Another longshot Koufax possibility

I wonder what that single issue is?

Cephalopod copulation.

Pirates, matey. Arrrghhhhhh!

Completely off topic (or perhaps not, if the topic is "what kind of thins you usually blog about"): I just saw this post on Evolutionblog and was wondering how much would I have to wait to get your take on the story and pour mountains of scorn over Ruse and Dembski for what they did.

Either jackassery or squid sex.

It can't be anti-evolution, Panda's Thumb is better at that.

You might be happier hanging out at the Panda's Thumb then here, then. Why don't you bugger off? I have little patience for either creationists or pseudo-scientific bigots.

I hang out both here and there because I appreciate the value of rigorous thinking in puncturing unreasoning pretensions. Why would I go elsewhere? Find the right topic and you're as entertaining as DaveScot.

Caledonian has just been banned.

Who is next?

;)

I'm afraid he has not been banned, although he will be getting nothing but contempt from me.

At least Dembski never compared me to a neo-Nazi when I pointed out how silly he was being. His defense of his sacred cows is eerily familiar, though.

I do wonder at the mindset of a person who would linger in a place from which the host has specifically invited him to consider leaving.

I mean, I'm a rude, crass, presumptuous jerk fairly often, and yet if a blog owner suggested to me that I bugger off, I'd bugger off without much hesitation.

What does a person like Caledonian do at parties, I wonder. Insult the food and the entertainment and the host's design sense, then insist on ignoring hints until he's physically coerced into leaving? Does a person like that wake up in the morning and decide to be an asshole, or is it just a seat-of-the-pants type thing?

I suspect that it is…innate.

Or maybe it's just a male thing.

So you're psychic, too? You can sense my gender at a distance? Wow! What letters am I thinking of, right now?

I generally have a poor reaction to people who invite me over, throw poorly-thought-out arguments in my direction, then when I try to correct them declare I'm a bigot and compare me to members of the Aryan Nation, all the while either not bothering to understand the correction or deliberately ignoring my meaning. The food and room design are delightful, by the way. Scienceblogs sets a great spread.

And why is it that such people always seem to revere the writing of Ayn Rand?

See, if you were religious you could just say Cal was sent to try you.

Who invited you over? Not me, that's for sure.

And yeah, I've understood your argument perfectly well. I've seen it plenty of times.

Make that bigot and parasite.

Hmmm. The idea is not tempting enough, I'm afraid, so I don't think I'll convert in order to have an excuse for Cal.

He already fits into my uncaring, atheistical worldview, anyway: he's snugly encompassed within the "assholes happen" precept.

Oh, I don't know. This is where I come for the very best attacks on ID jackassery à la The Discovery Institute and friends.

Normal distribution explains it, too--someone's got to be in that 0.27% that's 3 standard deviations above normal in "being an asshole".

And yeah, I've understood your argument perfectly well. I've seen it plenty of times.

I wonder how often you've *actually* seen the argument you think I'm making? About as often as holy icons appear in baked goods and on overpass walls, I'd bet. The pattern recognition circuits turn on, and the frontal lobes turn off.

getting back to the original subject...

I must say I was somewhat perplexed as to why this blog might have been considered a "single issue" blog. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what that "single issue" might be (and I've been a regular reader for a long time, although I don't post comments very often).

Then I went to the Koufax page and read this:

This category is for blogs that focus exclusively or almost exclusively on a single specific area such as politics, economics, law, science, etc.

Ah, I see. Science is considered a "single issue" in this context. Oh well. I guess the blogosphere is a very big place indeed. When viewed with such a low degree of resolution (or just looking at a very large picture) I suppose I can see how that might arise. It just hadn't occured to me to think of science as being a "single issue" before.

Always helps to be reminded of perspective sometimes...

In all seriousness, I think Pharyngula deals rather too much with politics to really qualify as a single-issue blog.

I don't set the voting rules, though.

I think it probably depends on how you define "almost". One could probably make a case that Pharyngula deals "almost exclusively" with science.

Whatever... just get the votes in ;-)

PZ, I'll vote for you! I think the single issue here would be idiocy/ignorance or would that be anti-idiocy/ignorance?

PZ is definitely against idiocy/ignorance in all its many forms, including certain people who believe that innate difference is a valid argument.

Well, I don't see much here about Higgs bosons or carbon nanotubes; we're not talking all of science here. "Science" is a single issue in a world where "History" is a single issue, I'd think, and biological science is only part of it. Of course, to practitioners, well aware of how much specialization is required for achieving in-depth mastery in their field, this seems preposterous. To an outsider, though, "biological science" is a single well-defined subject.

Your special subject is:

Cephalopod atheist evolutionary minnesotan developments in intelligent creationism.

You time starts... now.

The pattern recognition circuits turn on, and the frontal lobes turn off.

Yes. You're right. We're all far too stupid to benefit from your roiling wisdom. You're really better off not wasting your time on us any longer. Perhaps you should spend your valuable intellectual energy discoursing with someone closer to being your rhetorical peer.

Perhaps you should spend your valuable intellectual energy discoursing with someone closer to being your rhetorical peer.

I half expected your link to lead to V** D**'s site; our friend would make quite a splash there, I'd think. I don't think his arguments have any more substance than that site's typical fare, but his sesquipedalic question-begging would wow the regulars and get him the sort of attention he seems to crave. But perhaps not. He's not faith-based enough, unless one means faith in his own discontinuous logic.

Oh, I think Caledonian would fit in perfectly with ol' Vox. Another site he might find copacetic is Lubos Motl's -- smart guy, total ass.

I'm not sure Caledonian is particularly intelligent. He has the feel of someone that watches the Discovery Channel to keep abreast of science news, and took a few intro classes in undergrad. Maybe I'm wrong, but that was the idea I got.

What should I think of a scientist who insists that smiling isn't an innate feature of human beings, Loris?

Of course it is a single issue blog. The subject matter is: "Stuff interesting to PZ" :)

Props to PZ for not banning Caledonian. The scariest thing about Uncommon Descent is seeing people quietly disappear into the night when the Czar doesn't like what they have to say.

On the topic of voting, just how the hell is that done? Not a clue is presented and every time I go to the Koufax page, I see a bit about voting still being closed.

Not a friendly site in that regard.

Voting is not yet open in the Koufaxes because Mary Beth made the decision not to open it yet, guessing correctly that people would otherwise just go vote for the people they already know rather than looking through the list of nominees and finding good blogs they hadn't heard of.

"And why is it that such people always seem to revere the writing of Ayn Rand?"

Was thinking about that. I'll point out that that statement is not logically equivalent to "people who admire the writing of Ayn Rand are @$$holes".

I happen to admire Rand (I happen to be distantly related to her as well, so a touch of ambivalence is not out of order, lol). But I do admit that when you talk to her admirers who are also loudmouths, they tend to be obnoxious, intransigent folks. Her quieter admirers seem to be, on the whole, more reasonable.

I think this is true of most areas of interest; the more people talk, on average, the less time they apparently have to think. True experts, like our host, have actually done an adequate amount of thinking before they talk.

Was thinking about that. I'll point out that that statement is not logically equivalent to "people who admire the writing of Ayn Rand are @$$holes".

Certainly not! Thanks for clarifying that.

Another Koufax possibility?

PULLEEZE you wave the cracker at Gould?

nOW YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LINE, mYERS.

flowers from mkroll soon to follow