Pharyngula

Posted by: God Retardent | March 18, 2009 2:44 PM

It's Kwok for the chop

Posted by: True Bob | March 18, 2009 2:46 PM

What a choice! For sheer thickness of skull (I'm not sure there's a cavity within it) I lean towards Africangenesis. I do have a soft spot for Rooke, but he's so outrageous with the similes that IMHO he's worth it just for entertainment value. I'm not so familiar with all of them, so my precious vote goes to.....

Silver Fox

Posted by: Jim | March 18, 2009 2:47 PM

I vote to evict PZ Myers. His crimes? Insipidity, stupidity, and wanking.

Posted by: oaksterdam | March 18, 2009 2:50 PM

Africangenesis

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 2:51 PM

Oooh, this one is going to be tougher. Decisions, decisions. A chance to derail a libertard. Tempting, very tempting...

Posted by: epsilon | March 18, 2009 2:51 PM

Now that Barb's gone, I vote for the Kwok-pot.

Posted by: Shamelessly Atheist | March 18, 2009 2:52 PM

Fasciitis- I mean, Facilis, for the dumb comment on the anti-condom pope blog entry.

Posted by: FlameDuck | March 18, 2009 2:56 PM

Pete Rooke.

I got the Shark Week reference, but had to Google Dolores Umbridge. I'm sure that says something deeply disturbing about me.

Also I think the immunity challenge is a bit weak. There are hundreds of other weak creationist conspiracies to debunk. How about "Explain why scientists consider carbon dating a reliable indication of age", or how about "Explain why it took more than 5 minutes to create the Grand Canyon, and how we know this to be a fact". I mean let's have some fun with them! Make an immunity challenge they can't fake...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 18, 2009 2:57 PM

I've changed my vote to none. Simon still is purely an annoying little twit with nothing to add beyond barely school yard taunting, but fuck it.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 2:58 PM

For those not following closely I am reposting my profiles of the candidates.

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). Somehow aced the first immunity challenge.

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]

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. Seems to have greater knowledge of arcane 15th century book binding practices than sex.

Quotes

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.

Who among us would knowingly drink the semen from another?

I would never inflict oral sex on a women.

Simon: Never added a single worthwhile thing. Copies and pastes huge blocks of texts without attributing. Accuses others of being homosexual and then spends the next 10 posts graphically talking about a penis entering an anus. Congratulated PZ and wife on 29th wedding anniversary by asking how many abortions they've had during that time.

Quotes:

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.

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.

[Note: I literally have a dozen more quotes like the above but I think you get the picture]

Posted by: Jim | March 18, 2009 2:59 PM

JBlilie: "Hoping you are being sarcastic. (And wanking is not a crime.)"

Nope - dead serious. PZ should be man enough to take what he so freely dishes out. Also, he's the one who defined "wanking" as a thought crime, punishable by expulsion from this dreadful blog (a punishment much to be desired by sensible people).

Posted by: JBlilie | March 18, 2009 3:00 PM

Jim@5

Hoping you are being sarcastic. (And wanking is not a crime.)

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 3:00 PM

I vote for Simon

Posted by: sdh | March 18, 2009 3:01 PM

Since Facilis actually won the first immunity challenge, shouldn't his name be removed from the list?

Maybe I don't understand how this works, since I do not watch reality shows.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 18, 2009 3:04 PM

I think simon has demonstrated ever-more unpleasant and alienated behavior.

It's time to nuke him from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: natural cynic | March 18, 2009 3:04 PM

Do we hafta vote again, already? There should be at least a week between challenges. Time for a few more comments to arrive that will cement the next victim to the floor of the dungeon.

Posted by: JBlilie | March 18, 2009 3:06 PM

Scott From Oregon!

Posted by: Matt | March 18, 2009 3:06 PM

Simon. So crass and deranged. A sick individual.

Posted by: Kite | March 18, 2009 3:07 PM

With Barb gone, locking Simon and his worthless viewpoints away from the sane and civilized would be my vote. Ahh, wish fulfillment!

Posted by: sdh | March 18, 2009 3:07 PM

Since Facilis actually won the first immunity challenge, shouldn't his name be removed from the list?

Maybe I don't understand how this works, since I do not watch reality shows.

Posted by: jon | March 18, 2009 3:09 PM

Kwok for the block!

Posted by: sdh | March 18, 2009 3:09 PM

Since Facilis actually won the first immunity challenge, shouldn't his name be removed from the list?

Maybe I don't understand how this works, since I do not watch reality shows.

Posted by: Stephen Marley | March 18, 2009 3:10 PM

With Barb gone, you gotta go with KWOK this time....

Posted by: Steve in MI | March 18, 2009 3:10 PM

John Kwok gets my vote for the next long walk off the short blog-pier.

Posted by: Jefrir | March 18, 2009 3:11 PM

Africangenesis - he's just so bloody tedious.

Posted by: ??? | March 18, 2009 3:12 PM

Why the fuck are you here Jim? No one hijacked your browser and forced you to read. Start your own blog if you can do better or just continue pulling your pud to WingNutDaily. In your case wanking is a crime because you did it in public, but in your case by the size of things it's only a misdemeanor.

Concern troll is concerned.

Posted by: dNorrisM | March 18, 2009 3:12 PM

I vote Simon.

Barb is sure of the superiority of her faith, but Simon is sure of the superiority of his intellect.

Kwok sometimes has useful points to make, almost invariably in the 2nd or 3rd sentence. The rest I skip.

disclaimer: I'm a rather half-wittedhearted pharyngulite.

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | March 18, 2009 3:13 PM

Simon, with an instant-runoff vote for Africangenesis.

John Kwok-o-shit is more amusing than annoying, at least to me. Of course, I have no Facebook friends (because I have no Facebook account, and intend to keep it that way). Pete Rooke is obnoxious but occasionally enlightening, in the "poster child for retroactive birth control" kind of way. Silver Fox can go, but I find him/her/it easy to ignore.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 3:14 PM

Re: immunity challenges I believe are only good for one round. (My knowledge of Survivor comes from listening to others talk about it.)

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 3:15 PM

punishable by expulsion from this dreadful blog (a punishment much to be desired by sensible people).

Sooo... get sensible. Go away.

Posted by: speedwell | March 18, 2009 3:15 PM

I'm casting my vote based on which commenter is most likely to ruin the fun, not necessarily on who is the most "evil."

I vote John Kwok. If he is unaccountably able to fumble his way through the immunity challenge, my second pick is Pete Rooke. Simon and Facilis are just poe-strength stupid.

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 3:19 PM

???:
Actually ??? my post applies to you too. -E.V.

(Things for ??? to do: Learn what a control troll is)

Posted by: catgirl | March 18, 2009 3:19 PM

It's a tough choice between Simon and Africangenesis, and it would be fun to see John Kwok throw his temper tantrum over at Facebook, but I think I'll go with Africangenesis this time.

Also, when did you ban Barb? She was suspiciously absent from the Pope & condoms thread and the life doesn't begin at conception thread, and I'm wondering if it's because she was already banned when those came out.

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 3:22 PM

Concern troll *sigh*
(Post ECT aphasia is a bummer)

Posted by: melatonin | March 18, 2009 3:23 PM

Kwok's a bit wacky, but I have this strange fantasy of him and Javison in a fight to the death.

Simon

Posted by: JPBrowning | March 18, 2009 3:23 PM

Jim @#65

Stop talking about leaving, how it's the sensible thing to do, how PZ should be banned from his own blog, and other such inane nonsense and actually go the fuck away. Thanks.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 3:23 PM

a series of knob jokes.

well? I'm waiting.

I vote for the kwokster.

reason?

Because he actually IS someone who fights against IDiots (I've seen him post on other sites for years), but he is such an immature bore that it would do him some minor good to consider indeed WHY people are wanting to see him tossed from here.

Posted by: James F | March 18, 2009 3:25 PM

Feynmaniac makes a cogent case. Simon it is!

Other than that, I echo Glen's point in #16, "Kwok really has tackled the IDiots on forums that we often don't see, which should count for something."

Posted by: Angel Kaida | March 18, 2009 3:27 PM

Simon. Please.

Posted by: pazmusik | March 18, 2009 3:28 PM

I cast my vote for Simon.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 18, 2009 3:29 PM

Many of the trolls provide a certain level of low humor. For example, I could never vote for the Rookie, as grotesque as his analogies are and for having a closed blog while at the same time demanding that PZ censure his blog. The reason is this, he makes me laugh.

My vote is for the person who is incapable of expressing a coherent thought, Simon.

Posted by: Newfie | March 18, 2009 3:30 PM

sdh
for not being able to read instructions... at least 6 times.

Posted by: Kaessa | March 18, 2009 3:32 PM

I'd like to change my vote from Kwok to Simon. I've decided egotistical/narcissistic is much better than just plain disgusting.

Simon's comments nauseate me.

Posted by: heliobates | March 18, 2009 3:34 PM

I don't think we should ban Pete Rooke, per se. I just think he shouldn't be allowed to comment, particularly about sex, until he can prove that he got laid.

She was described as the Dolores Umbridge of Pharyngula.

This is going on my wall, beside the TWO thread-wins I racked up on Day 2. You just know John's already dropping my name, elsewhere: "Heliobates? John was that Camarhynchus or Cactospinus? No way, I went to high school with him!"

Oh, BTW: Plonk Simon.

Posted by: firemancarl | March 18, 2009 3:34 PM

How does one choose between Pete and Simon?

I suppose I have to go with Pete. The analogies using rape etc, are just too creepy.

Facilis..is close because he actually supports his god killing children.

Choices!

Posted by: Lance | March 18, 2009 3:36 PM

Wait, what's wrong with bacon? ;)

Posted by: Louis | March 18, 2009 3:37 PM

Icthyic,

You're waiting for a series of knob jokes? Not a problem old son, not a problem.

An Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman are sitting in a bar discussing how they pleasure their wives. The Englishman says "I like to pleasure my wife by using my fingers, and she lifts a foot off the bed in sheer ecstasy."

The Scotsman, with proper disdain, replies "Ach that's nothing! My wife is very fond of being pleasured with my tongue, in fact she rises a full two feet above the bed when I do this in gasping joy."

The Irishman, with a wry smile on his face laughs a soft knowing little laugh and says "Oh you boys are so far out of the running it isn't true. I have sex with the wife, cough my filthy yoghurt, wipe my dick on the curtains and she goes through the fucking roof!".

I will now proceed to fully deconstruct that joke for its sexist, nationalist, racist, jingoist and infantile themes...

{clears throat}

What do you mean "no thanks"?

Spoilsports.

Louis

P.S. I was out shopping the other day and I went into a shop and laid my cock on the counter. The young lady behind the counter calmly said "I think, sir, you have misread the sign above the door it says 'CLOCK repairs'."

I replied "Well you can put two hands on that then!".

P.P.S. Notice I never said they were going to be GOOD jokes, in fact as an alternative to the formerly proposed "derail topic" how about a Pharyngula Joke-a-Thon. Everyone tell a joke, dirty or otherwise.

Posted by: Badjuggler | March 18, 2009 3:42 PM

Assuming Feynmaniac's recap is accurate, Simon seems a shoo-in to me.

Posted by: Traffic Demon | March 18, 2009 3:43 PM

Voting for Kwok because I got sick of reading "mendacious intellectual pornography" repeated ad nauseum.

Posted by: Ariel | March 18, 2009 3:44 PM

Simon.

Bad grammar, gross and totally unfunny.

Posted by: Dahan | March 18, 2009 3:45 PM

Facilis was my number two last time and stays there, strengthened by his comment about the use of condoms and the pope.

Posted by: Louis | March 18, 2009 3:47 PM

It appears that my occasional fucking of html tags continues apace. I am a dirty dirty boy and deserve to be spanked. Next, TYPO the Gdo of clerical errors will smite me some more. I promise I shan't enjoy it.

Icthyic: Food and shagging was the last thread's divertissment I still reckong mucky jokes and shagging and shagging should be this one's. Mind you I am in a minority of one 'twould seem? Us shagging shaggers are an oppressed minority dontcherknow. Mind you, I'd buy a copy of that book you're planning....

Louis

Posted by: abstruse | March 18, 2009 3:47 PM

Sophist Simon.

Posted by: Dahan | March 18, 2009 3:48 PM

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Facilis has moved to number one now that Barb is gone.

Posted by: vespera | March 18, 2009 3:49 PM

Facilis should stay, despite being an ass, since he did win immunity. Get rid of Simon.

Posted by: hf | March 18, 2009 3:50 PM

Simon again.

Posted by: Elliott | March 18, 2009 3:51 PM

For my next vote: Facilis

Not on the list, but JIM needs to go to Dungeon too for:

Posted by: Jim | March 18, 2009 2:47 PM

I vote to evict PZ Myers. His crimes? Insipidity, stupidity, and wanking.

Posted by: me2 | March 18, 2009 3:52 PM

Ichthyic @85

"My next book:

"On Sex and Sexual Orientation in Bacon"

I predict the title alone will move it into amazon's top 100"

Hopefully John Kwok doesn't get to review it.

Posted by: Jo | March 18, 2009 3:53 PM

I also vote for Facilis for his comment in the Pope/condoms thread. Idiot.

Posted by: sjk | March 18, 2009 3:55 PM

Africangenesis, because he is no fun at all.

But John Kwok makes the second place in the modesty competition.

Posted by: Natalie | March 18, 2009 3:56 PM

Write in: Scott from Oregon. He doesn't show up much, but fuck is he obnoxious when he does.

Posted by: BeamStalk | March 18, 2009 3:58 PM

I vote for Simon. I don't post much but holy fucking christmas jew is he annoying. I would also guess an upstanding christian along the lines of Ted Haggard.

Posted by: Fred Mounts | March 18, 2009 4:02 PM

Africangenesis

Posted by: Grendels Dad | March 18, 2009 4:03 PM

Feynmaniac,

As long as you are being so industrious, and I am still trying to catch up after missing most of the comments from February, you mind doing a “greatest hits” (or misses, as the case may be) for Africangenesis and SF. They stick out in my mind, but for reasons that are a bit hazy at the moment.

P.S. After all of the bacon talk, would it offend our tentacled overlords to get some shrimp recipes? Maybe we could ease into it with some bacon wrapped shrimp?

Posted by: Brownian | March 18, 2009 4:05 PM

"Why the fuck are you here Jim?"

Good question. There's not a lot of value to be had from a blog that devotes so much of its energy to ridiculing people.

Bye-bye.

Jesus, Jim. Careful you don't accidentally knock that industrial-sized drum of screaming fucking moron on yourself.

Posted by: Christopher | March 18, 2009 4:05 PM

Can we offer up a learning experience for the immunity challenges from now on? Say, have the trolls go out and get a real science magazine and summarize a specific article in it on how it impacts a scientific topic?

I'm big on learning more than BSing.

Posted by: Lsuoma | March 18, 2009 4:08 PM

Silver Fox.

Posted by: Sastra | March 18, 2009 4:10 PM

I think one round was enough, frankly.

I'm voting Simon mostly because I don't want to see any of the others go.

