Today, we have to assess whether any of our contestants have met the immunity challenge. Very few have tried; I'm afraid this is very much like Monty Python's Upper Class Twit of the Year contest, in which the competitors are lucky to stumble onto the field at all. Here are all the attempts to answer this question:
In a comment that isn't longer than about 200 words, that is grammatically correct and logically coherent, and that does not cite the Bible or other religious authorities (and does not rely on tales about who you went to high school with, or tortured analogies involving necrophiliac pedophilic milkmen), explain how evolutionary biologists resolve the trivial conundrum represented by the common question, "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Remember, answer as a biologist or intelligent layman would, not like Pat Robertson or Ken Ham.
First, there is an entry from Barb. However, even if we didn't see the sarcasm dripping from it, a check of the email address reveals that it actually isn't from Barb. Disqualified!
Next up: John Kwok takes a stab at it, and gives a somewhat pompous but correct answer. His reply is notable for two things, however. It is accompanied by possibly the most empty threat I have ever heard — "PZ - If I am bounced off Pharyngula, then you may find yourself losing some friends over at Facebook." — which immediately prompted a surge of voting to throw Kwok out. Then there is the fact that I specifically said there should be no talk of high school acquaintances, yet Kwok managed to squeeze in mentions of Abbie Smith, Ken Miller, his high school creative writing teacher, and the wife of his high school creative writing teacher. It is truly a marvel, and a beautiful example of exactly how he got on this list in the first place. The oblivious violation of the rules, however, means he must be disqualified.
Finally, Facilis. In an utterly stunning upset, he actually managed to turn out a brief, accurate, two-sentence explanation. The audience was stunned. The judge was frantically checking IP addresses and the validity of the entry, so miraculous was this short, and probably very temporary, flare-up of cogency. It stands, however. This twit has actually managed to complete the first section of the course!
If we'd had a few more entries, I would have opened the discussion up to judge who won. However, since we only have one standing entry, I must officially declare that Facilis is the winner of the immunity challenge. Shock! Horror! Drama!
Now, since I did have to close the previous thread, you can continue voting in this one. Do me a favor, though, and if you change your vote, please clearly say who you are retracting your vote from, and who you are now giving it to…this one may drive me insane trying to tally.
- Log in to post comments
Barb
Barb
John Kwok. Tried to add me as a facebook friend so he can stalk a certain blogger. He's amusing though.
Barb just needs to go away.
Barb
But still a creep in case my comment is taken out of context.
A thousand posts for day one and you are shocked? We are a vebose opinionated ilk. Besides, we were having fun.
When I first met Kwok of Shit, it took me a good hour to decide that he was serious and wasn't just trolling. He is so far gone that his "I'm with the band" shtick seems to be a parody -- but it isn't.
I'd vote for keeping him if he wasn't stuck in a groove. There's something to be said for reading a post which defies any response except for, "Just.... WOW". Sadly, his insanity is extremely repetitive. Kwok must go.
I'm still voting for Barb.
I almost changed it to John Kwok on the last thread - he's definitely the next one to go, the pompous git.
I retract my vote from Barb, and give it to... Barb. Just so I can vote for Barb again.
Barb. But Simon also has to go for using Pharyngula to publicly indulge his coprophiliac fantasies:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/survivor_pharyngula_day_one…
Thankyou, feymaniac, for trawling those. I'm sure you had to wash your hands afterwards.
I suspect that he will fail, "removing the bra from the debutante".
PZ, to make your life easier for the next episode, perhaps you should be stricter with how we do the voting. For instance, the post with a vote in it should contain only the name of the person you are voting for, nothing more. If someone wants to explain your reasons it should go in a separate comment. That way you can just use a quick script to find all the votes. If someone wants to change a vote, they should start the post off with the word "change", and then say only who they want to change from and change to, the explanation should go in a separate comment. That case wouldn't be completely automated very easily, but it would make doing a search pretty easy.
I did not vote yesterday but will do so now: Barb.
Wow, I just finished reading the epic comment thread from Day 1, only to find this comment thread is under 200 comments. Sweet. De-semi-lurking...
Considering everything that happened in the last thread, I'm torn between John Kwok and Silver Fox.
Rooke seems to actually be progressing in a way, which is rather suprising. He likes chickpeas! Maybe he'll be the next Walton
Barb is amusing, at least to me. Yes, she's a bigot, and she is incredibly stupid, but damn it if I don't laugh every time she mentions her husband's profession.
Alan Clarke and RogerS are stuck on two threads that I decided not to read, so I don't much care. And Simon is so off the wall as to actually harm his arguments, IMO. And Facilis has won immunity.
John Kwok's Facebook threat and the fabulously hilarious responses made me laugh all morning, and I would very much love to see his pathetic attempt to carry it out. And SF's blockheaded refusal to accept the common definition of "assertion" is getting fucking annoying. (Although I do enjoy Wowbagger's nicknames for him.)
Tally? I thought internet polls weren't supposed to be scientific?
Damnit, I of course forgot to ask my question. Is Silver Fox eligible by write-in vote? Knowing that would obviously help my decision making.
PZ,
Having trouble finding and counting the votes? Just ctrl-F your way down the comments, searching for the name you are counting.
You probably already knew this, or maybe even have a better solution.
I've already voted for Barb twice I think.
Charlie Wagner.
OK, Barb. She's far too obtuse to bother with.
I kind of like Kwok, no matter how much he drops names and mentions his high school.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I vote for Barb.
Kwok, just because of the "ohhh Im going to get you back by removing you as a Facebook friend." Like hearing the leper shouting at your boat after you drop him off, Im taking you off speed dial.
Barb, for being an irretrievably damaged waste of oxygen. I'll be voting off creepy, creepy Mr Kwok next round, but I figure it's better to air out the stench before starting work cleaning the slime.
Barb.
Claiming that another commenter must have been molested as a child, based only on the fact that she's gay, is crossing the line into personal attacks. And it's just downright creepy.
Since Facilis now has immunity! I am changing my vote to Barb (a change that I believe in). Rooke is entertaining, Kwok is creepy, but only Barb is both ignorant and a bigot.
Kwok.
His response showed that he just can't help himself. He has the knowledge and understanding to respond appropriately, but he chooses not to. I find that he is not teachable, useful or entertaining.
I find Barb to be a pretty vile human being, but her screeds are entertaining reminders of what we are up against. She is also a useful example to moderates and fence sitters that we are not the extremists in the theism-atheism debates. Finally, she is also theoretically teachable. Her brain has been fairly well poisoned, but a little education could go a long way.
No change here. Barb's gotta go.
John Kwok
You know sometimes when you read something and can instantly produce an image of the author speaking those words in your mind? That happened to me when I read John's entry, and I wanted to punch him right in the face.
...I think this website is turning me into a violent person.
I vote for Barb to go.
I'll vote fr Barb.
Oh, and Happy St. Patty's Day! I made green cupcakes...
For those who have mentioned that we should keep Barb because she's such a good cautionary tale about the dangers of Christianist fuckwittery:
If we ever need such a poster, and one doesn't show up on cue (and when do they not?), I can Poe that convincingly. I know these people well, and I can just channel a relative or two and come up with a solid target you can all enjoy completely shredding.
