

  36. #37 Laura
    March 16, 2009

    Another vagitarian voting for Barb the Bigot.

  37. #38 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Ok. It was the homosexuality = rape = incest = pedophilia line of comments

    That’s what I thought.

  38. #39 Barklikeadog
    March 16, 2009

    Peat Rookers or Barb, Facilis is a bore too.

    I think Barb will eventually leave on her own. Pete and Facilis; never.

    Kill Pete. Then kill Facilis.

  39. #40 rob
    March 16, 2009

    oh, poor Barb. she’s not entirely useless you know–she can always be used as a bad example.

  40. #41 Abstruse
    March 16, 2009

    brilliant Barb

  41. #42 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Chimpy, here it is. Just like any other time she splashes in, there is a lot of activity afterward. It is like a school of piranhas taking chunks from a huge and stupid beast.

  42. #43 Benjamin Geiger
    March 16, 2009

    I’m casting a tentative vote for Barb. Could someone point me to some particularly flagrant evil done by her? I missed all the fun. :-(

  43. #44 varlo
    March 16, 2009

    One rational, though non-scientific vote for Barb.

  44. #45 Wife of BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. Gone. Now.

  45. #46 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    My vote goes for Simon. He adds nothing and will not be missed.

    Barb is a complete moron, will never change, but provides too many lulz….”hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source”. Classic. Also, if she isn’t spending all her time posting here she might find out her great MD husband is having an affair with a woman he can actual have respect for.

    Facilis and Rooke are idiots, but they can be somewhat reasonable. Like many, I was surprised to learn that Rooke was in his early 20′s. I always pictured him as a senile old man chasing kids off his lawn between posts. Perhaps he is like a mental Benjamin Button and in 30 years will lighten up. Facilis on the other hand, with his childhood certainty and statements like “ha ha, I win”, comes across as a 12 year old. As long as Facilis doesn’t bring up the “logic” proof for God (which he has mentioned about 50 times since) and Rooke refrains from making gruesome analogies I think they should stay.

    Alan Clarke seems to think that Pharyngula is some sort group therapy and has continually been sharing the intimidate details of his life,in substitute for actual arguments, on the Science of Watchmen thread. He needs to cut it out. That’s time I could spend reading about Walton! Also, needs to cut out all that bible quoting.

    As for the other two, I really don’t know enough to comment.

  46. #47 Craig
    March 16, 2009

    I’d lean toward Pete Rooke also, but I’m actually hoping for a fullscale housecleaning.

  47. #48 CS
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  48. #49 Marcus J. Ranum
    March 16, 2009

    As a true nihilist, I can only say “who cares?”

  49. #50 The Science Pundit
    March 16, 2009

    Thanks for the linky Sgt. Obvious.

    I join the chorus of those voting for Barb.

  50. #51 Aaron
    March 16, 2009

    Voting does not seem particularly interesting, but the immunity challenge is frackin’ AWESOME! I’m not on the list of 9 to be voted off, but I still want to try.

    If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

    They don’t taste good enough and are hard to shoot (quick little bastards, always climbing about in trees). If monkeys tasted anywhere as good as bacon, we would have eaten them all long ago. If they were a bit slower, then the colonial Europeans would have blasted them out of existence, much like the Dodo. They are marginally cute, which might be enough to save a few in a zoo (even if they tasted good), but the cuteness is overridden by the shrieking and poo throwing.

  51. #52 Sam C
    March 16, 2009

    I thought ABB – Anybody but barb – because if barb creates so much entertainment for the Farangulinetti, it would be cruel to deprive them of their entertainment…

    … but I looked at a barbpost… I saw the light, the dark, dark light… delete barb. Deffo. Delete delete delete!

  52. #53 Marcus J. Ranum
    March 16, 2009

    As a true nihilist, I can only say “who cares?”

  53. #54 ShadetheDruid
    March 16, 2009

    Breaking out of my long stint of lurking to vote.. and it has to be Barb.

    Usually I find creationists either “stupidly hilarious”, or “down-right annoying”, but Barb bypasses all of that and heads straight for the chasm of “sickeningly inhuman”.

  54. #55 Denise Smith
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. She is hateful and mean.

  55. #56 Benjamin Geiger
    March 16, 2009

    Bah. The joy of crossposting. Now I see what everyone is talking about. G’bye Barb.

  56. #57 Louis
    March 16, 2009

    Could I ask a small favour:

    I have missed the reasons for John Kwok’s inclusions…well the reasons other than just BEING John Kwok…does anyone have a pertinent link or pointer to prevent me wade through all Kwokian output?

    Thanks

    Louis

  57. #58 David Jay
    March 16, 2009

    casting my vote for BARB

  58. #59 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Ban me! Ban me!

    let’s see…uh…
    I was once an atheist like you rude and insensitive cracker-impaling religious-atheist “scientists.” I went to high school (a prestigious one, thanks to God) with an esteemed milkman, whose poor oral hygiene and habit of wearing tiny miniskirts (above the knee-roll) fashioned from the tanned skin of my loved ones caused me to remark just the other day to my great friend, a celebrated ex-athiest evolutionary biologist who shall remain nameless, but who attended my Ivy-League alma mater together with me and my classmates and fellow esteemed and prestigious alumni, that homosexuality is DISGUSTING AND EVIL according to Scripture, and that of course (like my classmates)(and Jesus) while I love the sinner but hate the sin, homosxls and there Agenda will BURN AND ROAST IN HELLFIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY along with Holy Ineffable Baked Goods Defilers and Binders of Books in Human Skin, like the Nazis!!!!!1!! that you worship along with the Holy Darwin, and also ROASTING (FOR ETERNITY!!!) will be all you “scientifical” deniers of the evidences right in front of your snot-packed NOSES that the WORLDWIDE FLUD of Naoh can explain all of geologgy BETTER than your so-called athiest materialist naturalist “Science” which you all buy into because of your unquestioning hero-woirship of Darwinianisticalismists like Hitler and P>Z> Meyers and your ALL GOING TO BURN IN HELL with some of my fellow alumni and classmates with whom I was recently enjoying some chamber music at an invitation-only event (to which P.Z. Meyrz was NOT invited, also not Dawkins nor, unfortunately, Abbie Smith, who is in my OPINOIN more attractive and more likely to kiss me someday than any of my esteemed classmates or Facebook friends, of which there are many) but anyway you DISGUST me and I demand that you RESPECT my innermost secret BELEIFS and stop SWEARING on the internet: think of the Children! So anyway, how could there be reason and logic without my particular God who sent his ONly Son to die for YOUR SINS?! YOURS NOT MINE! PERVERTS! So please stop swearing and show some respect for my belief in magic cracker juju. OR YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

    ban me

  59. #60 Knave
    March 16, 2009

    Barb… I’m not sure which is worse, her willful ignorance or all the poor electrons that have been violated by her expression of it.

  60. #61 Logicel
    March 16, 2009

    I choose Mrs. Barb Rooke

    I just married them (and yes, I can cough up my correspondence degree in marriage making if required!). Since Barbaric Barb believes that marriage makes two people into ONE person, with the woman belonging to the man, blah, blah, blah, kick them both off for they are truly one person.

    OK, if that is not convincing, then it is Barbaric Barb that must go.

  61. #62 LibraryGuy
    March 16, 2009

    Hmmm. Trying to get these 7 to learn something via your challenge. What are you, some kind of teacher..?

  62. #63 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Feynmaniac, how could you forget the epic Titanoboa?

  63. #64 Michelle
    March 16, 2009

    Rooke! I vote for Rooke!

    Oh this is FUN! reality TV was getting so boring (was getting boring since about the 2nd week it was invented actually.), thanks to PZ for making it interesting again.

    PS: has anyone seen this? It sounds like a gem, but I don’t have 2 hours of my life to waste.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

  64. #65 Iron
    March 16, 2009

    @53 and you cared enough to say it twice.

  65. #66 Endor
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. so tedious and stale she can drive narcoleptics to reach for the sleeping pills.

  66. #67 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    well the reasons other than just BEING John Kwok

    ding!

  67. #68 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    Sven @ #59: Good work! Painful to read, but spot on.

  68. #69 Teleprompter
    March 16, 2009

    Can I vote for SilverFox?

    Please?

  69. #70 tomh
    March 16, 2009

    The lying, pathological name-dropper, Kwok.

  70. #71 mattb
    March 16, 2009

    I love this idea. I don’t read the comments enough to know these folks but it sounds like Barb is a real jackass. I can’t wait to see if any of them respond to the challenge.

  71. #72 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, but also a shout out for Facilis.

  72. #73 The Biologista
    March 16, 2009

    On the basis solely of that nasty, bigoted, fearful and frankly mentally retarded comment about lesbians:

    Barb.

    End her please.

  73. #74 Malcolm
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.
    The others may be vile, but Barb is the one who said being a lesbian was the same as being a paedophile.
    She has got to go.

  74. #75 AdamK
    March 16, 2009

    oh gawd Sven I think I cracked a rib.

  75. #76 catgirl
    March 16, 2009

    Wow, I used to think that Barb was mostly just annoying and uninformed. At least she uses fairly good grammar and spelling, and doesn’t usually resort to overt insults. But when I read that post where she basically implied that someone must have molested Janine for her to be a lesbian, I changed my mind. She is completely hateful and so I will vote for her. And she is too obsessed with turning every thread into an anti-abortion campaign.

    I’m not that familiar with about half of the people on the list; I guess I haven’t been reading this blog long enough.

  76. #77 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Sven, you are so twisted! And by that I do mean you are twisted in the right way.

  77. #78 Hideki
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Pete Rooke

  78. #79 Fentwin
    March 16, 2009

    …..why are there still monkeys?

    I always answer that question with another question; If Americans came from English pilgrims why are there still Englishmen?

  79. #80 Janeothejungle
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. Don’t let the doorknob hit you where the FSM split you.

  80. #81 Ryan
    March 16, 2009

    You dern scientistsicalists are so confused about yer theories that you gotta ask the real scientists(creationists) to explain them for ya!

  81. #82 Akiko
    March 16, 2009

    Barb because she is delusional and needs to up her meds. She speaks for god, scientists and sinners even though I doubt she is any of these things/people and does not possess the powers of ESP to read their minds.

  82. #83 Ale
    March 16, 2009

    Another one of the “Best of Barb” moments:

    For ID evidence: how do we get the sexes, sexual reproduction, organs, self-healing skin, hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source, our computer-like brains, our eyes and the ability to see colors? How do we get all the animals, insects, flowers, food plants?
    The Darwinian answer: millions of years of natural selection, adaptation from one celled creatures that just happened to form by themselves, slithering from primordial soup after a Big Bang.

  83. #84 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Wow Sven. I think you’ve nailed the mutant that would be a combination of all the above.

    Barbalan Clarkilis Kwokookeroimon

  84. #85 The Dave
    March 16, 2009

    My sister, BMS, just showed me Barb’s comments from that other thread.

    I was Best Man for my sister this summer when she married her wife. I wore a Utilikilt at my sister’s request. Our mother officiated. They married at my new sister-in-law’s parents’ house in Cali.

    Barb’s gotta go.

  85. #86 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Janine,

    Feynmaniac, how could you forget the epic Titanoboa?

    I had midterms around that time and missed out on all the fun of that thread. Oh well, I’m sure there will be others…

  86. #87 Amph
    March 16, 2009

    Sven DiMilo @ #59

    Ban me! Ban me!

    Sorry pal. No ban. Instead: Molly nomination

  87. #88 spurge
    March 16, 2009

    What, no libertarian trolls to plonk?

    I guess Barb will have to do.

  88. #89 azqaz
    March 16, 2009

    Wow. I came here thinking… That’s a tough crowd. I hope my one vote for Barb can at least keep it close only to see a whole lot of Barbs. I find this strangely heartening.

    p.s. Sven, you just want to be able to put it on your blog that you were banned by PZ to generate traffic. While an admirable attempt, we can tell your heart just wasn’t in it. You had several sentences that were not self contradictory. For shame.

  89. #90 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    Sven @ 59,

    Are you channeling Kenny and David Mabus at the same time?

    Lol! Nice job.

  90. #91 khan
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  91. #92 pgpwnit
    March 16, 2009

    I vote none of them.

    Those are the people that make places like this interesting.

  92. #93 Lowell
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    I could probably put up with the godbotting, insipidity, and stupidity, but combined with her despicable views about humanity it’s just too much.

  93. #94 journalnous
    March 16, 2009

    I have trouble believing most Creationists would be able to appreciate the significance of the monkey question…

  94. #95 The Chimp's Raging Id
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. No question. Pharyngula deserves a better class of troll.

    Sven @ 59 – you nearly induced an asthma attack!

  95. #96 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Ale, I think that was her first post here. That was such a shining moment of burning stupidity.

    The Dave, the story about your sister’s wedding was lovely.

  96. #97 D
    March 16, 2009

    Seems like Barb is going to get the ban, so I would point out one redeeming quality for her. She is a shinning example how evil her religion is. It was due to good christians like her that I started down the path towards atheism.

  97. #98 Barklikeadog
    March 16, 2009

    The Dave, what is a Utilikilt and do they come in orange?

  98. #99 The Dave
    March 16, 2009

    Janine-

    Photos.

  99. #100 abb3w
    March 16, 2009

    For those too lazy to search the record, some arbitrarily selected comments:
    Barb
    Alan Clarke
    Facilis
    John Kwok
    Pete Rooke
    RogerS
    Simon

    John Kwok, from the few posts I see, doesn’t seem that bad; Pete Rooke, while a religious nut, doesn’t seem to be distorting science, more just appealing to Scriptural Authority.

    Alan Clarke, Facilis, and RogerS all seem to be promoting crappy science; Barb, crappy science plus harping the Scriptural Authority. I hope all of them eventually get the boot (with “Barb” going next round).

    However, my immediate vote is for Simon, since he seems to be promoting bad science via using religious idiocy to attack a bogus and offensive strawman.

  100. #101 me2
    March 16, 2009

    Barb the Brainless, Boring, Brainwashed, Blathering Homophobe.

  101. #102 Zirrad
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok…

    please… the others are just ignorant and/or stupid, but they don’t hijack threads with utter drivel like Kwok does.

  102. #103 Black Jack Shellac
    March 16, 2009

    Obviously Barb, but I still think it would be better if we had a beauty contest too.

  103. #104 Patricia, OM
    March 16, 2009

    The Idiot Trio:

    1. Barb
    2. John Kwok
    3. Facillis

    Barb’s behavior to Janine is unacceptable. Kwok is insufferable. Facillis is … stoopid.

    The snuffling we’re hearing in the background is poor old Piltdown Man crying because he wasn’t named.

  104. #105 AVSN
    March 16, 2009

    Did it occur to anyone that the banned ones could just change name and email and continue to be noisome?

  105. #106 The Dave
    March 16, 2009

    Utilikilts

    I have to give BMS’ computer back to her now.

    Later!

  106. #107 Matt
    March 16, 2009

    Kwokkers

  107. #108 rumleech
    March 16, 2009

    I’ve just had a flash through some of the contestants’ greatest hits and I’m somewhat inclined to booting the whole sorry lot off the blog but perhaps I’m just feeling a little despairing today. That said, the challenge should be interesting.

  108. #109 Dutchdoc
    March 16, 2009

    #97″I started down the path towards atheism

    BAD metaphore!
    That path actually leads UP!

  109. #110 Laila
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke OUT

  110. #111 Nightsky
    March 16, 2009

    Barb seems to be winning in a landslide, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

    But Teleprompter@69 is right: wherever is SilverFox?

  111. #112 Nurse Ingrid
    March 16, 2009

    I hate to give her this much attention, because she probably gets off on it, but Barb has crossed the line and is now utterly preachy and hateful, with nothing but vileness to contribute. So, in solidarity with Janine and my other fellow LGBT folks on Pharyngula,

    Barb it is!

  112. #113 dahduh
    March 16, 2009

    I’m not entirely comfortable with this idea of kicking people off; even Barb, who seems to be winning by a landslide. I’ve just gone and reviewed the creationists in denial thread and while Barb is clearly ignorant and prejudiced, most of the replies were not exactly reasoned responses: more like petty insults. Look, this is a web page: if someone is blathering nonsense you can just ignore it. Or use it as an opportunity to hone your debating skills. Barb almost certainly won’t learn anything, but you might.

    One of the things I hate about Christian/Creationist websites is their censorship policies. Surely Pharyngula should be able to swallow even a Barb without suffering indigestion?

  113. #114 blf
    March 16, 2009

    I don’t actually recognise all the handles on that list, but every one of the ones I do recognise I essentially always skip when reading the comments. Unfortunately, the long fallout of each burst of Teh Stoopid as the silliness is shredded means I do wind up getting bits and snippets. There’s wit, explanations, interesting angles or viewpoints, typos, people going SPRONG!, and a feck of lot of cursing and headdesking in that fallout, sometimes in the same comment. But?and the point of this ramble?having generally avoided the originals I don’t feel I can cast a fair vote. And I’ve got better, more fun, things to do that go back and reads lots of dribble so that I can try to cast a fairly-considered vote.

  114. #115 Newfie
    March 16, 2009

    pgpwnit @ 92 said:

    I vote none of them.

    Those are the people that make places like this interesting.

    I agree with pagprawns’nits.
    Nothing more boring that a bunch of people agreeing with each other.

  115. #116 divalent
    March 16, 2009

    I vote to keep them all. (I mean, what is this, Uncommon Descent?)

  116. #117 Not that Louis
    March 16, 2009

    Is the anti-Barb faction pharyngulating this poll?

  117. #118 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Janine,

    I even got The Dave not to shave for weeks before the wedding so he’d look as scruffy as possible (rather difficult given he has very little beard growth) – very fun.

    I’m the one in the tartan shawl.

    Seriously, after looking through my wedding photos, I’m voting again to ban Barb. She can suck it.

  118. #119 druidbros
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Barb also. She just reeks of stunningly willful and hateful ignorance. Her attack on Janine was the last straw for me.

  119. #120 doodles
    March 16, 2009

    #88: What, no libertarian trolls to plonk?

    Stop that. It’s not polite to make fun of other people’s religious beliefs.

  120. #121 Nurse Ingrid
    March 16, 2009

    I hate to give her this much attention, because she probably gets off on it, but Barb has crossed the line and is now utterly preachy and hateful, with nothing but vileness to contribute. So, in solidarity with Janine and my other fellow LGBT folks on Pharyngula,

    Barb it is!

  121. #122 DominEditrix
    March 16, 2009

    Oust Barbara the Barbarian, hands down. Her mind is a cesspool of vile calumny and compassionless “Christian love”. Kwok next, because he’s a dead bore whose attempts at social climbing are beyond pathetic and whose comments are far too long and dull. Keep Pete – he’s young enough to be nurtured towards a more rational mindset.

  122. #123 IceFarmer
    March 16, 2009

    I know I’m mostly your friendly, Canadian lurker and rare poster, but if there must be a vote I’d have to say Barb is the most annoying.

    I duly cast my vote for the most annoying poster and individual that must leave pharyngula council…um… blog, BARB!

    Barb, pack up your **** and get the **** out!

    I’m just so glad there isn’t a “skin to win” rule, my eyes hurt just thinking about it.

  123. #124 JamesR
    March 16, 2009

    Brilliant idea PZ.
    Thanks for the link to Barb Janine. Now I remember the terrible feeling I had when my eyes involuntarily rolled back into my head and I felt as if I’d have a frickin seizure. But I gotta say Simon and Facilis Hmmm. The contest could be good if they are up to it.

    I think an award should be sent to the banned if they are good enough sport about it. You kmow something like You’ve been BANNED From the Pharyngula Hive. However you will still be assimilated. In capital letters and cartoon style.

    I vote for Barb You are all sinners at the foot of the cross.??? WTF.

  124. #125 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    I’m just so glad there isn’t a “skin to win” rule, my eyes hurt just thinking about it.

    Not to mention, Pete Rooke has already proven he’d win that challenge.

  125. #126 Facilis
    March 16, 2009

    Am I eligible for this immunity challenge? I haven’t been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom).
    Anyway the theory of evolution says that mankind and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. It does not state that we evolved from any extant forms of monkey

  126. #127 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    The Dave, thank you.

    BMS, continue your assault on all decency. That was the scariest display I have ever seen. (Pure snark!)

    Belated congratulations.

  127. #128 Thomas Winwood
    March 16, 2009

    I have no idea what I’m voting for, so in true reality-TV-voter style…

    Barb.

  128. #129 Helfrick
    March 16, 2009

    +1 for Barb.

  129. #130 Fernando Magyar
    March 16, 2009

    I’d bet most anything –if I were a betting person –that you aren’t intrinsically, exclusively attracted to women without ability to be attracted to a male. and if you are, I would think there was a reason having to do with your parents or with molesters –some sin toward you by others.

    OK Barb if you can convincingly elucidate what is going on between these two male flamingos that are successfully raising chicks together then I would vote that you be allowed to stay.

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/gay_flamingos_a.html

    The people who run a wildlife refuge in Britain chose Carlos and Fernando, a pair of homosexual flamingos, to be foster parents when a mother abandoned her nest before a newborn chick had a chance to hatch.

  130. #131 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    we have our first contestant.

  131. #132 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Sven:

    He needs to cut it out. That’s time I could spend reading about Walton!

    Always nice to wake up to a good laugh..

    My vote goes for Barb. I’d rather sit through another year of IEDs than listen to any more of her hateful shit.

  132. #133 cervantes
    March 16, 2009

    Hey, that’s much too easy. There are monkeys to collect tips for organ grinders.

    Duhh.

  133. #134 Scholar
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok (even though he has crossed paths with MANY celebrities)

    Sven “Poe” DeMilo

  134. #135 Charles
    March 16, 2009

    I guess at this point Barb has probably clenched it, but I’m going to throw another vote in for Facilis, although I have a feeling this is the sort of thing he/she’d love.

  135. #136 Michael X
    March 16, 2009

    I’ve vote for ‘ol Peety. Just to keep things semi interesting.

    Bard is nuts, granted, but I just can’t bring myself to vote for her. Possibly because she’s so completely gone that I can’t take her seriously.

  136. #137 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Janine,

    I wanted us to go out together on Hallowe’en in our wedding outfits, knocking on doors and threatening marriages.
    :)

  137. #138 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom

    No it’s about manufactured controversies.

  138. #139 Demonhype
    March 16, 2009

    Thank you Sgt Obvious.

    I wasn’t going to vote, as I only recognized Pete Rooke in all that and I’m too lazy at present to search. But that link of Barb has made the case. I don’t even need to see the rest of the group. Barb is so….sooooo…..I don’t even know if I have enough brain cells left to come up with a proper adjective, and I only managed to get through one and a half posts.

    So yeah. Barb. Totally.

    Now I have to try my best to purge the Barb-ness from my head in the hopes that my single remaining brain cell will emerge from hiding and repopulate my cranium–at least enough that I can gut it out through her challenge offering, which will no doubt be the piece de resistance of her evangelical career.

  139. #140 Ken Cope
    March 16, 2009

    Banninating is too good for Barb, but it will have to do, after her assaults on Janine and reason. The rest of PZ’s ordering is about right also. Alan Clarke needs banning, and ministering from mental health professionals. Facilis, the ineducable, needs a line of Jesuit Nuns with rulers to smash his knuckles, for his Epic poetic circular song cycle arguing (paraphrased, but close enough), “…for the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary, no God, no logic, anybody who says that isn’t logical can’t explain the origins of logic because of their presuppositions, therefore I’ve proven the existence of God, so gimme my Molly,” repeated, ad nauseum; then he needs to be banned.

  140. #141 Kobra
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  141. #142 Moses
    March 16, 2009

    Peter Rooke

  142. #143 abeja
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  143. #144 BadMA
    March 16, 2009

    #97″I started down the path towards atheism”
    BAD metaphore!
    That path actually leads UP!

    Down necessarily doesn’t mean bad. In space, there is no down, and on Earth, it is where the glorious squid are!

  144. #145 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Facilis | March 16, 2009

    Am I eligible for this immunity challenge? I haven’t been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom).
    Anyway the theory of evolution says that mankind and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. It does not state that we evolved from any extant forms of monkey

    God did not grant Facilis the universal logic needed to see that Expelled is not about academic freedom. Hint, it arguments for creationism by painting the debate as an either/or proposition. And then it paints evolution as pure evil.

  145. #146 Ken Cope
    March 16, 2009

    Am I eligible for this immunity challenge? I haven’t been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom).
    Anyway the theory of evolution says that mankind and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. It does not state that we evolved from any extant forms of monkey

    Of course you’re eligible, you fuckwit, you got an engraved invitation. Passing the immunity challenge is the condition for not being banned! And guess what, it looks to me as if you passed the test, accurately and concisely!

    Who are you really, and what have you done with facilis?

  146. #147 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    (#59) Ban me! Ban me! let’s see…uh..

    That, sir, was teh hawesome. You have my vote.

    Seriously, I have trouble voting for any of them. I find Rooke kinda creepy/sad, Barb just seriously… ewww. And Facilis… I just sorta feel sorry for Facilis, when I even notice the posts… I sorta read Silver Fox as a slightly more deliberate BSer…

    But anyway: getting that people are burning cycles dealing with their silliness, and Seed isn’t running a DB purely for them to spread this shite, I’ll do it like this:

    I figure the bookmakers’ odds any single one of ‘em is ever gonna learn anything substantial from these exchanges is in a descending sequence of Facilis, Barb, Rooke, Silver Fox, where the first number is still probably at best in the order of .05, so I’m going:

    (Write-in) Fox
    Rooke

    (… yes, I know Facilis is probably the lamest of the bunch in many ways. But it seems to me maybe that degree of utterly misinformed might be slightly more brittle, in the long run.)

    (Also, please feel free to count these votes as 1/2, as I don’t really spend a lot of time on any of them, and there are others who do yeoman service answering said disinfo. Thatsall.)

  147. #148 SteveM
    March 16, 2009

    Did it occur to anyone that the banned ones could just change name and email and continue to be noisome?

    Really? I wonder if PZ is aware of this loophole in his plan?

  148. #149 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    BMS, I am relieved. We share a similar type of humor. Too funny!

  149. #150 PlaydoPlato
    March 16, 2009

    I think this modified quote from The Dark Night sums Barb up nicely:

    “Because some trolls aren’t looking for anything logical, like evolution. They can’t be convinced, reasoned or argued with. Some trolls just want to watch a blog burn.”

  150. #151 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: dahduh | March 16, 2009 3:20 PM

    …while Barb is clearly ignorant and prejudiced, most of the replies were not exactly reasoned responses: more like petty insults.

    Someone wasn’t reading, then. As usual, someone has already said it as clearly as it can be said:

    Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 16, 2009 3:16 PM

    Barb’s behavior to Janine is unacceptable.

    dahduh, equating Janine with the sorts of criminals and aberrants that Barb did – especially for the reason she did so – deserves nothing more than petty insults and derision. And banning, IMO.

  151. #152 llewelly
    March 16, 2009

    Barb eggs bacon and Barb.

  152. #153 Interrobang
    March 16, 2009

    I’m tied between Pete Rooke and Barb. Barb is a bigot and sanctimonious, and exemplifies the “baptised in vinegar” type of Christian, but Pete Rooke is a boring sophist who must think we’re all too stupid (and/or ill-educated) to see through his facile little rhetorical tricks.

    If we’re having a run-off vote (much like run-off from a factory swine farm, I think), I say Silver Fox needs to go.

  153. #154 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    My sense of humor is all limbo-wife’s fault! ;)

  154. #155 Schmeer
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Barb. Barb, start writing your “challenge” entry. Good luck, moron.

  155. #156 Ranson
    March 16, 2009

    As much as I want to vote for Kwok out of pure annoyance (you’re sure we can pick only one?), I say Barb.

    You don’t go after people I like, regardless if those people even know who I am or not.

    See, Barb? That’s called caring about others; also known as “empathy”. Normal humans have it.

  156. #157 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: dahduh | March 16, 2009 3:20 PM

    …while Barb is clearly ignorant and prejudiced, most of the replies were not exactly reasoned responses: more like petty insults.

    Someone wasn’t reading, then. As usual, someone has already said it as clearly as it can be said:

    Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 16, 2009 3:16 PM

    Barb’s behavior to Janine is unacceptable.

    dahduh, equating Janine with the sorts of criminals and aberrants that Barb did – especially for the reason she did so – deserves nothing more than petty insults and derision. And banning, IMO.

  157. #158 Roadtripper
    March 16, 2009

    Hmmm. Looks like Barb’s the strong front-runner at this point, so it won’t hurt either way if I give my vote to John Kwok.

    You’re welcome, John.

    Rt

  158. #159 Fallsaturdays
    March 16, 2009

    My lurker vote is Barb.

    “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”

    This is unfair…the answer has only been given to them a few hundred times…but never from their pastor, so they won’t be able to regurgitate it.

  159. #160 ennui
    March 16, 2009

    The clouds are like headlines on a new front-page sky…
    Shiver me timbers, Barb is sailin’ away.

  160. #161 Phillip Moon
    March 16, 2009

    Here’s hoping I’m not double posting.

    I’ve read Barb’s posts. Gotta be Barb.

  161. #162 bobxxxx
    March 16, 2009

    My vote: Throw out the stupid asshole called Barb.

  162. #163 AVSN
    March 16, 2009

    I just don’t know who to vote for. So many worthy (unworthy?) candidates. Some one give me a Pro/Con list on the nominees.

  163. #164 john ilya
    March 16, 2009

    Barb was the only one I as a lurker recognized. So Barb it is. Does that mean need to read more pharyngula?

  164. #165 SteveM
    March 16, 2009

    re 115:

    I vote to keep them all. (I mean, what is this, Uncommon Descent?)

    The difference is that they are not being banned solely for disagreeing but for genuinely contributing nothing of value and simply wasting everyone’s time pontificating without engaging in any real dialogue at all.

  165. #166 Parse
    March 16, 2009

    I’m hooked on the idea of Barb being forcibly evicted from here. As much as I enjoy seeing this Barbie being grilled repeatedly, I’m not sufficiently barbaric to want her to continue flinging her barbs at us.

    And anyone who can write this, and mean it, is truly beyond hope: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/creationists_in_denial.php#comment-1465281

  166. #167 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, though she has provided such a shining example of hate-filled, perverted Christianity.
    (Next choice – Simon – now he is a pervert. I’ve nothing against perverts at all, but I don’t like them jacking off all over these nice clean threads.
    And talking of jacking off – JK, even if he does it with some very important friends.
    But Barb no 1
    And hey – I bet she’s reading this!

  167. #168 LMR
    March 16, 2009

    Wait, you mean you can answer the “why are there still monkeys” question WITHOUT making analogies to “necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen”?

    Damn, I think it’s time I stop buying my science books from the dollar store. :)

  168. #169 Barb
    March 16, 2009

    Evolutionary biologists explain the reason for the continued existence of monkeys despite the fact that it is often casually said that ‘humans evolved from apes’ by:
    1. Clarifying that monkeys are not apes (this is because evolutionary biologists are technical people and have a crippling intolerance for technically incorrect statements).
    2. Pointing out that other species of apes and humans share a common ancestor who was ape-like.
    3. Rolling their eyes because they can spot half a thankless day of wading through the clinging, wet, dumb-swamp of mindless creationism and regurgitated logical abominations.

  169. #170 Blue Fielder
    March 16, 2009

    None of them has made me want to punch them in anger…

    …except Barb. I was on the verge of leaving a comment for that slime to the effect of “if you had been standing here saying that, you’d be on the ground and missing teeth”. I figured it was wrong, and it is, because I don’t like violence, but there it is anyhow. Barb is an engine of hatred and emotional abuse that fails to turn over because of her sputtering ignorance. People like her don’t deserve a platform from which to spew their hate.

    Also, dahduh @ #111 and other “HOW DAER U BAN PEEPLZ FRUM UR OWN SIET” posters, your concern is noted, now get lost. Banning a troll != silencing dissent/censorship, so you and your troll arguments can get fucked.

  170. #171 HecticSkeptic
    March 16, 2009

    Could we please get some highlights of these people’s idiocy. It’s a bit hard to dredge examples of all of them up.

  171. #172 PlaydoPlato
    March 16, 2009

    I vote to keep them all. (I mean, what is this, Uncommon Descent?)

    See my post at #149.

  172. #173 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Upon further research I think Mr. Kwok should stay if

    (1) He refrains from name-dropping
    (2) Complies with the terms of Abbie Smith’s
    Restraining Order against him.

    Facilis,

    Anyway the theory of evolution says that mankind and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. It does not state that we evolved from any extant forms of monkey

    Actually, that wasn’t too bad.

    Looks like Facilis is in the lead so far. Let’s just hope we don’t have to see him naked on a tropical island….

  173. #174 Vic
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  174. #175 pgpwnit
    March 16, 2009

    Also, dahduh @ #111 and other “HOW DAER U BAN PEEPLZ FRUM UR OWN SIET” posters, your concern is noted, now get lost. Banning a troll != silencing dissent/censorship, so you and your troll arguments can get fucked.

    I think you need to stand up and take a walk outside. So much anger.

    ;P

  175. #176 bobxxxx
    March 16, 2009

    If the idiot who calls himself “Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer” was on the list I would have voted for him.

  176. #177 Rik G
    March 16, 2009

    Why vote anyone off? I would only vote someone off if they have made personal threats or spam jammed the blog. Other than that, why not either ignore the posts you don’t like, or respond to the person’s ideas and avoid getting into the personal snark fight/ pissing contests that seem to crop up so often. This blog would be a lot less interesting if everyone agreed all the time.

    That said, I think Barb is pretty mean-spirited, but anyone can see that. Let her and the others say what they’re gonna say, and keep the debate going!

  177. #178 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    no barb Poey imitators please.

  178. #179 IceFarmer
    March 16, 2009

    @ SteveM #147

    Coming back under another pseudonym is called “Sock Puppetry.”

    SOCK PUPPETRY IS GROUNDS FOR GETTING PUNTED AGAIN!

    Others have tried it and been removed multiple times. It’s not a loophole, it just makes the challenge more fun as it isn’t immediate gratification. It becomes a long term project!

  179. #180 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    “but I don’t like them jacking off all over these nice clean threads.”

    Alright, I’ve stopped for now, but I’m not making any promises.

  180. #181 Barklikeadog
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, Champion FAIL….

    1. Clarifying that monkeys are not apes (this is because evolutionary biologists are technical people and have a crippling intolerance for technically incorrect statements).
    2. Pointing out that other species of apes and humans share a common ancestor who was ape-like.
    3. Rolling their eyes because they can spot half a thankless day of wading through the clinging, wet, dumb-swamp of mindless creationism and regurgitated logical abominations.

    I take it back. Ban her; she is a fuckwit.

  181. #182 Louis
    March 16, 2009

    You are all mean, and atheists on a daily basis etc. In #57 I asked for a link or hint to highlights of Kwokery to prevent me from wading through a huge amount of Kwokput. I have now been Kwokked and feel quite ill.