Posted by: varlo | March 18, 2009 4:12 PM

Why not first perform a shotgun marriage between Kwok and Simon, then boot the happy (?) couple?

Posted by: sublunarynature | March 18, 2009 4:18 PM

1 vote from me to kick out simon.

1 vote from me for more discussion of oral sex and lesbians! (reading that thread was way more fun than I should be allowed to have at work)

However, as I don't like bacon (I know! Blasphemy! Sorry.), can I have ice cream instead?

Posted by: heliobates | March 18, 2009 4:19 PM

Jesus, Jim. Careful you don't accidentally knock that industrial-sized drum of screaming fucking moron on yourself.

Yeah, it might blot out the Industrial Stupid Concentrate stain all down the front of him.

Posted by: Katrina | March 18, 2009 4:24 PM

This round is tough for me. Two of my least favorites are competing with each other: Piltdown Man and Simon.

In spite of Killfile, I still groan every time I see that Piltdown Man has posted. It's like driving past an accident and trying NOT to look. But Simon is incoherent in his scatological obsession and the repulsiveness just really gets to me.

I vote again for Simon. But Pilty is my runner-up.

With that, I wish you all a good night. I'll try to catch back up again tomorrow.

Posted by: speedwell | March 18, 2009 4:25 PM

She is a woman that we both love and we all feel the best thing would be a plural marriage.

Congratulations, Ben, that's awesome. Keep that eye on what's good and right about your marriage, and about what makes the three of you happy, and you'll be well defended against people who can't see past the potential problems. They're no better than those old ladies who greet the news of a new pregnancy with all the things they think could go wrong. Much happiness to you all!

Posted by: MyaR | March 18, 2009 4:28 PM

I must cast for my vote for the one from the list who first annoyed their way into my consciousness. And I've been busy lately, so am not as familiar with some as I would be normally. So my vote goes to the one who's been annoying for what seems like years now, with essentially no change -- Africangenesis.

Posted by: Sili | March 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Kwok

I still say the next immunity challenge should be for them to decide among themselves unanimously.

Actually. Annoying as they are, I don't think I need to see the herd culled more at the moment. But I'm getting very irregular here, so ...

Posted by: ??? | March 18, 2009 4:32 PM

Actually ??? my post applies to you too. -E.V.

Concern troll is still concerned.

(Things for ??? to do: Learn what a control troll is)

Controll troll = ev

Posted by: ??? | March 18, 2009 4:38 PM

I vote for concern / control troll EV.

Posted by: Ryk | March 18, 2009 4:39 PM

I'm fairly new here and am not familiar with all of these people so my vote isn't fully informed. I was leaning towards Africangenisis as a prime specimen of stupidity, but then the pope post turned me in favor of Facilis.
I have read comments from both and either is worthy of being dungeoned. At this time however I am voting for John Kwok. Making threats is stupid. Making ridiculous little threats involving friends on Facebook is more stupid. I say vote him off the island just for being a little bitch.

Posted by: Edward Lark | March 18, 2009 4:40 PM

Still de-lurking for John Kwok. I'm telling you guys, you may think he is an insufferable narcissist now, but if he isn't booted . . .

Since Barb is gone, my close second will have to shift to Facilis. He reminds me of a thick-headed git on a photography site I frequent that thought he was the paragon of logic and reasoning, while being completely immune to same.

Posted by: badrescher | March 18, 2009 4:41 PM

Kwok. The name-dropping is pathetic & annoying.

Posted by: JackC | March 18, 2009 4:43 PM

Simian

er...

Samoan

dammit

it is like trying to grab a watermellon seed....

S
I
M
O
N

THERE! Gotcha, ya little bastid....

JC

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 4:44 PM

Pete, the best thing you can do is to disappear for a couple of days. Out of threads, out of mind. Something Kwok can't figure out. Can you?

Posted by: Evolving Squid | March 18, 2009 4:46 PM

Curb the Kwok!

Rooke seems to be making a funny up above me here, so I say he stays at least for another round.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 18, 2009 4:46 PM

Oh goody! A chance to toss Silver Fox to the sharks.

Silver Fox's immunity challenge has to be explaining, cogently and succinctly, why assertion is not evidence.

I know--it's a no-win for him, but it's the least he deserves.

Posted by: Steve_C | March 18, 2009 4:47 PM

Pete Rooke. You could at least try to win immunity. It's your best chance.

It's neck and neck between Kwok and Simon though.

Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | March 18, 2009 4:50 PM

Damn! I guess I'm not around as much anymore. The only contestant that I recognize is Piltdown Man. For those unfamiliar, he seems to be some kind of ultra right wing "the current Pope is a scandalously liberal abomination", Society of St. Pius X type Catlikker. You can meet him in this thread if you felt so inclined.

I am quite torn over this guy. It would probably be a good thing not to have a whiny (on Catholic "Persecution"), ultra right wing nutjob incapable of making an argument not involving special pleading around. On the other hand the idea of a Catholic who wants to castrate popes carries a certain morbid interest.

on the whole I believe I shall abstain from voting this round.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 4:50 PM

??? - being a bit of a psychic, I'm sensing narcisstic anger, absent sex-life and....you've just lost your job, correct? Do you see how the first, causes the second two, which in turn leads back to the first?
Yes, it's all a big circle, like your blow-up friend's mouth.
That'll be $100.

Posted by: CG | March 18, 2009 4:52 PM

Yay for round 2! How many more will we have? Will this be a last-troll-standing competition?

My vote for this round goes to Simon, nothing at all good comes from his posts. He's a nutter, and he has terrible communication skills too! The posts of his that aren't copied and pasted from elsewhere are just about unreadable (and could possibly be improved by being completely unreadable because they are such rubbish).

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | March 18, 2009 4:52 PM

Rooke(d), we have the ultimate character witness. You. Your past posts are all preserved for everyone to peruse. It is too late to attempt justification. It is not, however, too late to change your behavior.

Start thinking *before* you post crap like "I would never inflict oral sex on a woman".

I'm not changing my vote. This pathetic whiner needs to be exiled for a while, perchance he will learn how to think.

Rooke(d)

Posted by: James F | March 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Could we just ban anyone who trolls the voting threads? Because...damn.

Posted by: ??? | March 18, 2009 4:54 PM

??? - being a bit of a psychic, I'm sensing narcisstic anger, absent sex-life and....you've just lost your job, correct? Do you see how the first, causes the second two, which in turn leads back to the first?

No, no and no. 0 for 3 so far.

Yes, it's all a big circle, like your blow-up friend's mouth.

Project much?

Posted by: Avenel | March 18, 2009 4:54 PM

Pete Rooke

Posted by: Blueelm | March 18, 2009 4:55 PM

"I believe that if selected for banning I should be allowed to mount a defence/appeal and call some character witnesses to protest on my behalf. If you would like to act as a character witness for me, in the hopefully unlikely event of my banning (an event that draws ever nearer the longer this game continues), please let me know! "

So do you just like it here? Why not try the challenge, or just make a plea stating why you want to stick around.

That being said: my vote goes to Simon. He's a good old fashioned internet troll, and it's hard to even imagine another person on the backend of that spew.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 18, 2009 4:57 PM

I believe that if selected for banning I should be allowed to mount a defence/appeal and call some character witnesses to protest on my behalf

It's not your blog. You don't get to make the rules.

You have the immunity requirement to meet if you want to stick around. That, or hope that someone is crazier/dumber than you.

I know it's a tough thing to decide between the likes of John Kwok, Silver Fox, AG, Simon and you, but you never know--you might get to stay. If you're really lucky, an even more disgusting and braindead troll will come along and keep you from getting tossed to the sharks.

So meet the condition laid before you, or fuck off.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 18, 2009 4:57 PM

I'm not voting because if I couldn't get myself banned, then nobody else should get banned either. *pouts*

As previously stated, most of those on the list are in my personal killfile anyway and don't generally bother me directly. I'd have to vote based on whose comments bother me most when others quote them. That would have to be the odious and useless simon (capitalization varies, evidently purposefully to evade the killfile).

So OK, I vote to banninate simon.

Kwok is a special case. The "Lockheart" tag is very apt. Again, IANAΨ, but the diagnoses of others (Asperger's, narcissism, or most likely a toxic combination of the two) seem accurate to me. (Exhibit A: he almost never uses the word "me," preferring either "myself" or "yours truly.")

The guy is indeed a tireless foe of creationism, especially over on Amazon, but perhaps a little too tireless. The same kind of obsessive completism that causes him, after seeing a movie, to review not just the movie but also (separately) the score and soundtrack of the movie, for every movie, also causes him to review--at great length, and never failing to repeat the mantra "mendacious intellectual pornography"--every...single...freakin...book on creationism, ID and evolution, whether or not he has read the damn book. It goes beyond tireless to not mentally healthy (IMO). He believes deeply (and, I'm sure unconsciously) that his opinion about whatever is as important to everyone else as it is to him.

Then there's the whole obsession with Abbie Smith thing; he has described his banning from erv as a "long-distance lovers' quarrel" and as "losing the love of his life" and he brings her name up at every opportunity, appropriate or not. Very creepy in a fantasy-addled-stalker kind of way, as many have pointed out.

As for the incessant Stuy-High and Brown U referencing and the ridiculous compulsive dropping of names of friends, classmates, teachers, and fellow alumni, my feelings have moved rather quickly from amusement to amazement to pity. It seems clear that Kwok's self-worth is inextricably tied up with these associations and that he is incapable of realizing that nobody else is impressed. It's best read as inadvertant self-parody, I think. He also shows signs of confusing Facebook and Amazon "friends" with real friends.

I just don't want to make fun of the guy anymore (especially since I explicitly promised not to*. It's not fun--he is completely humorless and oblivious to irony. And I guess I don't think he deserves banning just for being ineluctably insufferable. I believe he can't help it--and I predict that he's psychologically incapable of rising to PZ's new immunity challenge. Instead he'll get defensive. Even this long, direct analysis (which I would be mortified to read about myself, or even my internet "self") will not make a dent.

So now I've said everything I have to say about the fascinating J*hn Kw*k (oops, except for: why the hell does he caps-lock GOD?) and will forever shut up about the poor guy.

*That thread, beginning at #83 and snowballing from there, is the best single example of the Kwok MO I have seen. Even after PZ intervened repeatedly and I fled the field in boredom, he just kept going.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 4:58 PM

Rooke,

Your best bet now is to take a shot at the immunity challenge. If no one else does you will win by default.

While I have probably been one of your harshest critics here (even though I didn't make the gruesome trio!) I have given you credit when I thought you deserved it . Your recent good behavior and lack of analogies makes me you think you don't merit a banning. Just keep in mind this isn't your blog.

Posted by: Heywood | March 18, 2009 4:59 PM

Simon!

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 5:03 PM

Project much?

Indeed I do, indeed I do ;) You are aware that Wanker isn't, strictly speaking, a job, aren't you?

Posted by: ennui | March 18, 2009 5:05 PM

Simon.

Because (ctrl-C)+(ctrl-V)!= thinking.

Posted by: Jenny T | March 18, 2009 5:08 PM

John Kwok

He needs to learn to control his tourette-like outbursts of name-dropping. It is sad seeing how out of control he is with respect to that. He needs help.

I haven't dealt much with africangenesis, so I can't really in good conscience vote for him, but perhaps next round if he pulls a Kwok and shows up to show everyone exactly why he was nominated.

Piltdown Man and Silver Fox are annoying, but I can handle their annoyances more than a name-dropping, mentally ill, internet stalking bore who might as well be stuck in high school given his value for acquaintances.

As for the rest, Pete Rooke seems to be growing slowly and can be fun to watch, Simon is just incoherent and Facilis just makes me roll my eyes.

Posted by: Saber | March 18, 2009 5:10 PM

Simple Simon for verbal slime and
homophobic fare...
Says Simple Simon "Penies and 'ginas
are the only correct pair.
But the line on Simple Simon
is totally clear to any,
Simple Simon wants a fine man
to fellate his own eeny-meeny.

Posted by: Sioux Laris | March 18, 2009 5:13 PM

John Kwok, on mine honour.

Posted by: Moses | March 18, 2009 5:16 PM

I know Barb was the #1 choice, but I was mostly absent during the Barb-storm so I'm sticking with my main demented fuck-wit: Pete Rooke

Posted by: blueelm | March 18, 2009 5:16 PM

I never could figure out which way Pete's infliction was supposed to be going. I guess either way is a "sin". But there's a big difference between a sin and something unpleasant, so why the assumption that the woman would find it unpleasant? Later on he said something about people engaging in oral sex commiting a sin similar to condom use. The only sad thing that says to me is that if ever a girl did go down on him she would "fall from grace" in his eyes. Damn, can't win for losing!

Besides I think maybe he's... confused. I think I'm enabling now though, so I better shut it.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 18, 2009 5:18 PM

It diconcerting that someone who is an atheist and scientifically literate doesn't agree with you on every point and dares to question your assumptions. I disagree without demonizing, so it is embarrassing to have your own boorish behavior put to shame. I show that there is an intellectual defense to conservatism and libertarianism that is not easy to dismiss. It is uncomfortable to be shown the weak and ignorant ad hominem namecalling of your leaders that has been passing as cleverness. It is frightening to be shown that those you admired and thought knowledgable are actually ignorant. There are those that called me arrogant, because they were used to receiving unquestioning agreement and admiration and were embarrassed to be shown to be wrong or intellectually clueless. Internicene wars are often the most viscious. The far left progressives like being thought the most irreverent and challenging. They don't like being shown shallow, destructive and vindictive by someone more nihilistic and yet more comfortable in his own skin than they are.

I come here to explore the implications of human evolution for society and morality, full of wonder and curiosity and willingness to learn. Is this a good place to do that?

Posted by: Moses | March 18, 2009 5:21 PM

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 3:01 PM

SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!
SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!
SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!! SCOTT FROM OREGON!!!

Personally, I think him and the rest of the gun-toting, quasi-survivalist libertarian crowd should be up there too. But he's not on the list.

Though he should be.

Posted by: Captain Mike | March 18, 2009 5:23 PM

Simon

Posted by: Ryk | March 18, 2009 5:24 PM

I'm fairly new here and am not familiar with all of these people so my vote isn't fully informed. I was leaning towards Africangenisis as a prime specimen of stupidity, but then the pope post turned me in favor of Facilis.
I have read comments from both and either is worthy of being dungeoned. At this time however I am voting for John Kwok. Making threats is stupid. Making ridiculous little threats involving friends on Facebook is more stupid. I say vote him off the island just for being a little bitch.

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 5:25 PM

BTW -??? is probably Scott from O's sockpuppet.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 5:25 PM

There are those that called me arrogant

No fucking way!

Seriously...you do realise you're supposed to be defending yourself, don't you?
Or have you been taking lessons from Kwok?

Posted by: Kel | March 18, 2009 5:26 PM

Show us that you understand WHY you're on the list.

Posted by: SC, OM | March 18, 2009 5:28 PM

The challenge for the seven surviving candidates is to write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future.

...

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 18, 2009 5:18 PM

FAIL!

(I don't actually think he should be banned. I do think he's nuts.)