But I will not personally attack any residents in a way that causes them to go thermonuclear. So I'd be a soft solid target. See? All the fun without the tears. All you'd have to do is send up the dingbat-signal: "Gee, I wonder what ole Barb would have to say about this?"
Obviously I will not use my own name to post fuckwittery of this nature (any fuckwittery I currently post is unintentional, by the way).
I mention this because the notion of keeping Barb around in any capacity at all makes me want to throw up.
Why hasn't Barb come around to defend herself?
Oh Baaaaaaaaarrrrrrbeeeeeee?!!
Probably off drafting one of those repulsively treacly holiday form letters about how wonderfully CHRISTIAN™ and less prone to sin her family is (don't open that goddamn closet!!!!) and how her hubby, Dr. Scientist Creationist, is a paragon of intellectual fortitude. Her humorous literary style features her parenthetical snarky asides about how icky teh gheys are (nasty naughty naughty) and topical Biblical verses to illustrate her piety and zeal. "Judge not, lest ye be me" saith Barb.
Barb's toast.
1 more vote for Barb.
Kwok, especially after the last set of "threats".
Barb.
Smrt Newfie
Where abouts ya be?
Since I usually don't have much to add here, perhaps a subtraction would be of value: Barb
Kwok. Barb is vile, but she's honestly vile, if that makes any sense. Kwok is just an egotistical creep with delusions of importance and is just truly icky to have around. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't actually make an contribution to the threads.
Oh, and he lies about name-dropping. Stupid to lie about something in the same post you do it, but hey, that's John.
This is too funny, I'm enjoying this greatly
Write-in: Silver Fox. I have rarely seen obnoxious douchebaggery such as his in the day 1 thread.
I think it's John Kwok who'll lose friends on facebook. He certainly lost me.
I'm not sure about correct procedure, here. Are the votes from the previous Survivor thread still valid? If so, my vote stands with Barb. If not, I want to vote for/against Barb. If we don't know whether those votes are still being counted until the box is opened, it will be revealed that my vote was for...Barb.
I vote for Barb. Fuck the homophobes.
The people who stand against homosexuals are often in the same boat as the people who want to make abortion illegal, who want to let pharmacists not fill birth control meds on religious grounds, who push abstinence-only sex ed, think pre-marital sex a crime (I just call pre-marital sex "sex"), that masturbation is wrong, that women should only dress a certain way. Given the chance, some of these people would ban all contraception, since if life starts at conception, even wearing a condom is practically metaphysical murder. These are the same people who make homosexual sex against the law when they can.
It's all such garbage, and there are already enough girls saddlebacking as it is. Heterosexuals need to understand how important this stuff is, because it's not just a "gay" issue -- it's about controlling sexuality. Specifically, things they think are wrong, which is pretty much everything.
Barb.
For this same reason as others have noted: "Claiming that another commenter must have been molested as a child, based only on the fact that she's gay, is crossing the line into personal attacks. And it's just downright creepy"
Still with Simon. Though if you counted me on the other thread this would be an additional vote.
This comment is par for the course for his idiocy.
More Janine-solidarity and anti-homophobe sentiments--Barb must go.
(And the Upper Class Twit of the Year was one of my favorite Monty Python bits. That and "Ken Clean-Air System".
A brief moment to congratulate the obliging Facilis -- though, as he himself pointed out, he hasn't been arguing for creationism anyway (nor has John Kwok), so it's a rather pointless challenge in his case. I would have been interested to see how the YEC Barb might have answered the question -- because I think her understanding of evolution is really, really warped -- but she appears to have other fish to fry.
(Imo all the candidates deserve Brownie Points to start off with, for having the guts to come onto a forum where they are so seriously outnumbered, and so severely dealt with. It can't be psychologically easy for them, no matter how righteous or self-righteous they may be.)
Wow, Facilis provided a pretty impressive answer, considering he's facing exile. I wish PZ would put up a "best of" section for these users up....maybe they're in the dungeon. Idk...I have to study for exams!
So far it looks like Barb is not only hateful, but incapable of learning. She's not even entertaining, just angering. Facilis shows he can grasp a concept.
I'm casting 1 new vote for Barb (no prior vote).
Newfie - Tranta, you?
By the way, I feel like I should appologize for my name. 'Smrt Newfie' is not an attempt at a one up on you. It's a reference to my upbringing and my employment as a safety officer at a nucular plant, pulled rather hastily from my ass.
@ Rev BDC #43
Simon brought up abortion in the butterfly/anniversary thread?!?!
Ok, I wasn't going to vote, but that, combined with his comments in the begining of life thread today, has convinced me.
1 vote to kick out simon. He's creepy. And damn persistent. in a bad way.
How about we vote on/offer suggestions for what the next challenge will be?
Barb.
Isn't banning sorta like getting kicked out of the premiere of a movie that you're in? I'm just askin'...
Aw hell, my vote is:
BARB!
She is a bigoted, willfully ignorant person, a sad example of the crippling effects of close-minded religious certitude. While I still suffer under the delusion that something I write might get through to her, it appears she is a lost cause. Moreover, she has become a classic Internet troll; she posts on Pharnygula simply because she craves attention, even when it is overwhelmingly critical of her. I feel pity for her, but agree that for the good of the community, Barb needs to go.
Long time lurker here.
As much as I get a great deal of enjoyment out of the thought of banning someone like Barb, who has personally insulted me with her hateful talk many different ways; I find a great deal of discomfort in banning someone who has not really broken rules. Just being a pig headed moron who parrots the same disgusting speech over and over does not seem to be worthy of a ban without bringing upon us the same criticism of censorship we constantly levy against them, of course, not nearly to the same degree.
On the other hand, as much as I support free speech I have grown quite tired of allowing hateful people to sucker punch us for being Atheists, or in some cases (as in mine) as homosexuals. Quite frankly I personally will not stand for allowing people like Barb to say how horrible and bad and terrible homosexuals are, oh but she wasn't specifically talking about me, just everyone like me (which includes me) and sit buy idly accepting such abuse because it's the moral high road. Fighting back means *fighting* back, not "polite-ing" back.
I could rant on for a while longer, but I'll spare you all what you've heard before.
Fuck you Barb.
One more vote to kick Barb off the island PZ.
Congratulations Facillis! Well done fuckwit.
1) The trolls are not the subject of the blog.
2) PZ did not strip down to his underwear, slather himself in shortening and run around the theater shouting at the people trying to watch the movie and stealing their popcorn.
So, no. It's not sorta like that.
You realize that since Pharyngula is headquartered in Minnesota, this election could end up in a court case and go unresolved for months.
Barb. For felony tediousness.
Barb, just to be sure.
I think Kwok may be autistic or something. He just doesn't seem to know how to interact properly with people, and his reliance on name-dropping seems compulsive rather than purely egotistical. He's still annoying.
I didn't vote in the last thread, but it would have gone for Facilis. He was a broken record with a bad tune. Imagine my surprise when he rose to the challenge and gained immunity.
So, who does that leave? Barb is a religious moron, but at least she isn't a one-note troll and varies her responses to the discussion. So I'd have to go with Peter Rooke. He's just a lying scumbag with no redeeming qualities.
Barb. She's no longer useful in any way.