    Honestly, why won’t you act as my mental shield from Kwokism?

    Louis

    P.S. I understand he is best friends forever with some very famous people.

  182. #183 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Rik G:

    That said, I think Barb is pretty mean-spirited, but anyone can see that. Let her and the others say what they’re gonna say, and keep the debate going!

    Barb has neither started, contributed to, nor completed any sort of worthwhile debate.

  183. #184 MikeM
    March 16, 2009

    Just looking through Barb’s wonderful post, I still gotta stick with Rooke, for his stick-to-itiveness.

    Pete Rooke.

    You cannot ignore the persistence factor.

  184. #185 Rodd Garoutte
    March 16, 2009

    I’m with the majority here. Barb is so thoroughly brainwashed there is no mind left. Out, I say!

  185. #186 recovering catholic
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. The real one, not the Poe.

  186. #187 speedwell
    March 16, 2009

    I think that the trolls we successfully ignore are less damaging than the ones who are SO egregious that they force every decent regular to respond. Some trolls are comparatively harmless; they just make their fellow creatards look bad. Other trolls are so bad they make us look bad just because we don’t swiftly show them the door.

    Facilis is fun to poke at. Kwok is a useful idiot. But Barb is the kind of nasty, disgusting person who truly makes it “not fun” to be here. I vote Barb out.

  187. #188 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    And hey – I bet she’s reading this!

    K’ching me!

  188. #189 Blue Fielder
    March 16, 2009

    This blog would be a lot less interesting if everyone agreed all the time.

    Yep, because that’s what we’re going for here, right? Crush all dissent! Ban all who disagree! PZ uber alles!

    That people cannot see the difference between “should I ban these people who contribute nothing and annoy people for their own amusement” and “agree or die” is stunnning. Ignorance comes in many forms, it seems.

    Besides, it’s PZ’s site, and it’s his call as to what is and isn’t acceptable. Don’t like it? Get out.

  189. #190 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    After almost 200 posts it is obvious the front runner and plonkee to beat is Barb the brainless. Since she is such a front runner (and my real first choice), I’ll officially vote for Pete Rooke just to make things a little more intersting. Given her lead, it still doesn’t make it much of a race.

  190. #191 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Barklikeadog, that was not Barb.

    Please do not do that again. Barb says enough foolish things on her own. We do not need to make up stuff and claimed she said it. Beside, it is hard to top the heart beating for a lifetime without an external power source.

  191. #192 SteveM
    March 16, 2009

    re Ice Farmer @178:

    What I was trying to convey is that as the blog owner, PZ is probably well aware of what banning is capable of and the techniques for getting around it. Apparently you missed the invisible sarcasm tag in my previous comment.

  192. #193 pazmusik
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  193. #194 firemancarl
    March 16, 2009

    Barb!

    She cannot make a coherent thought, and mostly cause she equates sex between two consenting adults to pedophilia.

  194. #195 Faintpraise
    March 16, 2009

    Count this as yet another gay woman voting for…

    Barb!

    Surprised you all there I bet.

    Trolls can sometimes be entertaining but I find her particular brand of homophobic invective depressing and it makes me angry. Especially when she has a go at Janine.

  195. #196 Ragutis
    March 16, 2009

    Well, I hate to swim against the stream like this, but Barb gets my vote. :p

    The rest are just as dreadfully dense, but Barb’s hatefulness gives her the edge. That’s a sad, nasty, sick human being right there.

    If I were to prognosticate though, I’d guess Simon’ll be next. The handful of his comments that I’ve seen have struck me as quite creepy, and I get the feeling he’s going to go over the edge in spectacular fashion one day soon.

  196. #197 frog
    March 16, 2009

    Barb — she’s boring crazy. At least folks like Pete Rooke are interesting examples of psychopathology. She’s just redundant.

  197. #198 Faintpraise
    March 16, 2009

    Count this as yet another gay woman voting for…

    Barb!

    Surprised you all there I bet.

    Trolls can sometimes be entertaining but I find her particular brand of homophobic invective depressing and it makes me angry. Especially when she has a go at Janine.

  198. #199 pgpwnit
    March 16, 2009

    She cannot make a coherent thought, and mostly cause she equates sex between two consenting adults to pedophilia.

    It takes a real special thought process to come up with that idea.

    (hers, not yours).

  199. #200 Kristjan Wager
    March 16, 2009

    Normally I wouldn’t vote, but bigots need to get booted. Barb gets my vote.

  200. #201 Barklikeadog
    March 16, 2009

    Sorry, my bad. I hate stepping in Poe like that!

  201. #202 Faintpraise
    March 16, 2009

    Sorry for double post, accidental clickage. I wasn’t trying to vote Barb twice (apart from anything else, she doesn’t need it!)

    This is why I mostly lurk…. (sigh!)

  202. #203 Rik G
    March 16, 2009

    Broken Soldier, OM (#182), “Barb has neither started, contributed to, nor completed any sort of worthwhile debate”.

    I haven’t seen everything she’s posted, but that seems to be true and I’ll take your word for it, but why not just ignore her and respond to the posters who do have something to say? Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that banning v not banning is a free speech issue–this is Prof Myers blog and he can do what he likes with it–but I am a little perplexed by the desire to punish. Despite all that I like about this blog–and all that I’ve learned from many of you!– there’s a lurking touch of schadenfreude here that bothers me.

  203. #204 Majik Sznak
    March 16, 2009

    You could have an FAQ section for questions like:

    “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”

    It would be more of a “Questions Frequently Asked By Idiots”, or QFABI than an FAQ section…

  204. #205 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Sure, go ahead, heap all the scorn and mockery on me that you can WHILE you still can. Common sense tells me that evolution is the stupidest idea ever and yet you so-called educated “scientists” fall for it hook line and stinker, just as you’re told to by your worshipped leaders like P.Q. Miers and Richard Dawkins and Hitler. I (and all of my classmates) know for certain that I am right and you are GOING TO ROAST IN HELLFIRE FOR ETERN wrong because I have three things on MY side NOT YOURS:
    1.) The Holy Word of Omniscient God the FAther, Jesus His SOn (but also God too) and Caspar the Friendly Ghost (also God, seriously). Yes, I am talking about the Holy Bible. Everything in there is True so it trumps your pitiful “empirical” “facts” and “logical” “deductions” every time. You materialist Darwinisticalians make me laugh and laugh with your appeels to “reason” and “logic” and “measurements” because YOU COULDN”T HAVE REASON AND LOGIC WITHOUT God, all three of them in One. FOur if you count the magic wheat-paste.
    2.) My favorite teacher at my celebrated and prestigious high school, who is an esteemed and extremely well-known memoirist who taught me and my fellow classmates and esteemed alumni at our high school, but whose name I will not mention lest I be accused of name-dropping, but still you’ve heard of him, believe me (as has Abbie Smith, who is so fine).
    3.) My husband, who is a REAL Doctor, meaning an MD, meaning smarter and more knowledgable automatically than you debauched disgusting fools and “scientists” who couldn’t get into medical school. And he agrees with me about fags and lesbeans and how their as disgusting as people who have sex with innocent children, animals and birds, or human-skin kilts.
    4.) you are poopyheads

  205. #206 Lilo
    March 16, 2009

    I say Barb, but John Kwok always raises my blood pressure so maybe for my health he should go,too.

  206. #207 Stu
    March 16, 2009

    Hey, where’s Africangenesis?

    Bleh. Okay, Simon then, please?

  207. #208 Jonathan From Springfield MO
    March 16, 2009

    Bad ass idea PZ. Hey I have some good news. Since you visited Springfield, we now have an Freethinkers club. There are about 50 of us so far and these kinds of groups are popping up all over MO. Oh yeah, I vote for Barb too. Chow!

  208. #209 Majik Sznak
    March 16, 2009

    You could have an FAQ section for questions like:

    “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”

    It would be more of a “Questions Frequently Asked By Idiots”, or QFABI than an FAQ section…

  209. #210 Zetetic
    March 16, 2009

    Really PZ, you made the immunity challenge far too easy. If creationists can get PhD’s in subjects related to evolution by just “faking it”, the trolls here can easily pass this challenge.

    If Facilis is chosen (which looks unlikely at this point) he should have to explain in detail why an Argument from Ignorance is not a valid position in a logical argument.

    I can sympathize with the desires to ban Barb, but I’d say that her blathering tends to work against her position and beliefs.

    Ultimately, I vote for Simon….mostly for just the series of boring cut and paste from Wells the Mooney cultist.

  210. #211 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    So go ahead: shut me up! Ban me! You and your ilk cannot stand to have your dogmatic opinions questioned in any way so you have to rely on censership and “banning.” But the Truth will not be Banned and God will not be Mocked. And here’s something you never thought of before, I bet:
    What if your WRONG?

  211. #212 George
    March 16, 2009

    A hint: All creatures alive today are the tips of the ancestral tree/bush of life.

    I am not much for banning people who comment. But the rules are the rules and they have been well published.

  212. #213 Inky
    March 16, 2009

    I cast my anti-vote; I think we shouldn’t kick any of them out.

    This voting contest makes it too likely that the “winner” would claim martyrdom. I think they have enough pompous self-righteousness, don’t you? Why lend fuel to the fire?

    That said, if anyone again says that homosexuality is an addictive reaction to molestation, the Pharyngula squad should fire at will.

    The Kwokian “My Big Friend Said” thing was really irritating, but just that.

    Dunno wot the others said, but I’m trying to have a good day here.

  213. #214 FanO'theBUCKS
    March 16, 2009

    Longtime lurker here…I have only posted a couple of times, but from what I have read, Barb needs to go.

    After reading her attack against Janine (thanks for the link) I believe the tribe has spoken.

  214. #215 bootsy
    March 16, 2009

    I think Pete Rooke is especially insidious. He’ll complain about cursing and then in the next breath casually mention how men and women shouldn’t work together.

  215. #216 Newfie
    March 16, 2009

    Besides, it’s PZ’s site, and it’s his call as to what is and isn’t acceptable. Don’t like it? Get out.

    Agreed, and I like it just fine. I like the intelligent discussion, I like laughing at fundie wackaloons. I really like that fundies actually show up here and post from time to time, and summarily get torn apart with actual fact, logic and reasoning.
    .. and the redundancy there was intentional on my part.

  216. #217 DiscoveredJoys
    March 16, 2009

    Barb for hatefulness, even though she won’t understand.

    I’v got to say that 200 logically coherent words for the immunity challenge seems to be setting the bar too high. Perhaps immunity for the dingleberry who writes the longest consecutive sequence of logically coherent words? About 30 should win it I guess.

  217. #218 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    While my vote for Barb is already placed, and I stand by it, I can’t really support tossing her solely on the basis of that post linked above. Yes, it was both stupid and insulting, but we should be able to handle that.

    While she did say that homosexuality is a sin, she made it a point to say that she didn’t put it in the same ballpark as rape. She then said that while she recognized a difference in severity, her asshole god only has two categories: “sinner” and “not sinner”. So far we’re dealing with bog-standard fundy Christian belief here, and nothing that I took to be particularly aimed at Janine.*

    The other part about having been abused as a child, c’mon.. we’ve all seen trolls use the same reasoning to explain why we’re atheists, or why why we do anything they don’t agree with. Yes it’s completely asinine but I have a hard time seeing actual malice behind it. It’s always seemed like more of a defense mechanism to me; once they explain it away in those terms they don’t have to consider that normal people can be gay, or atheist, or whatever. They can always blame it on some imaginary traumatic experience.

    *Full disclosure, I didn’t follow that thread so I may have missed the context.

  218. #219 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    This voting contest makes it too likely that the “winner” would claim martyrdom. I think they have enough pompous self-righteousness, don’t you? Why lend fuel to the fire?

    I had this thought briefly, and I think your psychology is dead on. But then, there’s also context and proportionality: and I note that (a) from parting shots fired by a few bannees, they tend to develop that attitude with or without the popularity contest (and I’m taking it as given the comments threads are getting a bit congested with this rot, and someone’s gotta go, anyway), and (b) many of ‘em got plenty of that ‘oh, group X of which I am a charter member is so persecuted’ thing going on with or without banning…

    So I figure this is probably just dropping a few more straws into a bonfire already well on, really.

  219. #220 Obeah
    March 16, 2009

    My vote seems unnecessary but,
    Barb.

  220. #221 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    OK then, I vote Sven.
    Even if it is censership.
    ‘Cause he called me a poopyhead.

  221. #222 JackC
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, Barb, Barb… Barb Barb Iran … Wait – that doesn’t quite work….

    JC

  222. #223 NewEnglandBob
    March 16, 2009

    Eliminate Barb this week, <- dementia

    then Pete Rooke next week, <- illogical

    then John Kwok the following week, <- nonsensical

    then Sven DiMilo. <- what an IDiot…lol

  223. #224 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    So, time to play the devil’s advocate: based on reading the comments starting at #549, in the thread linked by Sgt.Obvious in #32 of this thread, Barb does not need banning. Barb does not need censoring of any kind. Granted I didn’t read a personal attack on Janine, that would warrant a ban I suppose. I hope #549 in the linked thread wasn’t considered personal, it doesn’t read that way to me at all. Unless you see her misunderstanding of, and faith-based argument against homosexuality to be a personal attack on all homosexuals. I found this paragraph of her’s to be quite informative:

    NOt that consensual sex between two adults of the same sex is the same LEVEL of violation as those which involve a non-consensual partner –of course it is not. But with God, there are no gradations of sin –the arrogant and smug law-keeper is a sinner in God’s sight, and He has harsh words for those who think of themselves as better than others.

    Barb claims that she herself sees a difference between homosexuality and rape, but that her opinion does not matter because her God sees no distinction. This is a useful post! We can learn from this and better understand where they are arguing from, without in any way agreeing with it.

    I know it’s barely above flame-baiting to say this here, but the reactions to Barb’s posts seem to me, to be rather intolerant. She is arguing from a radically different viewpoint than the rest of us open minded (I hope) individuals. Unfortunately the evidence shows that roughly 40% of the United States still shares a similar point of view (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life). I would contend, that of that 40%, Barb is probably able to better articulate her reasons than most.

    I understand that what she says is found to be disagreeable and disgusting by the vast majority of commenters here, but should we really be silencing dissenting voices here? I hope at least one of you will forgive me for saying so, but sometimes it seems to me that the enemy is right: commenters here do often seem to be just as close minded as we accuse them of being, probably safe in the knowledge that few people here will disagree with their hateful anti-religious speech (I do recognize that this doesn’t apply to everyone, but it’s common enough that I often make it no further than the first 10 comments before closing the page in disgust).

    If your purpose in commenting, and reading comments on this blog is honestly to encounter interesting discussion with people who do more than simply nod in agreement, then Barb seems a poor choice for a ban. Unless someone can show me evidence of a personal attack of course… then most of the wind gets sucked out of my sails and I’ll vote for Barb. :D

    NOW! I’ll check back fairly often to defend and qualify my argument for the rest of the day. I do have a paper to write though, so forgive me if I don’t address your comment immediately.

    (Yes I am an atheist; yes I hate fundamentalism; yes I hate people who hate)

  224. #225 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Rik G:

    this is Prof Myers blog and he can do what he likes with it

    And apparently, he has chosen this. Your concern is noted.

  225. #226 Sandi Hj
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll peek out of lurkdom to say that for unvarnished hatefulness, it has to be Barb.

  226. #227 Sili
    March 16, 2009

    necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen

    What did I miss?

    Next round can we have them have to come to an agreement about who’s immune? Nothing so fun as christian backstabbing.

    I was gonna go for Pete Rooke, since he’s been here long enough that I noticed. But if Barb has attacked Janine (who needs an OM), I’ll bray with the flock and vote for her: Barb.

    Kwok is annoying, but I’m not gonna waste a vote on him.

  227. #228 mikecbraun
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke gets my vote, but I must proclaim my ignorance of some of the other candidates. Maybe they would change my mind. Could someone direct me to Barb’s posts…I’d like to see if it’s the one I work with!

  228. #229 John M.
    March 16, 2009

    When PeeZed nominates a poll I usually vote – early and often. But it’s a thumbs down to this one. Ranting by these people he’s listed serves to remind me daily that I am absolutely right in what I think and believe

  229. #230 Kristjan Wager
    March 16, 2009

    I haven’t seen everything she’s posted, but that seems to be true and I’ll take your word for it, but why not just ignore her and respond to the posters who do have something to say?

    Several reasons.

    1) One should always speak out against bigotry – this is why people react to Barb’s hateful spewing.

    2) If people ignore the ignorant rantings of the trolls, others who stumble on the site might be led to believe that there might be something to their rambling streams on nonsense.

    3) We are here to debate. If we all ignore anyone who said something stupid, it would mean that we would become the choir singing PZ’s praise that people accuse of us of being.

    4) We tend to believe that it’s possible to educate people, or at least inform them. On rare occasions, people don’t want to get neither educated nor informed, but until we try, it’s not possible to know for sure.

    On top of that, I’ll also note that many of the people on the list have a tendency to go on and on, so scrolling past their comments is a tedious task (though it beats reading those posts). If they don’t contribute anything worthwhile, e.g. no one actually reads what they write, there is no need for them to suck bandwidth.

  230. #231 Rik G
    March 16, 2009

    Blue Fielder (#188) ” ‘This blog would be a lot less interesting if everyone agreed all the time.’
    Yep, because that’s what we’re going for here, right? Crush all dissent! Ban all who disagree! PZ uber alles!”

    No, that’s not what I’m saying, please don’t put words in my mouth.

    “That people cannot see the difference between ‘should I ban these people who contribute nothing and annoy people for their own amusement’ and ‘agree or die’ is stunnning. Ignorance comes in many forms, it seems.”

    I do see the difference, I just don’t come down in favor of banning, nor do I think it is terrible if anyone is banned. I can understand those who favor banning, and just thought I’d offer a different point of view. No need for the vituperation.

    “Besides, it’s PZ’s site, and it’s his call as to what is and isn’t acceptable.”

    I agree with you 100%.

    “Don’t like it? Get out.”

    Jeeze! There are things I like and things I don’t, so what if I have mixed feelings about it? If Prof. Myers asks me to get out, I’ll get out. As for you and me, can’t we just disagree in a friendly manner??? It really ain’t THAT big a deal if anyone is banned or not and we’ve all obviously got extra time on our hands if we’re contributing to this discussion anyway, so let’s just agree or disagree with each other, but keep things respectful along the way.

  231. #232 mikecbraun
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke gets my vote, but I must proclaim my ignorance of some of the other candidates. Maybe they would change my mind. Could someone direct me to Barb’s posts…I’d like to see if it’s the one I work with!

  232. #233 Hipstermama
    March 16, 2009

    My vote is for Barb to go, her posts are way too long and and don’t say anything. My poor irony meter gets broken everytime I attempt to read her comments.

  233. #234 Victor W
    March 16, 2009

    My vote goes out to the lady Barb(ed Wire)

  234. #235 Kathy
    March 16, 2009

    After seeing the link to Barb’s post, attacking Janine, I throw my rock at her pile o’ crap.

  235. #236 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: pcarini | March 16, 2009

    While she did say that homosexuality is a sin, she made it a point to say that she didn’t put it in the same ballpark as rape. She then said that while she recognized a difference in severity, her asshole god only has two categories: “sinner” and “not sinner”. So far we’re dealing with bog-standard fundy Christian belief here, and nothing that I took to be particularly aimed at Janine.*

    I do not take her comment as an personal attack on me. And I asked her that question about a dozen times, so I pushed her for an answer. I did so because I find her to be typical of fundamentalist christian parents who kick their GLBT children out of their homes. I do not hate her because of what she said to me. I hate her because I have seen the harm that people like her have done to their children.

  236. #237 Sandi Hj
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll peek out of lurkdom to say that for unvarnished hatefulness, it has to be Barb.

  237. #238 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Rik G:

    but keep things respectful along the way.

    There’s a suggestion no one’s seen here before…

  238. #239 Blue Fielder
    March 16, 2009

    No, that’s not what I’m saying, please don’t put words in my mouth.

    Ah, so it’s okay if you put words in everyone else’s mouths, but how DARE I tell the truth about your garbage, right?

    Your concern trollery is noted, and you are hereby killfiled for the duration.

  239. #240 catgirl
    March 16, 2009

    OK, I already voted and I admit that I won’t miss Barb being gone. However, I have doubts about censoring in general, no matter how wrong these people are. As long as they aren’t using terrible grammar and spelling, maybe we should just let them type whatever they want and just choose not to read their posts. However, it is really frustrating to explain to them the same things over and over when they simply choose to ignore those things. I feel like banning them is giving up, but I certainly won’t be sad to see them go.

  240. #241 Rik G
    March 16, 2009

    Kristjan Wager (#227) points 1-4

    Good points, every one! Thanks for making four good points, and also for being civil about it!

  241. #242 Lee Picton
    March 16, 2009

    We find trolls useful in so many ways, but Barb has no socially redeeming features whatever. I have never seen a troll so hateful or purely evil. She is a disgrace to humanity, because she hasn’t any. Can you all tell that Barb gets my vote?

  242. #243 mikecbraun
    March 16, 2009

    Sorry for the duplicate post.

  243. #244 Inky
    March 16, 2009

    many of ‘em got plenty of that ‘oh, group X of which I am a charter member is so persecuted’ thing going on with or without banning…So I figure this is probably just dropping a few more straws into a bonfire already well on, really.

    True enough, but I think, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

    The thing is, the frequently mentioned Barb homo post and my recent Kwok readings aren’t enough. I haven’t read comments by the other candidates (or, if I did, I totally don’t remember). Searching through old posts for their comments is too tedious, I’d rather sort the dust bunnies gathering beneath my desk.

    Frankly, I honestly don’t care if they stay or go. Their presence does not curdle my milk; their absence will not sweeten my coffee.

    I will admit that I am curious whether any of them will write those essays. It’d be nice to have somewhat equivalent writing samples. So, I’d say it’s a fair game if they write and then we vote after reading them. Non-attendance can merit disqualification.

  244. #245 vespera
    March 16, 2009

    Death to Barb!!!

  245. #246 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    @235 – Thanks for the helpful clarification there Janine, and I hope that if you read what I posted a couple minutes before you, you won’t be too upset by it.

  246. #247 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    Everyone mentions Barb, but I haven’t found a single comment from her yet. I was away for a couple of days, though. Did they all get deleted?

  247. #248 Vic
    March 16, 2009

    Apparently Sven DiMilo is upset she wasn’t included on the list.

  248. #249 akshelby
    March 16, 2009

    I would have said Pete Rooke until I read the ignorant homosexuality=pedophilia comment made by Barb directed towards Janine and all other lesbians.

    Barb deserves to be cast away. She’s been getting on my nerves anyway.

  249. #250 Nancy
    March 16, 2009

    In support of Janine I MUST vote for Barb!

  250. #251 Adam
    March 16, 2009

    I don’t have a problem with Barb. I don’t agree with her philosophy, but she’s always honest and polite about it. I have not found responses to her posts to be generally polite.

    Actually, I’ll go a bit further: Some of the responses to her are embarrassing, as are the anti-Barb comments on this thread. This Survivor idea isn’t one of your better ones, PZ.

    Anyway, I vote that she stays.

  251. #252 Raiko
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  252. #253 Sastra
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll agree with RikG (and pgpwnit and Newfie and dahduh and divalent) and vote for none of the candidates. I find it too easy to ignore posts I don’t want to read, and don’t need PZ to save me from SIWOTI syndrome (if you have it, you don’t want to get better.)

    Besides, many of those ‘bad’ arguments require work, cunning, patience, and/or skill to answer, because they’re either

    1.) classic ones you encounter in apologetics
    2.) common ones thrown at you by friends, relatives, co-workers, and neighbors

    But I suppose one can make the best case for voting off poor Barb. In addition to other problems, she’s very long-winded.

    Personally, I would have voted for Nat, who not only makes us scroll, scroll, scroll to the bottom of almost every one of his interminable posts — but he’s not even writing his own arguments; it’s all cut ‘n paste from AIG. And when this is repeatedly pointed out, he doesn’t stop. That’s bannable trollishness.

    (The only one on list I don’t recognize is Roger5.)

  253. #254 Rahne
    March 16, 2009

    Barb?

  254. #255 James F
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. To paraphrase a line from Cool Hand Luke, what we’ve got here is failure to communicate; some people you just can’t reach.

    John Kwok doesn’t belong with these creationist noodniks, though. He preemptively wins the immunity challenge.

  255. #256 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Ban me and my power will only grow STRONGER! Know why?
    1. I’ll post it on my Facebook page for all of my many and well-known friends to see.
    2. I’ll start a NEW blog, better than this pit of disgusting athiests and anybody on the whole Internet will be able to read about it! Ha!
    3. I’ll tell Ken Miller, a fellow alumni of me and my classmates at Brown, which is prestigious.
    4. I’ll tell Abbie Smith.
    5. I will tell Matthew Nisbet so he can frame it.
    6. I will Morph! and Sockpuppet! and…and…I’ll seek advice from Charlie Wagner!
    7. I will write respectful, non-swearing letters to P.Z> Meijers’s Dean, Provost, President, Chancellor, Chairman, Tennis Pro, and Boss.

    So go ahead. Ban me.
    You don’t have the guts!

  256. #257 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    I have watched this laughable blog for a long time, but I have never seen something so despicable as this–trying to ban those followers of the Lord who speak the truth? You have reached a new low, Professor Meyers, you, and all of your evilutionist followers.

    How can you truly believe in evolution? Besides the fact that the Bible says nothing about it in any of its God–given pages, if evolution is true, why does Ontology not Recapitulate Phylogeny? It’s obvious to anyone who thinks.

    But I suppose evilutionists don’t do that, now, do they? In between rooting for the Muslim Obamanation in the White House and ridding it of all our Christian brother Dick Cheney has worked to build and wishing for another Hitler to arrive so as to evolve the human race onto godhood, you can’t think very well, now, can you?

  257. #258 BAllanJ
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  258. #259 Bobber
    March 16, 2009

    Janine said:

    I do not hate her because of what she said to me. I hate her because I have seen the harm that people like her have done to their children.

    And it’s for this reason that I have to concur with many, and vote for Barb. Reading the dialogs involving her reminds me too much of someone trying to debate a tape recorder – two people are talking, but only one is capable of listening and responding intelligently – and the material spewing out of the tape is nothing but ignorance and bigotry, with the smarmy sound of Florence Henderson’s motherly voice, daggers dripping with honey and venom. She’s worthy of being the first voted off, most definitely.

  259. #260 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    Come on now Sven, I think you’ve trolled enough. Masterfully done I admit, bravo. But time to give it a rest. ^^;

  260. #261 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    @Janine #235: I totally respect that. I think she should should be booted for her complete posting history, she hasn’t added to any discussion and pretty much has shit on everything she’s touched. I’m seeing too many posts saying she should be banned because of her egregious attack on you, which I didn’t see, and I refuse to read more into that post than what I think Barb intended.

    If it was a direct attack on you, I still would leave it be unless I thought you couldn’t easily handle it yourself. There’s a fine line between being showing solidarity and being overprotective.

  261. #262 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    (The only one on list I don’t recognize is RogerS.)

    He has only posted in Titanoboa and Science of Watchman threads.

  262. #263 Steve_C
    March 16, 2009

    There are no stay votes.

  263. #264 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    I will Morph! and Sockpuppet! and…and…I’ll seek advice from Charlie Wagner!

    I hereby vote for Sven six times more.*

    (*The winking smiley would go here if I could bring myself ever to type a smiley.)

  264. #265 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    It looks like all the barbs thrown at Barb means she’s going down… down deep to the dungeon.

    I was surprised GodIsLove and Silver Fox didn’t make the list. Maybe PZ is saving them for a prime time special.

    Facilis actually made a good play with his immunity challenge. If only he wasn’t a closet case VD worshiper.

    No Libertarians made the list because PZ ran them off last month. He hurt their (sob) feelings.

    Pete Rooke is about creepy and twisted as they get.

    So knowing that Barb is going down I will pull a Nader and throw away my vote on Rooke.

  265. #266 Kristjan Wager
    March 16, 2009

    Sven, I will admit that I don’t have much of a sense of humor when it comes to trolling and poe-ing, but if you keep this up, I’ll have to killfile you.

    Can’t you at least use a modified name for your poe-ing, so I don’t kill the good comments you make in other contexts?

  266. #267 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    As mentioned above, I haven’t seen any of Barb’s posts, but I lean towards “nobody”.

    Even though I don’t agree with what many people say, I don’t generally have a problem with reading/ignoring them, except for the pure trolls, ie those posting obnoxious comments that they don’t even believe themselves just to get a rise out of people. I don’t think anybody on the list qualifies.

  267. #268 maureen
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  268. #269 pgpwnit
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll agree with RikG (and pgpwnit and Newfie and dahduh and divalent)

    The wrath of BlueFielder be upon you.

    ;P

  269. #270 Kate
    March 16, 2009

    Actually, I’d like to change my vote, please.

    I’d like to have banned everyone who came on this thread to bitch about banning people.

  270. #271 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Barb claims that she herself sees a difference between homosexuality and rape, but that her opinion does not matter because her God sees no distinction. This is a useful post!

    No, not it’s not a useful post.

    Why?

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck what she fucking claims.

    Because what she says is nothing new. She offers no insight. I, and other LGBTs have heard that bullshit all our fucking lives.

    And we’re fucking sick of it.

    On top of that, the waste of carbon Barb knows what she says is personally hurtful to us. Such is not an academic discussion – it’s an attack, an old old old, tired and mean and bullshit attack.

    It illuminates nothing.

    Do you not have any comprehension whatsoever the psychological, the physical damage these knuckledraggers do to their LGBT children, to all LGBT children, to all LGBTs??

    I mean, fuck.

    So fuck you, too, for your complete lack of empathy.

    Fucker.

  271. #272 Murgadroid
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  272. #273 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Sastra, you can find RogerS tag teaming with Alan Clarke at the Titanoboa and Science of Watchmen threads.

  273. #274 Asemodeus
    March 16, 2009

    What we really need is for a system for easy labeling of creationists banters and over all theistic nutcases. Something like a name tag next to their user name like you would see in lan guilds.

    Something like ,, etc etc.

    That way people can easily identify the morons and easily ignore them if needed, while still providing the people who enjoy mocking them without the need for banning.

  274. #275 Rik G
    March 16, 2009

    Bluefielder (#238) “Ah, so it’s okay if you put words in everyone else’s mouths, but how DARE I tell the truth about your garbage, right?”

    What words have I put in other people’s, or as you say, “everyone else’s” mouth? I don’t think I have done that, but if I have, please point it out and I will apologize, because that is not my intention.

    “Your concern trollery is noted, and you are hereby killfiled for the duration.”

    C’mon, man, haven’t you ever heard of a friendly disagreement? If you’re ever in Austin, TX, look me up and I’ll buy you a beer, or I can see you at 4:20 if that’s your pleasure. Get to know me for five minutes and you’ll realize I ain’t no “concern troll”.

  275. #276 JBlilie
    March 16, 2009

    She’s a witch! Burn her! Burn her! She’s a witch!

    P.Z., why is John Kwok on the list? He usually (on Amazon anyway, I can’t recall any of his posts here) pounds on the creationists … though he does tend to go over the top …

    Just curious …

  276. #277 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    Why all this concern? Do we have to be nice to everybody? If you don’t weed the trolls from a site periodically it will become their site.

    Personally, my distaste for Barb is not personal or political. I get irritated when people hijack threads in order to turn them into long winded platforms for their ideology. IMO Barb is the worst non-libertarian offender on the list. She makes me scroll and scroll…

  277. #278 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    I’m not Poeing.
    I’m trying to get banned.

    I’d get a lot more work done.

  278. #279 Mu
    March 16, 2009

    Silver Fox would be my target, but I’d actually wouldn’t kick anyone. Without them, where do I get my daily does of facepalm?

  279. #280 Eric Paulsen
    March 16, 2009

    I’d really like to write in Sven DiMilo or PrisonerOfEvil, but damned if I can’t tell if they are Poes or not.

  280. #281 Ray Mills
    March 16, 2009

    Barb looks like the leading contender so far and with the evidence supplied I can see why, so unless you can write one hell of an essay barb, goodbye. You are the missing link.

  281. #282 Kristjan Wager
    March 16, 2009

    I’d get a lot more work done.

    Sven, go modify your hosts file, and map the pharyngula URL to the IP of whatever work related site you should be looking at.

  282. #283 John Morales
    March 16, 2009

    Simon.

  283. #284 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 16, 2009

    BMS @ 270:

    That’s a post full of WIN.

  284. #285 idahogie
    March 16, 2009

    Probably don’t need to ban Barb. All it would take would be for a few of the womenfolk here to start hitting on her. She’d be gone in a (perpetual motion) heart beat.

  285. #286 Jafafa Hots
    March 16, 2009

    I’m currently reading an account of cave exploration. Down can be good.

  286. #287 Strangebrew
    March 16, 2009

    Barb is a classic example of what jeebus brain rot does to a human brain…
    Gooey in the extreme and barely sentient…

    Maybe keep what is left of that thing as a ‘kind’ of ‘creationist Cepheid variable’…summat to measure the rest of them against.

    Otherwise deep six de bitch!

  287. #288 Greg
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for that Meyrs guy, he´s always stirring shit up.

  288. #289 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    “Sven, go modify your hosts file, and map the pharyngula URL to the IP of whatever work related site you should be looking at.”

    At the risk of offending you: Kristjan Wager for the win!!!

  289. #290 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Kate | March 16, 2009

    Actually, I’d like to change my vote, please.

    I’d like to have banned everyone who came on this thread to bitch about banning people.

    Why? Newfie, Sastra and the others are regulars. And their points are valid, not an example of people coming in to bitch.

  290. #291 JBlilie
    March 16, 2009

    BMS @ 270:

    “Barb claims that she herself sees a difference between homosexuality and rape, but that her opinion does not matter because her God sees no distinction. This is a useful post!
    No, not it’s not a useful post.

    Why?

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck what she fucking claims.

    Because what she says is nothing new. She offers no insight. I, and other LGBTs have heard that bullshit all our fucking lives.

    And we’re fucking sick of it.”

    I completely agree about your having to listen to the BS (and live with threats and discrimination — it’s long past time for all that to end*.) But, I advise considering the source. The comment at the top is useful in that it helps identify the Barb as a god-walloping moron, whose opinion you can blithely ignore. It only comments on her idiocy and says nothing about you (or any non-existent gods.)

    (* I ask everyone, how can on person’s marriage, regardless of its configuration, POSSIBLY hurt, insuly, or in any way diminish MY marriage?!?!?! I say: For Hank’s fucking sake, PLEASE let the gay folk marry if they want to!!!!)

  291. #292 Strangebrew
    March 16, 2009

    *287

    I vote for that Meyrs guy, he´s always stirring shit up

    Fine…who is that?