Posted by: CSue | March 18, 2009 5:29 PM

AfricanGenesis.

Although it is funny to watch him/her/it try to look smart - by misspelling big words.

Posted by: Steve_C | March 18, 2009 5:30 PM

Haha. Chances are he still doesn't get it.

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 5:36 PM

I apologize to all for name-dropping, and for mentioning my high school alma mater (which, on second thought should be mentioned since its current principal has banned the teaching of ID creationist there.).

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 5:40 PM

I think the above post is a Kwoe

Posted by: astrounit | March 18, 2009 5:41 PM

Steve_C #227: I beg your pardon?

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 5:44 PM

Natalie:
The styles are similar and the juvenile attitude of ??? matches Scott when he's pissy/bitchy. ??? may not be Scott but both could vanish and the world would be a better smarter place.

Posted by: withheld | March 18, 2009 5:45 PM

Pete, if you can answer the immunity challenge, you can buy your safety. Show that you can accept that your moral imperatives about how people should conduct their private lives are not universal. Just because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. It only applies to you.

I'm not willing to ban you, because I still think you can learn something. You seem to be young and strong principled, but misguided. You see, I used to be you, and lately I've been missing me, so I asked Hathaway if I could room with me, and he said "sure." Sorry, I seem to have gotten off track.

I was once young and Catholic. I believed that I was right and everyone else was evil. I grew up. I can now accept that people are different, and what is right for me is not the only way to live. I'm straight, married, two kids. I also support same-sex marriage. It does nothing to hurt me, and I believe it will help strengthen the community. Why would I want to get in the way of any two (or three, or ...) people who love each other enough to actually spend the rest of their lives together. It's not about sex. It is about relationships. The sooner you can learn that, the happier we will all be.

It is up to you. We can't be character witnesses, because all we know if you is what you write here. Show us you can grow, and you will be allowed to stay.

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 5:45 PM

There was a typo, so am reposting this:

I apologize to all for name-dropping, and for mentioning my high school alma mater (which, on second thought should be mentioned since its current principal has banned the teaching of ID creationism there.).

Posted by: cicely | March 18, 2009 5:47 PM

Simon.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 18, 2009 5:48 PM

The Immunity Challenge

Much of the rancour generated on Pharyngula is not too dissimilar to other sites on which people from diametrically opposite points of view come into contact. Typically the issues are controversial and the case for/against is made with a vehemence that encourages assent and discourages dissent with the blogger (in this case PZ Myers).

The views may make perfect sense in the context of the site and its nature but the internet is not clearly demarcated and there are no clear boundaries that have been established. Conflict is inevitable. Creationists come into contact with advocates for Scientism and the result is a situation in which neither side is willing to accept even the most reasonable set of premises that their opponent sets out lest they make a logical leap in their next move that is unwarranted or disliked. The thinking goes:

"Don't let them get a foot in the door and they will be powerless to dispute your beliefs".

Beliefs are tremendously important to people. One does not simply choose to pick up or discard a belief. The protagonist in JM Coetzee's most recent book writes:

"I should thoroughly revise my opinions, that is what I should do. I should cull the older, more decrepit ones, find newer, up-to-date ones to replace them. But where does one go to find up-to-date opinions...Can one buy fresh opinions in the marketplace?"

Beliefs are with us until a momentous shift occurs. The beliefs I am talking about are not trivial choices but that which shapes our entire world-view. We are inclined to dismiss evidence which does not cohere to this world-view (that determines our outlook on life) and, whatever pretence we put up, it is ultimately impossible to achieve a state of perfect rationality (nor is it necessarily desirable; we are humans and not robots after all). The mythical view from nowhere remains ever elusive.

A second issue that leads to conflict is the anonymity of commenters (even the blogger may remain anonymous) and this leads to a general decline in basic civility. Why be reasonable when you are conversing with someone you don't know personally and who you may never come into contact with again? The partner in the "conversation" (and often it would be generous to call it that) lacks any corporal-sensual presence. Eye contact, gestures and body posture, or the rhythm and sound of the voice are forsaken. Imagine the bond with another person who is facing you, watching you and communicating with you. Sartre perhaps overstates the case but one certainly does feel as if they are, in some small way, experiencing the other's consciousness.

In the light of even a stranger's gaze the propensity to be cruel is greatly diminished. That is not necessarily to dispute the grounds for conflict which occur when I post but the context does make it far more likely.

Posted by: windy | March 18, 2009 5:49 PM

natural cynic & Sastra:

Do we hafta vote again, already? There should be at least a week between challenges.

I think one round was enough, frankly.

I AGREE! This way we are going to burn through contestants too fast. And I don't think it's necessary to have a goal of banning someone on every round.

Posted by: ThisIsFun | March 18, 2009 5:50 PM

I vote for Facilis. Maybe he'll come through on the immunity challenge again, since he did so well the first time. Hold his feet to the flames!

Posted by: DominEditrix | March 18, 2009 5:50 PM

In descending order: Simon, Facilis, Kwok, Silver Fox, Piltdown, AG. And a promise from Pete to get some long-term psychological counselling from a non-Catholic therapist.

Posted by: scooter | March 18, 2009 5:51 PM

simon

Posted by: Steve_C | March 18, 2009 5:55 PM

Hehe. Awww no. Pete FAILED.

Funny. It's all just a misunderstanding. phhhht.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | March 18, 2009 5:57 PM

I lurk here every day, though I seldom post, and don't always make it to the end of the comment threads. But if anyone wants my opinion. here it is:

Some of the nominees, I don't know, so can't comment.

Pete Rooke is a well-recognized stain on the Internet, but he's so utterly, earnestly clueless that he's almost a perfect straight man. His now classic "I would never inflict oral sex on a woman" is priceless, not just for being a platinum-cast example of missing the point, but for the inherent sexism that the only understanding he had of oral sex was woman-giving-man.

There's you're character witness, Pete. It would be a shame to lose the hilarious contribution of such a born gimp. Pete, you hate yourself far more than we ever could, and I'd enjoy watching it develop.

John Kwok, on the other hand, seems to be the sort of person whose mental image comes equipped with a field marshal's uniform, encrusted with gold leaf and tailored to a body six inches taller and fifty pounds lighter than his. His world revolves around him, the rest of us mere underlings who inexplicably fail to be loyal. The George McClellan of the group, he ko doubt tells people of his close personal friendship with PZ, who went to his high school.

I was unfamiliar with Africangenesis until I saw his post above. Clearly a misunderstood scholar, peeved and saddened that we fail to appreciate the favor of his illuminated wisdom. Coversation with such a person is like arguing with a billboard.

Facilis is simply stupid. But he does make a good negative example of the dangers of religion. Apparently, unused brain cells atrophy.

Silverfox, now...that one is a waste of space. Like a brain-damaged pekingese, he has only one trick and does it constantly. And he isn't good at it. But even though he drops the ball every single time, he still thinks he's getting a treat.

While I think the best answer would be to tell all of them that the world is about to be eaten by a giant mutant space-goat and congrats for getting a seat on the first ship out, given the choices, I nominate:

Silverfox

Get on the train, pal. You will be issued new clothing at the camp.

Posted by: Watchman | March 18, 2009 5:58 PM

And reason #1 to ban Simon: 1) Evil trumps annoying every time.

Hear, hear. And our boy Facilis appears to be in the same category as Simon.

I do question the plonkability of AG. I find the campaign against him to be a little unsettling. Has he crossed the threshold into terminal Insipidity? That seems to be the only bannable offense he may be charged with. He's surely innocent of Godbotting, Slagging, Spamming Sockputtetry, Morphing, Slagging, Trolling and Wanking. Is he up on charges of Stupidity? PZ's criterion: "those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe." I think he's clear on this one, too, though I'm sure at least one or two of you will disagree with me on that point.

Insipidity seems to be the only possibility: "Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time."

Still, the prospect disturbs me. There's a difference between an AG and a nasty little stinkbug like Simon.

One man's opinion, which is open to modification.

Posted by: E.V. | March 18, 2009 5:59 PM

Like a brain-damaged pekingese, he has only one trick and does it constantly.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 6:02 PM

Sigh...the challenge was :

[T]o write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future.

Pete went over by almost 300 words and barely touched on the subject, Kwok mentioned his school's principal in his answer, and Africangenesis used the opportunity to criticize everyone but himself.

This is pathetic.

Posted by: David | March 18, 2009 6:06 PM

Can I vote for Barb again? Is there a deeper level of the dungeon? No? Sigh...

In that case, my vote goes to Simon. I couldn't find the quote someone mentioned where he asked PZ how many abortions his wife had, but his "Free HIV guaranteed" comment was not funny, not cool, and seriously uncalled; and that's what clinched my vote for him.

But I gotta say, it was a damn close vote between Simon and Pete Rooke. Few things can piss me off quite like people casting judgments on things that A: they know nothing about, and B: don't concern them. And way, way...WAY too many people in this country are uptight about sex as it is. And yes, I've seen more people hurt by those attitudes than any dangerous or "unnatural" sex act.

So I vote Simon this round, but Pete better start extolling the virtues of how more oral sex can better society, or I'm gunning for him in round three!

Posted by: Pete Rooke | March 18, 2009 6:07 PM

JefferyD,

I would be happy to meet you and have a drink while experiencing each other's corporal-sensual presence (see previous post).

Posted by: Mari | March 18, 2009 6:09 PM

Kwok. He was a close second last time and his incorrigible behavior in the second Survival thread did nothing to help him.
Simon is still annoying and Facilis has moved up just for his stupid comment in the pope-thread.

Posted by: ennui | March 18, 2009 6:10 PM

Pete, double fail for plagiarism!

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 6:11 PM

@ Feynmaniac -

What you and others fail to understand is that the school's principal is a science teacher himself and teaches a rigorous freshmen-only introductory physics course to a select group of freshmen. The overall quality of American public secondary school science education would improve dramatically if other principals followed in his lead by pledging - and then ensuring - that no forms of creationism, including Intelligent Design, would be taught in their schools.

Much to my amazement in early December 2007 I received an unsolicited e-mail from William Dembski. He was bragging how he knew scores of Texas high school principals who wanted Intelligent Design only - not including evolution - to be taught in their schools. When I told him about the pledge made during the Dover trial by my high school's current principal, he couldn't answer when I asked him how many of his Texas principals taught science too.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 6:12 PM

How More Oral Sex can Better Society

ooh, another good book title.

no worries, I'll put your name in the acknowledgments.

Posted by: Mari | March 18, 2009 6:14 PM

Sorry, I must have forgotten to close the tab. I only wanted the name Kwok to be bold...

Posted by: mirroreyes | March 18, 2009 6:15 PM

Simon

Posted by: SC, OM | March 18, 2009 6:15 PM

JefferyD,

I would be happy to meet you and have a drink while experiencing each other's corporal-sensual presence (see previous post).

JeffreyD - Please make sure this meeting is in a very public place. Tell us when you're going. And check in afterwards.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 6:16 PM

What you and others fail to understand is that the school's principal is a science teacher himself

WEEEOOOOSSSHHH!

that response shows just how far this challenge is over the head of the Kwokster.

Internal monologue much, John?

Posted by: Vole | March 18, 2009 6:18 PM

The Rooke.

Scientism, forsooth!

Posted by: AdamK | March 18, 2009 6:20 PM

Kwok, by a mile: a dillweed who should be banned from the Internet entirely.

Posted by: Eidolon | March 18, 2009 6:20 PM

AG has to get my vote - I think it's the pretense that is so bad. That, and thread hijacking.

Second - the Rookster
Pete:
Like Kahn, you keep missing the point. Your beliefs are fucking bullet proof. No amount of rational, factual, observable evidence seems to be enough. Worse, you don't even try. Instead of dealing with evidence, you keep retreating to belief - not the same thing.

Simon is so stupid - no problemo.

You know SF is going to post drivel

The rest - save them for later abuse.

Posted by: astrounit | March 18, 2009 6:22 PM

Steve_C: Ah yes. Cool.

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 6:24 PM

@ Ichthyic -

Others, not yours truly, have emphasized how important my high school alma mater is, by referring to it themselves in the past two days. If it hasn't sunk in yet, then take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School

It is the oldest "magnet" school of its kind in the country, and among the first - if not the very first - to emphasize the teaching of science, mathematics and engineering.

Just think for a moment please. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to remind opponents of evolution that a science teacher who is the head of America's premier science and mathematics-oriented high school has pledged that Intelligent Design creationism will never be taught there as long as he continues serving as the school's principal?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 6:27 PM

Continued profiles

Silver Fox Dumb, annoying git who keeps asking for questions about basic science he could easily look up on his own. Posts have a low idea-to-word ratio. Was so disappointed when he didn't make it to Survivor: Pharyngula that he gave a bunch of sophistic arguments until we let him play. Pathetic.

Quote:

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.

"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.

Africangenesis Spouts long unintelligible rants dealing with pseudoscience and Libertarianism. His fellow Libertarians have disowned him. Denounces everyone who disagrees with him as a 'leftist anarchist'. During immunity challenge was asked to show some ability for self-reflection. He used the opportunity to criticize everyone but himself. Is like Rorschach from Watchmen, only creepier.

Quote

The far left progressives like being thought the most irreverent and challenging. They don't like being shown shallow, destructive and vindictive by someone more nihilistic and yet more comfortable in his own skin than they are.

Posted by: Ben | March 18, 2009 6:27 PM

Africangenesis, you said you were "full of wonder and curiosity and willingness to learn."

Do you really think that's true?

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 18, 2009 6:30 PM

Pete Rooke, re your #265 ("I would be happy to meet you and have a drink while experiencing each other's corporal-sensual presence"), not asking for a date, son. (laughing)

OK, being serious, I won't ask where you are on an open thread, so you need to contact me at keltixx at yahoo dot com and we can set something up (public email, even trolls can write stupid things if they wish, my spam filters are excellent). I am currently in Birmingham, but get down to London as needed. In fact, planning to meet one of the great Pharyngula mainstays down there at the end of this month (yes, I know I need to reply to your email (grin)). I am also free most weekends to travel a reasonable distance, couple of hours by train.

We will meet in a public location. I will wear a white sport coat with a pink crustacean and carry a rolled up copy of the Dead Sea Scrools, on papyrus. The code phrase is, "the duck howls at midnight" and your reply is "I have a cunning plan". I prefer places that sell alcohol, coffee will do in a pinch. Bacon is always acceptable.

Ciao

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 6:33 PM

@ Aquaria -

Shut the F**K up yourself.

I heard the school's principal make this pledge at an alumni gathering that was held while the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial was in progress. Another alumnus asked him if Intelligent Design would ever be taught at the school. The school's principal gave a thoughtful response, and the only reasonable one he could give as a science teacher.

P. S. I don't know him. I've spoken to him a few times at alumni meetings.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 18, 2009 6:36 PM

I'm sure I posted a comment that'll show up later - but I'm not going to type it again.

Vote for Simon. John Kwok's name dropping just makes him look like an attention-seeking tool who has nothing of his own to attract it. He'll get bored and wander off eventually.