Kwok? He's not done making an ass of himself. But his time is coming.
Kwokkers...
He clearly has learned nothing, and will continue to troll it up here with his muddled thinking.
Can day 2 also turn into a lesbian sex thread?
I'm a man of simple needs.
I don't know what the hell is wrong with me, but I like Silver Fox and Rooke. They make me laugh often, and sometimes on purpose.
Let's keep 'em around.
Barb. The rest are useful and/or just socially awkward IMO.
Barb
I'd like to retract my "Barb" vote and change it to "Simon".
(Fwee Bwian!)
Simon is more deserving of a plonk.
Simon must go. Simon must go. Simon must go.
My motives, though honestly conceived, are hardly pure. I can't wait to see Barb and her utterly pathetic arguments get kicked around for another month or so.
Been back home in Carner Brook for about 12 years, after stints in Town, Cow Town, and the Falls. Got to see Lanny hoist the cup in '89, that was fun.
If I hadn't been convinced before, I am now.
Barb. No question. Mean-spirited, hateful bitch that cloaks her intolerance with religious certitude. Yes, definitely Barb.
The next immunity challenge should be dealing with the second law of thermodynamics or the Lemon test.
ROFLMAO 'cause of Dustin #54
For anyone keeping count on the Facebook friends brouhaha here are the current stats.
PZ Myers - 4,033, down from 4,036
John Kwok - 415, no change
Has Kwok been making good on his threat? Interesting...
Leigh, you wonderful person you, I do believe you're on to something.
But I still vote for Simon.
When Barb goes, and I do mean when, I won't hesitate to call on you in a pinch. Way to take one for the team! ;-)
Barb.
Barb. There can only be one.
I still loathe Peter Rooke's posts. Peter Rooke needs to be off.
John Kwok
TheBlackCat @67 - I second your challenge suggestions. Especially the Lemon test.
All of them must go. Honor the immunity you said you would grant. Facilis may thank his ability to cut and past. Axe the rest. Teh stoopid. It burns. I will feast on their hearts! Wait! Yuck! Never mind. Banish them!
Barb for her rank dishonesty.
Kwok appears to me to be the most pervasive and tenacious critic of ID at Amazon in the reader reviews of creationist books. I understand and appreciate the criticisms against him, but the guy is hard at work in the coal mines helping the cause of science in terms of pointing out the dishonesty of Dembski, Behe, et. al. If you are a creationist-leaning Amazon consumer, you probably won't notice Kwok's pattern of name-dropping there that is evident here, therefore I would argue he's doing yeoman work at Amazon insuring tangible criticisms that help keep their sales minimal.
If you haven't already, I would argue engaging Kwok on his quirkiness rather than throwing him overboard, though the Facebook "threat" in yesterday's thread provides little optimism that would work.
BTW, I'm a long-time fan and lurker of PZ's blog though I mostly comment in Brayton's blog . . .
BTW, I'm a long-time fan and lurker of PZ's blog though I mostly comment in Brayton's blog ...
Oh you name-dropper.
Barb. Follow any of the links to previous threads and you will see why. She is a hard headed bigot.
*whew* It's just shy of 8:30 p.m. Tuesday here in Italy, and I've finally waded through all 1001 comments on the Day 1 thread. I've been reading the linked evidence and the summaries because killfile is my friend. ;)
All in all, as hurtful as Barb has been ("It's not me, really, it's that my god says I have to be this way,") I'm still going to vote for Simon the Irrelevant.
(n.b.: I'm preemptively apologizing for any typos/grammatical errors. Homemade limoncello made me do it! That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
Also: Count me among the semenarians. Hmmmm. Limoncello lollipops. . . must consider this. *hic*
I vote for Barb, for much the same reason Leigh Williams stated in #30. I'm also more than capable of providing the requisite fundie parody if needed. Hell, I could write a script that could better respond to everyone's arguments than Barb has.
For those bordering on concern trolling with regard to the topic of banning, I'll take this chance to remind you of the bannable rules (which can be conveniently viewed if you click "Dungeon" at the top of your screen):
Concern trolling, godbotting, insipidity, morphing, slagging, sockpuppetry, spamming, stupidity, trolling, and wanking
Barb fits at least 4 or 5 of those, and everyone else up for vote at least a couple.
Here was Pete's attempt to answer the challenge:
I think Pete is physical unable not to make an analogy. In fairness to Pete, this was an attempt at humour. While not a bad answer I agree facilis won the round.
PZ: you have an unclosed tag somewhere in this post which is causing the footer ("Posted by PZ Myers at 1:37 PM • ## Comments") of it to be displayed differently on the home page than that of other footers and with less of a gap between this item and the header of the next one (Kent Hovind) than normal.
I think it's probably this bit: "trying to tally.</p", where you missed off the > which should go after the p.
I don't really care you gets plonked, so I'm not going to vote. But I'd like to register my assertion that Facilis' challenge answer very glaringly missed the point. If humans had evolved from 'extent monkeys' would those monkeys then not be extent? You see what I mean? He just moved the target without changing the problem, which is (paraphrased for clarity) 'what does evolution tell us about the fate of a source species after speciation via "macroevolution" occurs?'
The correct answer is not "we don't know because it hasn't happened", it is "we don't know because it is contingent". I hope this pedantry isn't too annoying; it felt very gratifying to me. I guess a long thread detailing and discussing this issue and my terms would qualify as hijacking, but that immunity challenge had to be addressed.
Long-time reader/lurker (if you count a few months as 'long'), just thought I'd weigh in.
I personally wouldn't ban any of them – Barb is boring and repetitive; Simon is amusing; John Kwok is harmless and occasionally makes me smirk; Pete Rooke is boring but harmless; Silver Fox is boring; the rest I'm either forgetting or don't know enough about to comment on. I really don't find any of these 'nominees' (if I may call them that) to be actually insulting or annoying; perhaps I'm just desensitized or something. In the end, that's what a killfile is for. :P After all, tedious as though they may be, they do provide for good entertainment when lashing-outs begin. BBQed Troll is always good. ;)
But enough of being level-headed and pacifist – time for blood! If someone's gonna go, it's Barb – she's just the most delusional and insulting of them all. She went on a personal attack against Janine, which, while I personally found wholly ineffective, still is a personal attack and shouldn't be allowed or tolerated. Plus I hate when bitches use long logorrhea-induced bits of bible-sucking to justify people's morals and beliefs.
I'd also like to put forwards my surprise to Facilis being able to respond in a mature and intelligent manner to the immunity challenge. You never really know an internet persona, do you?
*Slips back into lurkdom*
Anthony K,
Seriously, I had about a dozen more examples like that and I only searched for like 10 minutes. Anyone thinking that we need Simon's contributions I urge them to follow the link. He says absolutely nothing worthwhile.
I hope this pedantry isn't too annoying; it felt very gratifying to me.
Pedantry, continued: don't you mean "grating"?
Barb.
I would think that, with the number of people on PZ's friends list, that's probably a normal day's fluctuation in friends. If Kwok has made good on his *snort* threat, then he can't even deliver on his promises in a statistically significant way.
OK, Feynmaniac, you've convinced me to abandon my apathy: SIMON must GO! Troll babbling I can handle, but that kind of vile crap is not to be tolerated. Given that kind of approach, I'm frankly surprised he wasn't plonked to begin with, and then we have the contest for the rest of them.