  292. #293 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @#279: Bah, you can ban me if you wish, unbelievers–but the spirit of the Lord shall live on! Eventually, through the brilliant writing of Jack Chick and the wonderful creation science of Ken Ham, all the world shall come to know the Lord–and all those who prosecuted Real True Christians will come to regret it.

    So make me a martyr if you wish, fools–more evidence for your ridiculously intolerant and close-minded world view.

  293. #294 Sastra
    March 16, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead and Janine:
    Ah, so that’s where RogerS lurked. I came into Tintanoboa and Science of Watchman only a few times, and watched Alan Clarke just long enough to decide to take myself off to newer and shorter threads …

  294. #295 ryogam
    March 16, 2009

    In school, one generally does not get expelled for failure to learn your lessons, but for disrupting the learning of others.

    I raise this because of all the potential banees, I think I have learned the most from Barb and Facilis. Not from their posts, mind you, but from the responses to their posts from others, including very interesting bible counter-apologetics.

    But enough is enough. I believe that all the trolls designated so by PZ, in order to maintain commenting privileges here, should be required to maintain their own public blog with commenting as open as that of PZ’s, so that people can respond to their comments there, rather than here, if they choose. Too much productive discussion on this blog is getting hijacked to deal with these ‘disruptive students.’

  295. #296 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    brokenSoldier @ 283,

    Thank you.

    I’m so flippin’ angry now I have to give up the intertubes for the day and just get out of the apartment.

    (Oh, hey – just a little follow-up from our previous convo – Limbo-wife and I, on Inaug. Day on the Mall, turned our backs in our own small little protest when R. Warren spoke. Some folks nearby did as well in solidarity. Thanks for the discussion.)

  296. #297 Wolfhound
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke, fer-sher.

    Barb is a godbotting moron but Pete is guilty of repugnant Catholic apologetics and the worst analogies EVAH!

  297. #298 brandon
    March 16, 2009

    1. Barb – highly annoying, contentless, repetitive and smug – qualities that would get you banned anywhere.

    2. Facilis – see above

    3. This Sven character – because he has work to do.

    If it were my blog, I’d have a twist ending to this contest whereby the loser is kept on and remaining rogue’s gallery banned, followed by a second twist in which the winner/loser is banned, too. At best their comments, collectively, read like a transcript to the interview you posted earlier, it worst it’s real estate sucking yammering that destroys anything of interest in the comments, by burying it in pig-shit ignorance.

  298. #299 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Barb has it sown up but, like a California voter, I have to vote for her. She’s not only hateful but stupid and willfully ignorant.

  299. #300 Blake Stacey
    March 16, 2009

    The idea that banning any or all of the people on P-Zed’s list would make Pharyngula into a place where everybody agrees is. . . amusing.

  300. #301 WRMartin
    March 16, 2009

    Barb is a weapons-grade ignoramus but she does serve a useful purpose: As a warning to others. Grow up as she did and think as she does and you too can be a fine example of a moronic, ignorant, and hateful coagulated sludge of a human spouting crap from her bible.
    If she is to be banned is there any way we can smack her upside the head first?
    [hockey stick at the ready - although I did debate the merits of the stinging and slashing effect from a graphite fly rod blank]

  301. #302 Greg
    March 16, 2009

    #291

    Sorry I thought always spelled his name wrong as a wind-up

  302. #303 Form&Function
    March 16, 2009

    Barb!

    She’s vacuous and boring. Several of the others have at least provided a little entertainment. Some I’ve missed entirely! What a shame.

    Or not.

  303. #304 Azdak
    March 16, 2009

    I have to admit, I wasn’t particularly keen on the idea of voting off some of the more entertaining posters on the blog, both because it eliminates their amusing “contributions” and because it gives them a badge of honour to wear to their next tinfoil hat assembly. And I resolved not to vote for Barb because she appears to be the overwhelming favourite, and I’m just contrary like that.

    But I actually went back looking for some of her posts (I’d skipped some of the recent open threads), and… screw my earlier resolution, I’m going to have to go with the mob, here. I won’t miss Bigot Barb in the least.

  304. #305 Dan DeLeon
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  305. #306 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    That way people can easily identify the morons and easily ignore them if needed, while still providing the people who enjoy mocking them without the need for banning.

    We have such system. We call it “reading their posts”!
    As for Sven who is pretending to be a Poe; I think there should be a separate name for those who pretend to be mad in an apparent attempt to mock the madness of others (?) can I propose the term a “Lovecraft”?.
    And no, I don’t think he should get one.
    He’ll have to go mad on his own.

  306. #307 CatBallou
    March 16, 2009

    Another vote for Barb, based on her irrationality and hatefulness.

    Assuming we can vote only once, I don’t see how this is going to last until Wednesday.

    Also, BMS, congratulations on your lovely wedding!

  307. #308 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Blake (@#299): I disagree.

  308. #309 blorf
    March 16, 2009

    Barb
    @203 call it a Frequently asked questions, moron edition, or FAQ-ME?

  309. #310 AmericanGodless
    March 16, 2009

    If someone is to leave the blog, I have to vote for Barb.

    In an earlier career, I did research on the mitochondrially bound isozyme of creatine kinase in mammalian cardiac tissue. Heart energy metabolism is complex, but not mysterious.

    Barb on the human heart: “..how do we get.. hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source..” And after being corrected on that: “It’s still amazing –and designed –and empowered mysteriously.”

    Ignorance so deep, so proud, so impervious to correction doesn’t contribute anything of value to the conversation. Not even comedy relief.

  310. #311 Mr.Bojangles
    March 16, 2009

    barb

  311. #312 marcus
    March 16, 2009

    As I am also a vagitarian of (though of the xy persuasion) I say pull out that barb!

  312. #313 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    Simple Simon gets my vote, Barb gets the preferences.

  313. #314 E.V.
    March 16, 2009

    Will this make Barb a witnessing martyr for her cause?
    She’s only butting in here to show her creotard friends how she entered the lion’s den and left without a scratch (or a clue).
    I think SF, AG and Simon should go … No, the ultimate wanker is Kwok, followed by Simon, SF & AG are tied with Scott from Oregon and Charlie Wagner is already banned but returns regularly.

    Everyone is venting their hatred for ultraconservative religiotard Barb, so she may provide a mental health service as blogging equivalent of a punching hag bag after all. Besides, I still want to know about her views on oral after she opined about her distaste with anal as “unnatural.” Has she *wink wink nudge nudge* “lollipopped” knowhatImean? And how does this square with her definition of what are natural and unnatural sex acts? Hmmmm Barb the hypocrite? Inquiring minds want to know.

  314. #315 marcus
    March 16, 2009

    As I am also a vagitarian of (though of the xy persuasion) I say pull out that barb!

  315. #316 Mark
    March 16, 2009

    I find these proceedings a bit distasteful actually.

    P.Z. wishing to boot somebody is fine, it’s his blog.

    Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing. At least I think so.

  316. #317 Carlie
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, because she is so directly mean. I’d ask for Pete as a second, though, because he scares me. I mean, really. Isn’t he the one who made analogies about human-skin lampshades and said that women wearing miniskirts deserve to be raped? Frightening.

    And no, banning is not a bad thing. When someone consistently offers NOTHING to the conversation except to stick their fingers up their nose and yell “HERE I AM LOOK AT MY BOOGERS” over and over again, it really does make the discourse better if they are kicked out.

  317. #318 paleotn
    March 16, 2009

    Another vote in solidarity with Janine. Most on the “boot list” seem to be just garden variety kooks and Jebus freaks. Annoying, but on the other hand occasionally entertaining. Kind of like watching the monkeys at the zoo. But within that “Jebus is Luuuuv” crowd are some truly nasty excuses for human beings. Those are the ones who really need to be exposed for the hatemongers they are and shown the door. So I cast one more vote for Barb the Wicked.

    Then again I could vote for Facilis for the simple reason his user name sounds like a venereal disease.

    Nah, Barb of Darkness gets my vote.

  318. #319 SLW13
    March 16, 2009

    @ 80: “Barb. Don’t let the doorknob hit you where the FSM split you.”

    Thanks ever so much for making me snort-laugh out loud, thereby earning funny looks from the gaggle of attorneys standing outside my office door.

    This is repetitive and redundant and repetitive and redundant, but Barb.

  319. #320 E.V.
    March 16, 2009

    Mark:
    Perhaps it is because you identify as a pig. Just sayin’

  320. #321 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Sven DeMilo gets my vote for a Molly for #59.

  321. #322 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Sastra | March 16, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead and Janine:
    Ah, so that’s where RogerS lurked. I came into Tintanoboa and Science of Watchman only a few times, and watched Alan Clarke just long enough to decide to take myself off to newer and shorter threads …

    The trick is this, skip over everything Alan and Roger has to say (Too much information.) and my attempts at mocking them and read Josh, David Marjanovi? and Owlmirror.

  322. #323 paleotn
    March 16, 2009

    Another vote in solidarity with Janine. Most on the “boot list” seem to be just garden variety kooks and Jebus freaks. Annoying, but on the other hand occasionally entertaining. Kind of like watching the monkeys at the zoo. But within that “Jebus is Luuuuv” crowd are some truly nasty excuses for human beings. Those are the ones who really need to be exposed for the hatemongers they are and shown the door. So I cast one more vote for Barb the Wicked.

    Then again I could vote for Facilis for the simple reason his user name sounds like a venereal disease.

    Nah, Barb of Darkness gets my vote.

  323. #324 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing.

    You don’t…care for bacon?

  324. #325 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing.

    That’s because they all love bacon.

  325. #326 David Wiener
    March 16, 2009

    Pete

  326. #327 TigerHunter
    March 16, 2009

    After reviewing the evidence against the accused… Barb.

  327. #328 Hank Fox
    March 16, 2009

    Do we get a bonus set of 6 Ginsu Steak Knives for nominating the winning troll?

    I can’t nominate any of them — sadly, I haven’t been here enough lately to know who’s who.

    But is the nomination just for being stupid? Or is it for gratuitous and never-ending attacks on other commenters?

    If it’s for stupidity, is that really enough?

    I do hate it when a thread is sort-of-hijacked by an idiot, and everybody’s attention slides away from the original point of the post. But not every bit of that is the idiot’s fault.

    In the past, the only ones I’ve really wanted out were the ones who made the Pharyngula experience unpleasant for me personally, by attacking me (or someone I know/like) directly.

    Over the years I’ve been online, I’ve discovered that the low-level trolls and idiots actually made me better at voicing and understanding my own arguments. Fighting with them can be good PRACTICE.

    But, then again, I guess as long as we don’t run out of them, any specific one can be ousted without harm.

  328. #329 Pierce R. Butler
    March 16, 2009

    Maybe it’s too late for this round, but in the future, could Pharyngula set an educational example and institute instant run-off voting for these important elections?

    Those who just can’t put their two-cents’-worth in without writing an essay can nominate prospective immunity challenge questions. (300 comments here and no such suggestions? Who are you guys, and what have you done with the real Pharyngula regulars?)

  329. #330 ehobbit
    March 16, 2009

    Too many comments for me to sift through! How do you have time to read them all? :/

  330. #331 aiabx
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, please

  331. #332 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Facilis for the simple reason his user name sounds like a venereal disease.con

    Also, a condom would prevent both.

  332. #333 Onychomys
    March 16, 2009

    Facilis, because I hate people who hide behind anonymous internet pseudonyms.

  333. #334 Kate
    March 16, 2009

    Janine,

    Yes, I know they are regulars. Yes, I am aware of their contributions, having been a regular reader of Pharyngula since before it hit Scienceblogs.

    I made that comment because it seems to me that they’ve forgotten who it is that actually writes this blog, makes up it policies and decides what gets done, or not done, here.

    PZ decided we were going to play “Survivor Pharyngula”. He set out the rules, and ensured that those he chose out of the nominations had already violated his previously, and quite publicly, posted rules.

    If he had simply decided to ban them, instead of letting the rest of us have some fun with it, I doubt they would have complained. The complaints being made are what we as a group would normally categorize as “Concern Trolling”. (IMO) I see no reason to give anyone a pass on behaviour that would normally be ridiculed.

    It’s all about equality.

  334. #335 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Hmmm, a lot of people (myself included) didn’t recognize all the names. I think next round would benefit if PZ puts profiles of our contestants and quotes of theirs. Here’s how it might look:

    Facilis: Has defended God killing 42 children for merely mocking a prophet. Had a “proof” of God which was just an Argument from Ignorance (summary of his argument can be found here ). Has repeated said “proof” over and over and over while ignoring the criticisms of it.

    Quote:

    I’ll do my own humorous summary
    “Debating with an atheist”
    Atheist: I deny the existence of air
    Facilis: what?? You’re breathing now. Air is the necessary precondition for breathing.
    A: No. I see no reason why air is necessary for breathing. I am breathing now and i don’t believe in air.
    F: It the impossibility of the contrary. What else could you be breathing.

    [Note: This made the FSTDT Top 100]

    Barb: Long winded, dumb, insanely evil. Thinks the one or two scientist that don’t believe in evolution is evidence against it. Called everyone here arrogant and close minded in the same post she said that no proof would ever convince her of evolution. Never shuts up about her creationist, Alpha male MD husband.

    Quote:

    “For ID evidence: how do we get the sexes, sexual reproduction, organs, self-healing skin, hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source, our computer-like brains, our eyes and the ability to see colors?

    [Note: Her computer-like brain is a broken TRS-80]

    Pete Rooke: Made EXTREMELY gruesome analogies involving corpses, rape, and books made from human skin. Then posted said analogies SEVERAL times here. Complains about the language of this blog even though he has filters blocking foul language on his browser.

    Quote:

    Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.

  335. #336 Kristjan Wager
    March 16, 2009

    Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing. At least I think so.

    Actually, I don’t think you get the point here. PZ wants to reduce the number of trolls and pig-ignorant posters here, since they are being disruptive to the general conversation going on here. Instead of picking one (or more) himself to boot, he’s leaving it up to us to pick one (or more?) to get rid off. This allows those who are getting disrupted to have a say in which person is the biggest problem.

    Note that PZ doesn’t ban, or offer up for general ridicule, any commenter who comes here in good faith to argue, who are willing to listen to other peoples’ arguments, and who are willing to change their mind, when warranted. He only offers up people who have demonstrated (in his opinion) that they do not participate in the conversations in a meaningful way

  336. #337 I love sticking Pigs
    March 16, 2009

    You don’t…care for bacon?

    That’s because they all love bacon.

    Bacon has to be one of the best things ever. Imagine what a loving god we have to give mankind BACON! The dog & I agree, bacon is the best and anyone who says different can eat beans.

  337. #338 Cath the Canberra Cook
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    idahogie, I couldn’t possibly. Can I just hit on Janine instead and hope Barb is disgusted and goes away?

    Sven: LOL. Just step away from the computer.

  338. #339 Patricia, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Sven DiMilo is hereby banned from the spanking couch until the game is over.

  339. #340 Grendels Dad
    March 16, 2009

    Mark wasn’t holding the conch when he said that!

  340. #341 Lou FCD
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  341. #342 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Mark #315

    Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing. At least I think so.

    Your concern is noted.

  342. #343 cicely
    March 16, 2009

    I would have to go with Barb.

    Aaron @51:

    If monkeys tasted anywhere as good as bacon, we would have eaten them all long ago.

    I believe you’ve got something, there. Evolution has clearly favored monkeys that taste as un-bacon-like as possible.

    Of course, the flip-side might be to select for monkeys that taste as much like broccoli, or turnips, as possible. Sort of like selecting for poisonousness.
    :)

  343. #344 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @335: Oh, how wrong you are. Professor Meyers persecutes all those who only seek to spread the word of the Lord to the masses. And then, the man has the nerve to suggest that it adds nothing useful to the conversation–when what could be more useful than how to avoid eternal torture in hell and find eternal life in heaven?

    Besides, Real True Christians understand that so many of these conversations are useless. Take the Titanoboa, for example. Some of you criticize Pete Rooke for diverting the conversation away from this Satan-snake and onto other matters. You perhaps think you could be theorizing on the Satan-snake’s behavior, or habitat, or some other science-y thing like its position in the Great Hierarchy of Living Beings.

    But we Real True Christians realize that, before the Fall, it was a simple creature of the Garden of Eden that did not need to eat, drink of even breathe. After the Fall, God smote it for looking like the form Satan took to corrupt Eve. Duh. Stupid Evilutionists.

  344. #345 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    What condition are Piggy’s glasses in?

  345. #346 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Let it be noted, this time I was not the one responsible for the left turn to bacon.

    Well, not directly at least.

  346. #347 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    Am I eligible for this immunity challenge? I haven’t been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom).

    Facilis, intelligent design IS creationism…

    [from Of Pandas and People]
    (pre supreme court decision) Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact?fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.
    (post supreme court decision) means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

  347. #348 Longtime Lurker
    March 16, 2009

    If Pete Rooke writes a story about a milkmonkey with carious teeth, I’m nominating him for the immunity challenge.

    I’m seconding spurge’s question@88, what about the glibertarian trolls? Nobody derails a thread like those stinkers!

  348. #349 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Continued Profiles of our contestants.

    Alan Clarke: Complained about Pharyngula being a group therapy session and then proceed to tell several intimidate, disturbing details of his life. Regularly quotes the Bible and AiG. Odd obsession with Owlmirror.

    Quote

    This phenomena of gigantism was described in the Bible before actual fossil discoveries were made: Genesis 6:4 – “There were giants in the earth in those days…”

    Simon: Never added a single worthwhile thing. Accuses others of being homosexual and then spends the next 10 posts graphically talking about a pensis entering an anus.

    Quote:

    Frankly, the last thing I need now is armchair psychologists

    good ! your first patient should be a friend of yours and you need a gynaecological chair as well to check his anus.
    And check whether his penis and anus evolved well, probably the anus became vagina.

  349. #350 Blue Fielder
    March 16, 2009

    Has anyone else noticed that most obnoxious trolls have a tendency to use common names? I’d say they’re out to disrupt us one way or the other – either through the sheer hatred, ignorance, or self-righteousness of their posts, or by causing us inconvenience should we killfile them.

  350. #351 DaveL
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Simon. He doesn’t even appear capable of offering even the feeble apologetics of Facilis or Barb. In fact it seems he’s interested only in broadcasting his anal sex fixation to the whole damn internet.

  351. #352 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    That should say:
    Intelligent Designmeans that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

  352. #353 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: AnthonyK | March 16, 2009 5:20 PM
    “Everyone else gathering round chanting “kill the pig!” is disturbing.”
    “That’s because they all love bacon.”

    Real bacon… not that slab o’ ham British or chunk o’ fat Argentine kind.

  353. #354 CrypticLife
    March 16, 2009

    I vote — Pete Rooke.

    Barb is insufferable, but if she’s banned here she’s more likely to go back to another site I frequent. It took a while to chase her out of there (far fewer commenters), and I don’t want to do it again.

  354. #355 Bradley Jones
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    After reviewing some of the evidence against her, I really want to see if a person that inane can write one cogent paragraph when something so important to them is at stake: their forum for trolling.

    I have my doubts given my experience with people who have a mental illness.

  355. #356 Pig Sticker
    March 16, 2009

    That bacon sandwich & I have a date. Please excuse me for several hours.

    Bye Barb.

    PS: Barb. no one cares if your husband is a MD. It gets no points and begs the question…Are you proud of yourself? Isn’t that a sin? You are probably just like all those airheaded girls I went to undergrad w/. They were only there to meet the pre-meds & wanted nothing but their MRS married to a doctor degree.

  356. #357 humorix
    March 16, 2009

    It is not nice to make fun of drawings published in ‘ WashingtonPost ‘!

  357. #358 hje
    March 16, 2009

    It won’t take 538.com statistical magic to pick the “winner” here.

  358. #359 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    PigSticker @ #355:

    PS: Barb. no one cares if your husband is a MD. It gets no points and begs raises the question…Are you proud of yourself? Isn’t that a sin?

    There, fixed that for you. (sorry, that one always gets my goat)

  359. #360 Claire Kelly
    March 16, 2009

    Barb is a vicious bitch who must be stopped.

  360. #361 2-D Man
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll delurk to vote for the one who, like her namesake, is so prickly and hurtful.
    Well done, Barb, well done.

  361. #362 Technicolorful
    March 16, 2009

    Drop the banhammer on Barb. She’s possibly the most annoying in my opinion.

  362. #363 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I believe you’ve got something, there. Evolution has clearly favored monkeys that taste as un-bacon-like as possible.

    I dunno about that, given the form of the immunity challenge, we might have to add a corollary:

    If evolution has favored monkeys to NOT taste like bacon, why do we call humans “long-pig”?

  363. #364 James F
    March 16, 2009

    Somewhat off topic: I think that The Real World: Pharyngula would be very entertaining.

  364. #365 CrypticLife
    March 16, 2009

    On second thought, I change my vote to Simon.

    Pete Rooke was disturbing, but at least he presents an argument. If that’s representative of Simon’s quotes he’s just annoying.

    And Barb’s “hearts that beat without any external energy source” is just hilarious.

  365. #366 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    If the female Pharyngulites like to call themselves “vagitarians” (although I find the term “labiatarians” more apropos to this blog), what do we with the male appendage call ourselves?

  366. #367 George
    March 16, 2009

    Facilis. He/she might actually try the immunity challenge. See the post #125 – ’nuff said. Or the hopeless quote that I trust is correct in #334.

  367. #368 the other Adam
    March 16, 2009

    BARB! She’s hateful, wilfully ignorant beyond any hope of redemption, and plainly just here to argue, not to debate.
    Mr. Kwok doesn’t bother me, and the others I recognize are usually easier to ignore. Half of the list don’t stand out enough to have made an impression on me.

    I see Inky’s point about making martyrs, but the reason we ban trolls is to keep the conversation from getting mired in idiocy (it’s rules of engagement, not censorship). The alleged lulz that ensue after these master debaters chime in are repetitive, tiresome, and just bloat the comments beyond my willingness to even attempt to follow them.

  368. #369 P.C.Chapman
    March 16, 2009

    Come on PZ,
    If one of these morons can’t answer in ,lets see , how about five words they should be voted off the island.
    Can anybody guess them?

  369. #370 WTFinterrobang
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Barb but I was really hoping to submit the whole lot of them to trial by water!

  370. #371 John Kwok
    March 16, 2009

    “If evolution is true, why are still monkeys?” That’s rather an easy question to answer IMHO. Although we – humanity – and monkeys are both primates – and thus are related relatively closely by common descent – we have undertaken our own separate evolutionary histories as different Primate clades during the Cenozoic Era (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period)).

    Sincerely yours,

    John Kwok

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

  371. #372 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    Has anyone else noticed that most obnoxious trolls have a tendency to use common names? I’d say they’re out to disrupt us one way or the other – either through the sheer hatred, ignorance, or self-righteousness of their posts, or by causing us inconvenience should we killfile them.

    …or making it difficult to name our children without fear of painful flashbacks…

  372. #373 paleotn
    March 16, 2009

    AnthonyK #330

    Facilis for the simple reason his user name sounds like a venereal disease.con

    Also, a condom would prevent both.

    Yep. Alas, if their fathers had only known what wack-o-loons they would create, they might have taken a few more precautions. Dammit, wack-o-loon prevention is so darn facilis….uh, I mean easy.

  373. #374 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    I might need to change my vote.

    What an egomaniac.

  374. #375 cpsmith
    March 16, 2009

    As the daughter of a lesbian I vote for Barb. She hasn’t said anything more vile that what I’ve heard hundreds of times before from well meaning Christians, but it still sucks to hear the same crap over and over and over and over….

    As for those who are concerned that this is censorship, keep in mind that it is really easy to avoid getting banned (all they need to do is answer one fairly simple question). Not only that, but this is not a systematic banning of everyone who holds contrary points of view. It is banning one person (one who contributes nothing to the conversation) for shits and giggles. If it doesn’t tickle your funny bone, that is fine but most people seem to be having fun.

  375. #376 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then.

  376. #377 ian
    March 16, 2009

    Not tasting like bacon gives humans a leg up on pigs, foodchainwise. Clever of us, back when we were monkeys, to have thought “Whatever becomes of us as a species, let’s not wind up tasting like pork.”

  377. #378 WTFinterrobang
    March 16, 2009

    Me thinks that John Kwok thinks he’s the Crabman on Buddybook.

    Idiot!

  378. #379 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    well, we’ve got two contestants now.

    facilis’ description was short and superficial, but accurate

    kwok’s was in-depth, but he was unable to keep himself from being a blowhard for even a single post.

    facilis leads the immunity challenge.

  379. #380 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    “If evolution has favored monkeys to NOT taste like bacon, why do we call humans “long-pig”?”

    That’s just more proof we didn’t descend from monkeys.
    Pass the long bacon please.

  380. #381 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then.

    Bullshit.

  381. #382 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: John Kwok | March 16, 2009

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    Does he actively work at this or is it just his personality?

  382. #383 Ben
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    She makes me wish there were a god, just so I could hate her for all eternity, even though I’d be burning in hell, I guess, according to her hateful logic, and I’m pretty sure Satan caused me to write this run-on sentence.

    What a smug, judgmental, dishonest, boneheaded idiot she is.

  383. #384 Elliott
    March 16, 2009

    You mean we only get to pick one?

    Here’s the simple answer: they’re all idiots – they all go!

  384. #385 khan
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    LOL.
    Tell me that’s from someone older than 12.

  385. #386 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    Mayhempix at #365 ….

    Pen(is)ultimate? Dicquavering? Fail-us? Sven?

    Tax Religion.
    Tark

  386. #387 Stephanurus
    March 16, 2009

    Can we see pictures of the contestants, please?
    Stephanurus

  387. #388 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    pffft. I actually was starting to enjoy the Rookester.

  388. #389 sparkomatic
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

    Definitely Barb. Now if only we could find a way to purge any memory of the putrid wreaking stench of her epic bigotry…

  389. #390 Cannabinaceae
    March 16, 2009

    Maybe we can develop a protocol for responding to Stupid Trolls®, in which we proleptically vote against them. Like: “Barb@1122: IVYOTP1; rest of comment follows” or some such.

    I mean, with my limited time, I’m really not going to wade through hundreds of comments.

    1. I vote you off the planet.

  390. #391 Claire Kelly
    March 16, 2009

    This is not about crushing dissenting views or getting others to toe the line, acadmically speaking…

    For my money (although as a starving academic myself, that’s not a hell of a lot of money) this is an opportunity to wave goodbye to someone who cannot distinguish between a consensual relationship with a person of the same sex, and rape and pedophilia. It’s hard to enjoy reading the comments when you have to worry about reading something that fundamentally sickening.

  391. #392 nick nick bobick
    March 16, 2009

    BARB is the only one who’s continual stupidity really irks me. She has my vote because she is beyond saving by us or her imaginary god.

  392. #393 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    @BMS, #270
    Did you really have to go to such extremes to validate my ‘flame-baiting’ assumption? I understand that the minority she arguing against have had to deal with people like Barb their entire lives, but if we’re banning people here based on the hatefulness and close mindedness of their opinions…

    hint, hint?

    @Kate, #333

    The complaints being made are what we as a group would normally categorize as “Concern Trolling”. (IMO) I see no reason to give anyone a pass on behaviour that would normally be ridiculed.

    Excuse me, but what the hell is this garbage? I’m usually very hesitant to purposely antagonize anyone, but are you -really- saying what I think you’re saying? That anyone who comes in here to try to defend your piggy (to use Mark#315′s fitting allusion) of the hour, is a “Concern Troll” and should be ridiculed? I hope not.

    I appreciate that I’m not going to save Barb from being banned here; the masses have overwhelmingly demanded their pound of flesh. I just hope that maybe my previous rant made a single person stop and think about the mob behaviour here. So to finish off my “concern trolling”, I’ll say that I agree with Professor Myers’ right to set this pit of vipers hissing, and his right to ban anyone from commenting that he disapproves of. What disgusts me is the lack of rational thought, and excess of hate being demonstrated in the comments that goes unremarked.

  393. #394 Klokwurk
    March 16, 2009

    Barb with simon a close second… though I think John Kwok gets special mention now for trying to threaten PZ with the lost of some facebook friends.

  394. #395 ctenotrish
    March 16, 2009

    Awww, I am developing this sort of HUGE crush on Sven! Can I keep him (or her)?? Soooo funny!

    I ignore most of the really vapid posts, so cannot in all conscience cast a vote.

    (But I’ll vote for Sven for a Molly)

  395. #396 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    anyhow, am I the only one who thinks RogerS is a sockpuppet of alan clarke?

  396. #397 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then.

    Really? Have you not been paying attention?

  397. #398 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Not tasting like bacon gives humans a leg up on pigs, foodchainwise. Clever of us, back when we were monkeys, to have thought “Whatever becomes of us as a species, let’s not wind up tasting like pork.”

    Are you sure about that.

  398. #399 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    I am beginning to seriously seriously think that John is a Kwoe.

  399. #400 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    I have promised not to address J*hn Kw*k, but c’mon. That Facebook threat was easily the funniest thing in the whole thread.

  400. #401 Silver Fox
    March 16, 2009

    What a crock!!

    Almost 300 posts and I barely get a dishonorable mention.

    MU:
    “Silver Fox would be my target”

    Sorry, MU. I didn’t even make the short list.

    What a bunch of toadies: “Thank you Dr. P.Z., “You’re so wonderful Dr. P.Z.”, “Can I kiss your ring Dr. P.Z.” What a bunch of sycophantic ass-kissers!

    What is surprising is that Barb is running away with this poll. There must be more to Barb than meets the eye. I was never impressed that Barb was so much head and shoulders over this rabble.

  401. #402 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    SF

    Do you taste like bacon?

  402. #403 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    sf, too late to fish for your nomination now. you’ll have to wait till next week

  403. #404 John Kwok
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ -

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

  404. #405 firemancalr
    March 16, 2009

    @ #343

    Real True Christians

    Shouldn’t that have a TM somewhere next to it?

  405. #406 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    tee hee

  406. #407 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    i think i’m about to change my vote…

  407. #408 A. Noyd
    March 16, 2009

    My vote? Barb.

    I also want to say that this is not the one and only place for all people in the world to speak out, so it’s hardly censorship to boot trolls. Furthermore, the candidates are being judged on what they’ve said already and they have a way out. They don’t even have to agree with the explanation for monkeys, they just have to get it technically correct.

    Ultimately, this is a playground for atheists, scientists and science nerds. Why should we tolerate people who are disruptive and spew unmitigated ugliness or stupidity or self-promotion in a place where we’re enjoying ourselves? It’s not like this contest is a call to silence all who disagree or all who argue for things that are the product of flawed thinking. We only want them to be able to listen to and understand what is said to them, whether they agree or not. I don’t think this is too much to ask.

  408. #409 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    dearest mayhempix,

    If the female Pharyngulites like to call themselves “vagitarians” (although I find the term “labiatarians” more apropos to this blog), what do we with the male appendage call ourselves?

    Ask yourself this: What do vegetarians eat?

    That should help explain the moniker “vagitarian.”

    ‘Tis not about the parts we posses.

  409. #410 Mark
    March 16, 2009

    @403, I’m sure PZ is quaking in his boots. Make your vague and impotent threats elsewhere.

  410. #411 Steve_C
    March 16, 2009

    HAHAHA. Fuck you John. Geeze. I almost wanna change my vote because you’re such a douche bag.

  411. #412 Stephen Wells
    March 16, 2009

    @403: are you even aware of why people are laughing at you?

  412. #413 CSue
    March 16, 2009

    This mostly-lurker votes for GIL. Boot the batty one.

    BTW – Klokwurk? Sounds more like KwokLurk to me. :>

  413. #414 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ -

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  414. #415 ZK
    March 16, 2009

    TheSciencePundit @2
    What about Mark that recently showed up in an old cracker thread?
    That wasn’t me[1]

    E.V. @319
    Perhaps it is because you identify as a pig. Just sayin’
    I wondered if somebody would say “wooo, you must be a creationist!” or some such. But nope. I’m just your regular militant atheist. There are no sky fairies on me :-)

    Sven @323
    You don’t…care for bacon?
    Bacon is yummy, as are shrimp and lobster… I wonder what owls taste like?

    Grendels Dad @339
    Mark wasn’t holding the conch when he said that!
    Sucks to your asthma!

    Blue Fielder @349
    Has anyone else noticed that most obnoxious trolls have a tendency to use common names?
    [1]That’s a reasonable point which I hope wasn’t aimed at me, however since my parents gave me a rather common first name I’ll use the initials of my “hiding behind a made up name” name from now on, so as not to be confused with any creatures of the under the bridge variety :-)
    (I hope this doesn’t bust P.Z.’s “no fucking about with your nick” rule or something).

    Oh well, I rather thought I’d be in a minority of one, but nevermind.

    John Kwok @370
    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.
    What a wanker. If I were P.Z. I’d bounce you right out the door just for laughs. And @403 again.

  415. #416 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok @ #403

    @ PZ -
    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    Bwa ha ha ha! Beware PZ, you might lose JohnKwok001 – JohnKwok999 from your Facebook friends!

  416. #417 Lowell
    March 16, 2009

    Pastor Pete has been complaining about the amount of “vitriol” directed at him here since he first started posting back in Crackergate. Now he says he’s leaving for good! I’ll believe it when I see it. He’s flounced out before.

    And John Kwok is seriously threatening PZ with a loss of Facebook friends? *Snort* What a fucking joke.

  417. #418 Steve_C
    March 16, 2009

    OK. That’s it. Bounce Kwok just for laughs.

  418. #419 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | March 16, 2009

    I do not take her comment as an personal attack on me. And I asked her that question about a dozen times, so I pushed her for an answer. I did so because I find her to be typical of fundamentalist christian parents who kick their GLBT children out of their homes. I do not hate her because of what she said to me. I hate her because I have seen the harm that people like her have done to their children.

    ————————————————————

    Posted by: Brian in Edmonton | March 16, 2009

    @235 – Thanks for the helpful clarification there Janine, and I hope that if you read what I posted a couple minutes before you, you won’t be too upset by it.

    ————————————————————

    Posted by: BMS | March 16, 2009

    Barb claims that she herself sees a difference between homosexuality and rape, but that her opinion does not matter because her God sees no distinction. This is a useful post!

    No, not it’s not a useful post.

    Why?

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck what she fucking claims.

    Because what she says is nothing new. She offers no insight. I, and other LGBTs have heard that bullshit all our fucking lives.

    And we’re fucking sick of it.

    On top of that, the waste of carbon Barb knows what she says is personally hurtful to us. Such is not an academic discussion – it’s an attack, an old old old, tired and mean and bullshit attack.

    It illuminates nothing.

    Do you not have any comprehension whatsoever the psychological, the physical damage these knuckledraggers do to their LGBT children, to all LGBT children, to all LGBTs??

    I mean, fuck.

    So fuck you, too, for your complete lack of empathy.

    Fucker.