The others are irritating but can serve as fodder for why their particular beliefs/worldviews/concepts are so fractally wrong and only supported in their deranged imaginations. However, if they can be asked to restrain blathering on about those in threads pertaining to related topics then they should be allowed to stay.

Posted by: cpsmith | March 18, 2009 6:36 PM

I voted for Kwok, but if he wins the immunity challenge my second choice would be Africangenesis.

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 6:38 PM

@ Steve_C -

Under no circumstances do I want any teacher teach Intelligent Design or other forms of creationism either at my high school OR AT other New York City public high schools. Yes, high school was a long time ago, but I don't want any current New York City public school student to be subjected to intellectual child abuse from the Dishonesty Institute.

Get the picture? If you don't then why don't you shut the F**K up too?

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 6:40 PM

Dammit Kwok
"I have persistently put irritating, pompous, self-regarding posts here. I have brought up old quarrels and had them all over again. And again. I have name-dropped in every post, and mentioned my school and college in every sentence. I have used the phrases alma mater and alumni. (And I have added something in brackets that refutes everything I've just said)"
There - how hard was that?
Rookey: you should be able to put forward something a little more truthy than that, surely? You're an apologetics kind of guy, aren't you? Well then you'll be used to lying for a cause. Put a bit of effort in, man, or that cosmic blowjob will never be yours!

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | March 18, 2009 6:41 PM

Africangenesis and Pete "Pleasureless Sex" Rooke have both made excellent arguments in this thread for why they should receive my vote. However, despite Sven's excellent post on the subject of John Kwok and what may be wrong with the guy, I have to vote for John again. The image of him asking his Facebook friends to drop Myers because he banned him is just too tempting.

So - I vote for John Kwok.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 18, 2009 6:46 PM

Why can't one woman marry two men, one man two women, or any combination up from that? Surely the lawyers will love such scenarios - Louis

I think you answered your own question right there, Louis!

On the dungeon contest, I'm torn between Simon, Facilis and (after reading his ravings about Obama elsewhere), John Kwok. I think Scatalogical Simon just shades it!

Posted by: maureen | March 18, 2009 6:47 PM

John Kwok,

Please switch your brain to RECEIVE.

Idea one: the posters and regular lurkers at Pharyngula have notched up some thousands of years of life.

Idea two: in the course of that many will have met people who are powerful, important, interesting.

Idea three: most of the time they don't mention it. Why? Because in most cases it is not relevant to the discussion.

Idea four: when contact with another human is relevant, as in discussions with another scientist, they mention the name but they don't make a big deal of it.

That's the rule of thumb here - one you would be wise to follow.

OK?

Posted by: Al | March 18, 2009 6:48 PM

AfricanGenesis: the tedious threadjacking counts as wanking...

Posted by: John Kwok | March 18, 2009 6:50 PM

@ Wowbagger, OM -

I'm probably going to voted off anyway, so I'll defend myself whenever I deem it necessary. As for mentioning that word, I'd rather not spell it out in full.

PS You should read the novel "The Diviners". The author had a rather hilarious means of contending with a NYC-based critic - who was writing book reviews for my hometown's august newspaper - by lampooning him as a fictional character. I think I'll follow in that author's lead after I am finished revising a novel-in-progress.

Posted by: Kimpatsu | March 18, 2009 6:52 PM

Get rid of Facilis for his anti-condom Papist garbage.

Posted by: Hideki | March 18, 2009 6:53 PM

My vote goes for Simon, should by some miracle he win immunity then Pete Rooke instead.

John Kwok seems harmless and isn't a theist so really should he be on this list at all? Is being annoying in itself sufficient reason?

Posted by: mothra | March 18, 2009 6:54 PM

I vote to consign SIMON to the dungeon. My second choice is John Kwok. These two posters are in desperate need professional help. I disagree with others on the list, but that alone is not reason enough for dungeonization.

OT- a researcher looks at creationist terms (baramin) and says 'Oooh, sciency!' A theist looks at a theory they do not try to understand and says: 'that's scientism.'

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 18, 2009 6:56 PM

I come here to explore the implications of human evolution for society and morality, full of wonder and curiosity and willingness to learn. - Africangenesis [Emphasis added.]

There's a point at which lack of self-awareness becomes sublime. Africangenesis has reached this point!

Posted by: T_U_T | March 18, 2009 6:57 PM

John Asperger Kwok :

Yes, high school was a long time ago, but I don't want any current New York City public school student to be subjected to intellectual child abuse from the Dishonesty Institute.

Can you comprehend that right now, we want to talk about something else than your high school, can't you ?
It is not that difficult. People talk about lot of different things. One, or a few at time. Right now, we are not talking about your high school. We are talking about something else. Do you understand ?
OK.
So we are NOT talking about your high school. And we don't want to talk about it because we have different matters to discuss. SO it is really inappropriate from you to keep going about it. Are you still with me ?
So, if you want to talk about your high school, kindly ask just once, and if we say no, then we want not talk about it, and you have to go find someone else who will.
Otherwise we will just get angry and won't talk about it anyway.
So, please, stop talking about it. RIght now,

Posted by: debaser | March 18, 2009 7:02 PM

I vote for Simon

Post #19 was very helpful. Continuing with my "Fuck the Homophobes" platform, Simon appears to be the leading choice. I encourage everyone to consider the "Fuck the Homophobes" voting strat -- you just keep picking homophobes until it doesn't apply. Then you win! ....and start picking the most repetitive troll, or the most unoriginal troll. It's like artificial selection.

Posted by: Stwriley | March 18, 2009 7:03 PM

Simon, no question.

He's just too vile to keep around any longer, especially with the extreme homophobia and anal sex obsession (though having to scroll past those idiotic cut-and-pastes is enough to earn him a permanent dungeon cell in my book).

Posted by: debaser | March 18, 2009 7:06 PM

I vote for Simon

Post #19 was very helpful. Continuing with my "Fuck the Homophobes" platform, Simon appears to be the leading choice. I encourage everyone to consider the "Fuck the Homophobes" voting strat -- you just keep picking homophobes until it doesn't apply. Then you win! ....and start picking the most repetitive troll, or the most unoriginal troll. It's like artificial selection.

Posted by: SimonC | March 18, 2009 7:07 PM

Put my vote in for Simon - he's a nasty little shit and he brings shame to the name of 'Simon'.

Posted by: gruebait | March 18, 2009 7:08 PM

I'm throwing my stone at Kwok.

Posted by: Ben | March 18, 2009 7:09 PM

#174, just like in any other. We all have times when we want to be alone. We also have times when we want to be with just one or the other. Honesty is the most important part of any relationship but that is most true when you have more than 2.

To be honest it can be quite boring which is really a good thing. :)

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 7:11 PM

Ben @140

My wife and I are planning to marry a third this summer. She is a woman that we both love and we all feel the best thing would be a plural marriage.

See, SEE!! First it's teh gays, and now this...oh noes!!!

We is slipperin down the slippy slope!!!

Yous is endangerin tah immoral souls.

Posted by: astrounit | March 18, 2009 7:11 PM

Aaaack...pardon the redundant post. Damn. What's with SB today?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 7:14 PM

Right now I'm leaning toward Simon (not official yet PZ), but if JK can't shut up for two days, he will be receiving my vote.

This isn't to say if PR, AG, FFF, or SF are out of the woods. If any of them does something really stupid in the next day or two, they may receive the vote.

If they are all stupid, decisions, decisions...

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 7:21 PM

"I have no idea what you are talking about."

go right on ahead, dig yourself in deeper.

Feyn also said:

Quite frankly, half of what you write is unintelligible and the other half is just plain wrong.

which I would agree with 100%

you also don't like to fix your own errors; not a sign of someone "interested in learning".

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 7:22 PM

Josh @172

Simon, although the more I read his stuff the more I wonder if he's real.

And if this Simon is some made-up thing, that would be meta-disgusting, a truly depraved mind.

Posted by: Stu | March 18, 2009 7:24 PM

Feynmaniac, You are so arrogant.

The projection, it burns.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | March 18, 2009 7:26 PM

My vote goes for Kwok - anyone who throws up a Facebook threat like that is quite deserving of a plonk.

Posted by: brandon | March 18, 2009 7:31 PM

John Kwok

*plonk*

Posted by: Aquaria | March 18, 2009 7:31 PM

I did not tell you to shut up, John Krockofshit. I told you to get over yourself.

I said that nobody cares about your personal connections. It doesn't matter.
That's what you just don't get.

Get your facts straight before spouting off yet more inanity.

Moron.

And you just had to contradict yourself while ironically digging that self-aggrandizing hole yet deeper, by saying so-and-so wasn't your friend, but you had "talked to him" at a few meetings.

LIke a) it matters or b) anyone but you cares?

You do not get it.

PZ, this narcissistic parasite is still #2 on my list. Behind Silver Fox.

Just for being such a tiresome wanker.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 7:34 PM

Africangenesis,

Did it ever occur to you this might be a biology blog and some familiarity with biology might sometimes be in order?

My "I have no idea what you are talking about." was in reference to this comment of yours:

Modern humans aren't on a par with social insects, and an effective population size of 10000 may be small, but it isn't a relatedness coefficient of 0.75 yet. That will take a few more genocides and stalinist purges, then the state may be able to fade away and the anarchists will be in heaven with their near clones.

The biology wasn't so troubling as the anarchist conspiracy theory for genocide. This doesn't seem like something someone who is "full of wonder and curiosity and willingness to learn" would say. Seems more like the mad rantings of a syphilitic mind.

Back to ignoring you.

Posted by: uncle frogy | March 18, 2009 7:35 PM

I dislike to a high degree some of the aforementioned "commenters" and disagree with them totally and most completely. they can be very exasperating and most profoundly pig ignorant. they only come here to judge and be superior, condescending and self righteous. they have little love for the search for knowledge or "enlightenment" and are only interested in dogma.
Dumping them off the "boat" would be fun but it bothers me just the same. It just feels weird to me and I can't "vote" but that's OK. I do not control here nor do I want to. I make no judgment on anyone who does vote. This is not my house nor is it "Hyde Park Corner"
thanks

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 7:35 PM

#174, just like in any other. We all have times when we want to be alone. We also have times when we want to be with just one or the other. Honesty is the most important part of any relationship but that is most true when you have more than 2.

...We also have times when we want to be with just one or the other...

well, that's just it. Is it an agreed upon "territorial" arrangement? How does one turn on and off intimacy so that one prefers to be with one sometimes and the other at other times?

how do conflicts get resolved? are there times when all three truly feel the same level of intimacy at the same time?

just to be clear, I'm defining intimacy to be beyond just the sex part of it (that's actually the easy part); I'm speaking of the genuine emotional bond; the feeling of mutual trust and respect. Is it just a matter of years of knowing each other?

OTOH, I can't imagine you would want to answer such personal questions on a public blog, or even anywhere. So don't feel obliged to do so on my account.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 7:36 PM

John, did you you say you've been having a threesome with Alma Mater and Al Lumni?
'Cos I should warn you, they say they've ever even met you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 7:37 PM

AG, one stupid post, you just went up a notch.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 7:44 PM

Pete,

There was a 200 word limit, you went over by almost 300 words and didn't really discuss what was asked. Please read the challenge carefully and try again.

Posted by: amhovgaard | March 18, 2009 7:44 PM

Delurking to vote for Simon, who is just nasty and evil, and to plead on behalf of Pete Rooke - for two reasons: 1. he's often tea-all-over-key board-amusing 2. even when he's not, I tend to feel sorry for him more than anything else - he seems like a prudish child, not a young adult, and needs to be seduced ASAP.

Posted by: Hideki | March 18, 2009 7:46 PM

Hihi

Does this whole survivor idea remind anyone else of the Stanford prison experiment or is that just me?

I'm beginning to wonder if we're not trapped in some sociological study PZ has sprung on us without mentioning it -.o;

Posted by: Louis | March 18, 2009 7:47 PM

@ Knockgoats #311

Dammit, you know I think you might be right. But, that said, don't even lawyers deserve a little happiness? Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

Louis

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 18, 2009 7:49 PM

Pete, somebody (not me) gave you a good hint upthread. If you can find it, relate properly to it, and give a succinct post, you might get immunity. Otherwise, no.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 18, 2009 7:52 PM

And for that reason, Barb has been found unfit, and is cast into the dungeon for all time

Well I hope you people are happy. There's an MD out there extremely pissed that his dumb-as-a-rock wife isn't busy typing away on the computer anymore.

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 7:54 PM

Rooke @265

corporal-sensual

I can translate: corporeal sensory

Unless the SM reference was purposeful...

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 18, 2009 7:55 PM

I vote for Simon.
My reasons should be obvious.

BTW, my high school algebra teacher was also the football coach! Beat [i]that[/i] Kwok!

Football works bitches!!!!eleven!!!

Posted by: Aquaria | March 18, 2009 8:03 PM

Hideki:

I've requested the banning of Silver Fox, for godbotting, stupidity and insipidity, in several comment threads over the past few months. I didn't need encouragement on that score. I'm just reiterating that here. Some of the others, yeah, I've said get them outta here.

I don't know PZ's reason for doing this, but this little exercise could have quite a few purposes. It gives the snarkers a chance to really let loose and finish off some already mangled chew-toys. It encourages lurkers to speak up about the trolls that annoy them. And it sends a message to potential trolls that posting here can have some unpleasant consequences.

And it's fun. In a sadistic sort of way. If you're into that sort of thing.

Posted by: Stwriley | March 18, 2009 8:04 PM

Michael @ #366,

Thank you, I haven't laughed that hard in a month!

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 8:05 PM

Pete Rook: shorter challenge: Why I have appeared to be a fuckwit and am about to be voted off Pharyngula (up to 200words)

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 8:10 PM

My maths teacher was also my PE, English, Science and history teacher. Jack of all trades, master of f-all.

were you homeschooled, by any chance?

Posted by: blueelm | March 18, 2009 8:12 PM

"My maths teacher was also my PE, English, Science and history teacher."

Really? How did that work? Most of my math teachers gave credit for your name and passed you if you missed fewer than three days of class. One of my science teachers had "problems" with aspects of science and another preferred to talk about her past affair with a student and such (she was insane). My English and History teachers were consistently great. Go figure.

Oh-- and no one famous went there. I was in the first class. Guess it's up to me to do something with my life.

Posted by: Carlie | March 18, 2009 8:15 PM

I'm going to have to vote for simon. It would be Pete, but simon's comment about abortion in the anniversary thread was so over-the-top absolute troll, it has to win him a place in the dungeon.

Posted by: Eduardo Padoan | March 18, 2009 8:17 PM

I vote for Simon. thanks for the summary, Feynmaniac.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 8:20 PM

And at least with the lesbians I don't feel even slightly jealous.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 18, 2009 8:21 PM

Wowbagger: It sickens me to defend Pete, but the phrase jack of all trades and etc has nothing to do with cards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none

Posted by: jasonk | March 18, 2009 8:24 PM

Africangenesis, for being incredibly boring, and ...

I show that there is an intellectual defense to conservatism and libertarianism that is not easy to dismiss.

... for apparently being unable to understand anything anyone's ever said to him.