Unfortunately, because that devastating summary was so late to the thread last night (shame on you >~p), I fear Barb is going to win the votes. I'm sure Simon was in second though, so maybe we can turn it around.
Time to pharyngulize this vote!
My vote is already known so instead, I will share my token St Patrick's Day celebration. The Pogues!
If I Should Fall From Grace From God
Bottle Of Smoke
This being The Pogues, it is not safe for work, especially Bottle Of Smoke.
I have said this a couple of time but I will say it again. What Barb said to me was not an attack on me or an insult to me. That was not her intention. But what she expresses is much worse than a personal attack. Just about every GLBT person you encounter knows people raised by parents like Barb.
John Kwok. I wasn't aware of his creepiness toward Abbie, and she deserves better than that.
she claims to be "too busy right now".
at least, that's her excuse for not holding her end of a slow-motion evo bio debate[*] i'm having with her on another blog.
[*] it's slow-motion because on a thread so old it's gone to moderation, hence we each put up about a post a day. and it's a "debate" if by that word one means, "she puts up a creationist chestnut, i link to the talkorigins.org page that's had the chestnut debunked for a decade, wait, rinse, repeat".
OK, Feynmaniac, you've convinced me to abandon my apathy: SIMON must GO! Troll babbling I can handle, but that kind of vile crap is not to be tolerated. Given that kind of approach, I'm frankly surprised he wasn't plonked to begin with, and then we have the contest for the rest of them.
Unfortunately, because that devastating summary was so late to the thread last night (shame on you >~p), I fear Barb is going to win the votes. I'm sure Simon was in second though, so maybe we can turn it around.
Time to pharyngulize this vote!
A while ago, he was trying to make a case for John McCain. It was actually very cogent: we should vote for John McCain because I remind John Kwok of "his good friend William Dembski" and because John Kwok knows the security guy at an art museum.
At the time, I didn't really appreciate the logic of that argument and I went on to accuse him of name-dropping and irrelevance. Then he insisted that because he was such good friends with Abbie, I'd be feeling the business end of the banhammer in short order. Like 10 times. In 2 threads.
Barb.
That said, Kwok's name dropping is tedious, and his Star Trek Borg shtick got old a long time ago. Stalking ERV is creepy, though, and his Facebook threat is laughable. Yes, he's outspoken against the IDiots, but he also exemplifies the old saying, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?".
Neither one has anything new to bring to the table, if they ever did.
As a long-time chatroom participant, I was torn between Simon and Barb. Finally I realized that Simon's unhinged, illiterate rants were easily recognizable and dismissable as insane. Barb's posts are sane-sounding and more easily confused with the sort of nonsense up with which we will not put. If Barb was an average Stormfront racist instead of an anti-intellectual, religion-crazed bigot of approximately the same level of stupidity and evil, there would be no question whether she deserved to be banned or not.
I was stunned last night by the sheer stupidity of the facebook mutiny threat, but now that I've slept on it I'd like to make sure my vote still counts against Barb.
She's nasty and not funny.
If I may humbly make a suggestion, what we need here is a shocking new plot twist(tm): a new contestant, for example. The libertarian trolls are woefully underrepresented here, and I think Walton's name added to the list would round things out nicely.
Hey, Dustin, remember the old SNL bit where the two teenage metalheads used to compete with each other for status by lying through their teeth about what shows they'd been to, and how they got back stage to hang with the band?
One night they're at it again, and one is bragging about being backstage at the Van Halen concert, and the other guy, in a moment of moronic recklessness (or utter brilliance) says, "Yeah, I saw you there!" The first guy goes dead-silent, gets that deer-in-the-headlights look on his face, and then tentatively says, "I... I saw you too."
Two beats later, off they both go, enthusiastically talking about their imaginary night backstage with Van Halen!
Your Kwok story reminded me of that.
Janine:
Well, I certainly felt that she was attacking you and smearing you (and your parents), and I do think that was her intention. It made me very angry; however, it's your call, of course.
But you're right, the real problem is that what she said is an attack on our common humanity. Her assertion that perfectly normal same-sex attraction MUST be the result of pathology is bigoted, ridiculous, and grossly hurtful to GLBT youth, who are the most vulnerable to the true pathology of being rejected and physically assaulted by their parents, ostracized from their social support network, and thrown out into the street to take their chances.
And the civil rights issues that ensue from religiously-motivated bigotry are everyone's concern, as well.
PZ is the creator and judge of the contest, he also knows huge volumes more about evolution than I do. However, in my opinion the answer by Facilis:
Doesn't answer the essence of the question asked by the common christian:
What I believe the christian is asking here is; "assuming that monkeys evolved into humans, how come there are still monkeys?" You see the christian isn't making a distinction between different primates. To them, for the purposes of the question, all primates are monkeys and monkeys are not related to humans. What the christian is assuming is that when evolution occurs, the evolved species replaces the species that it evolved from. The uneducated christian is thinking that humans couldn't have evolved from monkeys because monkeys obviously haven't been replaced.
So the correct answer to the question might incorporate Facilis' answer but it also needs to state that evolution isn't necessarily a replacement process, the originating species may or may not survive along with the newer species. Its the same thing that occurs with flowers, if a new color is formed by a mutation in the genes that express color. There is a new color but the old color can also survive.
Yesterday's vote for Barb remains in effect.
While Kwok is an annoying, pompous, pretentious wanker who goes out of his way to be rude to PZ, he almost qualifies as comic relief. "I'm going to ask my famous teacher at the famous high school where my famous friends and I famously graduated to defriend you if you continue to be churlish to me in response to my boorish ways and what's more I'll ask the wife of my famous teacher at the famous high school where my famous friends and I famously graduated to defriend you as well. So there, nyah!"
Pete Rooke is just young and naive. At least he isn't a libertarian.
Simon is almost as bad as Barb. His homoerotic fantasies are unpleasant to read and he drops non sequiturs with gay abandon (no pun intended). His only saving grace is that he isn't quite as hateful as Barb.
Alan Clarke loves to post evidence that contradicts his points. As long as he keeps shooting himself in the foot, I see no reason to toss him. Besides, the answers that Josh, David Marjanović and Owlmirror keep giving him are extremely instructive. RogerS is either Clarke's sock puppet or his twin brother.
Kitty'sBitch-
....maybe.....
But only if you're good!
As a libertarian commenter with no intent to troll or otherwise disrupt the blog with irrelevant economic theory, I just wanted to mention that idiots like africangenesis who don't understand what liberty is for (hint: "the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell?) and argue the most sterile, robotic caricature of the school of thought possible just embarrass me.
I don't see where the rules of Being a Scientist or Being an Atheist say that you have to be of one political persuasion or another to the exclusion of the others, anyway. Maybe someone can help me connect the dots between being an atheist and lover of science and being... whatever the socially correct political adherence is around here at the moment.
Barb
I say in the true spirit of Survivor we also offer immunity to any of them that will perform the simple challenge of eating something really nasty.
I suggest a deep fried tarantula or a bible.
I don't see where the rules of Being a Scientist or Being an Atheist say that you have to be of one political persuasion or another to the exclusion of the others, anyway.