    ————————————————————

    Posted by: Brian in Edmonton | March 16, 2009

    @BMS, #270
    Did you really have to go to such extremes to validate my ‘flame-baiting’ assumption? I understand that the minority she arguing against have had to deal with people like Barb their entire lives, but if we’re banning people here based on the hatefulness and close mindedness of their opinions…

    ————————————————————

    Brian, BMS and I made the same point. The only difference is that this time, I decided not to swear. I understand and endorse every profanity BMS used.

  419. #420 Ragutis
    March 16, 2009

    Fuck it… I take back my vote. Let Barb stay, boot this childish Kwok twat.

  420. #421 Shelly
    March 16, 2009

    Please boot Barb please. Runner up would be John “I have famous imaginary friends” Kwok.

  421. #422 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Brian in Edmonton @ 392

    In case I wasn’t clear:

    FUCK

    YOU

  422. #423 Steve_C
    March 16, 2009

    OK. That’s it. Bounce Kwok just for laughs.

  423. #424 Lee Picton
    March 16, 2009

    We find trolls useful in so many ways, but Barb has no socially redeeming features whatever. I have never seen a troll so hateful or purely evil. She is a disgrace to humanity, because she hasn’t any. Can you all tell that Barb gets my vote?

  424. #425 Mike Caton
    March 16, 2009

    For anyone who’s ever heard the Howard Stern show, you can’t help noticing how much John Kwok is like a combination of Eric the Midget (with his tantrums and threats) and the New Atheist Elegant Elliot Offen (with his repeatedly shouted multisyllabic three-world insults like “mendacious intellectual pornography!” (if you ever heard the show you heard that in Elliott’s voice). But I can’t have as much fun with it ever since it occurred to me that maybe the guy just has a major cognitive condition like Asperger’s. Reading his posts just made me sad.

  425. #426 Martin
    March 16, 2009

    Definitely John Kwok. It was a toss-up between him and Barb, but post #403 did it for me.

    Go play with your Facebook friends, John.

  426. #427 Patricia, OM
    March 16, 2009

    ctenotrish – Feel free to play with Sven, but remember he’s banned from the spanking couch until Wednesday.

  427. #428 Alex
    March 16, 2009

    Holding Facebook-friends hostage? Really? Are you in the 5th grade or something? Do you really think it’s a traumatic event to “lose” a Facebook friend. Wow. That explains a lot.

  428. #429 Petursey
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.. i read the links… i saw the sheer dumb brain-washed vacuous xtian crap and bigotry against LGBT people…. she’s got to go….

  429. #430 adobedragon
    March 16, 2009

    Barb, por favor, although Facilis’s Facebook threat made it a difficult choice.

    I was initially inclined to vote for the Rokester, but his whole “tortured analogies involving necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen” schtick, is kind of amusing, in a “what if Stephen King was a sicko, cracker-obsessed, Catholic?” sort of way.

    I agree with a poster above. Why no libertarian trolls on the list? I hate it when the Asshole from Oregan shows up and starts babbling about three legged stools. Kick his ass to the curb.

  430. #431 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Kwok,

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    [Bold mine]

    LOL!

    I hope you realize that everyone here is laughing at you. Also, you are just increasing your chances of being kicked out.

  431. #432 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice.

    I am reading this with Stephen Colbert’s voice.

  432. #433 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: BMS | March 16, 2009 6:20 PM
    “Ask yourself this: What do vegetarians eat?
    That should help explain the moniker “vagitarian.”
    ‘Tis not about the parts we posses.”

    Well at least now it’s clear.
    I too am a vagitarian.

  433. #434 ZK
    March 16, 2009

    Shelly @420
    John “I have famous imaginary friends” Kwok
    Perhaps they’re not imaginary, perhaps they’re just not his friends?

  434. #435 Benjamin Geiger
    March 16, 2009

    Bwahahahahaa.

    John Kwok has failed so hard it wrapped back around to win.

  435. #436 badrescher
    March 16, 2009

    That first name scared the crap out of me. I don’t particularly care about the ability to comment, but there was a moment when I wondered if I was one of those delusional people who only think they post fairly innocuous comments (and rarely) when, in reality, they are obnoxious pains in the collective ass.

    If you’re delusional, how would you know? Seriously.

    I am relieved to find out it’s a creationist harpy, which I am not. So, to avoid future panic attacks, I vote Barb!

  436. #437 reboho
    March 16, 2009

    Don’t know if it’s been suggested but for all those on your ban list, have the background color match the text color on their posts. You could read it if you hilite the text but otherwise they wouldn’t be able to cry to the world that you banned them. And those of us who find them offensive would only see the the redacted post and read it only if interested.

  437. #438 adobedragon
    March 16, 2009

    Oh, frack. My bad. Make the “Kwok’s” Facebook threat. It’s so hard to keep track of the crazies; need a scorecard.

  438. #439 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    “I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice”

    It’s just a fracking Kwoker.
    Best to impale it on a rusty nail and throw in the wastebasket.

  439. #440 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok has failed so hard it wrapped back around to win.

    Indeed. Borders on inspiring, that.

  440. #441 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    Also, you are just increasing your chances of being kicked out.

    seconded.

    If I voted for Barb to get on this list to begin with, I really have to vote for John to be first OFF of it (and out of here).

    He has become a tendentious bore of late.

    despite the fact that he is a staunch anti-creationist, his whacky rethuglican rants, name dropping idiocy, and inability to separate argument from person, makes me constantly hearken back to the old saying:

    “with friends like this…”

    I vote to boot him for the same reason Uncommonly Dense got rid of John Davison.

  441. #442 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    Sorry, needle still stuck at #365 ….

    Scrotumscious? Enmanced? ExMenstral? Kwokless?

    Somebody please **headdesk** to free me from this groove…

    Tax Religion. Feed the children, bacon.
    Tark

  442. #443 Notagod
    March 16, 2009

    Ah, too bad Facilis :( Nice try though.

    I wonder if the kooks can submit multiple entries? If not Facilis should get one point for being first and one point because it’s funny to think of a penis-person feverishly typing out its christian god-idea gooblebot.

  443. #444 Eidolon
    March 16, 2009

    Although Barb the Fatuous Bint appears to heading for victory lane, I’d like to write in AG. It is virtually certain that he/she can be depended upon to try to derail any thread into a fact proof rant about AGW.

    Petey – Certainly no more abuse than you usually get. You know, if you did not attempt to try to turn everything into a philosophy debate, you’d not get so much abuse. And do try to learn some science, will ya?

  444. #445 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I am reading this with Stephen Colbert’s voice.

    LOL

    exactly.

    the problem is, John is entirely serious, and wouldn’t understand sarcasm even if Ken Miller explained it to him.

  445. #446 Daenyx
    March 16, 2009

    My vote’s for Barb, though Kwok was pretentious enough in his response to this to make me giggle.

  446. #447 PZ Myers
    March 16, 2009

    Have I just been threatened with facebook retaliation?

    I think I need to go lie down. I’m feeling an attack of the vapors.

  447. #448 Jazmin
    March 16, 2009

    I’m not a frequent poster but I try to visit here every day.

    My vote is for Barb to go.

  448. #449 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    ah but ichthyic, you don’t understand. Ken Miller doesn’t explain things to Kwok; Kwok explains things to Ken Miller!

  449. #450 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 16, 2009 6:05 PM
    “I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then.”

    He’s just jealous Barb has left him in the dust.

  450. #451 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Continued profiles of our contestants

    John Kwok: (AKA Johhny Kookz) Name dropper. Has imaginary famous friends. Unhealthy obsession with Abbie Smith. Threatened PZ with “losing some friends over at Facebook” if he gets banned and by doing so increased his chances of being banned.

    Quote:

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

  451. #452 Rick Schauer
    March 16, 2009

    I vote Barb.

    But will miss Patricia’s “barbs” that have repeated raked Barb across the coals of reason…as I squeeled with laughter and delight.

  452. #453 Guy Incognito
    March 16, 2009

    Sweet, a lurker can effect change at Pharyngula. I just can’t vote against homophobia, so I say toss Barb, but this John Kwok fella really reminds me of one of those catty little teenagers from that movie Mean Girls.

  453. #454 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    @Tark

    See post #432 for**headdesk**.
    You too may be a vagitarian.

  454. #455 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    On second thoughts I will fight this tyranny.

    1. I never said that wearing a mini-skirt absolved rape of said person. Merely that it might increase the risk of a person being raped. The statistics do not, I was then told, support this view.

    2. I don’t deny evolution. Neither does the Catholic church.

    3. Do not distort the analogies. They were fantasies of mine only in the sense that they were imaginings/fictions. One can write of things that one disapproves of, no?

    4. I am heartened to hear from my supporters.

    5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    6. My apologies to the feminists whom I offended.

    7. On the gruesome trio: I feel we are not too dissimilar so as to be unable to learn from one another, profanities excepted.

  455. #456 Lowell
    March 16, 2009

    Ichthyic,

    Ken Miller? Why does that name ring a bell? Maybe if I knew where he went to undergrad it would help me place it.

  456. #457 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    Kwok will then retrieve his spheroid and retire to his domicile.

  457. #458 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    Whoooeeee! OMG that was truly funny! My best estimate… age 14. I could be off by a year or two, but I doubt much more than that.

    Good luck with puberty. Remember, even if you love Jesus, make him use a condom.

  458. #459 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I appreciate that I’m not going to save Barb from being banned here; the masses have overwhelmingly demanded their pound of flesh.

    oh please, save the fucking histrionics, eh?

  459. #460 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    mayhempix,

    Well at least now it’s clear.
    I too am a vagitarian.

    Well, I suppose so. Although I think it’s more a combination of, uh, diet and parts….

  460. #461 Allen
    March 16, 2009

    Now you guys have made an old lurker curious about Barb’s idiocies. Does anyone have a worst of her comments list somewhere?
    I’m feeling masochistic.

  461. #462 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Ever notice how close Rooke and Kwok come to Kook?

    This could be the proof for Intelligent Design Dumbski has been waiting for…

  462. #463 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    anyhow, am I the only one who thinks RogerS is a sockpuppet of alan clarke?

    Excellent point, they only appear on the same threads.

  463. #464 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    On second thoughts I will fight this tyranny.

    They can take away my life. But they cannot take away my FREEDOM!

  464. #465 Jafafa Hots
    March 16, 2009

    uhoh. I think this means there’s soon going to be a “PZ Myers is a Big Meanie” Facebook group.

  465. #466 NateL
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Barb. Evil.

  466. #467 heddle
    March 16, 2009

    Good to see all you mature uber-rationalists behaving, um, maturely and rationally. The world will be so much kinder when you are in charge!

    Now I must spend time with some grownups–I have an E&M class to teach.

  467. #468 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Rooke,

    On second thoughts I will fight this tyranny.

    They always come back. Alright Petey answer the question:

    If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

  468. #469 Scott from Oregon
    March 16, 2009

    I always wondered where all the geeks who hid in the library in high school because they lacked anything resembling a personality and a spine eventually wound up…

    The answer- Pharyngula comment section where they get off tossing around their collective weight in cyber-anonymity…

    I suppose it is all highly understandable– all this geek-swagger.

    I mean really, when was the last time the real world ever took any of y’all’s name-calling and righteous self-congratulating seriously?

    It’s funny.

    Sad.

    But still funny…

  469. #470 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    @Mayhempix
    Oh, was already fully cognizant of underlying concept. Have had a seat at the buffet table early and often.

    Am just OCD enough to be unable to resist ‘create new word’
    challenges. Even if I have a distinct lack of talent in that
    area. The word thing, that is, not the buffet thing …

    Tax Religion. Purse your lips and smile upwards with your eyes…Mumbling “I love you”.
    Tark.

  470. #471 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Okay, I’m still digging Rooke.
    Sure, he’s demented, but he’s entertaining. Sometimes he’s even endearing.

    Kwoktwat is just ridiculous. Does his mother know he’s gotten past the parental locks?

    Barb is just plain evil and has no clue about it. That’s a dangerous combination.

    I vote Barb.

  471. #472 Ray Ladbury
    March 16, 2009

    OK, Barb is a homophobic assclown. Pete needs a good 12-step program and a blow job. Homo Facilis is a 12 nanowatt bulb. However, when somebody starts making threats, they elevate themselves to an asshole on the same level as my brother-in-law. And when the threat is as lame as John’s was, that cinches it. John has truly demonstated himself to be a Kwokpot.

  472. #473 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    kwok
    verb
    to not understand the most obvious references to one’s own obtuseness.
    Opposite of “to grock”.
    as in, “He just doesn’t fracking kwok it.”

  473. #474 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke:

    “I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then.”

    LOL

    lying for jesus again, Crow?

  474. #475 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    I appreciate that I’m not going to save Barb from being banned here; the masses have overwhelmingly demanded their pound of flesh. I just hope that maybe my previous rant made a single person stop and think about the mob behaviour here. So to finish off my “concern trolling”, I’ll say that I agree with Professor Myers’ right to set this pit of vipers hissing, and his right to ban anyone from commenting that he disapproves of. What disgusts me is the lack of rational thought, and excess of hate being demonstrated in the comments that goes unremarked.

    Your concern has already been noted. You have moved from the concern part of the description to the troll part.

  475. #476 The MadPanda
    March 16, 2009

    Must we choose? I am not a cruel Panda. Better to hold a mass purge and dump all the refuse at once so that the remainder do not suffer the psychological agony of wondering when they will be kicked off the island.

    Oh, who am I kidding? Trolls demonstrate no remorse. That is what makes them trolls and not merely people who disagree.

    It is a difficult call, but I must concur with the present majority: Barb. Dungeon. Immediately.

    To every tone-and-concern-D’Orc who has shown up to protest this, may I suggest you have a look under the Dungeon tab, there at the top? The rules are clearly listed, and given how patient PZ has been, those set for the chop have no right to complain at those rules finally being applied.

    (Kate #333 got it more or less right, I think. Well said, milady.)

    The MadPanda, FCD

  476. #477 Jafafa Hots
    March 16, 2009

    I think I’d be characterized more as a dirty hippie than a geek.

  477. #478 Alex
    March 16, 2009

    If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    Thermodynamics.

    It’s really disturbing if you think that is an interesting question. It shows that you have absolutely NO idea of the depth and breadth of factual knowledge about reality humanity has gained with science. You have NO idea of the intellect, creativity, and sheer tenacity of the researchers exploring and dedicating their lives to questions like these.

  478. #479 Holydust
    March 16, 2009

    I vote Pete Rooke, though it seems like it’s a waste of a vote. Barb is pitifully misled… Rooke is dangerous.

  479. #480 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    And just isn’t the atmosphere just lying flat on the surface of the Earth?

  480. #481 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I mean really, when was the last time the real world ever took any of y’all’s name-calling and righteous self-congratulating seriously?”

    your concern is noted, and it is, as usual, stupid.

    you’ll get to participate in the next vote, I’m sure, no reason to get jealous now, Scott.

  481. #482 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Now you guys have made an old lurker curious about Barb’s idiocies. Does anyone have a worst of her comments list somewhere?

    Here’s one:
    ” For ID evidence: how do we get the sexes, sexual reproduction, organs, self-healing skin, hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source, our computer-like brains, our eyes and the ability to see colors?” [Bold mine](Source)

  482. #483 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    SO @#468 again shows the Libertarian’s complete lack of perception of humor and sarcasm.

    He’s all kwoked up.

  483. #484 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    looky there, he’s capable of real humor!

    and I see SfO is of the deluded opinion that “geek” is an insult.

  484. #485 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    The SfO post at #468 can’t be real, it doesn’t end with “the mind boggles”…

  485. #486 Jafafa Hots
    March 16, 2009

    I’m not voting, because I’m like above all that or something.

    But I do find it interesting how this thread has attracted all the minor trolls who were snubbed for a nomination. I think some feelings have been hurt.

  486. #487 Cannabinaceae
    March 16, 2009

    @454: IVYOTP!

    5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    Are you just begging to be asked just how stupid you are, or did you make a huge amount of typos that totally ruined what would otherwise not be an obviously idiotic question? Because one reason there are clouds is that (along with, say various other known relationships of nature) gravitational theory is correct.

    Note to audience: I acknowledge that the quoted text may have been part of a Poe intended to make Pete Rooke look even more stupid than he looks when he posts his own text.

  487. #488 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    I don’t like the idea of banning, but it’s PZ’s blog and he’s asked us to choose.

    So, I choose Simon. Why him? Well, they’re all idiots – but what differentiates Simon from the rest is that he doesn’t inspire anyone to respond to him with any kind of illuminating and/or entertaining posts – at least, not in comparison.

    The others do – and they bring out the best in our regulars. Some of the cleverest, most informative (for me at least; remember, we’re not all scientists here), most inspiring and downright hilarious smackdown posts have been those written by the brilliant Josh, David Marjanovi?, Owlmirror, Sastra, Sven de Milo, Patricia, Janine, Kel, RevBDC and the other regulars.

    I know their odious blather inspires me to put on my angry pants and give them a good thrashing when the opportunity arises.

    Simon gets ignored, as do responses to him – hence the vote.

  488. #489 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    There should be a “why” after “just”.

  489. #490 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @ #468: You tell ‘em, man. After all, when was the last time ‘intellectuals’ and ‘reason’ or ‘learning’ did anything good for the world?

    Never, I say! The world would be a better place without Professor Meyers and his desire to make his voice heard, without his desire to bring ‘rationality’ to those who live in fear (rightfully so) of hell (though if you’re a Real True Christian, you don’t have to because the Lord will take you in his arms.)

    In fact, I say the world was far better without those ‘intellectuals.’ I yearn for a time before the internet, when we settled our disputes by torture and execution, rather than by debating it on a forum. Back then, it didn’t matter how much you actually knew–so long as you could kill people well enough.

    Perhaps when the Lord returns to Earth (pretty soon, I think, as we have elected the Antichrist to the White House) this will be how we argue again. God bless.

  490. #491 sparkomatic
    March 16, 2009

    There needs to be some kind of prize for Sven. Its rare one gets to experience such carefully crafted sarcasm (though comic sans or crayon would be nice). Molly for sure!

    Enough with the bacon guys! Isn’t it enough that I had to go out in the snow yesterday to fetch bacon and maple syrup for my expecting wife after reading the open thread?! Big Dumb Chimp what have I done to deserve this?

  491. #492 Conor H.
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. I don’t know Janine personally, but I can’t stand by and let someone rip on an e-acquittance of mine like that. And she’s just terrible, not even original.

  492. #493 Stu
    March 16, 2009

    Allah on an ampersand, is every damned irrational regular going to drop in with the vapors? Facilis, Pete Rooke, John Kwok, Heddle, Scott… all we need is Alan, Barb and AG and we should have a full house of the clueless.

  493. #494 windy
    March 16, 2009

    uhoh. I think this means there’s soon going to be a “PZ Myers is a Big Meanie” Facebook group.

    Defriend PZ Myers and get a Whopper free bacon!

  494. #495 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    They can take away my life. But they cannot take away my FREEDOM!

    knowing where Petey originally inserted himself (on the crackergate thread), you might like this:

    “Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while.
    And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’
    to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just
    one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may
    take our lives, but they’ll never take…
    OUR BAKED GOODS!”

    Welcome to Crackergate

  495. #496 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    @Tark
    “Am just OCD enough to be unable to resist ‘create new word’
    challenges.”

    Understood. Here is the word I think you were looking for:

    “Erectarian”

    And I appreciate your taste in the finer things of life.

  496. #497 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Scott
    I was the wrestler/geek who protected those library geeks, and we all know that it’s the high school geeks who go on to rule the world.
    Now stop running your mouth and flip those burgers.

  497. #498 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Quoting myself way way up thar @ 20:

    In solidarity w/ my sister vagitarian Janine, my vote is for Barb to go.

    (Runner-up: SfO.)

    He never disappoints to fail.

  498. #499 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok #403

    Awesome. Thanks, that was the best laugh I had all day.

    But, seriously, you need to get a new joke now. I think you’ve taken that one as far as it will go.

  499. #500 the other Adam
    March 16, 2009

    @Ichthyc: John really means it? And all this time I thought he was being brilliantly clever and nobody else got the joke and I wondered what he was doing on the list. I guess that makes him the Anti-Poe.

    I’m still not changing my vote.

    @mayhempix (365)
    “what do we with the male appendage call ourselves?”

    Phallusofers?

  500. #501 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    Thank you, Pete, for justifying my faith in you. While you can be an odious little twit, you do have a sense of humo(u)r. I’ve argued that you are salvageable and, like your fellow callow Brit Walton, just suffer from being naive.

  501. #502 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    Ray Ladbury,

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    No. 5 was a little joke.

    That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget.

    Jean-Paul Sartre

    I too cry out for God. Whether he hears I cannot be certain. I believe he does, and I pray he does. That he might not will, in the grand scheme of things, make little or no difference to this world as long as belief in such a being is exists as a lighthouse.

  502. #503 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Dang, my irony meter blew another fuse. Pete talking about fighting the tyranny of being banned when his blog is by “invitation only”. Way to be the hypocrite Pete. We didn’t invite you.

  503. #504 Lord Zero
    March 16, 2009

    i also think than those guys make the
    thread more fun.
    I would keep them for the lulz.

    And while its pains me to see people
    which is impervious to logic, its also
    great to realize than there are plenty of
    people which just cant stand that inannaty
    and cant help themselves but to jump in
    when idiocy appears.

  504. #505 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    Yay! Scott from Oregon has shown up (468)! I’m so proud of him for bringing up high-school. That’s where everything in life that matters happens after all. Plus, we all know that if you’re intelligent and rational you must not have been getting a ton of ass back then, played sports, or had any real friends etc. He probably knows this because he’s watched Porkys 64 times now.

    He even used the term “Geeks”. Oh my!

    Poor Scott. I think he’s just upset that once again the big kids ignored him and he didn’t make the list.

  505. #506 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    Pete @ #502

    Noted that your point 5 was a joke.

    What about your opening statement of #502, though? Not so obvious…

  506. #507 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    Ray Ladbury,

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    Not even if she wanted to? And you two were married to each other?

  507. #508 Stu
    March 16, 2009

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    *facepalm*

  508. #509 Zach
    March 16, 2009

    @John Kwok:

    Hah! I’ll thwart your plan by befriending PZ on facebook!

    your move!

  509. #510 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    Dear, dear, sweet child.

    Some women actually enjoy giving oral sex.

  510. #511 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    But still funny…

    We like to think so…

  511. #512 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Silver Fox can’t be expected to comment very often; he’s got a very special assignment to complete. In order to prevent Christianity from being invalidated by his own argument he has to disprove all the other gods who’ve ever been posited. This will, obviously, take a while – so don’t be too hard on him.

    Besides, all you have to do is remind him of this egregious fuckup and he runs away. Apparently, he’s a huge fan of the Sweet song Fox on he Run

  512. #513 Kate
    March 16, 2009

    Brian @ 392:

    “Excuse me, but what the hell is this garbage? I’m usually very hesitant to purposely antagonize anyone, but are you -really- saying what I think you’re saying? That anyone who comes in here to try to defend your piggy (to use Mark#315′s fitting allusion) of the hour, is a “Concern Troll” and should be ridiculed? I hope not.”

    I’m fairly sure, Brian, that my words were quite clear. As a matter of fact, I’m almost certain that I wasn’t at all ambiguous.

    Your pearl clutching and lame attempts to paint me as some hate-filled person “out to get” anyone are certainly dramatic, but they’re not in any way true.

    A game was proposed. Rules were laid out. Play or don’t play, that’s your choice. Defend whomever you wish, but don’t get all up in my shit about something I have not done. I chose Barb for her unending stupidity. I voted for her because she has absolutely no redeeming qualities as a poster on Pharyngula. She adds nothing to the discussion, and only serves to detract from the debate. This is a well established bannable offense, as you may or may not know, and I see nothing wrong with voting on that basis.

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, perhaps you can tell me what part of my comment was directed at you? I think the salutation indicated that I was directing my comment to Janine, and I don’t think Janine suddenly got a sex change, so how this came to be all about you and your shrill asshattery is a bit of a mystery to me. Care to explain?

  513. #514 Nan
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. The sheer vacuousness of her comments did it for me.

  514. #515 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    Brian Hertz,

    To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible. Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another? (a rhetorical question the power of which is diminished by response)

  515. #516 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    Dear, dear, sweet child.

    Some women actually enjoy giving oral sex.

    Interesting. I read Pete’s statement the other way around to you…

  516. #517 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    Ahhh. Mayhempix @ #495

    I see clearly now that you are much more of a cunning linguist than I.

    Tax Religion. (and what a long way to go to set up that joke…)
    Tark

  517. #518 George
    March 16, 2009

    Wow. Pete Rooke in #502 wrote what should be an award winning piece describing god as completely meaningless. Although, the cited quote from Facilis, if true, keeps “that one” (using a McCain-ism) in the lead.

  518. #519 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 16, 2009 7:18 PM

    Ray Ladbury,

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    How.. um, noble of you. May you, in return, never have to endure receiving oral sex.

  519. #520 Josh
    March 16, 2009

    Janine, 463 was just terrific.

  520. #521 Pascalle
    March 16, 2009

    It’s your blog PZ, and if you want to ban someone, you should.

    But personally i would say.. none of them.

    My reasoning is, that even though they may be godbots, bible thumpers, quoting the bible, rude, obnoxious, and many other things, they are also the examples that make more moderate christians doubt if they’re believing the right thing.

    So please let them post so they can be debunked and people can read it and see the value of their believes.

  521. #522 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Pete said:

    Whether he hears I cannot be certain.

    Oh he hears you allright, Pete. He just doesn’t listen.

  522. #523 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Unnatural? Shit, we see dogs licking their genitalia all the time.

  523. #524 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Rooke,

    Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another

    Dude, seriously, answer the immunity question BEFORE you start with your analogies.

  524. #525 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Pete
    I insist on “inflicting oral sex on a woman”.
    If there is anything that I can do to bring on the yummies, I’m doing it with gusto.
    Life is short kid. Treat it like an orgasmathon.
    Yours, hers, theirs, on it , in it, at it, toward it…dude!
    There are few things in life as satisfying as being a good and generous lover.
    Can a godless pervert get an AMEN?
    Damn, now I’m all sweaty.

  525. #526 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    In light of new evidence I change my vote to John Kwok. Pete is apparently just a little clueless, and Barb is a terrible bore but not dumb enough to try and intimidate people.

  526. #527 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Credit where credit is due: why are there clouds was pretty funny, Pete.

  527. #528 Ames
    March 16, 2009

    I’d ask you not to ban John Kwok – he’s a good guy, a good evilutionist, and a vocal opponent of ID and such nonsense.

    That said, I’m not a frequent commenter, so I don’t know if his comment #403 was abnormal or typical. I really, really hope it was abnormal.

  528. #529 pcarini
    March 16, 2009

    D’oh @ my #518. I didn’t look at the post he was replying to, and I thought he was claiming he’d never give a woman oral sex.

  529. #530 Stu
    March 16, 2009

    Methinks Petey boy could learn something from 2 Girls 1 Cup (no, I’m NOT linking that).

  530. #531 IceFarmer
    March 16, 2009

    SteveM,

    Oops, You’re right. My Bad. I’m at work and was trying to keep abreast of the voting while waiting for my afternoon cluster f… meeting, and I totally missed it. It’s also Monday and my brain not work good.

    Is that grounds for banishment? I hope not.

  531. #532 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Brian-

    ?

  532. #533 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Pete
    “Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”

    That’s cool, I’m pretty sure it was my own.

  533. #534 Mark
    March 16, 2009

    If you exist, why is your uncle still alive?

  534. #535 Eidolon
    March 16, 2009

    Petey:

    I really hope 5 was an attempt at humor. As for crying out, etc. Let’s use a common event. You call a friend and nobody answers. You repeat this experiment as do others. There is no answer. Now what can you gather from this?
    (1) Your friend has no intention of talking with anyone, no matter how urgent or…
    (2) Nobody is home. Period.

    Your beliefs and prayers do not have the effect of creating the reality, except in your own mind. Why do you need a lighthouse? Do you really need one when quite apart from any religious context most people including most on this blog have well developed ethical senses.

    No need for lighthouses, we have a good set of internal charts. Now go get a pint.

  535. #536 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Child

    Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another

    Ever hear of condoms? Not swallowing?

  536. #537 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    Ooooh. Other Adam @#499

    Nicely done. Salute!

    Tax Religion. Juices flowing.
    Tark

  537. #538 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    D’oh @ my #518. I didn’t look at the post he was replying to, and I thought he was claiming he’d never give a woman oral sex.

    I read it the same way as you…

  538. #539 Inky
    March 16, 2009

    #403:
    BWaahahHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Oh noes, PZ is gonna lose his Facebook friends!! I mean, all his previous posts made me roll my eyes, but this one! Hahaha!!!! *gasp* Seriously! “Don’t bounce me or else I’ll make my friends not be friends with you! Oooo!!”
    *wipes eyes*
    Honestly, Kwok, if you had simply given your essay without the petulant threats, you probably would have been fine. wtf.

    #454: “5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.”

    Seriously? You wrote that … seriously? *blink*
    Okay. Okay. So gravitational theory is not correct? Why do YOU think there are clouds? I await enlightenment; please proceed. I am asking you to tell me your hypothesis for cloud formation. I’m a biologist. I had no idea that the existence of clouds was at all in contention.

  539. #540 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    Hmmmm. Well, if gravitational theory isn’t correct, why are there clouds?

  540. #541 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible. Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?

    Thus speaks the true virgin. As BMS pointed out, some women enjoy it, just as some men (I am one) enjoy giving oral gratification to women. As long as a particular sexual behavior is consensual, it should not be condemned by non-participants.

    BDSM (google it) is not attractive to either my wife or me, so we don’t indulge. However I will not say anything about other people doing the whips and handcuffs thing if it’s consensual.

    Or in other words, don’t worry about what other people do.

  541. #542 Cannabinaceae
    March 16, 2009

    Hey, I second the vote to not dump any of the dingbats. Maybe someday I’ll get a chance to practice takedowns before too many posts have gone by. The more dingbats, the more practice.

    That would make Pharyngula a geek martial arts dojo. What is the Molly, a black belt?

  542. #543 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    Note to self:

    do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

  543. #544 Holydust
    March 16, 2009

    -shudders.- Okay — after that, I’m definitely glad I cast my vote for Petey.

    Re: “inflicting” oral sex on a lady…

    I have news for you, honey. Contrary to what you have been raised to think, your preferences and needs are NOT the perfect paragon of “normal” in the universe. Just because you can’t understand something from your own perspective doesn’t make it wrong or evil.

    And yeah, a lot of us ladies are more than happy to do that for our men. And a lot of men are happy to return the favor. In a monogamous relationship it’s just another way to be intimate and loving. It’s just too bad you can’t understand that because of your sheltered upbringing.

    This is why I said that you were dangerous — because your kind are SO severely repressed that, many times, it explodes in an atom bomb of badness later in life.

  544. #545 RandomLayman
    March 16, 2009

    “5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.”

    For the same reason that the smoke of your cigarette or the steam coming out your morning coffee doesn’t plum down to the ground: difference in density with respect to the contents of our atmosphere. Somewhat analogous to the water-oil mixture.

    Gravity is a rather weak fundamental force, compared to other things like electromagnetism. Test it yourself: a small magnet is sufficient to pick up a coin; winning the gravity-battle against the entire Earth. It’s an unfair comparison, though. Gravity does create some really beautiful structures over large distances and various time-spans.

  545. #546 M Fabius
    March 16, 2009

    All this debate over whether oral sex is fun for women, whether it’s too gross to be fun, etc., completely misses the point. Objectively, sex is gross. You put what in what now?! But you’re not supposed to enjoy sex from a rational, detached perspective. It’s meant to be enjoyed in the moment, not analyzed. So all of you people saying oral sex is gross (to give, receive, or whatever) – judge by experience, not by hypothesis.

  546. #547 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Work to do this evening.

    So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  547. #548 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?

    *sniff* that’s just tooo adorably cute and innocent!

    I guess I better not mention all the other things some among us do voluntarily and with joy even. our poor rookie might faint!

    My boyfriend did attend a party once though at which the host, in his wickedness, wanted to get him to eat one of the “special cookies” he baked with his girlfriend for their private enjoyment. guess what the “icing” was….

  548. #549 Michael
    March 16, 2009

    Barb. And then Kwok next week, because c’mon, fucking Facebook? Really? Really really? That’s your best threat? Pussy.

    Scott from Oregon: When was the last time you had consensual sex? You sound like an asshole.

  549. #550 Holydust
    March 16, 2009

    P.S. You don’t get to say “it was a joke” to back out of it every time a comment backfires. I thought you were a grown-up; you should know this.

  550. #551 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    As to the issue of sex, some people enjoy enacting extreme rape fantasies/role play… Is this to be allowed an legitimized in the eyes of the law???

  551. #552 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible.

    Based on what, exactly? If it’s ‘unnatural’, how is it possible? Surely if your god hadn’t wanted us to do this then he would have made it a) more difficult and b) less pleasurable. I might be swayed by the argument that your god wouldn’t want me to perform such an act on myself, since he made that impossible*.

    And things are only degrading if the person doing it is forced, coerced or manipulated into doing it. A willing participant doesn’t find it degrading.

    That you think this way answers quite a few questions, Pete. I’m guessing you’re one of those people who, thanks to a repressed, sex-phobic upbringing, spend a lot of time feeling guilty about the thoughts you (and we know from your analogies you have them) have – and that it’s right that you be punished for them.

    No wonder you believe in the Christian god. Sex-hating, women-hating, guilt-ridden – that’s Christianty to a ‘t’.

    *Well, for all but a few fortunate guys…

  552. #553 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Oh, man. Overshooting thread growth. Is anybody going to read this anymore… <sigh>

    John Kwok.

    Why?

    Because all the others can provide teachable moments, sometimes even to themselves (see below). But when that guy shows up, he neither contributes to any discussion nor feeds anyone’s SIWOTI syndrome. All you can say is “stop name-dropping”, which is just as boring as his comments themselves. He’s nothing but a nuisance. Insipidity — “a great crime”, it is written on the dungeon gate. Also, wanking; and then there’s his creepy public lusting after ERV. Away with him.

    Barb

    The strange thing about her is that she used to be a drive-by troll. She deserved bannination at that stage. Strangely, she has stopped that!

    She makes nothing but arguments from ignorance — even her vilest, most hideous statements follow logically from her ignorance. Thus provides one teachable moment after another. It’s even possible that she’s capable of learning — she hasn’t tried to defend the incredible stupidity of the heart beats without any external source of energy which earned her a FSTDT entry, and I have to check if she has now reacted to my pointing out that homosexuality is 1) innate and 2) by no means limited to humans, as she implied.

    Also, she’s at the moment limited to a single thread, right?

    Alan Clarke

    Mentally ill. Has a very, very Freudian-looking father complex. Should seek therapy.

    Limited to one thread; should be allowed to stay for providing teachable moments, if he reads this article on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective and then demonstrates he has understood it. We tried to get him to read it for eight hundred comments on the now closed Titanoboa thread and, as of last night, another eight hundred comments on the Science of Watchmen thread.