Posted by: MoxieHart | March 18, 2009 8:26 PM

Long time lurker delurking for the fun.
My vote goes for Simon solely because I think his evil is the closest in scale to Barb's.
But dear Jebus, John Kwok is pushing me. He's kind of charmingbut he reminds me of the former student body president of a high school currently working at a car dealership who can't stop thinking of how great his life was then.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 8:29 PM

[pedant]
"Jack of all trades, master of none" is a figure of speech used in reference to a person who is competent with many skills but is not outstanding in any particular one.
The "Jack" here means a "man" of all trades - not to do with playing cards, phrase first recorded 1621.
[/pedant}

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 8:34 PM

It sickens me to defend Pete, but the phrase jack of all trades and etc has nothing to do with cards.

Since a "jack" referred to a generic man in the 1600's, did "jill" refer to a generic woman?

Posted by: Stanton | March 18, 2009 8:38 PM

Either Simon, for the same reasons as the previous thread, or Silver Fox, because he's a pompous and narcissistic apologist.

Posted by: sammywol | March 18, 2009 8:41 PM

So tough to choose. I think it has to be africangenesis for that special (although sadly far from unique) ability to derail an interesting thread into total wank with top speed. Hope to see a chalenge attempt too.

Posted by: Dianne | March 18, 2009 8:43 PM

There's an MD out there extremely pissed that his dumb-as-a-rock wife isn't busy typing away on the computer anymore.

It's ok. He's at work. The beauty of medicine as a profession is that it's always possible to find more work to do if you really want to.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 8:48 PM

Since a "jack" referred to a generic man in the 1600's, did "jill" refer to a generic woman?
Yes. See also Jillstrap. Or....is that a dildo?

Posted by: azqaz | March 18, 2009 8:53 PM

Facilis. 'Nuff said. Now I have to go wash my brain to get rid of the stench.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 8:57 PM

I believe it was a slang term for prostitute. Might be considered illuminating of 18th century attitudes...

Well, that gives whole new meaning to the "Jack and Jill" poem...

a common man and a prostitute go up a hill... to get WATER?

I think not.

Posted by: Ale | March 18, 2009 9:01 PM

@Ariel (420):

I think you are talking about Applied Kinesiology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology

AFAIK, it is completely woo. See, for instance:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=102

Posted by: The MadPanda | March 18, 2009 9:07 PM

The agony of choice!

John Kwok. I like most of his posts over on Panda's Thumb, so he's not all bad, but his conduct here (and on ERV) has been inappropriate. (Johnny Boy, when your host asks you to stop wearing a lampshade on your head and tap-dancing on his coffee table, it's considered proper to knock it the hell off.)

If by some means he figures out why so many people find him annoying, dull, insipid, and/or creepy, or if he manages to win immunity, then consider my followup candidate to be Piltdown Man.

With extreme prejudice and all due haste, I add. And the same for any of these pissant concern trolls like little Saint Jimmy (see #5) who pop in here to whine about how unfair it is that big bad PZ actually holds these goons responsible for their chronic unwillingness to abide by the clearly stated rules.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: cap | March 18, 2009 9:14 PM

i vote for john kwok.

Posted by: Ray Ladbury | March 18, 2009 9:15 PM

John Kwok, Ok, fool that I am, I'm going to hope we can make this a moment of personal growth here for you. Think, Dude, where did you start attracting enmity. Wasn't it when you made an actual threat--and not just any threat, but a lame facebook threat, at that?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you could post about a highschool OTHER THAN the one you went to. And maybe you could post about something you read the SOMEONE ELSE WROTE that you found was insightful. And maybe you could highlight a comment SOMEONE ELSE made.
Dude, it's time to try and finally pass sandbox. Maybe, just maybe, it's not ALL about you. Think about it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2009 9:17 PM

@mandrake.

thanks. Just got a copy of the book you recommended.

Posted by: GAZZA | March 18, 2009 9:23 PM

Pete Rooke again.

Posted by: Ale | March 18, 2009 9:25 PM

Ariel,
Gullible relatives are a tricky thing - you do not want to be too confrontational to their superstitions, because they might become resistant to your input or even remove you completely form the situation (because you "really do not understand" them and so on). This is bad because it leaves them to deal with the woo totally alone, which is usually counterproductive. Be supportive with your mom - if she is bent on woo it will be difficult to sway her at first. The best result is usually to start creating a rational system of thought to supplant the magical one, while, at the same time, ensuring that she gets proper treatment in addition to the woo. Of course, if you convince her of not having AK at all that would be the best thing.

Posted by: Conor H. | March 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Simon. That kind of vitriolic homophobia is unacceptable to me.

Posted by: druidbros | March 18, 2009 9:30 PM

Well after Barb is gone I feel a little better but now I am torn between John Kwok and Simon. I hate people who are too stupid to realize that being LGBT is NOT A CHOICE. So I vote for.....Simon.

(John Kwok ...next!)

Posted by: kryptonic | March 18, 2009 9:31 PM

simon

Posted by: Eric Saveau | March 18, 2009 9:34 PM

jasonk @403 FTW!!!

Posted by: Nes | March 18, 2009 9:40 PM

After seeing his "defense" of the historicity of Jesus a while ago, I have to vote for Simon. He's a complete waste of everyone's time.

Seeing some of his quotes regarding penis and ass just reinforces that vote. Makes me think that he's 35 years younger than he claims...

Posted by: Tassie Devil | March 18, 2009 9:49 PM

Simon.

Useless, nasty and adds nothing to the thread.

Posted by: druidbros | March 18, 2009 9:50 PM

And I almost forgot to thank the host. Thanks PZ for the entertainment of your version of Survivor. This is really fun.

Posted by: Diane | March 18, 2009 9:55 PM

I'm changing my vote from Silver Fox to Africangenesis. In addition to his pompous idiocy, he ended a sentence with a verb and that will not do. BTW, had no idea Silver Fox was a man. I must have missed the post where he identified himself as such. He still reminds me of my detested grandmother, though.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 10:02 PM

@Real Name - brilliant!

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 10:05 PM

Diane @451

He still reminds me of my detested grandmother, though.

I had one of those, the nasty bitch.

But the interesting point, you were unsure of the maleness?? Absolutely an asshole *male*. Women don't end sentences with verbs. NEVER.

Posted by: Qwerty | March 18, 2009 10:07 PM

I can quit reading the "creationists go to the Smithsonian" thread as Barb "the bland babbler" has been banished.

I will abstain from the current vote until tomorrow as the person I vote for may pass the immunity test. (Really, I can't decide who should go.)

Posted by: Wolfhound | March 18, 2009 10:08 PM

I must admit that Pete Rooke, my front runner in the 1st round, is showing a side of himself that is charming in a creepy way, but charming none the less, with a bit of potty humor thrown in.

This time around, I find myself torn. On the one hand, Silver Fox is an astoundingly dense godbotter and annoying as all get-out. Kwok is a self-aggrandizing name dropper who Fails To Get It. But, exasperating as his hubris is, he is, after all, OUR self-aggrandizing name dopper. I'm willing to forgive the bad image he gives the anti-ID crowd simply because he is anti-ID. Even if he repeats this fact over and over and over and over and over again.

Screw it, this Wolfhound has become a Foxhound. The Fox must go!

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 18, 2009 10:09 PM

Women don't end sentences with verbs. NEVER.

Posted by: tony | March 18, 2009 10:13 PM

Dear PZ

Can we continue Survivor for a whole season? I'd like to send Simon(ass-love), Silver(cannot disprove Ra)Fox, and ever-so-friendful John Kwok directly to the dungeon.

There are more ('J' comes to mind), so I'm waiting with bated breath for the next installment!

You respectful poster
Tony

Posted by: ScottRS | March 18, 2009 10:17 PM

Africangenesis. Weapons-grade insipid.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | March 18, 2009 10:21 PM

Or is that beginning a sentence?

*snickers quietly*

Posted by: Ксения Николаевна Кириленко, ОМ | March 18, 2009 10:23 PM

Real Name - Bravo! (Brava?)

Are we voting again? Didn't we do that last night?

Simon, then, for being extremely distateful and yet, unlike Brownian, utterly devoid of redeeming characteristics.

After this round of plonking, can we take a step back and review what it is we've done, and why? How many more rounds of culling are planned, anyway?

Posted by: Kseniya | March 18, 2009 10:28 PM

No? What about "I do"? Or is that beginning a sentence?

LOL!

Posted by: withheld | March 18, 2009 10:30 PM

Where can I get a "Fuck the Homophobes" T-Shirt? Might need it the next time Fred Phelps comes to town.

Posted by: nick nick bobick | March 18, 2009 10:38 PM

I wasn't planning on voting for multiple banishments in such a short time - let's not lose ALL the funnies at once, but Kwok's continuing obtuseness on this thread has made me change my mind. If it walks like a Kwok, and quacks like a Kwok, and looks like a Kwok...

Kwok

I have ignored his rants on most blogs I have seen him on (ERV, Panda's Thumb, etc.) but did some research on him after following some links to his ravings yesterday. His Amazon profile is quite revealing: he is an underacheiver and is attempting to compensate.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 18, 2009 10:39 PM

How old is the Rookester, anyway? When he first showed up I figured he was 40-something, maybe 50. Didn't he claim to be a pastor or something? Now it comes out that he's a "youth"? Like Walton? College-aged perhaps?

Posted by: Tark | March 18, 2009 10:42 PM

Oral Sex, Bacon, and Lesbians

Vote: Banish Simon. Muzzle Kwok. Put Silverfox on notice.

Tax Religion. More DIScern trolls, Less CONcern trolls!
Tark

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 18, 2009 10:47 PM

Ok Tark, that's enough with the flashies, already.

(the above does not apply to lesbians, of course)

Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2009 10:49 PM

I have a creeping suspicion that indiscriminate use of the flashing font and gumby background is going to lead to no use of the flashing font and gumby background.




We can't have nice things.

Posted by: Steve_C | March 18, 2009 10:55 PM

Who doesn't love oral sex, bacon and lesbians???

Posted by: Dustin | March 18, 2009 10:58 PM

Who doesn't love oral sex, bacon and lesbians???

Posted by: blueelm | March 18, 2009 11:05 PM

Simon should take a lesson from the poopsmith and try a vow of silence!

Posted by: Tark | March 18, 2009 11:07 PM

And many thanks to Dustin at #483 for a bark out loud David Cedaris reference. Nicely Done.

Tax Religion. Me lurk quieter one day.
Tark

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 18, 2009 11:10 PM

John Kwok? He used to play for the Phillies, didn't he?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 18, 2009 11:13 PM

John Kwok. Still for the same reasons.

Fasciitis- I mean, Facilis, for the dumb comment on the anti-condom pope blog entry.

I have yet to read that.

I also don't seem to have been on the same threads as simon much.

a few weeks ago it might have been tempting to remove AG, but after the incident with the River Main, in which he insisted it was spelled Mein, and then refused to accept that he fucked up and instead kept digging himself in deeper, he has become a fucking joke and easy to ignore.

ROTFL! So he believed German spelling is logical just because it's more logical than the English one? On which thread was that? :-D

@sdh Why are you posting the same comment so often?

Because he/she/it/squid is too stupid to read the error message!

Not on the list, but JIM needs to go to Dungeon too for:

I bet he's already banned. Compare him to a couple dungeon inhabitants.

can I have ice cream instead?

I scream: "Ice cream!"
-- First-year textbook of English as a foreign language.

I believe that if selected for banning I should be allowed to mount a defence/appeal and call some character witnesses to protest on my behalf.

You misunderstand. This is not a trial. It's a reality show.

Either succeed at the Immunity Challenge, or heed the advice of what is now comment 162 but will probably move upthread.

the inherent sexism that the only understanding he had of oral sex was woman-giving-man.

Oh, I wouldn't call that sexism. I'd call it sheer ignorance. It isn't long ago (maybe a year or two) that I even learned of the existence of man-giving-woman (probably right here on Pharyngula); my imagination is way too pathetic* to come up with it on its own.

* As a vertebrate paleontologist, I don't need no stink'n' imagination. Reality pwnz0rz any fiction any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Off the top of my head -- adelogyrinids? Hello? Who ordered those?!? What next, champsosaurs...?

I think that Kwok's apology shows that he understands exactly why he drives us crazy, so he passes the challenge.

That wasn't by him!

Comment 271, on the other hand, is by him. Either that, or copypasta of a comment by him.

Comment 291 seems to be parody again...

OK, I give up. If he's voted off, maybe the parodies will stop. AAAAARRRRRGH!!!

and carry a rolled up copy of the Dead Sea Scrools, on papyrus. The code phrase is, "the duck howls at midnight" and your reply is "I have a cunning plan".

LOL!

Somehow I doubt the papyrus...

Sorry my double post above (#329/333). It timed out the first way through- I backed up and waited before trying again.

You should not have tried again. You should have read the error message, gone back to back up, and then just refresh. Read the error message to find out why this makes sense.

Posted by: insert witty name | March 18, 2009 11:15 PM

I vote for Simon. He's just sick in the head.
Real name you're a genius.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | March 18, 2009 11:21 PM

A cousin manages a AAA baseball team and may end up in the majors, as a manager, someday.

Here's hoping he comes to Colorado, and soon.
Clint Hurdle is an idiot.

Posted by: Demonhype | March 18, 2009 11:40 PM

I was going to search, but Feymaniac's summaries pretty much did it for me. I'd have to go with Simon, without a doubt. That dude is scary stupid beyond all reason.

Posted by: Rahne | March 18, 2009 11:45 PM

John Kwok, he annoys me

Posted by: kamaka | March 18, 2009 11:47 PM

Janine @ 500

I want to be seduced!

Perhaps. Though I'm guessing not by the types portrayed in the video.

Posted by: heliobates | March 18, 2009 11:53 PM

PZ needs to give us an annual Pharyngula International Self-Aggrandizement thread. Banned or not, John would always be allowed to post there.

All of us could then talk about the famous people we know and how great our senior kindergarten class was.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | March 18, 2009 11:56 PM

Maybe we've been taking the wrong angle on these guys. Maybe they've all just got very thin myelin.

Science and insult! It's perfect.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 19, 2009 12:12 AM

Lesbians dream of making love to women, I dream of making love to women, so I must be a lesbian.

Ahh. The old "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body" ploy. That won't fly here, Captain Shameless!

As for Rooke being a man of the cloth: First, no way am I confusing him with Fr.J. Second, it's likely I read someone else's facetious comment and taken it seriously. Third, Rooke's opinions on women and their place in society are so stygian, I'd have believed nearly anything about him - up to and including a claim that he's an undead witch-hunting Inquisitor, one of the Nazgul.

(Ahem. In the event that the latter turns out to be true, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that "I am no man!")

Knowing that he's a couple of years younger than I am, as opposed to 20 years older, does make him a little easier to take.

Posted by: bastion of sass | March 19, 2009 12:50 AM

Still voting to throw Simon off of Pharynguland. He's disgusting, and nothing more.

I think Pete Rooke's comments on the Survivor Day 1 thread about his lack of sexual experience and sexual hangups made me feel some pity towards him.