If you can look at what deregulation over the past decade and a half has done to the US and world economy and still favor economic libertarianism, you're not operating in actual reality.
Typical evilutionist inability to do anything coherent--Professor Meyers failed to even post the 'winner' of the challenge for those of us not willing to wade through one thousand comments of evilutionist Satan-worshiping drivel.
And you all have still ignored my question about the validity of evilutionary THEORY: How can it be true if the ontogeny (that would be the development of embryos) does not recapitulate the phylogeny (that would be the animal's supposed family tree)?
Can any of you evilutionists honestly explain this? No, of course you cannot, because you are irrational and dogmatic. But until one of you makes some piteous reply, I shall return to reading my Bible and attempting to figure out when the Rapture shall come and I and my Real True Christian family will be whisked off to the Lord's loving arms and away from this sinful world full of disgusting gays.
(mostly lurking here)
Hasn't Barb mostly left of her own will? Certainly she got drubbed hard enough.
I vote for Simon (for whatever little my vote is worth)
I don't quite get John Kwok - can he really be that pompous in real life? but he is a staunch defender of evolution, so in spite of his ludicrous threat, I figure he should stay.
If you can look at what deregulation over the past decade and a half has done to the US and world economy and still favor economic libertarianism, you're not operating in actual reality.
It's much more complicated than you make out. But I'm willing to listen (and, yes, even admit it if I think you have a good point) if you're willing to actually answer the question. Not here, though; that isn't what the blog is for (so far as I know). Please feel free to e-mail me if you want to.
Barb the fatuous bint.
OK, my e-mail address didn't show up, sorry about that... it's my username at hotmail.
Good-bye to Kwok! Anyone who thinks threatening to unfriend on Facebook is a Big Deal is too immature for Pharyngula.
Here are a few of the comments John Kwok wrote just before Amazon.com kicked him off their public forums -
"So I'm willing to stick to my guns, and alas, maybe lose the love of my life in fellow anti-creationist crusader Abbie Smith. Her zealous support of Obama is misguided to say the least.
But let's call a spade a spade. Barack Hussein Obama is quite simply the least qualified, least experienced, major party candidate for President of the United States."
"I still wish that McCain had picked Lieberman over Palin, but, I am delighted that she's literally driving Caesar Barack Obamaus crazy. In fact, he was one of the first to recognize Sarah Palin's veep potential. Sarah Palin has at least as much, if not more experience, to be President as Theodore Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman."
"My "good" deed of the day today was telling a Messiah campaign worker that his leader is a scoundrel who deserves to be crucified."
"As for the Messiah, he's a mendacious scoundrel, whom, I predict, will piss off enough lunatics that they will be gunning for him, immediately after his November 4th "coronation". Again God Help This Country if the Messiah is elected."
"I do not condone assassination, period. But if the choice is either the Messiah's assassination or the prospect of a nuclear 9/11 attack on the United States coupled with - or independently - an economic collapse as dire as the Great Depression, then it is a choice I could sleep soundly with, and one that could be in this nation's best interest.
God help the USA if he is elected President. May Divine Providence prevent it."
Yikes! I'll vote to drop Kwok, immediately!
Still Barb. For being a self-admitted sinner, who continues to commit the sin of pride, who has certainly danced on the edge of bearing false witness and whose absence in these festivities smacks of sloth.
But Kwokers comes a very close second.
#107: I say in the true spirit of Survivor we also offer immunity to any of them that will perform the simple challenge of eating something really nasty.
Faeces on toast?
I can't not vote for Kwok. Insufferable.
Here are a few of the comments John Kwok wrote just before Amazon.com kicked him off their public forums -
"So I'm willing to stick to my guns, and alas, maybe lose the love of my life in fellow anti-creationist crusader Abbie Smith. Her zealous support of Obama is misguided to say the least.
But let's call a spade a spade. Barack Hussein Obama is quite simply the least qualified, least experienced, major party candidate for President of the United States."
"I still wish that McCain had picked Lieberman over Palin, but, I am delighted that she's literally driving Caesar Barack Obamaus crazy. In fact, he was one of the first to recognize Sarah Palin's veep potential. Sarah Palin has at least as much, if not more experience, to be President as Theodore Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman."
"My "good" deed of the day today was telling a Messiah campaign worker that his leader is a scoundrel who deserves to be crucified."
"As for the Messiah, he's a mendacious scoundrel, whom, I predict, will piss off enough lunatics that they will be gunning for him, immediately after his November 4th "coronation". Again God Help This Country if the Messiah is elected."
"I do not condone assassination, period. But if the choice is either the Messiah's assassination or the prospect of a nuclear 9/11 attack on the United States coupled with - or independently - an economic collapse as dire as the Great Depression, then it is a choice I could sleep soundly with, and one that could be in this nation's best interest.
God help the USA if he is elected President. May Divine Providence prevent it."
Yikes! I'll vote to drop Kwok, immediately!
Repeating for the benefit of those too lazy to search the record, some arbitrarily selected comments:
Barb
Alan Clarke
Facilis
John Kwok
Pete Rooke
RogerS
Simon
I take it PrisonerofEvil is a poe...
Nearly replied there. Steady on.
Ewwww, I didn't see where John Kwok advocated for assassination. I can't condone that.
Sorry, PZ, I have to reluctantly change my vote from Barb to Kwok. They both abundantly deserve to be kicked hard where they sit, but I just can't deal with Kwok's statement.
Barb, but not because she is a vile waste of perfectly good carbon atoms. I want her gone because her toxic posts tend to completely disrupt a thread.
Now that I am home, and no longer in the boonies on my Blackberry, I would like to de-lurk for a moment to cast my vote for Barb. Second place to Pete Rooke.
Alan Clarke (vote retracted from Simon). As others have said, Simon is fun to laugh at. Clarke just excretes reams of deadening nonsense.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind this. First, when a creationist at Rhode Island U. gets a Ph.D. by giving the professors the answers he does not believe it’s considered a “bad thing”. But here creationists are in fact required to give answers they don’t believe, and when they do they win the contest, so it’s now a “good thing”? Oh, it’s all in fun you say – OK, now I understand.
Ugh. Thank you for pointing out that post where Kwok calls for the assasination of the president. Wow. Just wow. I'd never seen that.
That is messed up in so many ways!
BTW does anyone have the Firefox addon which turns a simple thread into a hotbed of luscious lesbians? I think I had it yesterday, but it isn't working today. It's sort of like a killfile only much more fun.
(Just in case anyone's wondering, I have no personal inerest - I have never been a lesbian myself, and would not become one under any circumstances)
Pete Rooke
No, because Simon would eat it and then be immune.
Kwok once compared Obama to Hitler over at ERV.
What we are encountering fellow posters is a severe shortage of what is called ALTERNATIVE BELIEVERS. Consequently, we are in danger of becoming one dimensional, lacking in imagination, creativity and, in general, exposure to those opinions that are on the boundary, sort of speaking. To counter this impending situation we need to invite some fringe thinkers to post here. A list for consideration might include:
1) Vox Day
2) Ben Stein
3) Bobby Jindal
4) Bill Donohue
5) Ray Comfort
6) Casey Luskin
7) Michele Bachman
I'm sure with a little thought, you might be able to add others of like-minded thought.