    Facilis

    Comments very little most of the time, and appears teachable on evolution. That may not be true on presuppositionalism, though.

    Pete Rooke

    As long as he doesn’t return to making analogies that are not merely deeply disturbing (in terms of what insights they give into his mind!) but completely miss the point, he’s actually harmless. I was surprised by his performance on the bacon thread; he appears to be where Walton was two or three years ago, only a bit crazier — more scared, that is.

    RogerS

    A less persistent version of Alan Clarke.

    Simon

    Hasn’t commented for days, AFAIK (hmmm… I seem to be wrong about that, judging from comment 209). Seems to be a drive-by troll who has lost interest. If he comes back, though…

    ———————————————–

    What I can’t stand are the troll-feeders.

    The idea is to feed the trolls till they choke, explode, or something like that. Also, the game “Dance, trollboy! Dance!” can be fun.

    Did it occur to anyone that the banned ones could just change name and email and continue to be noisome?

    Please. Their IP addresses are banned, too, and I don’t know if that’s even all. Did you believe the blogosphere was invented yesterday?!?

    I vote for Barb You are all sinners at the foot of the cross.??? WTF.

    Why are you surprised at ordinary Christian doctrine? Here goes: everyone is a sinner and therefore deserves to go to hell. Nobody deserves to go to heaven, so we all need a savior who lets us in for free. See comment 217.

    I haven’t been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary “Expelled” which is really only about Intelligent Design and academic freedom).

    You’ve been promoting extreme mental shortsightedness (presuppositionalism) and ignorance (ID is a form of creationism and is not science, and you’re simple-minded and ignorant enough to believe the really lame propaganda on this being an academic-freedom issue — start here).

    Anyway the theory of evolution says that mankind and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. It does not state that we evolved from any extant forms of monkey

    Correct!

    This is unfair…the answer has only been given to them a few hundred times…but never from their pastor, so they won’t be able to regurgitate it.

    See? PZ’s plan is so cunning he could put four pairs of tentacles on it and call it an octopus.

    Ultimately, I vote for Simon….mostly for just the series of boring cut and paste from Wells the Mooney cultist.

    What? Where was that?

    Barb, Barb, Barb… Barb Barb Iran … Wait – that doesn’t quite work….

    It works perfectly. Think about it. What is Ahmadinejad other than a Barb with a beard?

    Could someone direct me to Barb’s posts…

    And that in comments 229 and 231. Dude, why do you comment on a thread you haven’t read? There have been several links already!

    I have never seen a troll so hateful or purely evil.

    Oh, I’ve seen worse. They’re all already banned.

    But is the nomination just for being stupid? Or is it for gratuitous and never-ending attacks on other commenters?

    Near the top of this page there’s a list to the dungeon. To its gate is nailed the list of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Read it.

  553. #554 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    Ban me or you’re off my blogroll!

  554. #555 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    guess what the “icing” was….

    Faeces?? I defy anyone to tell me that that is appropriate!

  555. #556 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    I read it the same way as you…

    Yeah, me too. And I was gonna go with ‘Oh, c’mon, dude, you can’t be that bad…’

    But then he clarified…

    And I guess, now that I think about it, I can’t entirely disagree with him anyway. Since I would never inflict Peter Rooke on a women either. Or on a woman, for that matter.

    And hey, what’s with that plural, anyway, guy? Somethin’ we or someone (or a few someones) special should know?

    Anyway, even tho’ he’s actually being pretty funny here, intentionally or otherwise, I’m keeping my 1/2 vote from back there. Y’know how this works. Sure, he’s funny today… But then tomorrow, he’s on about lampshades again…

    (Okay, yes, I guess that was sorta funny too, in a kinda disturbing, ghoulish, I’m gonna be reading about this guy in the paper in a few years, right? way. But you really have to be in the mood for that, methinks.)

  556. #557 AdamK
    March 16, 2009

    One more vote for Barb.

    (Although I hope Brian from Edmondton is on some future list. What a douchebag.)

  557. #558 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    Note to self:

    do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

    This is why I could never vote for you. Sometimes your cluelessness is just too cute.

  558. #559 flea
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok

  559. #560 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    P.S. You don’t get to say “it was a joke” to back out of it every time a comment backfires. I thought you were a grown-up; you should know this

    dude, it WAS a joke, and some of us even got it. attacking where no attack is warranted makes you look rabid.

  560. #561 Inky
    March 16, 2009

    Oh, wait. So #5 was a joke?
    Was the other stuff a joke, too?

    I too cry out for God. Whether he hears I cannot be certain. I believe he does, and I pray he does. That he might not will, in the grand scheme of things, make little or no difference to this world as long as belief in such a being is exists as a lighthouse.

    Actually, that “he” might not “hear”, but that belief in “his” existence is sufficient–this makes no sense.

    If there are no ears to hear, then what is the point of praying to such a god? Or believing in “Him”, even? What is the point, then, of following all those rules and causing a whole bunch of misery based on what “He” thinks?

    Belief in of itself is not a lighthouse.
    The concept of God in of itself does not make a person any better by default.

    If the only way a person is able to choose “moral” decisions is by fear of third degree burns after he dies, is that really the best that religion can do?

    If the concept of God makes you adhere to better moral decisions, then fine. Do what works for you and doesn’t harm anyone else. But don’t think that your concept is any better than anyone else’s concept of morality, with or without a deity.

  561. #562 Kate
    March 16, 2009

    Well, Pete, I for one imbibe my lover’s ejaculate with great gusto.

    It’s not a nasty, dirty thing. It’s a way for me to bring pleasure to my man and affirm our sexual intimacy. I get to please him, while CONCENTRATING on pleasing him. I’m not distracted by the lovely sensations of intercourse with him. I can focus solely on his pleasure, listening, feeling and hearing his subtle indications of “faster”, “deeper”, “more tongue”, or what-have-you.

    It’s an act of love, Pete. Honest to goodness, heartfelt, enduring love that does not deny the wonders and pleasures of the human form. It’s a chance for me to give of myself, to give to the man I love a pleasurable experience ending in the nicest physical feeling we humans get.

    Someday, when you meet someone you love, respect, trust and desire you will understand that you and your partner will be far happier if you find joy in your bodies instead of shame.

  562. #563 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    While we are on the topic of sex here is an interesting, funny and informative lecture on Primate Sexuality (remember primate includes humans):

    http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/13/stanfords-sapolsky-o.html

    The speaker is Prof. Sapolsky from Standford.

  563. #564 Cannabinaceae
    March 16, 2009

    @543

    do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

    If you learned how to make jokes, maybe somebody would get them. If they’re already little, they’d better be good1. As I suspected, it was a Poe – a self-Poe, nonetheless, but a Poe. That would make it a form of mental masturbation. I take it you prefer masturbation to cunnilingus?

    Oh, and I guess that would make you anti-vulvatarian.

    1. Still don’t know what fundamentalism is, eh? Or was that a joke too?

  564. #565 Brain Hertz
    March 16, 2009

    I think Pete Rooke should hereby be granted immunity for his spectacular proof of Poe’s law provided in this thread via his point #5.

    Well played!

  565. #566 Ompompanoosuc
    March 16, 2009

    Aaron @51

    If monkeys tasted anywhere as good as bacon, we would have eaten them all long ago.

    Not so. We would have monkey farms.
    A joke for the RBDC:
    A man stops at a farmstand to buy some corn. He notices a three legged pig in a pen nearby. The man asks the farmer, what happened to that pig?s leg?
    The farmer says, that is the most amazing pig to ever live. One night our house caught fire while the whole family was sleeping and that pig broke out of his pen and came in the house and woke us up. He saved the whole family.
    The man replies, so he was injured in the process and lost his leg?
    No, he wasn?t hurt in the fire.
    You see, a special pig like that you don?t eat all at once.
    (btw, It would be trickier to do the bacon extraction)

    Feynmaniac@334

    [Note: Her computer-like brain is a broken TRS-80]

    That is a win.

    Rooke @#502

    I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

    I believe you. But I am going to go home and make my face look like a glazed donut. I?ll ask the Mrs. How traumatic it was when I?m/she?s done.

  566. #567 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    “Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”

    Umm… you mean like out of a cup because that’s kind of yucky. But otherwise, umm… I bet quite a few among us would :/

  567. #568 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    some people enjoy enacting extreme rape fantasies/role play… Is this to be allowed an legitimized in the eyes of the law???

    yes. actions between consenting adults, should always be legal, even if you don’t approve.

    roleplaying rape-phantasies != actual rape

  568. #569 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Note to self:

    do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

    You’ve get a self-noter? Have you read the instructions?

  569. #570 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    “Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?”

    Actually, it’s the word “knowingly” that throws me.
    Pete, is there a story you’re trying not to share?
    Remember, god knows all. He even knows if you enjoyed it.

  570. #571 Tark
    March 16, 2009

    PZ, and all, I must heartily apologize if my OCD has led this thread astray. As we should do with Petey…

    Tax Religion. What’s that slurping sound?
    Tark

  571. #572 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I am going to go home and make my face look like a glazed donut.

    LOL

    …and I bet the missus likes making donuts alrighty.

    Mine only complains when I forget to shave.
    ;)

  572. #573 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    As to the issue of sex, some people enjoy enacting extreme rape fantasies/role play… Is this to be allowed an legitimized in the eyes of the law???

    As long as it is between consenting adults and kept in private, what is the problem?

    I am sure you would be shocked by the number of different things all of us engage in. But guess what, few ever go into detail about their exploits here.

  573. #574 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    Actually, it’s the word “knowingly” that throws me.

    Well, see, it all started when he was hanging curtains in the nude…

  574. #575 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    While Kwok is making a strong case of his plonkhammering for the possibility of witnessing the hilarity of a Kwok engineered Facebook boycott of PZ by all his super important friends, I still stick with simon.

    And Pete made a funny.

    The Kwok threat still has me rolling.

  575. #576 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    “Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”

    Drink the semen from another….what?

  576. #577 Rilke's Granddaughter
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ -

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    John, you deserved being bounced just for making such a mind-numbingly stupid threat like that.

    We know you’re a name-dropper; a syncophant; and a cyber-stalker who seriously needs to stay away from erv.

    I just didn’t realize you were stupid, too. Well, live and learn.

    I vote for John.

  577. #578 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    guess what the “icing” was….
    Faeces??

    n….nnnooo, Pete. Not “faeces.” Do try to keep up. And not so much Latin, please.

  578. #579 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

  579. #580 CanuckRob
    March 16, 2009

    Barb

  580. #581 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Well, see, it all started when he was hanging curtains in the nude…

    And then I fell doc and that can of hairsrpay was just…

  581. #582 John Kwok
    March 16, 2009

    I am reposting this merely because I recognized two slight errors and am correcting them (I’m ignoring inane comments about my former friendship with Abbie Smith, my friendship with Ken Miller and my relationship to my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless. Though I will note that his current wife is a great fan of evolutionary biology and keeps abreast as much as possible on current research.):

    “If evolution is true, why are still monkeys?” That’s rather an easy question to answer IMHO. Although we – humanity – and monkeys are both primates – and thus are related relatively closely by common descent – we have undertaken our own separate evolutionary histories as different Primate clades utlizing vastly different ecological niches during the Cenozoic Era (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South and East Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period)).

    Sincerely yours,

    John Kwok

  582. #583 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    Your evidence for this claim is what?

  583. #584 Delta Whisky
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok.

    The Facebook threat put him over the top.

  584. #585 Rilke's Granddaughter
    March 16, 2009

    I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    Don’t know much about ‘nature’, do ya, Pete? Animals bugger each other in the most entertainin’ ways.

    What a prude.

  585. #586 Longtime Lurker
    March 16, 2009

    Mr Rooke cannot answer the immunity question.

    His fear of teh pusseh licken is due to his contempt for his genital-licking tetrapod forebears.

    Pete, do you also blog as Ace of Spades? Ace’s execrable blog post also has a bacon reference.

  586. #587 John Kwok
    March 16, 2009

    I am reposting this merely because I recognized two slight errors and am correcting them (I’m ignoring inane comments about my former friendship with Abbie Smith, my friendship with Ken Miller and my relationship to my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless. Though I will note that his current wife is a great fan of evolutionary biology and keeps abreast as much as possible on current research.):

    “If evolution is true, why are still monkeys?” That’s rather an easy question to answer IMHO. Although we – humanity – and monkeys are both primates – and thus are related relatively closely by common descent – we have undertaken our own separate evolutionary histories as different Primate clades utlizing vastly different ecological niches during the Cenozoic Era (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South and East Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period)).

    Sincerely yours,

    John Kwok

  587. #588 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    Petey all orifices seem to work pretty well. At least in my experience. I could ask the wife her opinion if you’d like?

  588. #589 Kat
    March 16, 2009

    Facilis – Because he actually named Discovery Institute as a

    top scientific institution

    here

  589. #590 IceFarmer
    March 16, 2009

    This thread went from being Pharyngula Survivor to a debate about BJ’s, etc.? Barb might be so offended she’ll leave of her own accord! WIN-WIN!

    Pete, relax your inhibitions a bit. If it happens between two consenting adults, it’s all good. Not liking oral is like not liking bacon. You stay out of others bedrooms and they stay out of yours, unless you’re the type to invite them in.

  590. #591 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless

    Not a friend of yours then?

  591. #592 A. Noyd
    March 16, 2009

    Janine (#521)

    Unnatural? Shit, we see dogs licking their genitalia all the time.

    Kittens also will sometimes mistake a sibling’s penis for a nipple, even after they’re weaned. The owner of the penis rarely complains and sometimes you have to separate them to prevent infections or permanent tissue damage. I’ve even caught naughty adolescent cats fellating one another before.

    And sorry to everyone who never wanted to know that about cats.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    Pete Rooke (#543)

    Note to self: do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

    Lots of people have made jokes similar to that on this thread and most saw it as a joke. If you didn’t continuously torpedo your own credibility, more people would recognize your intentions behind the gravity bit. Go figure.

  592. #593 Pascalle
    March 16, 2009

    Hmm.. Now i’m curious.

    I wonder why pz posted this thread.

    Was it to see which of the commenters is hated most and why, or is it to see who will post to his question (and possible posting something that’s not their opinion) just for the sake of being able to keep posting here.

    I guess i’ll never know.

  593. #594 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: The Rookie | March 16, 2009

    I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    My hands did not evolve for the purpose of typing on my keyboard, yet I am doing it. What is your point?

  594. #595 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose

    and that explains that the pancreatic pleasure center is only accessible via anal… how? not to mention that as far as sexual “deviancy” goes, we humans have nothing on some animals. you should read some of the biology threads sometimes, rookie. it would be enlightening to you, i think

  595. #596 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Not a friend of yours then?

    Hasn’t signed up for Facebook, so Kwok doesn’t know.

  596. #597 blueelm
    March 16, 2009

    “Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina.”

    Not really. The penis fits in an awful lot of places… and let’s not even get to what gets women off!

  597. #598 Xeric77
    March 16, 2009

    vote: Pete Rooke

  598. #599 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Kwok sure is campaigning for my vote.

  599. #600 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @ #592: Not only will you burn in hell for offending me with such a paragraph, but I guarantee you those were no normal kittens, as no animal truly created by God can catch gay.

    No, those were Satan kittens.

  600. #601 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    *sigh*

    I’ve given this quite a bit of thought, read through all of the comments (at the time of writing), considered it from a number of angles, taken the matter far too seriously, and I’m still on the fence about voting to ban anyone. If it were anyone, it would be Barb. Not for her religious idiocy (she makes me furious in the same way heddle does – she reminds me of the people in my childhood church whose badgering made me cry upon leaving my first pop concert because I thought I was going to hell – and at least she’s more honest about her church than he is). Not because she’s a nasty, detestable bigot (though perhaps that should be enough…). But because, as someone said above, it’s like having a conversation with a tape recorder – she’s barely engaged in the same discussion. And banning her wouldn’t prevent her from reading, only from posting, which would perhaps give her an opportunity to read and learn. On the other hand, Kenny went on like this for months before he got the hook, so it may be premature. On the third hand, he never made any progress and could’ve gone sooner than he did had the lynch mob had its way ;)…

    Nat the cut-&-paster absolutely, but other than him I’m finding it hard to nominate anyone. (John Kwok is creepily amusing, but actually made me do some research at Google U. on stalker personalities. I truly think he needs professional help. These characteristics aren’t at all funny.)

    ***

    For anyone thinking Molly, I’ll remind you that there is an open Molly thread.

    ***

    Sven, Feynmaniac, and Grendels Dad – Thank you. I needed that this week.

    ***

    CathTCC:

    idahogie, I couldn’t possibly. Can I just hit on Janine instead and hope Barb is disgusted and goes away?

    I’ll join you, and I suggest we do so using the most explicit language possible. That would have the added benefit of driving Walton off those threads.

    ***

    Blake Stacey:

    The idea that banning any or all of the people on P-Zed’s list would make Pharyngula into a place where everybody agrees is. . . amusing.

    It sure is. I’ve argued with a good proportion of the regulars, and I think a substantial majority of the OMs. I’ve argued with Sastra, ffs, and she’s like coated with flame teflon.

  601. #602 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    “Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.”

    So you were told, apparently. Very sad.

    Ever herd of Bonobos (or any of the other animals, etc) that also engage in oral sex? Evoution has made us wish to please our mates. That you believe that can only happen one way naturally is just terribly pathetic.

    Remember, your fingers were made for peeling bananas, don’t touch your partner with them in a way to give pleasure.

    Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.

  602. #603 SLW13
    March 16, 2009

    I’m curious. Has anyone here actually unknowingly imbibed semen? I mean, sure, I can think of a couple plausible frat party scenarios. Most of us have seen American Pie.

  603. #604 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Kwok sure is campaigning for my vote.

    I’m beginning to think he’s doing it on purpose.

  604. #605 Sastra
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke #579 wrote:

    Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.

    The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics. Clearly, nobody is performing a paranormal stunt here, or claiming to. That’s what “unnatural” would mean — against nature. Beyond natural abilities.

    I think what you want to say is that the actions are wrong: they cause unnecessary harm to someone. But if it’s consensual, then it’s not causing anyone any harm.

    The “this part was made for this purpose and this purpose only ” argument doesn’t work — even for theists. Carried to its implications, it would mean that we mustn’t wear earrings, because ears are for hearing with. We shouldn’t play the piano, because there were fingers before there were pianos. Nor should we have invented airplanes, because “if man were meant to fly he would have wings.”

    “Natural law” arguments which ignore whether or not there’s harm in favor of whether something was “intended” don’t work. Virtually anything could be called “unnatural.”

  605. #606 Rilke's Granddaughter
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok:

    I am reposting this merely because I recognized two slight errors and am correcting them (I’m ignoring inane comments about my former friendship with Abbie Smith, my friendship with Ken Miller and my relationship to my famous high school creative writing teacher who shall remain nameless. Though I will note that his current wife is a great fan of evolutionary biology and keeps abreast as much as possible on current research.):

    John, you deserved to be bounced because you’re an egotistical little weasel. Abbie thinks you’re creepy ’cause you ARE creepy. Folks who spend their entire time droppin’ names in an apparent attempt to make themselves important are simply pathetic.

    Can I vote twice?

  606. #607 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    These are not Satan kittens. But they are Cats that look like Hitler.

  607. #608 Joshua Zelinsky
    March 16, 2009

    So it looks like both Facilis and John Kwok have so far done very good jobs of meeting the immunity challenge. They are however the only contestants who have commented at all on this thread so it isn’t clear what to make of that.

  608. #609 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

  609. #610 nick nick bobick
    March 16, 2009

    Poor pathetic Pete Rooke says he would never “inflict” oral sex on a woman:

    Petey, if you aren’t supposed to eat it, why does it look like a taco?

  610. #611 slang
    March 16, 2009

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    Oh noes! I never ever thought I’d sign up for Facebook, but now it seems I may have to! Poor PZ! How mercilessly they make you suffer!

    *wanders off mumbling about poes*

  611. #612 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Sven:

    Ban me or you’re off my blogroll!

    Yeah, in like a year when you get around to it.

  612. #613 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    Has anyone here actually unknowingly imbibed semen?

    Well… I guess… not so far as we know

    (This isn’t gonna turn this into another one of those inane solipsism threads, is it?)

  613. #614 Rey Fox
    March 16, 2009

    “I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.”

    So is skydiving.

    “Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”

    Looks like we better start the “Give Rooke a Blowjob” fund.

  614. #615 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009
  615. #616 SLC
    March 16, 2009

    Let’s show some pity for poor birther John Kwok who’s been placed on the shit list over at Abbie Smiths’ blog. Just so he ceases and desists from nutty comments about President Obamas’ birth certificate and about all the famous people he went to school with.

  616. #617 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

    that would be a “yes” then. I sure hope your future wife won’t be a virgin(for her and your sake), she might teach you something; otherwise, you’ll probably die the worlds worst lover, as well.

  617. #618 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    Sastra,

    I would then appeal to natural morality and the societal implications of such activities.

  618. #619 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Ah, the joy of seeing our potential plonkee’s plead their case. And they make the case against them even worse. Folks, there was a reason you were on the list. Arrogance in thinking that we wanted to hear your opinions in the first place, and arrogance in thinking we wanted to hear your opinions even after it was clear we didn’t want to hear those opinions in the second place.

  619. #620 Inky
    March 16, 2009

    Pete. You seriously have never wanted to even try oral or anal sex? That is, putting your weewee in a mouth or butt?

    Now, THAT’S unnatural. Even the most prudish boy I’ve ever met really liked oral. I mean, REALLY liked it.

    Man, I’ll bet foreplay with you is incredibly boringzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  620. #621 Spyderkl
    March 16, 2009

    Can I pick two? Why can’t I pick two?

    Before I saw Pete Rooke’s comment, I was going to say Barb. But now, I can’t decide.

    Well, okay, Barb – at least for this round.

    Pete? If you’re “inflicting” oral sex on a woman, you’re doing it wrong.

  621. #622 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Oh my. Both Cath and SC are coming on to me. I am getting hot and bothered in my little corner of the electronic world.

  622. #623 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Has anyone here actually unknowingly imbibed semen?

    Well, I have been in a git in a few restaurants….

  623. #624 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    One of these days Pete is going to snap one off during a prostate exam filling him with so much shame that it sends him off on a killing spree.

    That, or he’s going to come out as a poe.

  624. #625 slang
    March 16, 2009

    #610: Petey, if you aren’t supposed to eat it, why does it look like a taco?

    I’m keeping you in mind for the next Molly nominations.

  625. #626 John Kwok
    March 16, 2009

    @ Rilke’s Granddaughter -

    It’s funny, but most women I know personally – and also on Facebook – don’t think I’m creepy. As for Abbie, I’ve said I’m sorry I pissed her off. What more can I say?

    As for “name dropping”, I have seen more from you and others who have made sarcastic comments regarding both my high school and undergraduate alma maters than I recall reading from anyone, including PZ, with regards to either his or my famous friends (You simply have no idea who they are and I don’t think it is rather germane to this discussion thread either.). But, in fairness to my high school teacher, he’s not someone I regard as a friend, but instead, as my “Dad”. Moreover, I haven’t had a chance to see much of him because he’s been busy promoting his books.

  626. #627 AJ Milne
    March 16, 2009

    Well, I have been a git in a few restaurants….

    /Note to self: when ordering Won Ton soup, be nice.

  627. #628 Sastra
    March 16, 2009

    SC, OM #601 wrote:

    I’ve argued with a good proportion of the regulars, and I think a substantial majority of the OMs. I’ve argued with Sastra, ffs, and she’s like coated with flame teflon.

    You did?? Ok. That’s it:
    I vote ban SC, OM

  628. #629 Rey Fox
    March 16, 2009

    “I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.”

    How can anyone possibly think about banning Rooke? He’s endless entertainment!

  629. #630 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    I would then appeal to natural morality and the societal implications of such activities.

    the first says nothing about how to have sex, and the second are nonexistent.

    on the other hand, the teachings of the catholic about how, when, where, with whom, and why you may have sex are both naturally immoral (it’s kinda like forced annorexia), and have grave, documented consequences for the people and societies in which they exist

    therefore: be a perv, not a christian. it’s the moral choice ;-)

  630. #631 Josh
    March 16, 2009

    Well, see, it all started when he was hanging curtains in the nude…

    WIN!

  631. #632 Peter McKellar
    March 16, 2009

    My vote for Barb has been made on a few threads. If she could add anything to the debate I would reconsider, but all she does is hijack threads, spew crap and claims nothing could ever shake her belief in the sky daddy. She is a waste of everyones’ time and her arguments are the same as every other troll that does a drive-by (although somewhat better articulated than many). Archived arguments alone would suffice for our (early) training. Maybe we need a sandbox for newbies and regulars could throw a few of these pre-canned arguments at them. Allowing Barb on here just serves to hone her arguments to take and inflict on the more gullible.

    Janine’s argument re the damage ppl like Barb do to their children is well made and deserves punishment. Dungeon. It is important to clean house every now and then (eg libertarians) and make an example. Otherwise the blog goes to shit.

    Facilis I can tolerate, John Kwok is so boring I didn’t even notice him until a few days back. I can’t help but think his facebook threat was his idea of a joke, if so, it fell flat and ended up making him look like a fool.

    Peter Rooke (as obnoxious as he can be – and exclusionary on his own blog) still has hope (imho).

    5. If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds.

    and at least has a sense of humour. Just get him off the potato peels and someone buy him some bacon will they? Pete, take the challenge. Facilis and John have both done so and I figure passed (though for John this is no hurdle). I assume that Barbs response was identity theft?

    At the local pub, banned drinkers get unbanned on a set day each year. Maybe after dungeon duty we should unban people like Barb (but leave on probation). If they even care, they may be inclined to contribute instead of just ranting once unbanned. Darwin’s Birthday maybe? PI day?

  632. #633 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    “Give Rooke a Blowjob”
    Won’t Jesus do it for him?

  633. #634 Wowbagger
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke wrote:’

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

    No doubt your loathing of women en masse, and unwillingness to learn anything about showing them a good time will have them lined up around the block.

    Sadly, though, I imagine that there probably aren’t as few brainwashed-into-self-hate women as there should be (i.e. zero), and you’ll find some unfortunate who doesn’t realise there’s plenty more (and far better) fish in the sea and take you on.

  634. #635 SLW13
    March 16, 2009

    @ 610: “Petey, if you aren’t supposed to eat it, why does it look like a taco?”

    I really think that is a beeyootiful piece of logic. And it made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair.

    I know this whole sex discussion is a random tangent and incredibly silly, but it has definitely made my Monday suck less. I thank you, everone, for all teh funny.

  635. #636 Zarquon
    March 16, 2009

    Ray Comfort says a banana is perfectly designed for eating. Therefore a blowjob is not ‘perfectly unnatural’, it’s an aspect of perfect design.

    ps I vote P. D. Q. Maiers Facilis, for his total dishonesty.

  636. #637 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Sastra Author Profile Page | March 16, 2009

    SC, OM #601 wrote:

    I’ve argued with a good proportion of the regulars, and I think a substantial majority of the OMs. I’ve argued with Sastra, ffs, and she’s like coated with flame teflon.

    You did?? Ok. That’s it:
    I vote ban SC, OM

    CAT FIGHT! Hiiisssss! Yoowwllllll!

  637. #638 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    I think John Kwok (AKA Johnny Kookz) fails the immunity challenge. The first attempt included a “facebook threat” (I can’t be the only one still laughing at that!). The second included name-dropping even though the requirements quite clearly state “not rely on tales about who you went to high school with”.

    Honestly Kwok, right after that threat you shot up to number 2 on most people’s list. If you wish to remain the best thing for you to do is simply stop typing.

  638. #639 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    the pancreatic pleasure center

    hmmm…Off to crank up the Google and learn something new!

    You know, it’s just so difficult to restrain myself from teasing J*hn Kw*k (e.g. his favorite high-school teacher who is both famous and remains nameless), but it just isn’t very fun. He is oblivious to sarcasm and even to point-blank mockery. He’s not “doing it on purpose,” he’s really that way. IANA?, but I have to agree with SC that behind the superficially amusing over-the-top name-dropping and alma-mater-bragging and O/C phrase repetition and goofily narcissistic persona, there is something genuinely creepy and essentially not funny going on. I’m not playing with him any more.

  639. #640 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    i need to slow down when posting. confusing the pancreas with the prostate is proof. :-p

  640. #641 Susannah
    March 16, 2009

    Barb.

  641. #642 frog
    March 16, 2009

    PeteRooke: I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

    Ahh, don’t tell me — another barely post-pubescent child raised in a repressed family who hates Mommy (but puts her on a pedestal to keep her naughty bits away)? Or do we have the forty year old virgin, who pretends he’s a virgin for “moral” reason, but in truth is afraid of the vagina dentata?

    Ya know, ‘ol Petey, traditional good Christians married at 16 — at least the normal ones who want to stay virgins till they marry, but don’t have deranged sexualities.

  642. #643 prudence
    March 16, 2009

    Let me just say, I don’t like the idea of banning people. But holy Horus, Barb’s “gay = paedophilia + liberal upbringing” comments make me want to cast her down an 80 foot well with Titanoboa.

    Please don’t ban John Kwok, he may be a pompous, self-important, name-dropping numpty, but his delusions of grandeur are hilarious! I’m literally shaking with laughter after reading his “mobilizing forces on Facebook” threat. I mean, forealz!

  643. #644 Pete Rooke
    March 16, 2009

    frog,

    Fuck off.

  644. #645 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    SC, OM

    Sven, Feynmaniac, and Grendels Dad – Thank you. I needed that this week.

    Not sure what I did, but I’m glad it helped!

    Joshua Zelinsky,

    So it looks like both Facilis and John Kwok have so far done very good jobs of meeting the immunity challenge. They are however the only contestants who have commented at all on this thread so it isn’t clear what to make of that

    Well, Kwok’s answer included a threat. Rooke has commented but hasn’t answered the immunity challenge yet. Come on, Rooke!

  645. #646 bootsy
    March 16, 2009

    Wow. Just, wow. I think Rooke and the other trolls who’ve showed up on this thread make me certain that PZ should ban them all. They need counseling, and they shouldn’t be posting on the internet or communicating with almost anyone until they get that help. Pete, get thee to a psychoanalyst, and make sure they are Freudian! FSM only knows what you’re going to find out!

  646. #647 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    There’s nothing I like more than to sit here discussing John’s friends…
    Though that internal penile swab was close.

  647. #648 Dyticus
    March 16, 2009

    Kwok. Can’t happen soon enough.

  648. #649 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    I take it you prefer masturbation to cunnilingus?

    of course he does.

    that’s why he said he wouldn’t drink another’s semen.

    he’s too used to drinking his own, right Pete?

  649. #650 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Please do not use other people’s names. It is neither cool nor funny.

  650. #651 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Pete
    It almost doesn’t matter whether or not they find the prostate.
    As long as the search is vigorous.

  651. #652 Joshua Zelinsky
    March 16, 2009

    Ok, so Peter, Facilis and John have all commented on this thread and so far Facilis and John have done decent jobs at the original challenge. (Incidentally, Pete’s attitude about oral sex seems to have odd homophobic undertones)

    John, you probably wouldn’t even be on this list if not for your a) extreme political views and b) vaguely trollish remarks like the Facebook comment. I suspect if there were no issue with b) then you wouldn’t even have been nominated. I mean seriously, threatening that if you get banned you’ll get rid of some of PZ’s Facebook friends? This sounds like something out of middle school only more pathetic.

  652. #653 Sastra
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke #618 wrote:

    I would then appeal to natural morality and the societal implications of such activities.

    “Natural morality” would still have to relate to causing harm — and the societal implications of allowing free choices between consenting adults in private are all positive. You’re in the same position as an ancient sage insisting that allowing young men to put a design on the hem of their togas is destroying the purity of the culture. It becomes arbitrary: a matter of taste being tricked out as “law of nature.”

  653. #654 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @ #644, Peter Rooke: Calm down, my sibling of the Lord. God will cast him into hell where he will be tortured for all eternity because he offended one of Jesus’s followers, while we in heaven will get to watch and laugh at him. That’s part of what makes it heaven.

  654. #655 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    disapPOINTment! I could find nothing on this purported “pancreatic pleasure center” on the Google. I also verified my initial reaction that nobody’s getting anywhere close to somebody’s pancreas via the anal route.

    SC, I posted something to my “blog” just (*checks*) two weeks ago!

  655. #656 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    ‘Sensitive’ Pete Rooke wrote:

    frog,

    Fuck off.

    Oooooh, someone’s getting angry. Touched a sore spot, have we Petey? And such language. You know curse-words make baby Jesus cry.

  656. #657 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Kitty’sBitch | March 16, 2009

    Pete
    It almost doesn’t matter whether or not they find the prostate.
    As long as the search is vigorous.

    But what if they find the pancreas?

    I am sorry Jadehawk. I had to do it.

  657. #658 Tom Foss
    March 16, 2009

    The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics.

    James Randi will pay you a million dollars if you can prove that blowjobs are possible under controlled experimental conditions.

  658. #659 'Tis Himself
    March 16, 2009

    Looks like we better start the “Give Rooke a Blowjob” fund.

    I read this and immediately thought of the Robin William’s line in Good Morning Vietnam:

    You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.

  659. #660 Dave Godfrey
    March 16, 2009

    Kate @562

    In a monogamous relationship it’s just another way to be intimate and loving. It’s just too bad you can’t understand that because of your sheltered upbringing.

    And in any other kind of sexual relationship its a fun thing to do. But I don’t expect Pete understands that people have sex because its fun. Nor that relationships have to be monogamous to work perfectly.

  660. #661 Diane
    March 16, 2009

    Please, oh please, with sugar on top, make it Barb.

  661. #662 penn
    March 16, 2009

    I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    Pete, I hope that you did not type that message on a keyboard with your hands, because that would be DEEPLY unnatural. Our hands clearly did not evolve to be used on keyboards. It’s an abomination.

    Chemotherapy and space exploration are also DEEPLY unnatural. As a child I had appendicitis and instead of letting me suffer the horribly painful natural death that God apparently wanted for me, my parents had a surgeon remove my appendix in a DEEPLY unnatural way (by cutting a hole in my abdominal cavity). In any event, I am grateful that you and your loved one have apparently never needed the benefits of unnatural modern technology or medicine.

  662. #663 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    You know curse-words make baby Jesus cry.

    And probably get someone banned at Pete’s blog. We should do the same for you Pete, golden rule and all.

  663. #664 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Don’t worry Pete, remember that frog’s going to hell and you’re going to heaven, where there aren’t blowjobs all day long.

  664. #665 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    this fuck-up is going to stick, isn’t it…? *sigh*

    *covers head in shame and leaves thread* there was work I was supposed to be doing, anyway…

  665. #666 Anton Mates
    March 16, 2009

    If you exist, why is your uncle still alive?