I used to image he was just a crotchety, dried-up husk of an old coot whose brain cells were beginning to rot. To learn he's a 22 year-old student who's obviously lived a very repressed and sheltered life, honestly makes me feel for him. So, I'd keep Rooke.

Posted by: Dustin | March 19, 2009 1:01 AM

"I am no man!"

Posted by: siMon | March 19, 2009 1:21 AM

To the readers of Pharyngula,

I sincerely apologize for my reprehensible behavior while on this weblog. In retrospect, it was quite inappropriate to graphically expose my private sexual fantasies of defecation and homosexual acts to the readership here. I sincerely regret any feelings of discomfort and disgust this may have created. Also, when I was quoting large blocks of texts without adequately providing citations I was committing intellectually dishonesty. Finally, my question to Dr. Myers on his wedding anniversary reflects quite poorly on my judgment.

The American philosopher Henry David Thoreau once wrote 'I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor'. I will endeavor to elevate my standing with the readership of this weblog by making my commentary more substantive in the future.

Sincerely,

sImon

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 19, 2009 1:25 AM

To the homophobes, and for lovers of bacon and lesbians, (and lesbian bacon lovers!) I present a youtube video, and an image, mostly NSFW.
An excerpt from Zappa's film 200 Motels, Penis Dimensions, and a novel use for bacon

Posted by: SteveL | March 19, 2009 1:41 AM

Remove Kwok please. The thread #189 mentioned was enough evidence for me. He pissed all over it.

Posted by: Tiina Järvi | March 19, 2009 1:53 AM

Simon. The continuous homophobic attitude adds nothing to anything discussed here, though I have to addmit Facilis' condom comment yesterday (my time) was appalling, misogynist and ignorant enough to get my vote. Well, fortunately for me there is a next round.

Posted by: rednomad | March 19, 2009 2:04 AM

After reading the profiles given by feynmaniac, I'm going to cast a vote for Simon (I mean, getting rid of this sort of trash is just simple house cleaning)

Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 19, 2009 2:15 AM

I think Pete did pretty well with his essay. Some of his points were pretty obvious: this is a rough-and-tumble place where passionate people argue a lot, and the anonymity of the internet makes it easy to be rude. But he did reveal some promise, I think, when he talked about how hard it is to look objectively at your strongly-held beliefs . . . and maybe let them go . . . even when you know there's something wrong. The "scientism" thing? Look, that's where he is now. The last few days have given us some hints that it might not be where he ends up. And damn, folks, he did try.

But, Pete, please eschew obfuscation. Also, brevity is the soul of wit.

I do wish, JeffreyD, that I could join you for that, what was it, orange squash? Though I'd be drinking a martini, of course. I'm no 22-year-old innocent.

Oh, and RealName? Way to go, dude or chica!

Posted by: Michael X | March 19, 2009 2:35 AM

Kseniya,

Knowing that he's a couple of years younger than I am, as opposed to 20 years older, does make him a little easier to take.

Why is this?

Is it that you'd be sadder that someone older would have these views (which sounds more reasonable) or would you be more challenged in your own views by the simple fact that someone that age held those views?

Posted by: Sioux Laris | March 19, 2009 2:42 AM

Already voted, but how can anyone read the comments JKwok has left on this single thread and not want him to enjoy life very, very far from wherever they are? He's sort of like Eric Idle at his very worst, except without even an echo that intelligence or humor ever existed as positive virtues. He's a sort of over-the-top parody of some Dickensian character - one whom, when found as a greasy, blackened stain due to having spontaneously combusted, you cheer the author for disposing of, finally.

Again, if the John Kwoks of this world happen to be on my side, the world needs more sides. Preferably without doors or connecting vents.

Posted by: Valis | March 19, 2009 2:47 AM

Facilis for sure.

Posted by: jasonk | March 19, 2009 3:09 AM

Dear Africangenesis,

Please keep commenting in this thread so that more people will see the necessity of voting for you.

May I suggest you explain how anthropogenic global warming is a liberal conspiracy, and scientists are misrepresenting the consensus?

Thanks!

Posted by: nothing's sacred | March 19, 2009 3:36 AM

a few weeks ago it might have been tempting to remove AG, but after the incident with the River Main, in which he insisted it was spelled Mein, and then refused to accept that he fucked up and instead kept digging himself in deeper

That is quite false; you misrepresented his behavior in that very thread and continue to do so. In http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/i_marvel_every_time_at_a_presi.php#comment-1404044 he admitted his error, which you surely saw because you posted immediately after him and later commented on his post. But you took him to task for his comment about the spelling having changed, which was likely a joke, and never acknowledged that he admitted the error and chastised himself for not looking it up. AG is terribly wrongheaded about a number of things, but none of them justifies banning -- especially not an error that he admitted to and you are lying about -- or, you're doing just what he did but copped to, namely not looking it up before making a claim.

A good teacher might have taught you that the consistent version of that expression is 'Jack of all trades and ace of none' - keeping the playing card motif all the way through.

What other neologistic back formations would you have good teachers mislead their students with?

I vote for Simon, because I had to disinfect my screen after his anal leakage got on it.

Posted by: Brian G | March 19, 2009 4:39 AM

John Kwok must go

Posted by: SC, OM | March 19, 2009 5:08 AM

For someone so caught up in pedantry and fact-checking, you might have bothered to check all the posts in this thread. Try reading through again and maybe you'll find the post where I admitted my error and apologised.

Yeah, pretty sloppy work there, truth machine.

Posted by: clinteas | March 19, 2009 5:21 AM

Yeah, pretty sloppy work there, truth machine.

More like a cheap clone,really.

Posted by: Zetetic | March 19, 2009 5:29 AM

I am changing my vote from Simon to Facilis.

It was close for me before, but after Facilis' revolting comment in the "The pope is an evil quack" thread I have changed my mind.

Here

Time for flaccid Facilis to go...

Posted by: SC, OM | March 19, 2009 5:38 AM

More like a cheap clone,really.

No, it's him, I'm fairly sure. See this thread (which I just checked and now see that I'll have to go back to - argh) in particular:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/another_option_for_obama_to_do.php

I had suspected (and hinted at) it earlier, but that one pretty much convinced me.

Posted by: clinteas | March 19, 2009 5:54 AM

Checked the other thread out....

Truthy,welcome home !!

Posted by: John Morales | March 19, 2009 6:04 AM

SC, the evidence is pretty persuasive (I'd not followed that thread as it's internal US politics); I concur with your assessment.

Wowbagger, tm withdrew voluntarily.
The changed handle presumably is to avoid the baggage that the old monicker had accumulated, and to turn over a new leaf.

If this is so, I hope our noticing doesn't drive him off again...

Posted by: Raiko | March 19, 2009 6:10 AM

John Kwok

... because I just threw him off my facebook.

Posted by: clinteas | March 19, 2009 6:31 AM

Hey non-aussies,can someone check out RD.net and see if they can access it please? Im having an attack of internet censorship paranoia....

And to the Seed IT guys,can we fix the submission thingy already??

Posted by: MartinM | March 19, 2009 6:47 AM

BobC who called for the destruction of every person in Iraq, and I believe Afghanistan as well; and who, while he considered abortion "murder," thought all fundamenalist "subhumans" should abort?

Isn't he still here under the name bobxxxx? Certainly sounds the same to me.

Posted by: SC, OM | March 19, 2009 7:07 AM

Isn't he still here under the name bobxxxx? Certainly sounds the same to me.

I'm glad you said that. I've only read one or two comments by bobxxxx, but I had a similar feeling. If it is, so much for my hopes.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 19, 2009 7:14 AM

Kel wrote:

I liked having Truth Machine around, it's always good to have commenters who will take others to task. Speaking of which, whatever happened to BobC?

BobC, as SC noted, got a bit indiscriminate in his attacks; this put him at odds with a few of the other commentators, who asked him to pull his head in. He might have resented that.

truth machine had his moments but was also prone to unneccessary vindictiveness and spiteful attacks. In a way I miss having him here to tear strips off the deserving - but I also understand that a lot of good people aren't upset he upped stakes and left town.

Posted by: chupa | March 19, 2009 7:15 AM

SIMON - should be gone next, I'm pretty sure his real name is Ted Haggard.

But, I think Kwok really sucks too. Maybe all he needs is a list of 'warning words'. He can write out his whole post, then erase any sentence that mentions any of the following:

high school
alumni
alma mater
stuyvesant
anyone famous that he personally knows
anyone not famous that he personally knows

And, if after doing that, there are any sentences left, then hit POST, otherwise try again. Of course, I tried this on every Kwok post in the thread, and not a single sentence was left over, :(

Posted by: David Wiener | March 19, 2009 7:46 AM

Simon

Posted by: dreamstretch | March 19, 2009 7:52 AM

Has to be Simon as he seems to be the only one deliberately trolling. Facilis gets a special mention for his comment on the Pope thread.

Posted by: Kel | March 19, 2009 8:16 AM

I remember BobC getting offside with people, though my personal dealings with him weren't too bad (probably because I didn't talk politics with him)

Posted by: sbh | March 19, 2009 8:17 AM

simoN. This guy may enjoy pummeling his straw man, but for the rest of us, it's boring. And if you can't learn from experience, what can you learn from?

Posted by: tripwire | March 19, 2009 8:57 AM

Silver Fox

He only has one trick: purposefully misunderstanding the difference between a bare assertion and a proof. Time and time and time and time again, without showing any sign of improved comprehension.

Posted by: Philip1978 | March 19, 2009 9:16 AM

I confess to being something of a lurker here but I cannot help but vote here

Mr Kwok you do seem to hold thyself in high esteem sir - I am sure you are a lovely chap really but calm down, ranting on a thread where your freedom to post is currently narrowing is positively silly. If you enjoy posting on this site, why not fight for that right? You do not have my vote though, no, not you.

Mr Rooke - Oh dear, poor chap, oral sex is oral sex - even without bacon - I can quite happily report it is a very good idea no matter what sexual orientation you are, if you don't enjoy it, no problem, don't do it - but not doing it because your religious mind wont let you is daft. Live a little.

But my vote goes to Simon.

I just happen to be heterosexual but don't expect any gold stars for that announcement. I am so comfortable with my own sexuality I have not the slightest worry about what other consenting adults who are not related are getting up to. Go for it, I heartily encourage it - in the words of one of Stephen Fry's characters, Donald Trefusis, "If you have been, I'm most awfully pleased!"

What I think is one of the more poisonous aspects of religion is the hang up about sex and how humans should go about it. I often wonder if the sexual frustration of most religious fundamentalist groups were eradicated would the world not be a safer place? I am sure most religious batshit ideas are the result of not being able to express sexuality properly.

Simon says it is not ok to be gay cos his God says so and seems to take great delight in pouring scorn upon those who are. That is extremely insulting, nasty and vile - what a horrible thing to do.

I hope he is removed to the dungeon in the style of my favourite Shakespearean stage exit of all time.

Exit pursued by a bear

:)

Posted by: ??? | March 19, 2009 9:30 AM

BTW -??? is probably Scott from O's sockpuppet.

Wrong, moron. Wrong state, wrong country, wrong person. How did you manage to make three mistakes in one sentence?

Posted by: Watchman | March 19, 2009 9:56 AM

Wrong, moron. Wrong state, wrong country, wrong person. How did you manage to make three mistakes in one sentence?

This is an interesting claim coming, as it does, from someone who contributes nothing of value and who appears to be unsure of his own name. I believe that misidentifying a person is one mistake. The other inaccuracies follow from the single error.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | March 19, 2009 10:18 AM

Why is there so much Facilis hate on Pharyngula?? Hmm.
I guess I ask difficult question. It's not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic, but back during my presup phase I did that a lot. It did not help that I repeated myself a lot. many people just do not have the patience.I also hold strong views on topics like sin, sex and abortion that most posters disagree with.People hate it when there worldviews are challenged
I probaly won't bring up my presuppositional arguments here any more. I think anyone who looks at one of the previous threads will be able to get the essence of it.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 19, 2009 10:26 AM

Great, we have the "I am a martyr for the cause of righteousness" defense.

The reason you are disliked is easy, you repeated assert the same disproved arguments over and over again as if you are brandishing a huge broadsword. That is not a sword in your hands, it is a hot dog.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 19, 2009 10:27 AM

Facilis, the incessant repetition is only half of it. Incessant repetition _of known errors_ is the really tooth-grinding part. It's nice if you don't bring up the presup thing but it would be even better if you showed some awareness of its logical flaws.

Posted by: Watchman | March 19, 2009 10:29 AM

It's not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic

Yes, it is.

People hate it when there worldviews are challenged...

... by flawed and previously-refuted arguments that have been recycled hundreds of times, put forward by someone who advocates against encouraging a vulnerable population to utilize prophylactics to protect itself against highly-communicable fatal disease.

Posted by: mayhempix | March 19, 2009 10:35 AM

I agree with SC that this Survivor game is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I enjoy it but at the same time wonder if it really serves a purpose other than to ridicule those who tend to cluelessly ridicule themselves.

There is something almost naive and childlike in the way that Facilis, Rooke and Kwok have tried to convince us that they should be allowed to stay. While that doesn't negate the insipid, foolish and/or bizarre things they have stated, it does make one wonder what the threads would be like without them. We would turn our scathing guns towards each other, as happens time to time, and the resulting carnage can be pretty nasty at times.

That said I was leaning towards Simon until AG posted "I show that there is an intellectual defense to conservatism and libertarianism that is not easy to dismiss." That inane statement makes AG "easy to dismiss" and moves him to the top of my list.

Africangenesis is my vote.

I do agree with some previous comments that Scott of Oregon needs to be added to the list. His drive-by shootings after PZ slammed the one note idiocy of the Libertarians are angry and obnoxious.

Oh and did I mention bacon eating vagitarians make a straight male seriously consider a sex change?

Posted by: Karey | March 19, 2009 10:38 AM

I vote Facilis. I have no sense of humor when it comes to the AIDS in africa issue. Even if he's not serious and just saying things to provoke people, to quote jon stewart, this is not a fucking game. The rest of the trolls on the list are just frustrating blatherers. People like Facilis, their attitudes cause real damage and death. Score another hypocrisy point for the pro-lifers.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | March 19, 2009 10:45 AM

It's not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic

Untrue. Theists are often asking atheists to solve "problems" that only exist in their minds because of their religious beliefs. They then typically reject our simple explanations of why their problem is nonexistent outside their imaginary framework. See the recent abortion thread for numerous examples.

People hate it when there worldviews are challenged

On the contrary, I love having my worldview challenged. The neurological experiments that indicate that my free will may be nothing but after-the-fact rationalization are disturbing, yet there they are. And I've been reading some fascinating reviews of recent work in loop quantum gravity and the holographic principle, which indicate that the universe, at its base, works in a way that is fundamentally non-intuitive.

Your empty babble, however, is nothing but boring assertions which were answered dozens of times with no indication you even noticed. I didn't even learn anything from the refutations because they were so basic and simple.

I don't hate you, Facilis. If I hated you, you'd at least be interesting.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | March 19, 2009 10:47 AM

"Why is there so much Facilis hate on Pharyngula?? "

You give yourself too much credit. It's not about hate. It's contempt.