I've been away for awhile. Is Silver Fox serious or pulling a Poe?
HAHAHA. You're funny Silver. Vox has posted here before. He's as big a douche as Pete Rooke.
The rest? They couldn't handle it here.
Nah, just an idiot. If he's serious, he is sorely deluded. If he is being funny, he's doing a bad job of it.
Speedwell,
As far as I can understand it, Stu's statement is the answer to your question.
To elaborate. At least here on Pharyngula, intellectual honestly is highly prized. A will to follow the evidence where it goes.
Let's contrast that with one of the most persistent targets of Pharyngula's ire, the Dishonesty Institute. It's painfully obvious that they start with their conclusion (Christ is King) and try to find any way they can to shoehorn reality to fit what they think it should be.
Most of the ill will towards Libertarians seem to follow the same vein (I won't comment on how well-founded it is or not). I don't know how you developed your personal political/financial beliefs, but it definitely seems like the vast majority of Libertarian screeds start by assuming their ideology is right and twisting the data (or just plain making things up) to fit into their preconceived notions about how things should be. No matter what the situation, or how much study has been done in the field of Economics, their suggestions don't really change. Kids are failing school in record numbers? We should cut taxes and deregulate. 25% of people have no form of health insurance? We should cut taxes and deregulate. I am not saying this fits your particular brand of Libertarianism, but this sentiment seems to lie behind the Libertarian as it is attacked by the Pharyngulan horde. As to what degree it may be a strawman, I haven't been around here long enough to say.
I see what you did there, Kwok. Bet you didn't learn that kind of dog-whistle writing from Frank McCourt.
@ #119: Absolutely correct, my friend. I'm surprised someone didn't catch on earlier, what with the initials spelling out POE. And the 'Ontology does not recapitulate phylogeny' argument is simply ridiculous. I doubt fundies could be that ignorant, but one never knows...
Anyway, allow me to formally introduce myself: I'm ProudCynic, long-time lurker both here and a few other bogs here at SB and abroad. I'm a reader of Daily Kos, Balloon Juice and Slacktivist, among others. I am very much an atheist, a liberal and a... (almost wrote fan there) admirer of Professor Myers (the mis-spelling, I hoped, would make it seem more authentic) and Professor Dawkins--though I heard he retired from his post at Oxford.
Now that the introduction's over with, I must cast my vote for John Kwok after what was basically a request for the first respectable president in almost a decade to be assassinated. How anyone can imply that Obama, a diplomatic, friendly presence on the international stage, is a greater threat to both our security and peace abroad than a bellicose war veteran who wishes to continue the conservative policies that have lead us down our current path, I cannot begin to understand.
8) Andrew Wakefield
9) Gene Ray
10) Peter Popoff
11) Sun Myung Moon
12) That guy who lives behind the dumpster behind the 7-11 downtown, drinking Scope...
I must say, this is one of the most entertaining posts you made this year. I usually get a good laugh from "I get email" and the like, but your take on this stuff is even more fun to read. I guess I didn't think that you did much more than skim the comments.
I just wanted to say that; I don't really have a preference for who gets axed. They are all pretty annoying.
@130:
Actually, I would love to see Michele Bachmann post here. I have no doubt that hilarity would ensue.
I would love to see some of the people on Silver Fox's list join Pharyngula Comments for discussion -- and I'd add Michael Behe and William Dembski. But I think Vox Day has been here before. A lively time had by all.
I've changed my mind about not voting. After looking at the links showing some of the incredibly nasty drek Simon has been spewing (stuff I somehow missed on first run and yet, apparently, this is his standard), I vote:
Simon.
I voted for Barb yesterday and have decided she is still my choice. The others while being stupid or commenting in a disgusting manner still have not reached the height of pure Hatred that Barb Exhibits. Thanks to Jesus and his apparent abilities at saving her.
Facilis
Congratulations. Now if you could just make your posts more in line with your winning challenge all will be well.
And for an update on the the Pope, gladragger of the year. I have a new post at gifs here. Gladraggers we can do without.
jimmer
http://gods4suckers.net/
@ thalarctos -
McCourt was my first major writing instructor, but he wasn't the only one. I had several biology professors in college and graduate school who could write quite well.
@abb3w
This lazy lurker/newbie thanks you for the links to old comments.
John Kwok
J.T. @ 99
I really don't get this. I disagree with most of the libertarians economically, but Walton has done nothing (in my short tenure at least) worthy of banning. He appears to me to have been slowly following the path of knowledge from the dark side. Given time, I think he will probably change his economic views, but even if he doesn't, he seems to be quite earnest and honest in his arguments.
Africangenesis has been the most grating of the libertarians, but even he has had some cogent arguments whether I agree or not. The problem is just avoiding the libertarian thread-jacking.
And, my minor thread-jack done, back to the topic at hand. I'm gong to have to keep my vote for Kwok. Name-dropping is just boring. The rest can provide some entertainment or outlets for some commenters' SIWOTI syndrome.
My two cents.
KWOK!!!!
@ ProudCynic # 136 -
I advocated a military coup d'etat if Obama decided to rule as a Marxist - Leninist president. Last time I checked, he hasn't, and though I strongly disagree with his economic stimulus package, he is - and remains - my president, until he is voted out or otherwise legally removed from office. If you've been reading blogs carefully, you may have noticed that I've stated more than once my genuine surprise and delight that Obama has appointed extremely capable people in science and technology (e. g. Chu for Energy and Lubchenco for NOAA, among others).
Moreover, two of his key advisors are fellow alumni of my high school: Axelrod and Holder (I know a couple of people who have worked closely with one of them, Attorney General Holder, in the past on alumni relations work, and have heard only admirable comments about his work.).
So if you're interested in spreading lies and disseminating the truth, then maybe you should consult with me first.
Well, as long as you're here, John, do you stand by your assertion that Obama's assassination would be "a choice I could sleep soundly with, and one that could be in this nation's best interest"?
Do you think maybe you went too far there?
Most of these weasels wouldn't be so despised if they'd only show a sense of humor now and then.
Kwok, can you ever post without dropping names?
My orginal vote was for Facilis, so I must now change it to John Kwok.
I'm sure the wife of of his high school creative writing teacher would approve.
Someone insults your writing, you don't recognize it as an insult, and then you go on to say that you must have learned it from one of the other fantastic writers you were exposed to?
This is doing the same for our perception of your competence as, say, getting on the internet and writing a long post about how you think the female orgasm is a myth.
I'd like to join sav in thanking abb3w for the links; they didn't change my vote, but now I know who, on the current menu, I would like to ban on the next Survivor series. After all, we all know there's gonna be a next series, there's always a next series; those things never die. And it's not as if there's a shortage of prospective contestants.
On a related note, clearly there is some way to Search for something and go right to it, without having to scroll through eleventy-million posts to find the target post, but I know it not. How the heck is this done??? And, in bookmarking a specific post, how do you get it to save at that post (so as to again avoid the endless-scrolling problem)?
John Kwok. His body left his High School 30 years ago but his mind still lingers there. Isn't that a sort of necrophilia? Too creepy to stay.
"evolution isn't necessarily a replacement process, the originating species may or may not survive along with the newer species."