    He threw a smoke bomb and escaped before I could deliver the finishing blow, of course.

    Faeces??

    Now I’m envisioning Pete popping up in all sorts of situations asking that. Kind of like the cheezburger cat. We need a macro!

  666. #667 The MadPanda
    March 16, 2009

    I’m beginning to think that little Petey and Walton, both having such similar attitudes about the horrors of sex and the ickiness of girls, should probably settle down into a nice little bromantically chaste civil union so that they need never fear Teh S3X.

    Rookester, for the happiness of every woman in Blighty, stay single. Either that or learn that foreplay involves more than taking off your trousers.

    (/smartass)

    The MadPanda, FCD

  667. #668 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    Janine
    “But what if they find the pancreas?”

    I like a go getter, but perhaps some boundaries should be drawn up.
    My safe word will be banana.

  668. #669 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    Petey sez:

    To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible

    holy crap! I think we have a time traveler from the Victorian Era!

    Here, Pete, learn about the secret underbelly of victorian life:

    http://www.my-secret-life.com/

    ya might larn sumpin.

  669. #670 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Okay, dinner’s in the oven.

    *cue melodramatic music*

    *scene: The Rooke bedroom, the evening of their 10-year anniversary*

    *close-up: Pete’s orgasmic face*

    Pete: Ahhhhhhhh. [rolls over onto his back] That was brill, dear. Happy anniversary. I hope it was good for you.

    Mrs. Pete: “Good for me.” “Good for me!” Pete, you cad. You have no idea. It’s never been “good for me.”

    Pete [puzzled]: Whuh?

    Mrs. Pete: Look, I’ve been patient because I love you, ya knucklehead. But – Pete. I can’t come with just your John Thomas. You have to (or I have to and you won’t let me) put your fingers “there” or your mouth “there” or for cryin’ out loud a vibrator!

    Pete: But . . . dear! God designed it all! It’s supposed to work this way, me on top, you on the bottom, little children and angels sing . . .

    Mrs. Pete: I’m getting a vibrator or I’m getting an annulment. Honestly, you’d think sex was dirty or something. [gets dressed and goes to chip shop]

    *close-up on Pete*

    Pete: Khan! Khan!!!! Khan!!!!!!!!!

  670. #671 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Kitty’sBitch | March 16, 2009

    Janine
    “But what if they find the pancreas?”

    I like a go getter, but perhaps some boundaries should be drawn up.
    My safe word will be banana.

    Safe words are for wusses.

  671. #672 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    ooooooooooh, the prostate. Right. Carry on.

  672. #673 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina.

    You’d be surprised where the penis fits…

  673. #674 Calladus
    March 16, 2009

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex

    Masturbation is a type of sex.

  674. #675 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Kel? Are you speaking from experience?

  675. #676 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    What the vertical gene transfer. Two hundred comments get posted while I write mine. Will I be able to catch up within the next two hours?!?

    (If by monkeys, you are referring to South American and African/South Asian monkeys, then these two groups have also diverged due to reproductive isolation caused by the final separation of Gondwana in the early Cenozoic Era (primarily Paleogene Period))

    No, the ancestors of the platyrrhines must have rafted to South America, because Africa broke off of Outer Gondwana just before the end of the Early Cretaceous, 105 million years ago to be precise.

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    Oyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

    Just like I said: insipidity, wanking. I hope we won’t get to see the “overwhelming creepiness” that FtK was banned for.

    @ PZ -

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    Bwa ha ha ha! Beware PZ, you might lose JohnKwok001 – JohnKwok999 from your Facebook friends!

    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    I always wondered where all the geeks who hid in the library in high school because they lacked anything resembling a personality and a spine eventually wound up…

    I always wondered where all the highschool bullies who kept pestering anyone who ever went to the library eventually wound up… you know, the bullies, the ones lacking anything resembling a personality or a spine…

    …answer…

    …trolling on Pharyngula.

    I’ll vote you off next week, for trolling. <pats on Scott’s little head>

    Barb is pitifully misled… Rooke is dangerous.

    Not the other way around? I mean, Barb votes, and that in the USA.

    Note to self:

    do not attempt to make a little joke when amongst fundamentalists.

    Erm… this is the Internet. We don’t hear your voice, and we don’t see your face. You either have to make your joke sufficiently obvious or include a smiley. That’s the way things work cyber-here.

    That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget.

    Jean-Paul Sartre

    That Enlil and Ninlil do not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for…

    Hang on a second.

    To degrade a woman by such an unnatural act is surely reprehensible.

    Blah, blah, blah. “Unnatural“? See comment 521. I’d also bet money that bonobos do it, at the very least.

    Mind you, I’m not saying you need to have oral sex in order to be some kind of normal, or something. I’d find it rather disgusting, and I can’t imagine I’d like it anyway because I’m so ticklish — it would probably be a very unpleasant feeling.

    But at least that’s a reason! Waffling about “surely reprehensible” isn’t a reason, it’s a lame attempt at an excuse.

    (…though… bringing myself up as an example of normality was not a good move. For example, I don’t drink any alcohol whatsoever — it stinks. :-| )

    P.S. You don’t get to say “it was a joke” to back out of it every time a comment backfires. I thought you were a grown-up; you should know this.

    Oh, I did read it as a joke — poking fun at the silliness of the question.

    As to the issue of sex, some people enjoy enacting extreme rape fantasies/role play… Is this to be allowed an legitimized in the eyes of the law???

    As long as no actual rape is involved and nobody gets seriously hurt… <pft>

  676. #677 ryogam
    March 16, 2009

    Rooke,

    You won’t eat the puss, because that’s not natural.

    So, since breasts were made for feeding babies, are you going to keep your filthy mouth off those as well?

    Listen, I’m not worried about you, your wife will show you what’s what and where to put what where and what to do with this and that. I strongly suggest if you want a strong marriage that you listen to her about what she wants you to do to her body.

  677. #678 clinteas
    March 16, 2009

    *Sigh*

    John Kwok,for general creepiness.

    Keep Barb,for all the world to see what religion does to the human brain.
    The others are easy to ignore,killfile is your friend.

  678. #679 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    Kel? Are you speaking from experience?

    Yes, though not much is personal experience. Most of it was experienced vicariously…

  679. #680 Dahan
    March 16, 2009

    “Geeze man, you must be the worlds worst lover.”

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

    There’s more to being a lover than ramming your cock into someone. Perhaps if you allowed yourself to think of that it might help.

  680. #681 Kite
    March 16, 2009

    As in PZ’s “talk among yourselves thread”: Definitely Barb. Disgusting and hateful. Too bad to just killfile.

    Rookie, clearly, is a child, and as inexperienced and warped as he appears to be, perhaps some of his delusions will correct themselves with time and good company (that’s you-all). As it is tho’, I have to say to him that if he thinks the vagina and penis co-evolved to properly fit together, how does he explain (a la Comfort?)the similarly perfect ‘design’ of the moden banana?

  681. #682 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Posted by: Kel | March 16, 2009

    Kel? Are you speaking from experience?

    Yes, though not much is personal experience. Most of it was experienced vicariously…

    So you were egging the poor schmoe on. I see your game.

  682. #683 Kitty'sBitch
    March 16, 2009

    “Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another”

    I think we all took this wrong.
    What Pete’s saying is that the christian thing to do is to cum on her tits.

    Is that it Pete?

  683. #684 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 16, 2009

    Kwok,

    Facebook friends or not, you are creepy.

  684. #685 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    I can’t imagine I’d like it anyway because I’m so ticklish

    Are you sure you’re thinking of the right sex act?

  685. #686 Kite
    March 16, 2009

    Oh, Oh, Oh…Can we vote on libertarians next?

  686. #687 David
    March 16, 2009

    I must temporarily quit lurking to cast my vote for Barb as well. I’d say she’s got it cinched, but her level of casual hatred warrants a blow-out.

  687. #688 Holydust
    March 16, 2009

    Jadehawk:

    You jumped down my throat for not catching up on a Poe (in this case, a joke by someone known for being nutty adn having no sense of humor, resulting in an accidental self-Poe)? That’s the pot calling the kettle rabid. …Wait, that doesn’t work.

    In light of his previous comments, I skimmed over it, and I’ll have to concede that he was indeed joking just because it seems to be a case where I’m the only one who didn’t catch it as a joke.

    I’m afraid as crazy as Petey is, it’s hard to separate his inanities from real humor. I don’t deserve to be barked at for that. Anyway, let’s not bicker.

  688. #689 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    ….and as for vicarious sex acts, they’re not really my thing. I enjoy it when other people do it, though.

  689. #690 Longstreet63
    March 16, 2009

    “Don’t worry Pete, remember that frog’s going to hell and you’re going to heaven, where there aren’t blowjobs all day long”

    In Hell, of course, there ARE blowjobs all day long, but only if you don’t like them. So it is vitally important to keep your story straight.

    (This is the adult version of Atheists’ Hell)
    http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/657

  690. #691 Steve Ulven
    March 16, 2009

    I personally love the kooks and do not wish to vote any of them off. However, I really want to mention how awesome this topic/game is. Very creative and may actually be a learning experience (well, we hope) for the “contestants.”

  691. #692 Holydust
    March 16, 2009

    David: The “you don’t get to say ‘it’s a joke’ comment was directed at Pete, not you. I was in a hurry and didn’t label it. :) But now it’s been pointed out to me that Pete did, indeed, make a pretty hilarious joke. Can’t blame me for assuming he was serious.

  692. #693 Rowan
    March 16, 2009

    After reading John Kwok’s threat regarding friends on Facebook I decided to take a look.

    hmmm….as off right now:

    PZ Myers – 4,036 friends
    John Kwok – 415 friends

    Somehow I do not believe even a dent could be made by Kwok.

  693. #694 cpsmith
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke @579

    “I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”

    If by unnatural you mean that it does not happen in nature then I think others have given adequate examples to lay the claim to rest.

    If by ‘unnatural’ you mean to say that orifices other than he vagina were not evolved for the purpose of procreation, then you may have a point. This is why I am very much against those perverts who use their God given noses for the base purpose of holding up their spectacles. God Hates Four-Eyes and Four-Eye Enablers!

  694. #695 Theo
    March 16, 2009

    Kill the pig!

    Facillis may be leading the challenge but that’s because he’s a Poe. (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it)

    Barb is horrible, but…

    My vote is for John Kwok since he’s just a bore! How many times have you finished reading one of his paragraphs sentences wishing you’d just gone tl;dr?

  695. #696 Lsuoma
    March 16, 2009


    Baaaaaaaaaarb!

  696. #697 cpsmith
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke @579

    “I’m sorry but I simply won’t accept the nonsense spouted by some. Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).”

    If by unnatural you mean that it does not happen in nature then I think others have given adequate examples to lay the claim to rest.

    If by ‘unnatural’ you mean to say that orifices other than he vagina were not evolved for the purpose of procreation, then you may have a point. This is why I am very much against those perverts who use their God given noses for the base purpose of holding up their spectacles. God Hates Four-Eyes and Four-Eye Enablers!

  697. #698 Kseniya
    March 16, 2009

    The real question is, do these reviled individuals provide endless entertainment, or eternal frustration?

    I can’t decide.

    Pete Rooke continues to amuse, even as I recall some of his more medieval attitudes about women.

    On the other hand… “Inflict”…

    [ * laughs merrily * ]

    The “cloud” quip was pretty funny, too.

    This Simon character sounds contemptible, but as I’ve never really encountered him, I don’t have an opinion.

    Kwok? Really?

    Was the Facebook threat for real, or a droll joke? Weird. Is he a stalker type? Eh… from what I’ve seen so far, I’d say no. Narcissistic? Perhaps. The Abby stuff is kinda creepy, though. Who knows what he’s doing behind the scenes? I’ve had friends stalked by men who came across as affable and sweet in public fora.

    Oh, I’m sorry, John! I didn’t see you there. Sorry to be discussing you as if you weren’t here. No, you can’t have my phone number.

    I, too, have mixed feelings about voting to ban someone. Have all these candidates actually qualified based on the criteria for plonkdom as defined by PZ? If so, then perhaps a vote is appropriate.

    At least Clarke, and even Barb, act as a catalyst for discussion. Just look at all the great info posted by people like Josh and David M. in response to these nutsalads. Barb’s take on homosexuality, rooted in base ignorance and fear, is reprehensible, but does provide an opportunity to refute. Maybe someone reading along will actually follow the links and learn something about why same-sex couples are every bit as good at parenting as hetero couples, and that the determining factor is not gender mix, but quality of relationships. (Yeah, I know… “Duh”… but people who fear such changes to their society need to understand these things!)

    Sorry, I’m soap-boxing. I’ll stop. (Ban me! Ban me!)

    (Sven for Molly!)

    I haven’t been very present lately. I will abstain. Events will play out according to the will of the voting public, who are ever so more informed than I. :-)

  698. #699 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    I think the girls are just jealous ‘cos god didn’t give them a prostate…

  699. #700 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Well . . . how many times can you come in one session?

  700. #701 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    ‘snicker’

  701. #702 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    ;)

  702. #703 Joshua Zelinsky
    March 16, 2009

    Hmm, apparently Bard has now fulfilled the challeneg in comment #168. This is starting to look interesting.

  703. #704 Silver Fox
    March 16, 2009

    “Silver Fox can’t be expected to comment very often; he’s got a very special assignment to complete. In order to prevent Christianity from being invalidated by his own argument he has to disprove all the other gods who’ve ever been posited.”

    That old issue has been laid to rest long ago, at least to the rational mind, of which there are few on this blog site. There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.

    I am not unaware that this fundamental reasoning escapes most on this site, but again, that’s not my fault. Go back and get your money from the college or high school that claims to have given you an education.

  704. #705 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    So you were egging the poor schmoe on. I see your game.

    Yeah, I was. It’s amazing how sexually repressed some theists are, with all those hormones swimming around it must be hell to be one.

  705. #706 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Hmm, apparently Bard has now fulfilled the challeneg in comment #168. This is starting to look interesting.

    Actually if you click on Barb’s name you get notraellybarb.com. I hate it when people post under someone else’s name.

  706. #707 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.

    FAIL. Find a new argument.

  707. #708 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    how many times can you come in one session?

    Only once, alas. But I exit a happier man.

  708. #709 Jadehawk
    March 16, 2009

    it’s neither fundamental, nor is it reasoning. besides, I’ve conclusively demonstrated that perfection must be dual, therefore the Christian god either has a girlfriend/evil twin, or doesn’t exist.

    go back to the drawing board.

  709. #710 windy
    March 16, 2009

    Has anyone here actually unknowingly imbibed semen?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7JphDnShg

  710. #711 kamaka
    March 16, 2009

    Oh, man did this thread get long Fast!! Just…can’t…read it…all…

    Stupid Barb, smarmy and bigoted.

    I’ve hated her since the “oh, I’m in a pit of vipers” comment. Stupid bitch, you godbot on a notorious atheist blog, then play the victim when the vipers bite. A passive-aggressive abuser who maybe could be tolerated for educational purposes, except for the bigotry.

    I call Closeted Lesbian. It’s the strap-on for her.

    And why do we put up with Rooke here? Doesn’t he have a blog? Go home, Pete, just go home. We promise to visit.

  711. #712 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?

    Obviously that one god is not the Christian construct of the deity. If you disagree, find holes in my argument on the “Satan, et. al” thread, it was approximately #480

  712. #713 prudence
    March 16, 2009

    “There is only ONE God”

    Silver Fox, please prove it. It’s ok, I’ll wait.

  713. #714 PrisonerOfEvil
    March 16, 2009

    @ #704: Exactly, my brother in the Lord. That is why there are so many pantheons that exist with multiple Gods: because he went through a schizophrenic period a while back. Because there is one God with many names.

    And of course God is perfect. That’s why he was smart enough to make Satan, who by his omniscience he knew would betray him. Because God perfectly wants there to be sin in the world so he can send people to hell and watch them squirm for all eternity. Because he’s perfect.

  714. #715 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    And another two hundred twenty while I write the next comment. <headdesk>

    On the last few Molly threads I voted for Feynmaniac without even knowing this comment of his. Read it. Especially Facilis.

    Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina.

    And the banana fits into…

    Yeees, Mr Comfort, that too.

    ears are for hearing with

    Well, actually… mammal ears contain a jaw joint…

    I’m not yet married so I have yet to have sex.

    Again, it’s funny if I say this, but if two people don’t know each other outside and inside, I don’t think they should marry… granted, getting divorced is bureaucratically easier than getting married, but… :-S

    I assume that Barbs response was identity theft?

    Point at the link that is her name. (Actually clicking on it would be pointless.)

    frog,

    Fuck off.

    Wow. Progress. Told you there’s hope for him.

    Pete: Khan! Khan!!!! Khan!!!!!!!!!

    LOL! Someone please find the YouTube video and the Wikipedia article, so Pete can enjoy the context. I’ll… try to go to bed.

  715. #716 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Janine, didja see my little script at #670? (Got lost in the shuffle I fear.)

  716. #717 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    The sad silly goat is feeling left out. He wants oh so badly to be flogged. He needs to set up an appointment with Patricia.

  717. #718 Longstreet63
    March 16, 2009

    @Fox 704
    “There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.”

    First you have to define ‘God’.

    If you can, then it isn’t.

  718. #719 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    So heddle and SfO have both shown up. Yuck.

    ***

    Janine:

    Oh my. Both Cath and SC are coming on to me. I am getting hot and bothered in my little corner of the electronic world.

    If that one was indeed you, I’m flattered. I think I may start using “eat the puss,” which makes me smile. Especially when I think about Janine, who’s freakin’ hot…and cool. In fact, I get all wet and lathered at the very thought…

    On the other hand, rough men are sexy, and semen is yummy…

    Still with us, Rooke?

    ***

    Feynmaniac:

    Not sure what I did, but I’m glad it helped!

    I liked the synopses and representative quotes.

    ***

    SC, I posted something to my “blog” just (*checks*) two weeks ago!

    And prior to that, when? (And was this most recent only because I reminded you of its existence?) :P

    ***

    Calladus:

    Masturbation is a type of sex.

    But not anal. Ask any virginity-pledge signer.

  719. #720 windy
    March 16, 2009

    Was the Facebook threat for real, or a droll joke? Weird. Is he a stalker type? Eh… from what I’ve seen so far, I’d say no.

    Exhibit A, exhibit B

  720. #721 Dianne
    March 16, 2009

    Regularly quotes the Bible and AiG.

    FSM forgive me, I read that at first as quoting AIG, you know, American International Group, the company we US taxpayers keep bailing out.

  721. #722 tresmal
    March 16, 2009

    It looks like Barb is out. Not only did she get the most votes, but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t even understand the immunity challenge. The next to go should be Simon. He’s just dumb, hateful and worse, boring. Kwok does most of his um, best work on other blogs and really isn’t worth bothering with. The rest, for amusement, spectacle or sparring practice can stay. Facilis, though needs to move his argument past repeated assertions or he should get the hook.

  722. #723 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    But not anal. Ask any virginity-pledge signer.

    Saddlebacking

    Heh.

  723. #724 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    I am a bit bemused, though not displeased, to have this unexpectedly turn into a lesbian sex thread…..

  724. #725 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Innit fun? ;)

  725. #726 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Silver ‘By my own logic Christianity is invalid because I can’t disprove the existence of other gods’ Fox wrote:

    That old issue has been laid to rest long ago, at least to the rational mind, of which there are few on this blog site. There is only ONE God, many names. Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.

    Once again, Silver Fox, it has to be pointed out that your assertion that there can only be one god doesn’t count as an argument.

    Where is the support for your claim of the necessity of there being only one god? Where is the support for your claim that, if there is only one god, that that god must be perfect? Whence comes this knowledge, Silver Fox?

    You haven’t answered these questions, only dodged them. As you will dodge them again by running away as you always do when you can’t answer. So it’s time to sing your song:

    Fox on run, foxy fox on the run…

  726. #727 Cheerful Atheist
    March 16, 2009

    Aww, I kind of like the trolls.

    Mainly because I enjoy watching them get thwomped.

  727. #728 kamaka
    March 16, 2009

    And silver fox just keeps saying the same shit over and over again because, of course, it’s *SO FUCKING OBVIOUS*, he just can’t get why we don’t get it.

    “It’s apparent” is no arguement. You will never have evidence. There can be no evidence. Shut up already.

  728. #729 clinteas
    March 16, 2009

    SC @ 719,

    On the other hand, rough men are sexy, and semen is yummy…

    *FAINTS*

  729. #730 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    windy (@#710) wins the Weird Link award for this thread. Something about vanilla pudding.

  730. #731 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    No carry on ladies, carry on, just don’t mind us…

  731. #732 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    Well, BMS, with the yelling of “Khan!”, I was assuming that the Rookie was James T Kirk.

    ‘being very sheepish’

  732. #733 Crystal D.
    March 16, 2009

    I’ll vote for Barb.

    I’m also very happy that I am not on the list of dingleberries. Hooray! Of course, I’m also not a religious troll. :)

  733. #734 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    David: The “you don’t get to say ‘it’s a joke’ comment was directed at Pete, not you.

    I know.

    Can’t blame me for assuming he was serious.

    That’s unfortunately correct…

    Are you sure you’re thinking of the right sex act?

    I was thinking of the presidential one. Apparently you’re thinking of the linguistic one, where of course it doesn’t matter whether I am ticklish… though I can’t imagine enjoying that either. :-/

    I call Closeted Lesbian.

    Nope — she’s bisexual. That’s shown by her inability to imagine that anyone is not bisexual, which she has made very clear.

  734. #735 Doc Bill
    March 16, 2009

    I vote off the Island PAUL NELSON, except that he’s too much of a coward to comment in an open forum.

    So, Barb it is.

  735. #736 IST
    March 16, 2009

    Colour me confused, but I thought GWIAS was in the dungeon?

  736. #737 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    There can only be one god. Because, see if there were two, then there would be more than one, but there is only one. See? Plus, there could be no logic or reason (of the sort just displayed) if there were no god. Or gods. But because one is the lonleiest perfect number, there is only one. Because one god would be perfect, while two or more would be impossible, there being just the one. It’s elementary logic, on loan from the one and only god.

  737. #738 BMS
    March 16, 2009

    Tee hee hee.

    Madam, it has been a pleasure. I have to be off now.

    See you in another thread, another day.

  738. #739 Dianne
    March 16, 2009

    Yes those actions are DEEPLY unnatural.

    Unnatural? You want DEEPLY UNNATURAL? Try…the internet! You’re communicating with hundreds of people in many parts of the world, simultaneously (unnatural), by means of a highly unnatural set of “tubes” (aka fiber optic networks), unnatural satellites and cell towers. You’re using a completely unnatural computer with unnatural silicon chips in it to produce your communique, probably writing at night using unnatural lighting sources, almost certainly in an unnatural shelter, possibly propping the computer on your unnaturally large belly (and no matter how thin and fit you are, you’re probably unnaturally fat compared to humans in their natural state). And even the core piece of your communication: the written word, is quite unnatural. And you have the nerve to call mildly creative sex unnatural?

  739. #740 Dust
    March 16, 2009

    I vote to ban Facilis to the dungeon.

  740. #741 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    While Alan Clarke has yet to answer the challenge he offered this:

    Remember the story of the 3 blind men describing what an elephant is like?….. If a blind evolutionist grabs the elephant’s penis and notices that the more he studies it the longer it gets, he will surely extrapolate his findings to conclude the penis will reach the Moon one million years from now. [ Source ]

    Why Alan’s mind went straight to bestiality handjobs I don’t know.

  741. #742 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Colour me confused, but I thought GWIAS was in the dungeon?

    He is. There are ways past security, but I also felt there was a bit of morphing/Poeing using trolls names this afternoon, and his may have been one of them.

  742. #743 cpsmith
    March 16, 2009

    Silverfox-
    “Why can there logically be only one God?, Why can’t God draw a square circle?, Why can’t God make 7 plus 5 equal 13? They all lack perfection and it is a logical contradiction for God to lack perfection.”

    Ok, I know those intro philosophy courses tend not to be too clear on this point so I suppose you can be forgiven this little stumble, but you should know that philosophy has moved on a bit since the time of the Greeks. These days, if you want to say something woogly and mysterious like ‘a square circle lacks perfection’ then you are going to have explain what that means before you can use it to prop up your argument.

  743. #744 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Silver Fox has run away, crapping himself in fear – as usual. He can’t stand being reminded of the massive fuckup which rendered his already invalid religion even more so.

  744. #745 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    Ok, dealing with the fallout of my posts at least one more time before I forget about his thread. I’m sorry my attempt at defending poor bigoted Barb were the cause of so much anger for some people.

    First for the concern trolling.
    Kate @ 512

    Your pearl clutching and lame attempts to paint me as some hate-filled person “out to get” anyone are certainly dramatic, but they’re not in any way true.

    I’m sorry for the excess of emotion in my previous post at #392, but I took your categorization of all people disagreeing with the trend in comments here to be “concern trolling” as a personal attack in much the same way that homosexual persons reading Barb’s statements may take it as personal. I did not try (at least intentionally) to portray you as “some hate-filled person.” My post was merely an expression of the general outrage I have worked up reading this thread, and what I perceive to be the intolerance for dissenting view.

    I chose Barb for her unending stupidity. I voted for her because she has absolutely no redeeming qualities as a poster on Pharyngula. She adds nothing to the discussion, and only serves to detract from the debate.

    As I mentioned previously, I disagree with this and won’t get into it again. Of course as you say, a game was proposed, and if you wish to participate you are well within your right to do so. My initial rant defending Barb was against her landslide nomination and I did not mean to single any one person out for that.

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, perhaps you can tell me what part of my comment was directed at you? I think the salutation indicated that I was directing my comment to Janine, and I don’t think Janine suddenly got a sex change, so how this came to be all about you and your shrill asshattery is a bit of a mystery to me.

    Now this… this I find a bit childish. Sorry. Your comment was posted publicly on a blog so that anyone could read, and I assume, take issue with it.
    I’m sorry if that got incoherent at any point, it makes sense to me reading it over but then again I’m getting a little tired. You did ask me to respond though, and I felt I owed you that after my previous outburst.
    And lastly,

    AdamK @ 559

    (Although I hope Brian from Edmondton is on some future list. What a douchebag.)

    I’m sorry something I said caused this reaction. If it was my Barb rant, do I really deserve lumping in with her just because I didn’t jump on the ‘BAN BARB’ bandwagon? I knew when I was writing that I was representing a minority opinion, and aside from my lashing out at Kate earlier I thought I presented my opinion in as undouche-like a manner as I could. You obviously disagree… sorry?

  745. #746 Brian in Edmonton
    March 16, 2009

    Oh dear… that really is a huge block of text I just posted isn’t it. Well, I’ll leave this thread alone from here unless someone asks me to respond. My apologies for taking up so much space.

  746. #747 bastion of sass
    March 16, 2009

    Simon should go.

    Simon’s posts are good for…nothing. He’s not even useful as a bad example.

    He’s perversely obsessed with writing about penises, feces, anal sex, homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia.

    And his idea of a pithy or insightful post is to accuse other posters, or members of their families, of being the ones obsessed with, or engaged in, his own sexual preoccupations.

    Combine that with his regurgitating what is probably the most simple-minded religious babbling I’ve seen in the year I’ve been reading Pharyngula, and the result is posts that, without exception, are juvenile, creepy, vile, and vacant of any redeeming value whatsoever.

    For those not familiar with Simon, I’d post a link to some of his more vile comments, but, I can’t in good conscience do that. You’d have to disinfect your brain after reading them.

    Pete’s analogies can be disturbing, true, but he can’t come close to the disgusting dreck that Simon writes.

    Barb is a nasty, obnoxious, and odious piece of puffed-up piety, but IMO still has some value as a good example of the evil that can result from religious indoctrination.

  747. #748 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    I am a bit bemused, though not displeased, to have this unexpectedly turn into a lesbian sex thread…..

    I suspected there’d be some ollateral, um, whatever.

    ***

    *FAINTS*

    You know I adore you, clinteas. You’re the roughest of all, I bet.

    ;P

  748. #749 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    Ummmm…Brian, it’s unfortunatly not possible – or doesn’t seem to be – to justify oneself here. If you take offence, it just gets worse and worse. One of John’s main faults is that he is continually taking offence, in a more and more hysterical and amusing way.
    I just don’t think you’ll argue yourself happy here – however
    right you may be.

  749. #750 Alan Kellogg
    March 16, 2009

    Seeing as everybody else is doing it, I bravely join the mob and vote to see Barb dumped in the dungeon.

    Seriously, disagreeing with somebody is one thing, personal attacks are another. Barb is just a garden variety bigot with a nasty disposition. So off she goes.

  750. #751 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    And I’d like to apologize for my childish and immature behavior earlier today, when I referred to everyone posting on this thread as “poopy-heads.” It was merely a lame attempt to work simon’s MO into my schtick, and I fear that I caused offense. The truth is that I do not think that most of the people posting on this thread are poopy-heads, and I am sincerely sorry to have caused some posters to think that perhaps I really was calling them poopy-heads in a personal manner. In fact, I do think some of the posters here could fairly be called poopy-heads, but I would not normally do so if I wasn’t doing some kind of OTT Poeish thing at the time, which I was. So…sorry?

  751. #752 Invigilator
    March 16, 2009

    At the risk of being jumped on, I say let them all blather on. All of them are sometimes amusing, and Barb in particular is a wonderful example of how hateful Christians can be. They won’t do any harm here, I think, while they might if they’re out there dispensing their nonsense to a more naive or deluded audience.

  752. #753 TheBlackCat
    March 16, 2009

    The art of procreation and the members employed therein are so repulsive, that if it were not for the beauty of the faces and the adornments of the actors and the pent-up impulse, nature would lose the human species.
    -Leonardo da Vinci

    Btw, my vote is for Barb. I would vote for Facilis due to the Facebook threat and the fact that we are guaranteed to get rid of Barb sooner or later, it looks like Facilis is likely to win immunity so it would be a wasted vote.

  753. #754 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    I caught up! I caught up! :-)

    I vote off the Island PAUL NELSON

    Is that the same as Marshall Nelson, that is, Charlie Wagner the Banned?

  754. #755 cicely
    March 16, 2009

    Pete Rooke @ 579:

    Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose (there’s one for all you biologists on here).

    Even if we grant your point, evolution also involves something called exaptation, in which, to paraphrase Wikipedia (pause to dodge incoming missile attacks) structures originally adapted for one function, coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. In this case, an obvious “other function” might have to do with enhancing pair-bonding (even within the sterotypic entirely monogamous marriage preferred by conventional Christianity). Other interpersonal and social by-products may also apply.

  755. #756 Hank Bones
    March 16, 2009

    I think that Sven should be awarded the keys to the Dungeon. Sven DeMillo, DungeonMaster.

    JK gets my vote, btw. Only because I know that Barb is already gone.

  756. #757 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Rooke @#502
    “I would never inflict oral sex on a women.”

    The funniest part of his “joke” is that he’s never done it.

  757. #758 Blake Stacey
    March 16, 2009

    Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?

    [raises hand]

  758. #759 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 16, 2009

    The art of procreation and the members employed therein are so repulsive [...]
    -Leonardo da Vinci

    Wasn’t he gay…?

  759. #760 SteveL
    March 16, 2009

    I don’t know how serious the immunity challenge is, but John Kwok and Facilis seem to have posted fairly okay responses (ignoring Facebook threats). Also Kwok is irritating, but he’s not a creationist unlike presumably all the others.

  760. #761 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    So far we have two entries for the male counterpart to vagitarian.

    1) erectarian
    2) phallusofer

    Any more or should we choose between these two?
    I know it’s a hard decision but I’m sure everyone is up for it.

  761. #762 Silver Fox
    March 16, 2009

    Nerd:
    “FAIL. Find a new argument.”

    By FAIL I assume you you mean that you fail to understand the argument. Since the logic of the proposition would be understood by a reasonably intelligent high school graduate, I am assuming that 1) you are not reasonably intelligent, or 2) you’re not a high school graduate.

    Jade:
    “I’ve conclusively demonstrated that perfection must be dual.”

    What that statement says is that God is perfect and not perfect at the same time. Again, any rational person would see the error there.

    Kel:
    “that one god is not the Christian construct of the deity. If you disagree, find holes in my argument”

    The first hole in your argument is to think of God as a “construct”. Philosophically, God is Absolute Simplicity; God is in no way complex, made of parts, and consequently not a construct.

    “Silver Fox, please prove it. It’s ok, I’ll wait.”

    The proof is in the proposition. All you need is the reasoning necessary to understanding it.

    WOW:
    “it has to be pointed out that your assertion that there can only be one god doesn’t count as an argument.

    It is not an assertion or an argument. It is a cogent, logical proposition that can be understood by any reasonably person who is not inclined to pursue an agenda contrary to logic and reason.

  762. #763 TheBlackCat
    March 16, 2009

    Wasn’t he gay…?
    He was accused of being gay, although the charges were later dropped.

  763. #764 WTFinterrobang
    March 16, 2009

    I’m with Blake Stacey and you can call me a semenarian of the most unholy kind.

  764. #765 Rowan
    March 16, 2009

    @Hank Bones #757 JK gets my vote, btw. Only because I know that Barb is already gone.

    Pray tell. How do you know that Barb is indeed already gone?

  765. #766 Dustin
    March 16, 2009

    You can’t ban John Kwok! He knows some very distinguished African Americans from his very prestigious alma mater! And Frank McCourt!

  766. #767 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    The first hole in your argument is to think of God as a “construct”. Philosophically, God is Absolute Simplicity; God is in no way complex, made of parts, and consequently not a construct.

    Did you even read my argument? I in no way referred to God as a construct or talked about complexity.

  767. #768 Leigh Williams
    March 16, 2009

    BMS, lovely wedding! I liked your and your lovely bride’s outfits, and Dave made a very handsome guy of honor!

    Sven, #59 would be a sure Molly, except that Janine should get it for the Barb takedown rant. PZ, can we do two this month?

    And, of course, Barb has got to go. It’s one thing to debate, and we NEED our trolls for their entertainment value. But it’s another thing altogether to post the kind of crap Barb did. That’s way, way over the line. We just can’t let evil bigoted people come in here and launch nasty personal attacks on our friends.

    Besides, I missed the thread on which Barb attacked Janine. If Barb comes back, I will go atomic on her worthless ass, and I am trying to give up profane and intemperate posting on the intertubes for Lent. Obviously I’m already not doing too great with that spiritual discipline thing, so I need all the help I can get.

  768. #769 Bride of Shrek OM
    March 16, 2009

    Ok, I’m late to the party but really, if they’re all grouped together on a Survivor type island can’t we just strafe the whole friggin lot?

    ..failing that, I vote Barb because she’s consistently shown herself to be a dumb and ignorant bitch with no class and the comments to Janine of the Many Personalities was totally fucking wrong on all levels.

  769. #770 Tom Foss
    March 16, 2009

    Janine #595:

    My hands did not evolve for the purpose of typing on my keyboard, yet I am doing it.