To quote myself, "Facilis is merely stupid."

Getting on the nominees list is probably the most significant thing you've ever done.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 19, 2009 10:59 AM

These people seem to be under the mistaken impression they are on the list because people disagree with their views. No, you are on the list because people disagree with your behavior. The fact that you used the opportunity of self-assessment to blame everyone here should clue you in on that.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 19, 2009 11:01 AM

nothing's sacred#537,

Thanx for caring about accuracy and fairness. I wish it wasn't so rare a commodity.

On a science blog perhaps those characterizing a contributer should have to document their characterizatiions with links to evidence that could survive peer review as being a representative sample. I don't watch survivor or american idol or other manipulative and exploitive programs. What is going on here is pretty disgusting and I refuse to vote. If someone is spamming the forum and refusing to participate in good faith, then it is reasonable to block them. The rest is censorship and mob behavior and PZ should reconsider what he is doing here.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 19, 2009 11:03 AM

Yay, AG spans the forum with climate-change denial then says that spamming is grounds for disposal. So that's clear then :)

Posted by: aratina | March 19, 2009 11:14 AM

These people seem to be under the mistaken impression they are on the list because people disagree with their views.

kamaka, here is the article Stephen Wells spoke of: Our World May be a Giant Hologram.

Posted by: JennyAnyDots | March 19, 2009 11:21 AM

Just wondering, but does anyone know what the final numbers were yesterday? Did I miss the bit that told us how much Barb won by, or how closely fought it was?

Posted by: heliobates | March 19, 2009 11:27 AM

I guess I ask difficult question. It's not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic, but back during my presup phase I did that a lot.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your complete misunderstanding of logical argumentation and your absolute refusal to address the weaknesses of your own argument.

If I were in charge of immunity challenges, you'd be typing up that full formal explication of the universal, absolute, unchanging laws of logic, in their universal, unchanging and absolute form. Perhaps Sye could help you with it, since he hasn't turned in that assignment, either.

Presuppositionalism and the TAG are not challenges to metaphysical naturalism. The obtuse rhetorical style of their adherents is an invitation to lose my temper online.

Posted by: Sastra | March 19, 2009 11:28 AM

"The challenge for the seven surviving candidates is to write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future."

I reread this challenge, and then reread Facilis' reply at #581:

Why is there so much Facilis hate on Pharyngula?? Hmm. I guess I ask difficult question...It did not help that I repeated myself a lot. many people just do not have the patience.I also hold strong views on topics like sin, sex and abortion that most posters disagree with.People hate it when there worldviews are challenged...I probaly won't bring up my presuppositional arguments here any more.

I think this is a proper and reasonable response to a pretty insulting "challenge." Most of the hostility towards Facilis is indeed because we don't like his views. Saying that it's really because he won't change his views is more or less restating that. And I think that saying it's because of the methods he uses in promoting them is also a bit disingenuous.

One of the things that always annoys me in any religious debate is when the religious person suddenly shifts their defense of their belief, to an attack on the nonbeliever, by using the old "the real problem isn't what you're saying -- it's the way you're saying it." You see, they'd be just fine and dandy with atheism and listening to atheist reasoning and considering all the arguments against the existence of God IF ONLY the atheist were doing it the right way.

But oh dear, the atheist isn't doing it the right way. They're being shrill or arrogant insensitive or insulting or aggressive or passionate or disrespectful or dogmatic or childish or repetitive or they swore or they committed some other stylistic breach that makes everything else they are saying completely ignorable, because now the focus just has to be on on the person, and not the argument.

I hate that. It's a rhetorical trick. I refuse to employ it myself. If there's some kernel of a reasonable argument in a post, then I don't give a crap about the way somebody said it. I think Facilis should stay.

"I'll say it again. The first tactic to avoid addressing the hard question of the validity of religious belief is to reply with a criticism of those who don't believe. Don't fall for it.” (PZ Myers)

Posted by: Theo | March 19, 2009 11:33 AM

I'll vote Kwok again this round, even though I am tempted to vote for a couple of others. Kwok bores me.

Let's keep this game up and find the ultimate Pharyngula Survivor troll. There can be only one!

Posted by: kamaka | March 19, 2009 11:37 AM

Thanks for thr link, Aratina.

It worked! My brain hurts now.

Posted by: T_U_T | March 19, 2009 11:46 AM

It's not every day a theist asks an atheist to solve the problem of induction or account for the metaphysical foundations of morality nd logic, but back during my presup phase I did that a lot. It did not help that I repeated myself a lot. many people just do not have the patience.I also hold strong views on topics like sin, sex and abortion that most posters disagree with.People hate it when there worldviews are challenged

presuppers are as close to varelse as one can be without ceasing to be biologically human.

Posted by: heliobates | March 19, 2009 11:48 AM

If there's some kernel of a reasonable argument in a post, then I don't give a crap about the way somebody said it. I think Facilis should stay.

At what point does refusal to discuss the argument cross the line into "arguing in bad faith"? Doesn't "reasonable argument" presuppose some kind of give and take? Unless I'm missing whole chunks of Facilis' posting history here, I don't see any give and take on his part. His entire schtick is to repeat assertions he learned from Greg Bahnsen. There's no challenge in this, nor is there any growth in either sophistication or clarity.

I didn't vote for him and I don't want to see him banned, but clearly PZ thinks that "argument by repeated assertion" contravenes one of the blog rules (my money is on "wanking"). I'd just like Facilis to make good on his promise by offering a serious challenge to metaphysical naturalism. He could start by supporting his initial proposition that laws of logic exist in an absolute, unchanging, universal form. In order to do that, he'd have to have to prove that he has access to them in their absolute, unchanging, universal form. That he refuses to do so is fatal to his credibility and so to the presumption that there is anything "reasonable" about his argument.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 19, 2009 11:53 AM

Come on Nerd of Redhead#606,

"PZ can't censor anybody, he isn't the government. This blog is a private, not public place."

Of course he has the right, but blogs are part of the media now. Some would like to have the reputation of being a place where the science can openly be discussed, let the evidence fall where it may. If the open science discussion content gets too low, if the blog gets a reputation for shouting down and banning open discussion rather than understanding and following the scientific evidence, then it will lose part of its mission.

"AG gains +5 on my stupidity ranking, and is now tied with Simon for the lead."

Don't pretend to be being objective. You know you called me a liar and were proven wrong, while I was able to show it was you that actually lied. That should be pretty recent in your memory. You won't care to link to that discussion because your attempt to spin out of your lies was pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 19, 2009 11:58 AM

AG, you now gained +5 points for more stupidity. Fortunately for you, Simon is also being very stupid, so you are still tied. You morally bankrupt libertardians can't seem to realize you are your own worst enemies. I don't need to refute you, you own blather refutes you.

Posted by: Dustin | March 19, 2009 11:59 AM

There is no problem of induction!

I think philosophy instructors do a tremendous disservice to the whole human race by teaching it in a historical way, and then stopping at Hume without serious examination of the problem of induction. It leaves scores of people blundering around mumbling about their own epistemological crisis when all of the evidence is against that kind of skepticism: they clearly know something.

Posted by: Stu | March 19, 2009 12:03 PM

I discuss the science and the peer review literature and you engage chiefly in mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks.

Oh you miserable, pathetic little lying sack of shit (and no, that is not an ad hominem). First you say you are here to learn. Then you complain that nobody understands your perfect points. Now it's just wanting to discuss. Sure. All about science. Take your tired, vacuous wanna-be windbag routine and shove it.

Posted by: aratina | March 19, 2009 12:05 PM

It's night in America, so let me answer... - David M., OM

OK, how long were you sitting on that one? It was enormously ironic, but I liked it.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 19, 2009 12:07 PM

Agreed with helio @ #617.

Facilis has repeated his "argument" over and over and over while completely ignoring any criticisms of it. He doesn't seem interested in honest debate.

I don't want to see him banned either, but I hope he takes this Survivor thing as hint to either stop spamming or actually respond to criticisms.

Posted by: Dustin | March 19, 2009 12:11 PM

We use occam razor,

and experiment results need statistical evaluation, so we still use induction ( not that it were really a problem though )

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 19, 2009 12:13 PM

The reason, Sastra, that facilis finds himself on this list, is that after every response to his repetitive demonstrations that he knows fuckall about logic, being utterly incapable of reason, his nonsense is refuted by multiple posters, many of them of the quality shown by DM OM above, @619, and then the little prat turns around, declares victory, even asking to be awarded a Molly because he has shown us all the error of our ways; then he cuts and pastes the same drivel on a new thread, as if nobody ever responded to him.

As for the way he says what he says? I don't see how posts from facilis pass the Turing test.

Posted by: Lowell | March 19, 2009 12:24 PM

Kseniya,

You've got it right. When Pete Rooke first showed up here during Crackergate he claimed to be a religious authority. That's why I sometimes call him Pastor Pete.

From his now defunct website for St. Chad's Omega Evangelical Church:

Welcome to St chads Omega Evangelical church of the Internet. The senior Pastor for the church is Pastor Pete Rooke who is an ordained minister under World Christianship Ministries and Holy Christian Life Synod. We hold an Independent Church charter under Holy Christian Life Synod Southern Evangelical Ministries.

Here's one of the threads where Pete's ministry was discussed: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/so_this_is_what_a_witchunt_loo.php

There's definitely something fishy about the limited biographical details we have for Pastor Pete. A 22-year-old British college student with an evangelical ministry?

I think he also claimed to have a wife and kids at some point in discussing what he allows them to read on the Internet, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Definitely a strange guy.

Posted by: T_U_T | March 19, 2009 12:28 PM

You don't assume things which don't add to the predictions entailed by your theory. There is no inductive reasoning here.

of course there is. If you cut the things that dont add to the predictive power, you end up producing neat generalizations the same way as induction does.

Posted by: kamaka | March 19, 2009 12:35 PM

I don't see how posts from facilis pass the Turing test.

*sprays coffee*

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 19, 2009 12:38 PM

It is NOON in America... Damn. If I'm already too lazy to count to six, why am I too stupid to look at the time tags!?!

<headdesk>

Well, as long as it isn't mourning again in America...

induction naturally follows from parsimony

You seem to be using at least one of these words in a wider sense than I.

(And it's not likely we'll ever find out how Facilis uses "induction".)

There are pragmatic reasons for appealing to an economy of description, not least of them is that we are trying to put things to experiment.

Also, where else should we start? At the most munificent hypothesis?

2+2=3

Oh, yeah. Good example. Facilis, why is this wrong?

Because of the way the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "3" are defined.

----------------

Comment 634 is Molly-worthy.

Posted by: Dustin | March 19, 2009 12:44 PM

Also, where else should we start? At the most munificent hypothesis?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 19, 2009 12:50 PM

Entire presuppositionalism is just a denial od service attack on the listener. Not real communication.

Nice.

The Religiofilibuster

Posted by: Lowell | March 19, 2009 12:59 PM

Uh... ours claims to be Catholic.

Has he expressly made that claim? I know it seems like the obvious conclusion from his vigorous defense of communion wafers, but I'm not sure.

In any case, it wouldn't surprise me if he was either (a) lying about one or more of the details he's chosen to share publicly or (b) really good at compartmentalizing contradictory beliefs.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | March 19, 2009 1:11 PM

I'd forgotten quite how horrible Pete's attempt at analogy were. Not so much torture of the language, as extraordinary rendition of English to a hostile territory where every single tool of pain, subtle or bloody, was applied to it.

Why did I look at them again? I feel dirty and used, and not in a good way.

Posted by: Ben | March 19, 2009 1:15 PM

The godbots annoy me much more than AG does.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | March 19, 2009 1:18 PM

Is it possible we have two different Peter Rookes? One being a past for a Southern Evangelical church, the other being a sexually repressed English schoolboy who happens to espouse many of the same views as the good Pastor? Yes, it's possible.

Pete Rooke is Walton?

ZOMG!!11!!11!

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 19, 2009 1:21 PM

Janine, Insulting Sinner at #500 - "I want to be seduced!"

(wafting the aromas toward her) Janiiiiine. I have chocolate and martiniiiiiiiiis.

Ouch! Oh, I also have a spouse, never mind. Anyway, gotta love Leon Redbone. Summer coming, time to get out the hat and the white linen jacket.

Leigh, at #527, I plan to have a martini, whatever Petie wants to have is up to him. I mentioned orange squash in order not to spook him. Wish you could join. If ever in your neck of the woods, spousal unit and I will buy you a fine martini.

Ciao y'all

Posted by: Lowell | March 19, 2009 1:34 PM

Watchman:

Or is it possible that someone Googled "Peter Rooke", came up with the pastor, and incorrectly applied this identity to our schoolboy?

Good point, but way back in October 2008 Pastor Pete admitted that he was the "Pastor Pete Rooke" from St. Chad's Omega (after I pressed him on what happened to the site). See posts #126 and #127 on this thread http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/theres_probably_no_god_now_sto.php

I wrote:

I see Pastor Pete Rooke is back. Pastor Pete, you never answered my question the last time I saw you here: what happened to your church's website, http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/stchadsomegachurch/ I remember it had a donation button back during Crackergate. How can I donate to St. Chad's Omega Church now that the site is gone?

Pete Rooke responded:

@ Lowell
There wasn't enough support to make it viable although I do still make my services available; not that you are genuinely interested

Now, I guess it's still possible that our Pete Rooke has assumed the identity of the real Pastor Pete Rooke from St. Chad's Omega Church. Maybe he'd like to clairify.

Posted by: Kelly | March 19, 2009 1:36 PM

I just read the thread about the pope and AIDs.
Ugh, Simon.

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 19, 2009 1:40 PM

Patricia, OM - Hiya darling lady. How are the chickies?

Ciao

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 19, 2009 1:48 PM

Haven't really read the thread, because I'm not that young any more. So this comment is made without considering what anybody else has said.

I'm voting for Piltdown Man this time, because he's plain mean. He says nothing of value, couches it in the meanest language he knows, then has snits when he's called on it.

I also ask that AfricanGenesis be dropped from the list. His opinions and understandings are often misguided. However, at the same time he is sometimes right, and sometimes well spoken. On rare occasion he is both. In my considered opinion rousing fits of tizzies in certain parties (Knockgoats' fondness for becoming irate duly noted) is no cause for bannination.

(Knockgoats singled out because he is fond of becoming irate.)

Posted by: Kseniya | March 19, 2009 1:54 PM

Hello Michael X! It's nice to see you prowling around here. Regarding Pete Rooke and how his age affected my view of him, you asked:

Why is this? Is it that you'd be sadder that someone older would have these views (which sounds more reasonable) or would you be more challenged in your own views by the simple fact that someone that age held those views?

That's a fair question. Your first proposed answer is closer to the truth. It's definitely not the second.

I believe that he is not so much locked into a worldview which has been calcified by years of inflexible adherence to its defining doctrines and dogmas, which might have been the case if he were twice my age (which is what I'd assumed) as he is trying to define himself, discover his place in the world, and develop his worldview. Unfortunately, he appears to have been indoctrinated with some dreadfully medieval attitudes, and seems to be handicapped (though perhaps not critically) by a tenacious combination of limited life-experience and a paralyzing fear of the outside world.