Just reading the posts on this site and that becomes patently obvious. As PZ says, it's time to kick some of these monkeys out.
Kwowk,
Seriously dude, do you even know why you are a contestant?
Relax, John. I have no interest in disseminating lies and slander. I see I did read your comments wrong, and I apologize.
However, I still find it repulsive that one could hope for the murder of anyone--the president, Dick Cheney, Osama bin 'freakin Laden--if they have committed crimes, bring them to justice. If they were criminally negligent, put them on trial. Lock them up and throw away the key, if need be. But killing them will not change what they have done, and will only add more fuel to the fire as they become a martyr.
Oh yeah? Well I'd advocate a military coup d'etat if he turned out to be an escaped interstellar war criminal from the planet Glorthax disguised as a human, so there!
@ Kel -
Wish I could stop name dropping, but everyone seems to be doing such a great job at it. Moreover, I am not going to let really asinine, quite inane, comments from someone like ProudCynic go unchallenged.
Anyone who threatens your Facebook is doomed. Curb the Kwok.
I have to vote again for Barb, with instant run-off votes for Pete Rooke, who makes me nauseated.
To all the concern trolls in the audience -- banning someone from your blog isn't "censorship," for squid's sake; it's the equivalent of tossing someone out the door on their ear because they've come into your living room and taken a shit on the carpet. PZ's place, PZ's rules (which are clearly enumerated, and he has a lot more patience about enforcing them than I would). If the troll cohort doesn't like it, there are lots of free blogs available where they can whinge and spew to their black little hearts' content.
One small vote for Barb.
@ Lowell -
Sure, I did that to irritate a couple of lunatic liberals. So I was stepping out of line there. But, I would sleep soundly now if Obama followed in the lead of another young Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, by cutting taxes drastically. If he insists on following his agenda, however, I may find myself thinking wistfully for the good old days under the two Bill Clinton and the first George H. Bush administrations.
The world doesn't revolve around you, no-one cares who you went to high school / university with, nor does it need to be pointed out in order to demonstrate your opinion.
Whaaaa...burrrrrrrrrrrrp...uhhhh....Barb out....isssh 'at you John...Frank says...
Kwok:
"Axelrod and Holder (I know a couple of people who have worked closely with one of them, Attorney General Holder, in the past on alumni relations work"
This guy Kwok sounds like he's on the A-list. Eric Holder? I bet if I got a traffic ticket, he could get Eric to fix it.
@ ProudCynic -
Our politics may be quite different, but I agree with you in having those accused be brought to justice by time-honored, well-established legal means. And, if, GOD forbid, there was ever a need to have a coup d'etat against a sitting president, then I hope it would be a bloodless coup resulting in that president being arrested and turned over for trial.
The thing about survivor, is that there is more than one round. Voting for one doesn't mean all the others stay.
I'm sticking with Barb. She's an obnoxious self-righteous homophobe, and her mean-spirited attacks are on actual posters here, not just public figures. The others can have their turn later.
Also, after suggesting in the other thread that I should hit on Janine, I completely neglected to actually do so. Sorry about that. *shuffles feet* *clears throat* *AHEM* Here we go.
@Janine: Hey babe, do you come here often? Is it hot in here, or is that just you? I hope you know CPR, 'cause you take my breath away.
Given the number of clever people here, I'm sure you could one of them to write a script that counts the votes.
It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but still better than a Diebold machine. I think most regulars will forgive you for any small discrepancies.
David argued well for the the Kwok in the last thread (as well as revealing far more personal details than I've ever noticed him do before. If I ever start writing fanfic again, I might have to try my hand at Abbie/David - How's *that* for creepy?)
But I'll take Janine's word for it that Barb needs to go. There are indeed irredeemable sins.
So no change of vote for me.
Vacuously. You irritate everyone.
@ Silver Fox -
No, I'm not on some "A - List", but I know people who are, and who might have been willing to contact Mr. Holder on my behalf. Why? I can't really discuss the circumstances here, only to note that it would have involved potential legal action against a leading creationist. It was something I had proposed to a few others, but we decided that we didn't have enough evidence to act against the creationist in question.
I, too, used to think wistfully. Ah, happy days....
Kwok. He has replaced Rooke on my hit list due to his Failure to Get It.
I would like to see Silver Fox make the list next time around, though. He is thoroughly irritating in his unrelenting stupidity.
Can someone please explain to me of what importance is it regarding where John Kwok went to high school?
I would think expressing an affiliation with a college or university to hold far more weight than a high school. I would especially grant more respect to someone's knowledge for having obtained a degree or advanced degree from an college or university.
A high school? How does that embue anyone with authority or respect? I have to postulate the majority of people who comment on this blog have at least a high school education. I am willing to bet some graduated from a swanky one or two.
I guess what I want to say is "Who gives a rat's ass where John Kwok went to high school. Where did he get his university degree?"
it definitely seems like the vast majority of Libertarian screeds start by assuming their ideology is right and twisting the data (or just plain making things up) to fit into their preconceived notions about how things should be...I am not saying this fits your particular brand of Libertarianism, but this sentiment seems to lie behind the Libertarian as it is attacked by the Pharyngulan horde.
I could not agree more. In fact, you've put your finger right on what exasperates me most about Libertarians in general. It's why I refuse to be a Lib Party member. Most adherents just don't adequately allow for, or discount, the importance of human values.
Liberty means being able to make the choices that lead to our happiness. To some, the kernel of happiness is in the family, or the "tribe," or the city, or the state. To me, it's in the healthy, well-developed, intelligent, individual self. Libertarians who think that we can have a good society without doing our utmost to help everyone be as healthy and prosperous as possible are deluded. We're all individuals after all.
Those who say that the abortion debate hinges on individual rights to the body and mind and their products are correct, in my opinion. As most of you agree, no person should be a parasite, whether unborn, born, individual, or corporate. But instead of being miserly paranoiacs continually looking over their shoulder in fear that they're being cheated out of something, Libertarians should act like happy and free people--generous and tolerant and honorable. "A rising tide lifts all boats," we're fond of saying, but I don't see a whole lot of Libertarians going out and helping the tide rise.
It's about respecting your fellow individuals. It's not that "no man is an island." Every man is, unfortunately, an island. But we don't have to be lonely, ragged castaways, too.
Alan Clarke is dead, but he's not necessarily out of it.
"by cutting taxes drastically"
Forgive me everyone for being a bit naive. Finance is not my strong point, but how does a person reconcile a massive debt such as Obama inherited with a drastic cut in taxes?
It seems to me that cutting taxes only gives relief to a certain point, and then people start to suffer from the loss of valuable infrastructure which they can't gather the capital to implement on their own.
Barb.
abb3w - Thanks for posting those selections...I've already spent the maximum amount of time procrastinating.
I think I want to change my vote again from Barb to Simon. Barb is indeed a stupid bitch, but Simon just has nothing to contribute at ALL.
With VooDoo economics! That isn't to say that the Laffer Curve isn't real. I'm just saying that libertarians always think we're on the side where cutting taxes increases revenue.