    I would never inflict typing on a women.

    TheBlackCat #754:

    The art of procreation and the members employed therein are so repulsive, that if it were not for the beauty of the faces and the adornments of the actors and the pent-up impulse, nature would lose the human species.

    They call it “bumpin’ uglies” for a reason.

    Is it just me, or is the “the penis and vagina were made for each other” argument kind of the flipside of the “if God didn’t want us to masturbate, he would have made our hands shorter” arguments I used to hear in Junior High?

  770. #771 George
    March 16, 2009

    Note to Pete Rooke. When you attempt tomake a joke make sure not to be the joke. There is an art to telling a joke that requires that your audience is on board.

  771. #772 Angel Kaida
    March 16, 2009

    …Why are people voting for Sven DeMilo? What did Facilis threaten about Facebook? Who is John Kwok?! I leave for three days and everything goes epic? I vote for Barb. What an evil fucking woman.

  772. #773 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    I for one feel sorry for Silver Fox. He does everthing he can to be wrong and he doesn’t even make the short list.
    You’ll need to be more offensive – in fact, I’d positively encourage you to attack our gay friends ;) – or get mega-huffy and go on all about your friends. Well, try the first of those anyway.
    I’ll vote for you to be on the shortlist next time, boyo!

  773. #774 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 16, 2009

    First the lezzies are running amok. Now the gayz are coming out. This thread is a bad influence on the distressed gentle folk.

  774. #775 Marie the Bookwyrm
    March 16, 2009

    Delurking here to vote Barb off the island. Her preaching, her imperviousness (is that a word?) to argument, her equating homosexuality with incest and pedophilia all fill me with the desire to bash her in the head with a virtual baseball bat. Get you hence, Barb!

    And now that I’ve done my duty and voted, I’m going to read all the comments. :)

  775. #776 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    God didn’t want us to masturbate

    What? When did he say that!

  776. #777 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    @Decrepit Fox:

    The proof is in the proposition presupposition.

    fixed.

    fucking moron.

  777. #778 A. Noyd
    March 16, 2009

    I thought Silver Fox’s task was to show why the “one god” had to be the Christian god specifically and not any other god? He seems to have dodged this time by pretending people were saying more than one god could exist.

    Also, Silver Fox, a proposition is not necessarily true just because it’s cogent and appeals to you. One of the rules of logic is that, for an argument to be sound, its propositions must be true. So if you want us to accept a proposition (and then your argument if it’s valid), you must show why it’s true first. “I like it” or “it makes sense this way” are insufficient. Try again.

  778. #779 Designed for Swinging
    March 16, 2009

    Sastra @ 606 “The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics. Clearly, nobody is performing a paranormal stunt here, or claiming to. That’s what “unnatural” would mean — against nature. Beyond natural abilities.”

    Actually, there was this one girl back in high school…

  779. #780 Deathweaver516
    March 16, 2009

    John Kwok.

    Threating people is really pathetic, especially when you threaten them with Facebook.

  780. #781 Wowbagger, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Silver ‘still trying to dodge his invalidation of his own religion’ Fox wrote:

    It is not an assertion or an argument. It is a cogent, logical proposition that can be understood by any reasonably person who is not inclined to pursue an agenda contrary to logic and reason.

    It is nothing resembling a ‘logical proposition’; it is your assertion, one made with no evidence or argument to support it. I understand that you think it’s reasonable – but you haven’t at any point provided any rationale for your doing so.

    You are making assumptions about the qualities possessed by a supernatural being, a being that you know nothing about other than from your holy book and your daydreams. And the only reason you push monotheism and not polytheism is because you weren’t born into a polytheistic religion.

    So, once again, you haven’t answered the questions – why must there only be one god? why, if there is only one god, must it be perfect? All you’ve done is cite pithy aphorisms – which also aren’t arguments.

    For example:

    God is Absolute Simplicity; God is in no way complex, made of parts, and consequently not a construct.

    How is this an argument? Where did you find this description of your god, and how do you know that it’s accurate? If you can’t answer that then it’s an assertion.

  781. #782 Rowan
    March 16, 2009

    @Angel Kaida #773

    Actually, it was John Kwok who made a threat that if he were banned he would cause PZ to lose friends on Facebook. A few commenters have misattributed the threat to Facilis. Take a look at post #371 for the origination. John is a name dropper of dubious validity.

    Sven Milo is nominated for a Molly for his brilliant posts tonight in this thread beginning with #59.

  782. #783 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    They won’t do any harm here, I think,

    oops, you thought wrong.

  783. #784 A. Noyd
    March 16, 2009

    Rowan (#783)

    John is a name dropper of dubious validity.

    He doesn’t just drop the names, he weaves them into his identity like a bad trip through a teleportation device.

  784. #785 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    “The opposite of “natural” is “supernatural” — defying the known laws of physics. Clearly, nobody is performing a paranormal stunt here, or claiming to. That’s what “unnatural” would mean — against nature. Beyond natural abilities.”

    So when ones partner is calling out “Oh God, oh GOD!” would that mean that any sex between people who invoke the name God during relations are infact taking part in unnatural sex? You know, because you’re doing all the hard work and God’s getting the credit – unless God is involved in the process.

  785. #786 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Sven, #59 would be a sure Molly, except that Janine should get it for the Barb takedown rant. PZ, can we do two this month?

    Vote late, vote often:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/good_golly_its_time_for_molly.php

    ***

    Wasn’t he gay…?

    [art history major]

    From what I’ve read, it’s very difficult to tell. I may not be attuned to the signs, and I may be out of the art-historical loop, but I’ve not heard or seen anything definitive. He had a fascinating relationship with the rest of humanity generally. His Notebooks is a great read.

    [/art history major]

  786. #787 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 16, 2009

    Alright! I admit it. The Devil Is My Friend!

  787. #788 Dustin
    March 16, 2009

    Who is John Kwok?

    He is nothing less than the cornerstone of all reality. All flows from Kwok, and is connected to him. He met Andy Warhol at a really chic party.

  788. #789 Angel Kaida
    March 16, 2009

    @Rowan #783
    Thank you! I thought people were voting Sven off the island, which was a terrifying notion.

  789. #790 Bobber
    March 16, 2009

    Janine said:

    First the lezzies are running amok. Now the gayz are coming out. This thread is a bad influence on the distressed gentle folk.

    Hear hear! They didn’t even give me time to don my trenchcoat and grab my binoculars for the close-ups.

  790. #791 clinteas
    March 16, 2009

    All this talk about vagitarians makes me hungry.

  791. #792 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    Hi SC!

    I’ve been absent of late but didn’t see much of you when I had time to lurk.

  792. #793 Ktesibios
    March 16, 2009

    I vote for Barb.

  793. #794 WTFinterrobang
    March 16, 2009

    @Janine #789

    If only I had a nickel for every time I heard, “Work that pole…Go, Go Boy.”

  794. #795 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    As a straight man, I wouldn’t like the gay ladies to stop talking about sex. I feel I can appreciate it on an intellectual level…

  795. #796 Hank Bones
    March 16, 2009

    @Rowan

    I suppose I don’t actually know that Barb will lose. But if I were a betting man, I’d put my money on her landing in the dungeon, and soon.

    Come to think of it, I am a betting man. Having not read more than the first 100 or so posts, I’d still be willing to bet my newly won “Friendly Atheist” wristband that Barb loses Round 1. Got anything you’d like to put up against it?

  796. #797 ambulocetus
    March 16, 2009

    On seeing the topic, my first reaction was “Barb!” But after reading the entire thread (OMFSM, it’s bedtime!) I think I changed my mind. One of my rules for life is when faced with a choice the popular one is usually wrong. I think Mr. Kwok might actually learn something by being banned. Barb has a better chance of learning something if she stays; besides, if she’s in here, she’s not outside trying to infect others with her toxic memes. My second choice would be Simon.

  797. #798 GaryB
    March 16, 2009

    Why ban anybody? Without a few nutters, places like this can become quite boring.

    I’ve watched a few places boot nutters out then a few weeks later complain there are no trolls to feed.

    That said, Barb sounds to be more than a nutter, giv’er the boot.

  798. #799 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    I think there’s little doubt that, although the orifice preceded the intromittent organ, human penises and vaginas are coadapted. I also doubt that the same can be said for anuses, mouths, or wherever the hell Kel was alluding to above. But so what? If the shoe fits (so to speak)…

  799. #800 Dustin
    March 16, 2009

    If the shoe fits

    Put your penis in it?

  800. #801 mayhempix
    March 16, 2009

    “All this talk about vagitarians makes me hungry.”

    You and me both.

  801. #802 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    If the shoe fits

    Marry her!

  802. #803 Kel
    March 16, 2009

    I think there’s little doubt that, although the orifice preceded the intromittent organ, human penises and vaginas are coadapted. I also doubt that the same can be said for anuses, mouths, or wherever the hell Kel was alluding to above. But so what? If the shoe fits (so to speak)…

    I think Ray Comfort is onto something when he holds that phallic fruit and talks about how well it fits in the hand…

  803. #804 Hank Bones
    March 16, 2009

    @Sven

    Sorry for misspelling your name a few posts back. To apologize, I’m gonna go and belatedly nominate you for a proper OM rather than the DM I suggested. Although you do deserve the DungeonMaster award as well.

  804. #805 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    I’d just lose the damn keys.

  805. #806 tony
    March 16, 2009

    teh ENd! Yay!!!!

    I’ve laughed. I’ve cried (well laughed harder, actually). I’ve had lots of really nice images dancing behind my eyes (and lots of great ideas for sharing with my wife in a few minutes! Note to self – SHAVE before bed! Yo quiero Taco, ma Belle!)

    Barb is ugly. I vote for Barb out of solidarity (and I mean solid – I need a shower… later!) with my hot lesbian friends, here.

    I also vote for Kwok. Utterly inane, self-aggrandizing asshat.

    Rooke is weak. Facilis is dull. Alan Clarke & RogerS appear to be limiting themselves to specific threads (so can be killfiled as needed). Simon is just a pain in the ass, and is permanently killfiled. Maybe if I looked, I’d see something worth voting on.

    Now – time for bed – and thanks for the energy boost!

  806. #807 Rowan
    March 16, 2009

    @Hank Bones

    I misunderstood your comment about Barb, then. I read it as indicating she shouldn’t be on the list to be voted a ban as she was already gone.

    My apologies.

  807. #808 Ichthyic
    March 16, 2009

    If the shoe fits

    ummm…

    aw, fuck it.

    :p

  808. #809 Eric Saveau
    March 16, 2009

    Awfully late to the party here, but -

    Barb is my first choice, for all the myriad reasons listed above. Even though she has served an an excellent illustration of just how evil her kind are, I doubt she has anything further to add to the self-portrait.

    Pete Rooke a nose-close second. He’s hateful scum. No redeeming value whatsoever. I’m embarrassed to live in the same spiral arm as that empty, pitiful excuse for a man.

    Close third, John Kwok. He was a narcissistic, sanctimonious, creepy stalker before, and he’s one now. And the “Facebook threat” is going to be a classic, easily supplanting his previous trick of mumbling “mendacious intellectual pornography” over and over and over again.

    Facilis brings up the rear, which is where I suspect he likes to take it if he could only bring himself to admit that.

    The rest can wait their turns…

  809. #810 Menyambal
    March 16, 2009

    Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.

  810. #811 Patricia, OM
    March 16, 2009

    #451 – Rick Schauer – Thank you for your compliment!
    I assure you that my 931 page bible will afford many more barbs of reason to be cast at the christian fucktards.

    “Surely I come quickly.”

    Ahhh, the sweet last words of jezus to be printed.

  811. #812 DLC
    March 16, 2009

    Sven DiMilo at various locations:
    Dude,if you’re going to do christo-rant, you need to remember to close with a blessing from the allmighty or “warm regards” at the end of your post, or it doesn’t count as a Poe.

  812. #813 Numad
    March 16, 2009

    “Kwok sure is campaigning for my vote.”

    He managed to change my vote (if I have one.) On another blog there was a regular who did the same sort of thing, altough possibly to a lesser degree and more strategically (to every issue he’d try and evoke the most convenient personal relationship possible, even if it didn’t make much sense.) Kwok is doing it to such a degree that it looks involuntary, but I still can’t stand it.

    I vote for Kwok.

  813. #814 Sven DiMilo
    March 16, 2009

    DLC–you’re right!
    I’ll pray for you.

  814. #815 AnthonyK
    March 16, 2009

    If the shoe fits

    Errrr…Tegretol?

  815. #816 Aquaria
    March 16, 2009

    It is not an assertion or an argument. It is a cogent, logical proposition that can be understood by any reasonably person who is not inclined to pursue an agenda contrary to logic and reason.

    You stupid piece of shit. Do you not understand what an assertion is?

    You’re just saying that X is so, without providing any evidence that it is.

    I can’t stand this guy. Why wasn’t he on this list of fucktards to toss to the sharks?

    You’re a slimy, fucked up piece of shit, Silver Fox.

    Cough up some fucking evidence of any of your assertions. Until you do, they are only assertions.

    Fucking moron.

    Since he’s unfortunately not on the list, I vote for Barb, although the John Kwok nonsense moved him up to #2. Which is somehow appropriate.

  816. #817 Feynmaniac
    March 16, 2009

    Anyone saying that none of these people should be banned please read the following quotes from Simon:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/what_if_god_disappeared.php

    There is No God therefore you are ALLOWED having sex with your mom and dad vise versa.
    Ask PZM if he likes to have sex with you, may be he already has sex with his kids.
    It is allowed, no rules no law, as atheist you are free. scientifically right.

    maybe your mother practices polyandry. Do you know who your father is ?? Every day she has a different man in her bed, like a hooker !! Do you enjoy watching her, ha ??

    do you agree with homosexual ?
    is it ok to insert your penis to a man’s anus ?

    oh you are a gay !?
    if no rape it is ok, do you smell the feces perfume after?
    do you think the canal through which feces are released is the proper place for your penis ?

    Genius Nerd,
    you are awaited by Kel tonight to lick Your feces on his penis. Free HIV guaranteed.

    These quotes are fairly typical of his commentary.

  817. #818 SC, OM
    March 16, 2009

    Hi SC!

    I’ve been absent of late but didn’t see much of you when I had time to lurk.

    Hi, mayhempix-of-the-cool-shaped-face! I was asking about you recently on the Molly thread (would’ve voted for you, but you weren’t around so much in Feb.).

    I’ve had a sad week, but I’m trying to put it in perspective and not feel sorry for myself. Have been bickering on the “Islam hates women” thread, but am not in the mood to return there right now. Worse, not up to punning…or even rhyming.
    :(

    Glad to see you back!

    ***

    Stephen Colbert just called Mark Sanford “incredibly boring…a vanilla envelope glued to a beige wall.” Heh.

  818. #819 Tabby Lavalamp
    March 16, 2009

    Pete “Weinerboy” Rooke is sexist, but it so twisted in his analogies and disapproval of any sex act that isn’t penis penetrating vagina that he amuses me. However, writing “I wasn’t aware of how much vitriol I inspired. I’ll take my leave then,” then posting several times since would normally have earned him my vote if it wasn’t for stronger contenders.

    I was going to vote Barb. For most of this long, long thread it wasn’t even close despite Pete “Lapitup” Rooke’s broken promise. But then John Kwok came along and not once but twice made threat’s involving Facebook friends…

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.

    @ PZ -

    I am not writing again to irritate you, but I am putting you on notice. I have contacted several prominent friends over at Facebook to act accordingly if you decide to bounce me from Pharyngula.

    And that clinched it. Such asinine assholery can’t go unpunished, so I vote John Kwok.

  819. #820 Menyambal
    March 17, 2009

    Kwok. I’m so tired of hearing him calling himself “Aristides the Just”. Although banning the blowhard might just be the ego boost he needs to reach critical mess. His efforts at revenge should be amusing. And maybe he’ll learn a good lesson.

    Some of the others would just get swollen up with even more hate, and not learn a damned thing.

  820. #821 Patricia, OM
    March 17, 2009

    I’m too far behind to catch up tonight.

    Good night you naughty darlings!

  821. #822 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    I agree totally. Simon is a no-brainer – literally; whatever happens he should go.

  822. #823 Numad
    March 17, 2009

    “Why wasn’t he on this list of fucktards to toss to the sharks?”

    His extremely low degree of content might be making him into a stealth troll?

  823. #824 Dustin
    March 17, 2009

    And that clinched it. Such asinine assholery can’t go unpunished, so I vote John Kwok.

    You don’t understand… some of his friends went to the prestigious Stuyvesant High School! They’ll defriend us! And Frank McCourt will hate us!

  824. #825 «bønez_brigade»
    March 17, 2009

    My vote for the dungeon addition:

    Facilis

  825. #826 sharky
    March 17, 2009

    Still don’t hate Barb, but I also don’t have to read her. Voting her.

  826. #827 Anthony
    March 17, 2009

    I guess this means I should consider trolling this blog and try to get on the list.

  827. #828 baryogenesis
    March 17, 2009

    I have seen some of Barb’s posts, but missed the one referenced by Sgt. Obvious @#32. After a quick read, I would say case closed for my choice. Barb it is. It does stir up a thread whenever a godbotting troll appears,and for that reason, as others have stated, I don’t really want to see anyone banned. But reading that post made my jaw drop, then I started to lose focus, then get bored and soon, zzzzzz…..

  828. #829 Mena
    March 17, 2009

    Barb, because I just can’t tolerate homophobia.

  829. #830 Jadehawk
    March 17, 2009

    By FAIL I assume you you mean that you fail to understand the argument. Since the logic of the proposition would be understood by a reasonably intelligent high school graduate, I am assuming that 1) you are not reasonably intelligent, or 2) you’re not a high school graduate. [...]

    and now all together: “Dunning-Kruger Effect!!!!”

  830. #831 Joe
    March 17, 2009

    Barb is hilarious. Can we get rid of one of the less entertaining tools?

    Joe

  831. #832 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    That’s some work bonez-brigade – he must have really out-argued you…

  832. #833 SLW13
    March 17, 2009

    I admit I had to look up “Dunning-Kruger Effect.” But then I found the wikipedia definition and it made my night:

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”. They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.

  833. #834 SC, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Yeah, yeah, yeah – manila envelope. I still think he said “vanilla.” Makes far more sense. They should change it.
    :)

  834. #835 Sven DiMilo
    March 17, 2009

    See, judicious use of the killfile had kept those nuggets of simon-spew out of my brain until now. Actually I’ve had everybody on the list (except J*hn Kw*k, who fascinates me in a rubbernecky way) killfiled for a long time, and so they (like the libertarianistas) therefore don’t bother me until somebody else starts quoting them. I haven’t voted for that reason; it’s really people engaging with the trolls that interfere with the pleasure of my reading more than the trolls themselves. I’ve even killfiled a few “friendlies” for that reason–troll-stomping gets old (to me).

    I have previously brought up the idea of a permanent libertarianista thread, where comments that threaten to hijack threads in that direction could get kicked (by PZ and maybe a few of the more active and trusted irregulars). Maybe a series of such limbo threads could be set up, linked from the sidebar, so that godbots and silly philosophizers could be corralled someplace where they wouldn’t get in the way of the fun and interesting conversations. Kick ‘em off the Big Island and onto their own little peripheral islet. Folks who wanted to metaphorically bang their heads against a brick wall could go over there and do it. Maybe we could get the trolls to arguing among themselves…that might be fun.

  835. #836 «bønez_brigade»
    March 17, 2009

    Nah, AnthonyK. Spew 0′ Facilis is just that annoying (IMO, at least).

  836. #837 angst
    March 17, 2009

    Barb.

  837. #838 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    get the trolls to arguing among themselves…that might be fun.

    They never will, though. They all regard the others is noxious trolls. And none of them “plays well with others”.

  838. #839 «bønez_brigade»
    March 17, 2009

    BTW, mewonders if Silver Fox (and/or Nat) will be the obligatory, last-minute, surprise-twist-addition to the current line-up of 7.

  839. #840 Feynmaniac
    March 17, 2009

    Maybe we could get the trolls to arguing among themselves…that might be fun.

    I thought that was what this whole Survivor: Pharyngula thing was for! I want to see RogerS and Alan Clarke and forming an alliance against teh evilutionist name dropper John Kwok (AKA, Johnny Kookz). I want to see Rooke and Simon try and out ghoul each other. And who will Barb not give her rose to…..actually that last one might be another reality show.

    Man, I’ve had WAY too much fun with this. Off to bed.

    P.S. Apologies for the Simon quotes.

  840. #841 Inky
    March 17, 2009

    Pete Rooke:

    Okay, now that you admit your virginity, I take back my comment about your likely inadequate foreplay. ‘cuz now that’s guaranteed, but it’s unfair to put a standard on you if you haven’t done it.

    That said, when you DO get married (or, when you do decide to have sex, whichever comes first, preferably while sober), I hope that you eventually learn that there are many ways of pleasing you and your partner. Solomon had, what, over 300 concubines? I’ll bet that dude did more than just thrusting into a woohah.

    I, too, started out thinking that anything beyond missionary was degrading or yucky. Ooooooh, man, was that a long time ago …

  841. #842 Harold
    March 17, 2009

    John Kwok must go!

  842. #843 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    I, too, started out thinking that anything beyond missionary was degrading or yucky.

    Oh,the bible is also some sort of christian kamasutra? I never knew !
    God saying penis in woohah is only cool in missionary position?Cool,might have to reread the thing.

    *isnt familiar with the term “woohah” and hopes it doesnt have any misogynist connotations,but liked the sound of it*

  843. #844 Silver Fox
    March 17, 2009

    Kel:
    “I in no way referred to God as a construct or talked about complexity.

    Kel@713
    “that one god is not the Christian CONSTRUCT of the deity.”

    Construct necessarily implies complexity since it infers being put together. The Christian has no constructed (complex) God. Their God is Absolute Simplicity – not constructed. Their’s is a God that is in complete unity with itself.

  844. #845 Jadehawk
    March 17, 2009

    silverfox, stop pretending you know what the fuck you’re talking about

  845. #846 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox, it would be wise of you to presume everybody here is smarter than you, and more degreed than you. You had a phony presupposition argument, which was why it was a fail. Wowbagger pointed this out to you in detail. I have a few degrees past high school. From your logic, your education is questionable.

  846. #847 «bønez_brigade»
    March 17, 2009

    How’s about this for Day 2 immunity:
    Talk tougher than a wardrobe-with-a-hangover.

    Maybe Jonny-Boy, himself, will make a special appearance to defend his ITG belt.

  847. #848 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Another logic fail SF, your god doesn’t exist as you have presented no physical evidence for one. YAWN. Get your act together.

  848. #849 Chris!
    March 17, 2009

    All of them. Of all the posts I have read by these contestants, none had said anything of value. One could argue for the entertainment value of any of them, but a case is more easily made for the entertainment value of The Simpsons. There will undoubtedly be more to take their places. Why would one consider willfully getting irritated by reading the nonsense of another anyway?

    Besides, I’m certain most of them will find another way to post here or otherwise try to make themselves feel better by demonstrating their “intellectual superiority” over atheists elsewhere.

  849. #850 Wowbagger, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver ‘I might as well worship Ganesh from now on because I can’t disprove him’ Fox wrote:

    The Christian has no constructed (complex) God. Their God is Absolute Simplicity – not constructed. Their’s is a God that is in complete unity with itself.

    Citation please. How did you come by this precise description? Where, exactly, is it said/written that your god has these qualities?

    This is our point, Silver Fox – once again you’re pulling meaningless, nonsensical ‘definitions’ of your god’s attributes out of thin air and calling it an argument. Why should we accept that your god has these qualities if you can’t provide any reason for us to do so?

    You have to back up your claims. If you don’t back them up they remain assertions.

  850. #851 mayhempix
    March 17, 2009

    @SC
    I went to the OM thread after you linked to it… so sorry to hear about your dog.

    I’m floating around in the Northern Hemisphere for the next month or so navigating various projects… Venice Beach CA right now… tomorrow I’m off to Hollywood. Was pleased to hear Paul Haggis attached his name to a project we recently finished and also attached his directing skills to an upcoming one.

    “Yeah, yeah, yeah – manila envelope. I still think he said ‘vanilla.’”
    Does that mean that Filipino Catholics eat Manila Wafers?

  851. #852 Silver Fox
    March 17, 2009

    Noyd @779
    “So if you want us to accept a proposition (and then your argument if it’s valid), you must show why it’s true first.”

    Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.

  852. #853 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    Kel:
    “I in no way referred to God as a construct or talked about complexity.

    Kel@713
    “that one god is not the Christian CONSTRUCT of the deity.”

    Construct necessarily implies complexity since it infers being put together. The Christian has no constructed (complex) God. Their God is Absolute Simplicity – not constructed. Their’s is a God that is in complete unity with itself.

    That’s really bad equivocation… construct was meant in 713 as the same way that gravity is a construct or that germ theory is a construct. As a construct of the mind in order to explain reality… In now way was I talking about God as being complex, just a potential metaphysical explanation.

    And beyond that, I was talking about the argument I made on the “Satan, et. al” thread at ~#480 where I argued against the Christian God using the properties ascribed to God. To have a monotheistic god, it cannot be the Christian one for reasons I laid out in that aforementioned post.

  853. #854 Leigh Williams
    March 17, 2009

    @Menyambal: “Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.”

    Good lord, no. Just a sign of many highly receptive nerve endings and a propensity to be easily amused. Both very good things, indeed!

  854. #855 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.

    SF,are you really that thick?
    You are one making the extraordinary claim here !

  855. #856 GAZZA
    March 17, 2009

    Gotta vote for Rooke.

  856. #857 Menyambal
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox, you pup, you are not making any sense. If there were a logical god necessarily in charge of the universe, it certainly wouldn’t be the raving asshat Jehovah.

    The Christian has no constructed (complex) God. Their God is Absolute Simplicity – not constructed. Their’s is a God that is in complete unity with itself.

    Theirs is a triune god, constructed of cobbles and bits from a dozen different myths, self-hating, contradictory and barking mad. No wonder you are a fan.

  857. #858 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    That was really bad equivocation SF, really really bad equivocation. If you are going to complain about the use of logic in others posts, please make sure you don’t fall into that same trap.

  858. #859 Sioux Laris
    March 17, 2009

    John Kwok, but Barb has clearly won the flinty hearts of the masses here.

  859. #860 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.

    SF, you make ah the claim, you support ah the claim. Or shut the fuck up. Proof positive or nothing. You have shown nothink.

  860. #861 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Good night folks, I’m finally wound down enough from picking up the Redhead after an opera to get to sleep (for those of you who think I post 24/7).

  861. #862 SLW13
    March 17, 2009

    Blah blah complexity blah blah fuckwittery blah blah bullshit nonsense blah blah simplicity and unity and useless pointless gibberish blah blah I don’t realize I’m spouting pseudo-Zen, wannabe-intellectual drivel blah fuckity blah….

  862. #863 Wowbagger, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver ‘All hail Wotan, one of the many gods I’m forced to acknowledge because I can’t disprove him’ Fox wrote:

    Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.

    That’s easy – the existence of many different polytheistic religions; the gods of which you cannot disprove, and the concept of which you cannot logically defeat with your unsupported assertions.

  863. #864 DCN
    March 17, 2009

    Rooke’s suggestion that some people decided to be gay so as to avoid “committing the naturalist fallacy” is still the most aggressively stupid thing I’ve ever read here. He gets my vote.

  864. #865 aratina
    March 17, 2009

    Another vote for Barb, here. She needs to go. What reason could she possibly have for being such a pigheaded troll other than having something in her own life gone horribly wrong? She even manages to make one of the calmer Christian cults, the Methodists, look like rapacious beasts (although that may be a modern trend in the Methodist church).

    I would be happy to see this game of Survivor extended to the traditional team format with only one winner. Alan Clarke and RogerS are already a pair and Simon could easily join them on team Vagitarians*. Rooke, Kwok, and Facilis could be in the other team, the Semenarians*. None of these trolls add any factual knowledge or intelligence to conversations from what I’ve read and they usually end up getting their asses handed to them by the OMs (and many others! like Sven, Janine and Ken) in the end.

    *:D To whoever created them, I love those terms.

  865. #866 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    and many others! like Sven, Janine and Ken

    Who is this Ken you speak of?

  866. #867 Blue-eyed Vidiot
    March 17, 2009

    If for no other reason than the inane belief that the heart is a perpetual-motion machine,

    Barb.

  867. #868 DCN
    March 17, 2009

    I would be tempted to vote for Silver Fox or Stimpson over any of these. Especially Silver Fox. Or Peregrinus if he was still hanging around — what a repugnant creep.

  868. #869 Silver Fox
    March 17, 2009

    WOW

    ” why must there only be one god? why, if there is only one god, must it be perfect?”

    Let me give you a crude and very imperfect analogy. If you have five pounds of sugar in a five pound bag and that’s all the sugar there is – the bag is full. Now you propose to pour the sugar equally in two five pound bags. Each bag now has two and one-half pounds. Neither bag is full. Of necessity God must have fullness; so there is nothing left for the other God (bag). If you decide to pour the sugar into two two and one-half pound bags then each bag will be full but neither bag would have the fullness of the sugar -five pounds. If God does not have the complete fullness, then it is not God.

    This is a crude analogy of how one might go about conceptualizing God. It’s onlyan analogy; not a univocation.

  869. #870 mayhempix
    March 17, 2009

    Posted by: SLW13 | March 17, 2009 1:21 AM
    “Blah blah complexity blah blah fuckwittery blah blah bullshit nonsense blah blah simplicity and unity and useless pointless gibberish blah blah I don’t realize I’m spouting pseudo-Zen, wannabe-intellectual drivel blah fuckity blah….”

    Borette’s Syndrome

  870. #871 A. Noyd
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox (#853)

    Show me the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true.

    Nope, burden of proof and all that. You make the claim, you support it. There is currently no reason to accept that your claim is true and all other possible claims are false. Now shoo, the failboat needs a good swabbing.

  871. #872 Jadehawk
    March 17, 2009

    If you have five pounds of sugar in a five pound bag and that’s all the sugar there is

    think about it

  872. #873 DCN
    March 17, 2009

    Never mind, I just read #857.

    Simon.

  873. #874 Sioux Laris
    March 17, 2009

    “Sincerely yours,

    John Kwok

    @ PZ – If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook.”

    My vote for the “sincere Mr. John Kwok”, with loads of friends on Facebook who will march off in solidarity with him over this, is vindicated!!!!!!!!!!!

  874. #875 sarah
    March 17, 2009

    Barb for sure. Just say no to homophobes.

  875. #876 DominEditrix
    March 17, 2009

    This is becoming all too much like Zeno’s tortoise. I read, I reload, I read, I reload…

    #541: However I will not say anything about other people doing the whips and handcuffs thing if it’s consensual.

    You horrible, unnatural pervert. It’s whips and chains, damn it, whips and chains.

    BMS: Yes, a lovely wedding. I much enjoyed the pictures.

    Re: Barb, for whom I have already voted: It’s precisely her brand of Xtianity that is most insidious and evil. We gave house-room to a classmate of my son’s whose loving Christian father tried to stab him to death after said kid came out to him, because ‘God wanted [him] to’. Because God hates sinners. Etc., etc. My son began to realise that he was far luckier in his family than he’d known, especially after he got involved with LBGT peer counselling. [What became of the classmate? The former A student, college hopeful? He moved in with an aunt for a while, dropped out of school, was dragged by family members to be "saved" [read: reprogrammed], fell into deep depression, got into drugs, got into selling himself for money to buy drugs, is now HIV positive.]

    I feel the impulse, in light of the Kwokiness and poor Pete’s unnatural thoughts to admit that I have, in fact, given a blow job to a World Famous Author Whose Name Will Not Be Mentioned. Take that, you social climbing prudes.

  876. #877 DominEditrix
    March 17, 2009

    And in honour of St. Patrick: Happy Green Monkey to geeks and nerds everywhere.

  877. #878 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    If God does not have the complete fullness, then it is not God.

    Of course, this is not the Christian God, as the Christian God as described by Christians is inadequate. If you actually read my argument as to why that is, maybe you could be a bit more constructive.

  878. #879 Wowbagger, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver ‘Marduk is my homeboy’ Fox wrote:

    Let me give you a crude and very imperfect analogy. If you have five pounds of sugar in a five pound bag and that’s all the sugar there is – the bag is full. Now you propose to pour the sugar equally in two five pound bags. Each bag now has two and one-half pounds. Neither bag is full. Of necessity God must have fullness; so there is nothing left for the other God (bag). If you decide to pour the sugar into two two and one-half pound bags then each bag will be full but neither bag would have the fullness of the sugar -five pounds. If God does not have the complete fullness, then it is not God.

    Focus on the bolded sections, SF.

    Your analogy might work if we accepted your assertion that you are aware of what your god must or mustn’t be. Who are you to say what a god can or can’t be? How, exactly, did you ascertain knowledge of these ‘necessities’ of which you speak?

    Until you can support your claim of knowledge of gods’ necessities, your argument remains 10 pounds of a substance in a five pound bag. And that substance ain’t sugar…

  879. #880 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    God has to encompass absolute reality for God to be God, I can accept that assertion. So if evil exists, God has to encompass evil. So God is both good and evil in order for a monotheistic God to encompass all reality, and since the Christian God is classified as not being evil at all, it can not be the God SF is talking about.

  880. #881 Jenny T
    March 17, 2009

    My vote is for Kwok, if anyone. He provides the least of any of the trolls. When he pretends that knowing someone means anything about him, it doesn’t really allow for much discussion and learning, just a monumental roll of the eyes for anyone reading.

    I’m rather new, so I must have missed most of the things Pete Rooke has done to be considered, but as he is now, I see no reason to ban him. He is a prude (although the fuck you upthread shows there is possibility to grow), but he seems rather like a young man lost, who could eventually come around to the right side, so banning him would be a waste.

    And hopefully it won’t be another 200 posts between where I started posting and where this ends up (on 866 at the moment)

  881. #882 Silver Fox
    March 17, 2009

    Nerd:
    “your god doesn’t exist as you have presented no physical evidence for one.”

    With “a few degrees beyond high school” you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem very bright, does it?

  882. #883 Holydust
    March 17, 2009

    You know, giving it a second thought, I’m with Jenny.

    I seriously doubt PZ is keeping track of all of our votes individually but is rather getting the gist of the majority. Regardless — taking back my vote for Rooke, putting it in for Kwok.

    Jenny’s right; Rooke scares me, but he has something to contribute to the conversation and keeps us talking, discussing. Kwok is a little boy with nothing to offer and very few thoughts in his head. Rooke’s thoughts are messed up in a Timecube kind of way, but at least they’re thoughts.

  883. #884 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    With “a few degrees beyond high school” you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem very bright, does it?

    So you don’t believe that God interacts with the physical world then? If you do, then surely you can see that we can indirectly infer his existence the same way we can a force in nature. By interacting with the world, that makes God scientifically testable. And if God doesn’t interact with the physical world, then how is it we can even possibly know anything about God?