This is "easier to take" because I optimistically believe he is teachable and, in his heart of hearts, wants to join us all here in the 21st century, even if it means shattering and discarding some of what he still holds as sacred and true.

I could be wrong in my optimism, but it does hearten me to know he's not a twisted old tree, beyond change and redemption. That's where I'm coming from.

He is not unlike Walton in some of these respects, but I'd never accuse Walton of being "medieval", and aside from his tendency to cling desperately to his favored social, political and economic philosophies even in the face of contradicting evidence from the real world (to a degree that flirts with willful discompassion for his fellows) I believe he's neither intransigent nor heartless, and is essentially a kind and intelligent person who is also searching to find himself and his place in the world. (As are we all?)

Aside from his admitted problems with depression, Walton doesn't worry me. Rooke does. Someone broke him. He's only two years older than my brother. It makes me sad.

There you go, Michael. The long answer. :-)

I don't know what to make of the "two Rookes" problem.

Posted by: catgirl | March 19, 2009 2:06 PM

Silverfox, now...that one is a waste of space. Like a brain-damaged pekingese, he has only one trick and does it constantly. And he isn't good at it. But even though he drops the ball every single time, he still thinks he's getting a treat.

Thank you for making my workday more enjoyable. I love interesting analogies, and I love it that you took this one so far. This is almost as good as my analogy that spanking during sex is like putting salt on melon. A lot of people think that a little bit enhances the enjoyment, but I personally don't like either.

Posted by: Michael X | March 19, 2009 2:14 PM

Kseniya,
Thanks for the answer. That is of course what I figured, but it wouldn't be the first time a young vibrant freethinker was abnormally deferential to age. I was discussing the idea with a friend just earlier and thought I'd ask you.

If it's worth anything, my thought was that when someone grasps something early on in life that they find a powerful argument - evolution of example - they have a hard time believing that anyone so much older could doubt such an evident truth without very good reason. And thus they are more likely to doubt themselves when questioned by an older person than a younger. That, though, is just my very non-expert guess and I'm happy - and totally unsurprised - that it is not the case with you.

So here's my long post to match yours! Good to see you around lately as well!

Posted by: catgirl | March 19, 2009 2:22 PM

Facilis, you fail at your immunity challenge. I'm not an atheist and I still think you're a troll, so you can't just blame it on me being some close-minded immoral person who doesn't like to be challenged.

Posted by: T_U_T | March 19, 2009 2:32 PM

David, dustin,

this article served me as a starting point, it should serve you as well http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.54.9286

Posted by: khan | March 19, 2009 2:37 PM

Simon

Posted by: blueelm | March 19, 2009 2:42 PM

Maybe Pete started to drop some of his internet persona over time... like so

Posted by: J-Dog | March 19, 2009 2:57 PM

Real Name 448 - WOOOT! POTW!

Oh wait, maybe this is the wrong blog???!! What with Icthyic and Louis I thought I was over at ATBC again for a moment!

OK Back on target - Jim is the one you want gone! Throw him right off the island for stupidity. At least Kwok is more on our side - generally - and I can handle the friends and high school thing.

Now. Can we all get back to the oral sex, bacon and lesbians?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 19, 2009 3:09 PM

I did some checking in the archives, and found that Simon has been trolling on and off for quite a while. Since he is a habitual offender, I'll throw my vote to Simple Simon. AG is in second place for his constant threadjacking.

Posted by: Medusa | March 19, 2009 3:42 PM

Scott From Oregon just because he annoys me the most.

Posted by: gypsytag | March 19, 2009 3:53 PM

after that display of complete lack of self-awareness @243

Peter, Peter feces eater needs to go find another sandbox to bury his crap in.

Posted by: DeadGuyKai | March 19, 2009 4:06 PM

ZOMG Simon.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 19, 2009 4:20 PM

Knockgoats #676

(Note: despite my extreme dislike of Africangenesis for his unpleasant and ludicrous ideology, and for his egregious smugness, I agree with Alan that he should not be dungeoned.)

I agree. Much as I detest libertarians and much as I despise people who pretend to know economics but really don't have a clue, I cannot vote for banning AG. Killfile works for him.

Posted by: Kel | March 19, 2009 4:31 PM

Even if there is inductive logic, so what? I'm sure facilis didn't mind using inductive logic when he turned on his computer this morning and logged onto pharyngula as opposed to going anywhere else. Even if the problem exists, it's not a problem. Science works, the fact that we can make computers with more mathematical capability than the entire human race combined or predict to meticulous accuracy the time and place of solar eclipses well into the future demonstrates the validity of the scientific endeavour.

It's only a problem of certainty, and that's what makes it appealing to people like facilis. He'd rather be certain than know. facilis, watch The Ascent Of Man episode Knowledge or Certainty. In fact what the entire series, it's science programs like this and Cosmos you should be watching as opposed to propaganda films like Expelled.

Posted by: vespera | March 19, 2009 4:52 PM

Be it resolved that Stuyvesant High School is just fucking awesome in every way, so amazing that mere words cannot give it its due, and therefore we can STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!
That said, Kwok is annoying, but not worthy of elimination. Get rid of Africangenesis. What a stuck-up fool.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | March 19, 2009 5:16 PM

Clinteas: no, we do NOT have censorship yet. The list in question is to be used (is being used??) for a trial at a couple of small ISPs. If Conroy's idiotic legislation is passed, which fortunately seems doubtful now, then all ISPs will be forced to use it.

It is not too late. Go to http://www.nocleanfeed.com/action.html to see what you can do.

Posted by: T_U_T | March 19, 2009 5:29 PM

Owlmirror, I didn't know this stuff is already doing its rounds here. I discovered it just a few weeks ago, and I am still excited about it. (why david rejects the idea of inductive logic is a mystery then to me )

Posted by: Craig | March 19, 2009 6:07 PM

No immunity should be awarded to any of them, so NONE OF THE ABOVE gets my vote.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 19, 2009 6:27 PM

Owlmirror, I didn't know this stuff is already doing its rounds here. I discovered it just a few weeks ago, and I am still excited about it.

It's been referenced, but it is not well-propagated or well-understood. Most of us are not information theorists.

I've noted it as "this looks like it might be really interesting and applicable to the epistemology of science... if I understood it well". But I haven't had a chance to digest it well myself, yet.

The information is too highly compressed, for most people. Heh.

And I think it needs to be unpacked into more basic English, anyway.

(why david rejects the idea of inductive logic is a mystery then to me )

Presumably because he's thinking in terms of falsifiability and parsimony being rooted in empirical deduction, thus:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_method

Information theory may well address the issue of induction so as to weld it comfortably to hypothesis generation and deduction... but I think it needs to be expressed better in basic natural language in order for it to be understood.

That being said, I wish to add my approval for the phrase:

"Presuppositionalism is just a denial-of-service attack on the listener."

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 19, 2009 7:45 PM

searching to find himself and his place in the world. (As are we all?)

... ...mmmmm... ...I find the whole concept so alien that I don't think I've quite understood it. I mean, I do think I know myself pretty well. Is that different with other people? ~:-|

Michael X: +6, or something. But what do you mean, I'm never swayed by anything? Just yesterday, Tianyulong just tore an idea I adhered to to shreds.

this article served me as a starting point, it should serve you as well

Even the abstract goes way over my head. I don't understand what it talks about. Could you help...?

and may Janine have mercy on your soul.

...and may truth machine have...

Naaah.

It's only a problem of certainty, and that's what makes it appealing to people like facilis. He'd rather be certain than know. facilis, watch The Ascent Of Man episode Knowledge or Certainty. In fact what the entire series, it's science programs like this and Cosmos you should be watching as opposed to propaganda films like Expelled.

Well said.

Owlmirror, could you please translate the Unix?

Posted by: Bryn | March 19, 2009 8:57 PM

I really can't vote for Kwok. He's like a high school football star--so caught up in "remember that *great* pass I made in '75???!?" that he stopped living, learning or anything else from that point on. He's stuck back in high school, treating it like it was an end in itself and not the means to an end. It seems to be all he's got and it's just.....sad.

Simon, on the otherhand, well. Simon writes his vitriol with such utter relish; every "anus", "screwing you in the backside" and such that he's more than a little creepy. I get the impression that he gets such enjoyment out of typing it that he's sitting their wanking away at his computer ("wanking" in this instance being used in it's classic sense).

Simon gets my vote for sheer creepitude.

Posted by: Kugelblitz | March 19, 2009 10:47 PM

Greetings. I wonder...may I play Devil's Advocate for a moment?

I'm new here and I may be missing something but I'm curious about the Survivor idea, when viewed in the context of last months kerfuffle, the "We made them cry!" thread. It seemed to me that a number of folks on this blog were telling Greg at TDG that he had no right to protest what anyone did on his site because he didn't restrict access to it. I agree, in fact, but what makes Pharyngula different? If anyone can
post here, is there a rational basis to complain about what they post?

Personally, I love folks like Simon and John Kwok because they allow me to take a much more charitable attitude towards some of the cretins I work with; it's partly "there but for the grace of Finagle go I" and some "things could be much, much, worse." But I am puzzled as to what good it does to ban them, rather than simply shun them...does berating them, responding to them in any way, not merely encourage and legitimize them? Do they not then go to other blogs and crow about how they must be right, since Pharyngula banned them?

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to view anything or anyone but I am curious about the wonderful world of blogging. I'd appreciate it if an old hand could explain the rationale behind banning to me.

Oh, and if I were to cast a vote it would be for Simon; to err is Human but he raises it to a new level. I wish I could shake the feeling that banning him may only attract even more egregious wingnuts. Thank you, I now surrender the floor.

Posted by: Notagod | March 20, 2009 1:29 AM

Kugelblitz, did you read the text of the thread topic and follow the link to:
fabulous Pharyngula dungeon
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
?

The above has no relation to what is
-----
below. (laziness has combined two comments.)

a..Hi ,

umm, I haz bin preparing to cast my wish but, I can't find one guy's comment where he casually mentioned one time that he had attended Stupidant(sp?) School. He sounded really important and he casually mentioned that he had some VERY important friends. I would like to find that one comment because I want to ensure that I don't wish for him, because he is so like WOW. A google has been done on "Stupidant" but the comment might have been lost because of the spiderweb so that would be very sad. Too bad he didn't post more than that one time so one of his comments wouldn't be lost. Anyway one guy did a bad thing because the WOW guy said he wouldn't let his friends be friends with the one guy any more. So there. Ha! Well, the WOW guy won't be one of the survivors getting wishes anyway cause, well, WOW!

P.S. I think the WOW guy might be gradgeeated school. So I don't know that part for certain though.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 20, 2009 3:01 AM

David Marjanović,

Even the abstract goes way over my head. I don't understand what it talks about. Could you help...?

This may help:

Minimum description length

The minimum description length principle is a formalization of Occam's Razor in which the best hypothesis for a given set of data is the one that leads to the largest compression of the data.

Posted by: Susan | March 20, 2009 4:22 AM

I vote for (or against, really) Simon.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | March 20, 2009 6:18 AM

+1 for John Kwok

There are others up for eviction who are either more stupid or more hateful, but Kwok simply bores me to tears. With his incessant name dropping and love of non sequitur he commits the high crimes of wanking and insipidity. It's time he was given a one way ticket to PZ's dungeon.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 20, 2009 9:25 AM

Feynmaniac#359,

"The biology wasn't so troubling as the anarchist conspiracy theory for genocide. "

Originally, you only quoted the biology part. The anarchist stuff was part of a running dialogue I'm having with the anarchists about whether anarchism is practical with modern human nature, or if like Stalin, they will have to change human nature by "artificial selection" to make anarchism work. Of course, this depends on what sort of society is most compatible with human nature, how mutable human nature is, and what the practical requirements are for an anarchist society to have hopes of working. There isn't much information on the latter, and there is plenty to discuss about the first two.

Posted by: SC, OM | March 20, 2009 9:43 AM

...modern human nature...

Hilarious.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 20, 2009 10:26 AM

SC'OM#719,

"...modern human nature...
Hilarious."

The intent is to specify the "modern humans" who spread from east Africa and displaced homo neanderthalis and home erectus their more recent their african homo relatives and have subsequently further evolved under apparent positive selective pressure from disease, agriculture and civilization. Based on genomic analysis, human evolution appears to have been particularly rapid in the last 10 thousand years.

"With whom here, specifically? I am an anarchist, and have largely been ignoring your posts after pointing you to the relevant information"

With you specifically, when I question the practicality of anarchism given human nature, you refer me, apparently to Kropotin. i have read parts of "Mutual Aid" and the Bread one. I found them to selective gatherings of "just so" stories, that don't address the current understanding of human nature . I also noticed the site was pretty general, and included other authors that I had already read, e.g., Stirner and Chomsky.

Also, my human nature discussions address the practically of state oriented central planning, given that with the centralization of power, checks and balances invariably seem to erode and as von Hayek noted, the "worst" tend to rise to the top.

Posted by: Africangenesis | March 20, 2009 10:58 AM

Jon,

"What's a nubian?"

I have no idea. If I mentioned "nubian" somplace, it must have been a typo. Apologies.

Posted by: SC, OM | March 20, 2009 11:18 AM

Africangenesis,

Over the weekend, please write 200 words describing Kropotkin's position in and on central state planning in agriculture and food distribution. You may also reference his letters to Lenin provided on the site I linked to. Go!

Posted by: Erasmus | March 20, 2009 4:18 PM

Ah, interesting: human nature in relation to social planning. I would like to say that you assuredly can have a scientifically informed conversation about this subject. Steven Pinker proves as much in The Blank Slate. I've found that many lefties like to paint the impression that the data is all ambiguous, and therefore the terrain is best suited to tactics from "traditional philosophy" and/or "humanities scholarship".

Chomsky is perhaps the prime example. His work on politics is strikingly innocent of scientific methodology. He doesn't demonstrate a willingness to use any statistical techniques beyond the crudest (e.g. raw body count). Many of his central convictions seem to boil down to boring semantics and subjective opinion. (Thus "the US is itself a leading terrorist state".) He doesn't seem to be enthusiastic about using the toolkit of cognitive psychology to shed light on the question of how we should structure society, which is very curious for an academic in his field. Some of his causal models are so ridiculously primitive that they honestly remind me of tribal superstition. Everything bad is imputed to a malignant conscious agent ("the United States", or "the West"); more prosaic, "naturalistic" causes, such as chance, religion, and the universally dark side of human nature, are overlooked entirely.

Posted by: tigtog | March 21, 2009 4:06 AM

Africangenesis #619

"PZ can't censor anybody, he isn't the government. This blog is a private, not public place."

Of course he has the right, but blogs are part of the media now.

So? The media doesn't have to publish anything they don't want to publish. They have always refused to publish certain Letters to the Editor and they still continue to refuse to publish any comment on their online publications that they deem unacceptable for any reason. No explanation required.

Freedom of the Press, baby. Freedom of the Press.