  884. #885 Wowbagger, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox,

    You’re still making claims for your god’s attributes. Whence do you come by this information?

  885. #886 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    Okay-okay-okay-okay.

    First. Thank you so much to those of you who’ve enjoyed and commented positively on our wedding pictures (you should have seen the original slice of cake she wanted to shove in my mouth!).

    Second. SC OM – for the love of FSM thank you for your work on the “Islam Hates Women” thread. I surely did not mean to abandon it after my 2nd comment but life intervened. (a) I meant to clarify my short list, and just now read through the thread (I did begin to skim toward the end). You deserve a second honorific for that thread alone. I suggest “Dragon Slayer.” You would be, then, SC, OM, DS. Thank you. You said all I would have and more. (And thanks, too, to brokenSoldier and JFK for that.) (b) Had I known that Louis would crawl out of the woodwork I would have refrained.

    Third. For the next round of bannings: I heartily nominate Louis, from the “Islam Hates Women” thread, for his continued, interminable, thick-headed defense of, well, if you read the thread you know what I mean (and please, readers, do not bring that discussion here, I beg you), as well as for his remarkable ability to completely miss the overall, looming, large, megapoint. And on Louis’ coattails in Banning II, the Sequel, clinteas, for his jumping-on-the-bandwagon in defense of the linguistic construct as well as for his ongoing eschewal of spaces after punctuation marks. As a woman and as an LGBT, neither of these men gives one whit about the offense and hurt they cause folks like me, even when we say or imply “Please stop,” and their unapologetic nature and their easy misogyny is sufficient to make me not read here for weeks (until I miss the rest of the erudite banter – and someone simply must teach me how to killfile for those who shall never be banned).

    Anyway.

    Sorry. Late + beer + “Islam (and just about everything else in modern society, witness this comment thread) Hates Women” + lonely for my limbo-wife makes for a verbose morose BMS.

  886. #887 aratina
    March 17, 2009

    >>clinteas: I meant Ken Cope. But there is also Kel and you (I could have sworn you were an OM already). Dammit, all that name-dropping is starting to make me feel Kwokky. Let me just state that I love the Pharyngula crowd.

  887. #888 Silver Fox
    March 17, 2009

    Clint:
    “SF,are you really that thick?
    You are one making the extraordinary claim here”

    Yes, I am making the extraordinry claim. And what I am suggesting is that a counterfactual analysis supports the claim. If you want to challenge the claim, show me the analysis that would point to it not being true.

  888. #889 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    Posted by: clinteas | March 17, 2009

    and many others! like Sven, Janine and Ken

    Who is this Ken you speak of?

    I am sure aratina means Ken Cope.

  889. #890 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 17, 2009

    Sorry aratina, I should have refreshed the page before I answered the question.

  890. #891 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    BMS,

    I notice with interest that you would like to see commenters that disagree with you banned.That tells me all I need to know about you really.

    As a woman and as an LGBT, neither of these men gives one whit about the offense and hurt they cause folks like me,

    I would really ask that you keep your insinuations and suggestions about what I think and dont think to yourself,when you know absolutely fuckall about the person youre directing these suggestions at.

  891. #892 castletonsnob
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox writes:

    you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem to be very bright, does it?

    Since it seems to be something other than matter or energy, please describe in detail the nature of “spirit,” and since it appears to be beyond human senses and/or understanding, how you know it exists.

  892. #893 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 17, 2009

    BMS, just pointing this out, clinteas and SC are friendly towards each other. SC will go after people if they are wrong on something and clinteas wrong wrong on that point. All I am saying is the clinteas is a good bloke. Give him an other chance.

  893. #894 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    clinteas,

    Whatever.

    I’ve read enough of your comments to know more than fuckall about you.

    And that comment just cements my opinion.

    If you had some sort of decent comment to make that would have been great. You didn’t, I’ve never read anything of yours that was worth reading, and I’ll say whatever the fuck I want just as you feel free to do here.

    Go Cheney yourself, fuckwit.

  894. #895 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    And for the record, clinteas, I have disagreed with other posters here and have not suggested they be banned.

    It takes a special sort of douchebag to earn that from me.

    Fuckwit.

    And learn how to use the spacebar. Dillweed.

  895. #896 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    clinteas, I was trying to defuse this. And I think you know that I would not do such a thing if I did not think you were worth it.

  896. #897 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    BMS and clinteas, please stop and give each other some space.

  897. #898 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    Janine,

    I appreciate your insight. I did read the exchange b/w him and SC and I see the friendship.

    However.

    His response here, and his comments and opinions on other threads, have taught me enough.

    I do value your opinion highly, though, so if he can prove my opinions wrong then I’ll change my mind. I don’t think he gives a flip though. [Is there a way I can email you?]

  898. #899 Blake Stacey
    March 17, 2009

    BMS:

    If you’re using Firefox, you can install the Greasemonkey add-on, which “Allows you to customize the way a webpage displays using small bits of JavaScript.” The killfile people around here use is one such small bit of JavaScript; you can download it via the “Dungeon” page linked just below the Pharyngula banner.

  899. #900 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Much appreciated Janine !

    I dont think we will get anywhere with this now,so I will just let it rest.

  900. #901 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    Blake Stacey,

    Thank you!

  901. #902 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    BMS you can send it to janphar at yahoo. Yes, I have just created it. Anyone else who wants to can also send me an e-mail.

  902. #903 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Gee,way to derail a nice thread….

    aratina,
    yeah sorry,I thought you meant Kel,then realized you could be talking about Ken Cope too !

  903. #904 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    Check inbox!

  904. #905 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    My ears are burning and in really good company, too (thanks, aratina cage). I’m not Kel, either, but I’m up doing my logic homework (symbolizing and deriving proofs, joy) or I’d be playing whack-a-mole with the late night shift.

    Handing these guys their asses isn’t all that difficult, since these scabrous trolls such at doing The Fish Slapping Dance.

  905. #906 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    Clinteas, you know that around this time, we americans are winding down and Oz is getting ready to go.

  906. #907 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    Oh screw you. I’ve written here all day and all you can do is whinge about a minor scuffle instead of having something otherwise insightful upon which to comment?

    Grow up, man.

    And didn’t you tell Janine you’d give it a rest?

    Man of your word I see.

  907. #908 A. Noyd
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox (#889)

    Yes, I am making the extraordinry claim. And what I am suggesting is that a counterfactual analysis supports the claim.

    Errr, in #853 you asked for “the counterfactual analysis that would suggest it’s not true” (empahsis added). So are there two counterfactual analyses–one that supports your claim and one that shows it’s not true?

    Maybe you could save all of us poor high school dropouts a headache and articulate yourself any analysis that supposedly supports your claim.

  908. #909 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    such=>suck

    It’s late/early.

  909. #910 BMS
    March 17, 2009

    we americans are winding down

    Indeed. Almost midnight here. I have a 3 hour exam at 8:00 am. Whoopee.

    Janine, I emailed you at your new yahoo address.

  910. #911 Ariel
    March 17, 2009

    Pete, why do you assume oral sex is unnatural? I’m a primatology undergrad, and I can tell you orangutans and bonobos both engage in oral-genital stimulation with sexual partners.

  911. #912 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    I’m not Kel, either

    Of course not, for if you were Kel then who the fuck would I be?

  912. #913 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    Of course not, for if you were Kel then who the fuck would I be?

    ~~Kel

  913. #914 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    My mind… has blown!

  914. #915 Wowbagger, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Silver ‘Thor, Thor, he’s our god; if he can’t do it, no-one…can’ Fox wrote:

    Yes, I am making the extraordinry claim. And what I am suggesting is that a counterfactual analysis supports the claim.

    No, what you’re doing is babbling incoherently, even by your standards of nonsense.

    Your arguments are based entirely on what you want to be true of your god and have asserted are his ‘essential qualities’ – and you have provided neither evidence nor argument (beyond your presupposition) to support it.

    Until you can provide the source of your information and account for its validity, please stop making claims that are based entirely on the characteristics you assume – without any supporting evidence – your god has.

  915. #916 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Your arguments are based entirely on what you want to be true of your god and have asserted are his ‘essential qualities

    Yeah,I must have missed the memo god sent out to say that SF is his official spokesperson and scripture interpreter on earth.

  916. #917 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    My mind… has blown!

    I hope it was unnatural for you, too!

    “Anythynge You Want To! A play in five acts! Three of them unnatural, and two of them against the State!” –The Firesign Theatre

  917. #918 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 17, 2009

    How can you be in two places at once when you are at no place at all?

  918. #919 windy
    March 17, 2009

    Mind you, I’m not saying you need to have oral sex in order to be some kind of normal, or something. I’d find it rather disgusting, and I can’t imagine I’d like it anyway because I’m so ticklish — it would probably be a very unpleasant feeling.

    New rule- unless you are getting it or planning to get it from someone with full facial hair, no complaining about it being “ticklish”!

    Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.

    Boo! Hate speech! *blows raspberry on a sensitive spot*

  919. #920 Kel
    March 17, 2009

    That ontological reasoning presented by SF refutes itself. If God is perfection, then God all God’s creations should be perfect. Since the universe is not perfect (I think the bible describes it at “very good”) then God cannot be perfect. And by SF’s standards, a non-perfect God cannot by definition be a god and thus it must be concluded that there is no god.

  920. #921 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    New rule- unless you are getting it or planning to get it from someone with full facial hair, no complaining about it being “ticklish”!

    Ken Cope,
    what say you??
    :D

  921. #922 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 17, 2009

    And let us not forget Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice, an Opera in One Un-Natural Act by PDQ Bach

  922. #923 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    I’ve enjoyed ticklish, and I’ve enjoyed squeaky. Even scratchy is fun.

  923. #924 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Janine,
    thanks again for stepping in before.
    Thought about saying thanks via mail,but I think that probably wouldnt be appropriate,so Im doing it here again !

  924. #925 Ken Cope
    March 17, 2009

    Hm. If not Iphigenia in Brooklyn, then it’s time for Fish Fish Gotta Swim from The Abduction of Figaro

  925. #926 Discombobulated
    March 17, 2009

    I wasn’t going to comment on this thread, as I mostly lurk, but I had reason to re-read a bit of the hilarious Lenski-Schlafly correspondence today, and happened across this choice, creeptastic comment from John Kwok:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html#comment-159919

    Oh please oh please oh please can we vote 2 off?

    1 Barb, the unteachable Godbot troll
    1.000000000000001 John Kwok, blowhard, e-stalker, OMG Facebook-defriender OMG

  926. #927 Rick R
    March 17, 2009

    Blake Stacey @759- “[raises hand]”

    Besides, everyone knows guys do it better.

    Um, did I say that out loud?

  927. #928 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Besides, everyone knows guys do it better.

    Do you have evidence to back up your claim?

  928. #929 Kitty
    March 17, 2009

    I’m very late to this party and don’t have time to read it all!
    I vote for Barb. Her treatment of Janine was inexcusable.

  929. #930 Rick R
    March 17, 2009

    Holydust @884- “Kwok is a little boy with nothing to offer and very few thoughts in his head.”

    And he’s a republican. Or is that redundant?

    I got fed up with his schtick at Panda’s Thumb. Same old, same old.
    “Be anything you want, but please dog, don’t be BORING.”

  930. #931 Roger Scott
    March 17, 2009

    Roger S.
    I don’t want a creationist with my given name and surname initial around these parts.

  931. #932 Rick R
    March 17, 2009

    “Do you have evidence to back up your claim?”

    I tried to write a reply to this, really I did.

    But I just can’t, in any good conscience, subject y’all to it.

  932. #933 Zetetic
    March 17, 2009

    @David Marjanovi?, OM in #554…. about my voting for Simon for just copy and pasting Wells (without offering anything of interest in the process)

    What? Where was that?

    Life in a Bottle

    From Apes to Humans

    They All Look Alike: Homology in Vertebrate Limbs

    Or do I have my Simon(s) mixed up?

  933. #934 Owlmirror
    March 17, 2009

    Oh, look, the clinically insane troll is off his meds again.

    OK:

    1) Alan Clarke is annoyingly thick AND creepy, so I wish he would go away. I am pretty sure that he is at least borderline psychotic, and has crossed the border at irregular intervals over his past month+ of posting here.

    2) I am pretty sure that RogerS is not a sockpuppet for Alan Clarke, because PZ can see IP & e-mail addresses.

    3) However, RogerS almost certainly has some sort of relationship with Alan (same congregation? same workplace? both?), and is almost certainly here because Alan asked him to be.

    4) I am less opposed to RogerS, but if he leaves because Alan is banned, that is a twofer.

    5) I still want Barb to answer the question of why she cites Behe if she thinks he is wrong about common descent, and why she thinks common descent is false if God-believing biologists (in addition to Behe) that she mentions accept it. But it looks like the votes are in for banning her, and I doubt she would have ever answered anyway.

  934. #935 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    I tried to write a reply to this, really I did.

    LOL.

  935. #936 Jack Rawlinson
    March 17, 2009

    I don’t like banning, so I’m not going to vote.

    All the people on the list are, each in their own distinctively unfortunate way, afflicted by varying degrees of ignorance, stupidity, bigotry and (in the case of the laughable Pete Rooke) the clunking, transparently juvenile wannabe sophistry of the not-nearly-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is young western male contrarian. Unlike others here I was not in the least surprised to learn that this po-faced, functionally literate dimwit is in his twenties. I can recognise the type from a hundred paces, on a foggy night. Blindfolded.

  936. #937 Michael X
    March 17, 2009

    Well I’m happy Pete dropped by to remind everyone to vote for him. While apparently he really can’t beat out simon in sheer homophobia, or Barb in plain vileness, or Silver Fox in deluded thickheadedness. I still support you Pete, because you should be able to do better and yet refuse to put in the effort.

  937. #938 Weaves
    March 17, 2009

    Barb, for insinuating that the reason I am a lesbian is because my parents were either paedophiles, liberals or I am “rebelling” against them for life.

  938. #939 JPS
    March 17, 2009

    I’m a little confused (honestly, and not trolling). John Kwok seems to be, over at Panda’s Thumb, a pro-science, anti-creationism kind of guy. I’m perhaps missing something. Is this a different John Kwok? Perhaps I’m too new here, but the poster using that name at PT seems quite reasonable.

  939. #940 chupa
    March 17, 2009

    I think this is the best thread I have read in maybe forever.

    So awesome!

    PS: Simon is the biggest douche on Pharyngula, he get’s my vote. Then Barb.

    Please keep Rooke, he is frickin fantastically hilarious.

  940. #941 JeffreyD
    March 17, 2009

    I vote to drop Barb into the memory hole. She refuses to listen, learn, or answer questions. Basically just a hateful person in general, the type that pronounces Negro with two g’s when out of public and glories in her rightness. She takes up valuable time and space, to wit, the three lines I have herein written.

  941. #942 Zetetic
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox wrote:

    you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem to be very bright, does it?

    OK
    So…. you’re saying that a god that created the universe, life, and allegedly can create miracles that defy physics… would have no physical effects?

    Now that doesn’t seem very bright.

  942. #943 Colonel Molerat
    March 17, 2009

    Aaaawwwww crap. I came to this party at three posts, went out to get the beers, and now it’s at nine hundred…

  943. #944 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Re #877

    And no subsequent defence for me I note? Thanks for your support! ARGH! ONLY JOKING DON’T KILL ME!

    BMS, I’m sorry but you have a) misunderstood what I am arguing for, b) projected opinions/arguments onto me I simply do not hold or am making, and c) seen insult where none is meant or intended.

    I am sorry to, very briefly, add a derail to this thread, and I would say that if you take simple and polite disagreement to be something resembling hostility etc then what am I to do? I am not defending the things you think I am, and I have stated repeatedly that I don’t intend to give offence. AND I’ve apologised if any has been given. I would ask, very nicely, that you come over to the relevant thread and discuss the issue if you are of a mind. But could I please ask that you not throw accusations and insults around without merit as you have been.

    Thanks

    Louis

  944. #945 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Knackers! I meant post #887 in post #947. My bad.

    Louis

  945. #946 ishiko
    March 17, 2009

    Long-time lurker de-lurking to toss yet another vote in for Barb.

    Thread-jacking, inane posts, and creationist/libertarian babble I can (for the most part) ignore. She, however, is a cruel, twisted excuse for a human, as her diatribe to Janine illustrates.

    And now back to lurkdom.

  946. #947 Bernard Bumner
    March 17, 2009

    I’m a little confused (honestly, and not trolling). John Kwok seems to be, over at Panda’s Thumb, a pro-science, anti-creationism kind of guy. I’m perhaps missing something. Is this a different John Kwok? Perhaps I’m too new here, but the poster using that name at PT seems quite reasonable.

    You’ve missed the point. This isn’t about kicking out people because they aren’t toeing a line. This is about getting rid of annoying, trollish commenters via an amusing little stunt (it is also an interesting opportunity to see how people respond to the proposal).

    John Kwok is a strange conributor, insofar as he could easily be a work of fiction designed to be deliberately grating. He is apparently unable to post without name-dropping, or at least implying that he knows people of worth and influence. He also seems to have a very unhealthy obsession with the blogger ERV. However, not least of all, from his longevity, prolificacy, and consistency, he might well be real.

    Perhaps he is an elaborate Poe, I don’t know. However, his posts are often banale and repetitive, and have little content beyond some fairly literate, superficial argumentation. I think that, as much as anything, is why he is amongst those names.

    Personally, I’m not very keen on witch-hunting. Any of the various bigots listed above could easily have qualified for the Dungeon on the basis of specific comments. Having said that, they often provide a sounding board for many of the most articulate post-ers here.

    Appart from simon, who is morbidly obsessed with anal sex. But, he is funny. To laugh at.

  947. #948 JeffreyD
    March 17, 2009

    Have slogged, well high speed scanned, the current 949 posts and my vote for Barb still stands. Among other reasons I forgot to mention is her personal attack on Janine of the many names. Like with SC, I admire and have a crush on Janine’s beautiful mind. Oh crap, hope that does not make SC jealous. (grinning) Waves to beautiful minded SC to distract her.

    That all being said, John Kwok moves into a close second just for general creepiness and hubris.

    Petie the Rooke, although I doubt it is intentional, you provide me far too much entertainment to want to see you banned. Your oral sex comments earned a new record for coffee spitting, both distance and accuracy.

    Ciao y’all

  948. #949 j.t.delaney
    March 17, 2009

    Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 16, 2009 7:49 PM

    guess what the “icing” was….

    Faeces?? I defy anyone to tell me that that is appropriate!

    Bwahahaha! Good Lord, that’s some funny stuff!!! Who said anything about ‘fæces’, Pete? From your inference, YOU are the one assuming that fæcal matter is at least a marginally acceptable cookie frosting. From the context of the original story, it’s pretty clear that poo isn’t what they’re alluding to (I won’t spoil the surpise for you, you up-and-coming filthy little kinkster, you!!) Evidently, when people talk about sexytime frosting, the first thing *you* think of is a generous dollop of solid animal waste. I knew British cookery was notorious, but this is really quite extraordinary. Akward!!!!

  949. #950 Bernard Bumner
    March 17, 2009

    I knew British cookery was notorious, but this is really quite extraordinary.

    Shitbiscuits are not on the menu anywhere but in Pete’s head and a few, select establishments…

    And, there is nothing wrong with Britsh cookery; we have some of the best Indian, Thai, Chinese, French, etc, etc, food on the planet… erm…

  950. #951 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Who doesn’t have crushes on the beautiful minds of many people here, Janine and SC foremost among the crush objects?

    I know I’m not immune.

    Louis

  951. #952 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Louis,

    Who doesn’t have crushes on the beautiful minds of many people here, Janine and SC foremost among the crush objects?

    Dont pull a Kwok on us now,will ya…..thats just creepy.

  952. #953 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Ewwwww hardly my intent or my point!

    {sigh} Is everything I say destined to be misunderstood?

    Oh you’re probably joking Clinteas, but I’m weary of being misunderstood for no good reason, so:

    I merely meant that I admire the posts of many people for their clarity of thought, wit and insight. Janine is someone who’s posts light up a thread up for me, I read them, laugh, and my day is usually made measurably brighter because of their insight. The same goes for SC, even when we disagree. The same also goes for a number of other posters of a variety of types. Icthyic is one of them, he and I go back a ways.

    There. Clear enough?

    {sigh again}

    Louis

  953. #954 Bernard Bumner
    March 17, 2009

    I must admit, I was a little bit sick in my mouth with all of that foamy sycophancty…

    Otherwise, Louis, if I had a penny for every time I’ve felt misrepresented or misunderstood on the internet, then I would have some multiple of pennies. Really, it doesn’t matter.

    Some people will dislike you for a comment, others will just express distaste, and some will ignore you. Just remember, they are actually falling out, first and foremost, with an online persona of yours which is probably poorly representative of you as a person.

    If you feel critically self-aware, and you feel that you aren’t doing the things you’ve been accused of, then it isn’t really worth dragging out a debate. It will only serve to further inflame passions, and attract criticism. Don’t treat the internet like a popularity contest, because you will upset someone at some point, and you will find yourself ina situation where you feel equally as right as the other person involved.

    One thing that separates useful commenters from trolls is knowing when to let a point go.

  954. #955 clinteas
    March 17, 2009

    Just remember, they are actually falling out, first and foremost, with an online persona of yours which is probably poorly representative of you as a person.

    Amen,man.
    If just they could realize.

  955. #956 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    SF, if your imaginary god is simply spiritual, then it only exists as a delusion between your ears. We do not wish to share your delusions, so take them elsewhere like a good elementary school dropout.

  956. #957 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Bernard Bumner #957:

    I suppose that last point is the best.

    The popularity contest I care nothing for. Being misrepresented (especially as something vile) annoys me. It annoys us all I suppose. But you’re right, it happens all the time especially on the ‘tubes.

    Foamy sycophancy? LOL So if I disagree with someone then I must perforce allow them to cast whatever aspersions my way they feel like, but if I genuinely agree with and like someone’s posts in general I am not allowed to say so? Thanks for clearing that up!

    I’ll make sure I restrict my comments to what you allow me to.

    Do I need a humour smiley for that bit?

    Louis

  957. #958 Kitty
    March 17, 2009

    BMS
    While I too disagreed with Louis big time – see the other thread – I have to defend him.
    He’s verbose and very sure that his posts are right “misunderstood” but that is not enough to get him banned.
    He’s in some sort of ivory tower about the use of language and you should do what I’ve done – leave him there and move on if it upsets you.
    (Nice pictures by the way).

    Louis
    This is in no way meant to encourage you to partake in any more rambling, repetitive rants. You need to move on too. Life’s too short to spend days trying to get everyone to agree they are misinterpreting everything you write.
    BB at#957 has it right.

  958. #959 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Anyway BACK to the relevant bit: Survivor.

    I think PZ’s challenge is too easy. You heard me. Too fucking easy.

    200 words on a basic bit of evolutionary biology? Pffff.

    I still think that they need to demonstrate an epistemologically valid method that distinguishes between the actions of their chosen deity and my new deity of the week: The Almighty Dildo and Her Vibrating Anal Love Eggs.

    Next week it will be Santorum and the Amazing Self Cleaning Magic-Lube.

    Louis

  959. #960 CosmicTeapot
    March 17, 2009

    Barb is a hate filled bigot who sees no weakness in her beloved book despite strong evidence to the contrary. Her dogma will not allow her to develop as a person, something she desperately needs to do.

    Her attack on Janine alone is sufficient to get her banned, although it is not the only reason.

    Bye, bye Barb.

  960. #961 Geek
    March 17, 2009

    Silver Fox @883

    With “a few degrees beyond high school” you’re asking for physical evidence for the existence of God who exists spiritually? That doesn’t seem very bright, does it?

    Replace “very bright” with “possible” and you’re getting somewhere. Does the request seem unfair? Should we desist from asking for evidence out of politeness? In an atheist-themed forum like this, it’s not taboo to ask these questions.

    Please provide an argument for your god that couldn’t be adapted to any other supernatural claim. Relying on theological tenets such as “God must be perfect and singular” makes your argument circular: you believe in this kind of God and use this aspect of your belief to argue for his existence.

    We could start off with “God must be made of pasta and meatballs” to argue for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can say this with as much authority as you can say that God is perfect and singular, i.e. none at all.

  961. #962 eljay
    March 17, 2009

    I would vote Peter Rooke off. Planet not just site but we do what we can.
    I know Barb is bad but that Rooke, well he is just special in a “If Ann Coulter had a love child by ken Ham it would be him” kind of way.

  962. #963 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Kitty,

    Fair play.

    I don’t think EVERYone is misrepresenting EVERYthing I have written. Just SOME people misrepresenting SOME things. Does EVERYthing have to be black or white? I agree BB @ #957 has a good point or two…but we are derailing a useful thread with this.

    From my ivory tower I thank you for your qualified support.*

    Louis

    *Self mockery again. I’m making a series of disclaimers for every post from now on. This too, is a joke.

  963. #964 Kitty
    March 17, 2009

    We could start off with “God must be made of pasta and meatballs” to argue for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    YOU’RE WRONG!!11!!
    God is made from pasta, smoked salmon and asparagus. HERETIC!!!111!!!!!

  964. #965 Bernard Bumner
    March 17, 2009

    Do I need a humour smiley for that bit?

    I’ve always felt rather ambivalent about smileys.

    On the one hand, it is very difficult to convey dry humour via this kind of conversational written format (and particualrly so, in the presence of so many utterly humourless trolls and Poes, who will often offer the same sentiments, but without a trace of witticism intended). On the other hand, a smiley always feels a little juvenile to me; the written equivalent of that exaggerated inflection used to such poor effect by ten-year-olds trying to be sarcastic.

  965. #966 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 17, 2009

    The proof is in the proposition.

    This ranks among the most stupid claims I’ve ever read.

    “God exists.
    Therefore, God exists.”

    Also, you should think about whether your definition of perfection makes sense. Make sure not to end up with Gaunilo’s Island!

    When you attempt tomake a joke make sure not to be the joke.

    How true, how true.

    I think Mr. Kwok might actually learn something by being banned. Barb has a better chance of learning something if she stays; besides, if she’s in here, she’s not outside trying to infect others with her toxic memes.

    Good points.

    Why ban anybody? Without a few nutters, places like this can become quite boring.

    We get new nutters every week. You must be new here.

    Isn’t being ticklish a sign of repressed screwed-upness in general? I’ve only seen ticklishness in people who were uncomfortable with what was happening.

    Then you need to meet more people! I’m generally sensitive. I’m almost capable of tickling myself on the belly, can be tickled by being touched in the most unspectacular places in the most unspectacular contexts, and I’m extremely sensitive to water temperature: under at the very least 27 °C, and I need 20 minutes to get in (I’ve repeatedly got sunburnt while entering a swimming pool), over body temperature, and it’s so searing hot that I can’t go in either. I can’t take the lid of a pot on a hearth with bare hands, I can’t hold a fresh cup of tea except at the handle, I can’t drink anything halfway hot, taking a shower is a nightmare when it’s difficult to regulate the temperature and even more so when the temperature doesn’t stay stable, and I hate wearing jeans because they’re like armor plates.

    Have to go, will finish reading the thread later.

  966. #967 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 17, 2009

    the lid of a pot

    the lid off a pot.

  967. #968 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    @BB #968

    I agree. Ahhh the Smiley Conundrum. I fear it could be more controversial even than….

    …I’d better not. The humour deprived might miss the allusion.

    Louis

    P.S. @ Kitty #967. You shall burn in the fires of a thousand pizza ovens for all eternity. Salmon? Such an abomination has not been heard of since the Great Schism of 2005 when….ohhhhh why am I bothering, your soul, such as it is, is already lost.

  968. #969 Kitty
    March 17, 2009

    You see!
    This is what happens when you deny the Great Cheese Sauce and all her denizens their rightful place in the pastriarchy!
    Heretics I say!
    May your meatballs scorch and your tomato sauce curdle.

  969. #970 Dianne
    March 17, 2009

    Pete Rooke a nose-close second. He’s hateful scum. No redeeming value whatsoever.

    I disagree. His response to the immunity challange included the line “If gravity is true why are there still clouds.” That suggests a sense of humor. Plus his statements about sex are interesting in a car crash sort of way.

    However, it is John Kwok who should win immunity for this round. His was the only answer that was generally correct. Actually, I’d like to make both participants who actually tried immune, if only because they showed an ability to interact as opposed to writing a diatribe then leaving (or republishing the diatribe.)

  970. #971 Louis
    March 17, 2009

    Kitty,

    I think we can ALL agree that my meatballs are already thoroughly scorched.

    LOL

    Louis

    P.S. You misunderstand*, I do not deny the Great Cheese Sauce and her place in the pastriarchy (good one btw), I honour her properly with Carbonara-like ingredients like pancetta. Your salmon in insufficiently venerable.

    *Oh yeah, that was deliberate.

  971. #972 Ranson
    March 17, 2009

    Wow. This was all just “Day One”.

    Day two is going to be interesting. Libertarian derail, maybe?

  972. #973 mds
    March 17, 2009

    Let me give you a crude and very imperfect analogy. If you have five pounds of sugar in a five pound bag and that’s all the sugar there is – the bag is full. Now you propose to pour the sugar equally in two five pound bags. Each bag now has two and one-half pounds. Neither bag is full. Of necessity God must have fullness; so there is nothing left for the other God (bag). If you decide to pour the sugar into two two and one-half pound bags then each bag will be full but neither bag would have the fullness of the sugar -five pounds. If God does not have the complete fullness, then it is not God.

    But why should God, whom you claim is perfection itself, be finite? Assume that ‘bag’ of God is filled with the positive integers (Do you not know? Have you not heard? God can perform a bijection with Z!) We can easily split the integers into even and odd to fill two new bags, both as full as the original. In fact, we can split ‘God’ into a countable number of bags!

    There you have it, SF – a proof that there can be at at least countably many gods, each as full of godness as the next, and which gives far more credit to your God’s greatness than your own proof.

  973. #974 Endor
    March 17, 2009

    “*isnt familiar with the term “woohah” and hopes it doesnt have any misogynist connotations,but liked the sound of it*”

    it’s freaking cute, whatever it’s connotations. I’m totally using it from now on.

    Having read this thread, I feel pity for Peter Rooke. He’s so willing to avoid some of life’s nicest pleasures for absolutely no reason at all. That makes me a little sad of him. Life’s to short to not try it all.

  974. #975 SteveL
    March 17, 2009
  975. #976 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    Is Silver Fox arguing in favour of a Celestial Sugar Daddy?
    How sweet.
    It is unfair though, because Kel, busy man that he is, can scarcely be expected to have an argument against every god, especially the more recent carbohydrate-based ones.
    Well, I once did chemistry, and knew some of the elements and their compounds quite well (like Kwok in this respect) – can I be of any assistance?
    I mean, did you specifically intend a sucrose deity, or would it be the glucose god you were referring to? I’m sure there’s no god in either of them – or else my Organic Chemistry tutors were being very remiss..so could you provide some formulae with your claims. specifying which particular enantiomer is most sacred,if appropriate.
    Thank you. I’m sure that if we put our heads together we can disprove all the gods, chemical as well as genocidal.

  976. #977 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 17, 2009

    Alan Clarke is still posting creationist nonsense under the guise of “scientific” evidence in the Science of Watchman thread. The only true science he has presented was either quotemined or misrepresented. And he seems to be avoiding the immunity challenge like it was the plague.

  977. #978 AJ Milne
    March 17, 2009

    Well, I once did chemistry, and knew some of the elements and their compounds quite well (like Kwok in this respect) – can I be of any assistance?

    Yes… But are any of your chemistry profs extremely famous people you regrettably can’t mention? Hmm?

  978. #979 Watchman
    March 17, 2009

    Why… John Kwok is HOT!

    My vote for plonk of the month has to go to Barb. She’s utterly useless, except perhaps as a kind of mindless animated wooden spoon that repetitively stirs the pot for no apparent reason.

    In addition, I’d like to tip my hat to Alan Clarke, in recognition of his awesome powers of denial deduction and his unflagging avoidance rationality.

  979. #980 Raiko
    March 17, 2009

    I seriously wonder… how PZ is going to count the votes.

    Manually will be such a pain, but I know of no search function that would distinguish between comments.

    … uh… not like this comment thread really requires counting to find out who won, though.

  980. #981 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    But are any of your chemistry profs extremely famous people you regrettably can’t mention?

    Of course, but I’m sorry, I can’t say who they are.

  981. #982 Kausik Datta
    March 17, 2009

    Oooh oooh! When does Day Two officially begin?

  982. #983 Kausik Datta
    March 17, 2009

    Day One broke Scienceblogs?

    Submission Timeout

    Were you trying to submit a comment?

    If you were, please don’t submit your comment again.

    The system often gets asked to submit more comments at one time than it prefers to handle, so instead of pushing you through to the original post, it sometimes takes your comment and then stops paying attention to you (no offense intended). Hit the back button and refresh the page to see if your post made it through — odds are good it did (but that’s assuming the blog you’re commenting on has unmoderated comments).

  983. #984 AnthonyK
    March 17, 2009

    Although, to be fair, as always, if SF had argued a cyanide based God, that would have trickier to dismiss.

  984. #985 Steve in MI, Sfs/PZM
    March 17, 2009

    John Kwok; blatant troll who doesn’t even try to give the appearance of contributing to the discussion.

  985. #986 Pierce R. Butler
    March 17, 2009

    … thrusting into a woohah.

    Now I may have to get into an extremely heated debate with Orac the next time he denounces “woo”!

  986. #987 Bernard Bumner
    March 17, 2009

    Is Silver Fox arguing in favour of a Celestial Sugar Daddy?

    I thought it was going to be a recipe for caramel.

    As it is, I’ve reread it twice, and I still don’t have the slightest clue as to what it is meant to mean…

    Imperfect analogy? Weights and measures gibberish.

    Now, if the proposition was three pounds of chuck steak in a suet crust… Or, a firkin of ale in a hogshead… Wait, what does all of this food have to do with anything?

    Four rashers of bacon in two slices of bread, with a dollop of HP = 1 perfect god.

    Ah-ha!….

  987. #988 Kausik Datta
    March 17, 2009

    Damn! Strange blockquote FAIL!!
    The tag boundaries randomly restricted themselves around just the first paragraph!

    The message is one I got from the system while trying to comment.

    Would PZ please move Day Two to another thread?

  988. #989 Marc Buhler
    March 17, 2009

    John Kwok – because I have never used ‘facebook’ (but know I know why)!

  989. #990 catgirl
    March 17, 2009

    I voted for Barb earlier, but I want to change my vote to John Kwok, just because it would be hilarious to see him follow through with his childish threat. I don’t think PZ would cry if Kwok makes him wose all his wittle fwiends on facebook.

  990. #991 KI
    March 17, 2009

    I vote for Simon.
    Barb is useful in a negative example kind of way.
    Pete Rooke is just too funny (take some PR and mash/cut-up with