@ Rowan -
Here's where it is relevant. The high school in question is widely regarded as America's premier high school devoted to the sciences, technology and mathematics. Moreover, during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, its principal pledged to an alumni assembly - that I attended - that Intelligent Design would never be taught there as long as he continued serving as the school's principal (He teaches a rigorous introductory physics course to a class of extremely gifted freshmen.). I received an unsolicited e-mail from leading Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski in which he bragged that he knew scores of Texas principals who wanted Intelligent Design only, not evolution, to be taught in the science classrooms of their schools. He coudn't reply when I recounted what the principal of my high school alma mater had said, and then, I asked him if any of his principals also taught physics.
And Kwok has run himself over.
Sastra,
Please to be stop making sense.
You're making it very hard to join the tribal mentality and go "woo! woo! woo! We're the best!"
#115.
Seriously?
Okay ... let's hang on a sec here, are we sure that this is THE John Kwok? I know that there are many John Kwoks (I mean that literally, though that statement would still stand if I were figuratively speaking).
Yesterday I did not want to vote off anyone. This blog group thrives on dissent and discussion. And systematic ripping of retarded posts. The Barbs and Kwoks are just our playthings, really.
I thought J.K. was a tool just because he was so insecure that he absolutely *had* to bolster his importance with who he knew and blah blah.
But his comments about "crucifying" a presidential candidate that wouldn't even be the main responsible guy if we did get a "nuclear 9/11" or another Great Depression (that would be Bush&Co., you fuckwit!!) makes me really wish that I could meet him personally
so that I can punch him in the face.
So. Not only is he a pathological name-dropper, but he is stupid, too. If he's a Republican, that's fine. But saying shit like that illustrates that he doesn't think worth a damn.
I'm casting my ballot for John the Fucktard Asshat Smegma Rotten Placenta Kwok.
And, to be clear, I'd be writing exactly these same words if he had said the same stupid shit about McCain (though I'd have a little more leniency because the Republican Party really did make some effing catastrophic decisions).
Quoted for Truth
Interrobang at #161
To all the concern trolls in the audience -- banning someone from your blog isn't "censorship," for squid's sake; it's the equivalent of tossing someone out the door on their ear because they've come into your living room and taken a shit on the carpet. PZ's place, PZ's rules (which are clearly enumerated, and he has a lot more patience about enforcing them than I would). If the troll cohort doesn't like it, there are lots of free blogs available where they can whinge and spew to their black little hearts' content.
Thank You!
Also, I wish PZ would take a "must respond" policy toward designated trolls. In particular, there were, at least, three very sound arguments against Silver Fox's "Five Pounds of Shit in a Five Pound Bag" argument for gawd made by Kell, Zetetic and MDS which SF simply ignored.
I say, if a troll, designated as such by PZ, starts a ruck, he should be required to answer all the counter-arguments made by fellow posters and not just use this forum as a place to take his piss and run. No answers, then ban.
Kwok. If anyone should of been deposed it was the incompetent and criminal George W. Bush.
And a coup d'etat? In the U.S.? It's what the wingers fantasize about everyday. But then again they really hate America.
Seriously, John - who I have been very rude to, but only after being nice - every post you put up here, seems to make you look more like a twit, or worse. What on earth have you done to be on the point of getting banned from Pharyngula?
You are the nearest thing I've ever seen to a self-inflating troll. Every post you put up here makes you look more and more ridiculous. I mean, if you're accused of name-dropping what makes you think that the opinion of your named, illustrious friends, as summarised by you, will dispel that illusion?
You come across as insufferably pompous and self-regarding. And, once again, bringing up previous campaigns of yours, on which other people may have different ideas about how successfully you fought your corner and with what weapons, is, frankly, an error.
Shut the fuck up and try not to get banned from here as well.
I hadn't heard Kwok talk about kicking Obama out of office. FSM help us, he sounds like a birther. Say it ain't so, John.
Dude! You're here! I loved your column in Forbes!
#181
John.
Seriously.
Please.
The posters go on and ON about how you seem strangely incapable of submitting a post without having to bring some goddamned other person into it, and
YET AGAIN
you did it again
omg
Where did you go to high school, Kwok? Why should we care who wrote you an email? We don't care!
Your response regarding evolution was fine, but we're not getting our blood pressures raised because of that--
we're finding your online personality so effing repulsive that what potentially intelligent statements you might issue is practically irrelevant compared to the crushing wave of disdain we have for YOU!
Wait. Why am I speaking for everyone else?
I'll just speak for me.
ME: John. I CAN'T STAND YOU. PLEASE GROW UP.
Wolfhound:
"I would like to see Silver Fox make the list next time around, though. He is thoroughly irritating in his unrelenting stupidity."
As the Godfather would say: "What have I ever done to you that you should treat me with such disrespect?"
I might have to send my Man Tom Hagen around to make you and offer you can't afford to refuse. Or, maybe send my son Fredo, you know, the dull one. But I can't worry about that now, I have to go and take care of Mo Green at the Sahara.
BARB: That pernicious bitch should go.
I change my vote from Barb to Kwok for advocating assassination and overthrow of the president. If he is so fucked in the head to think (and post here on Pharyngula) that a military coup d'état is even thinkable in the U.S., the world's premiere democracy, I have no reason to want him in America much less on Pharyngula.
Pharyngula is by far the highest IQ, most educated group that would ever talk to me, however, when it comes to the oldest most basic internet tradition (do not feed the trolls), this group seems not to have evolved since dial up.
I think there is a somewhat pathological symbiosis when it comes to Pharyngula and its trolls.
Just sayin.
The time for that, I fear, has already come and gone at least twice in my lifetime.
#194:
Hahaha, you're right.
Time to run my gel.
Kwok,
Since you approve of Kennedy's tax rates so much, I take it you are pushing for Obama to set the top marginal rate to 70%?
I'm not an economist, but I can see how adjusting the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% could have the effect of increasing tax revenue. But I see no reason to believe that at such a low marginal tax rate (<40% even with the reversion to early Bush levels) a tax cut would improve overall tax revenue.
Though I do not feel it's necessary to join the chorus asking for John to stop the rampant name-dropping, I will anyway.
John, honestly. Even if you know all those people you claim to, that doesn't do much to back up your arguments.
/me puts away the tray of mint cookies and brushes away crumbs that have fallen into her lap
Alright scooter, I shall cease feeding the trolls.
Barb has to have my vote, though I admit that she is the only one I can identify out of the the candidates for elimination.
Reading this thread has been a lot of fun. I'm new to posting here (though I visit this blog often), so I understand if you don't want to count my vote. If you are willing to, though, I'd like to vote Kwok off.
In just this thread I have become so irritated with Kwok that I want to scream, and I would if it wouldn't alarm my coworkers.
This is a person who says a lot without saying anything, and it's purposeful and wastes my brain space. This dude knows no one.
Damn less than sign. Anyhow, that should have read "But I see no reason to believe that at a low top marginal tax rate (less than 40% even with the return to the early Bush figures) would have a similar tax revenue increasing effect."
May i just say, Barb.
Simon's preoccupation with beastiality, explicit mechanics of gay sex, and strict ideas of penis placement are embarrassingly entertaining as watching a clueless Gong Show contestant - he can't seem to realize how earnestly ridiculous he becomes when he's trying to belabor a point.
Kwok hasn't realized that every time he posts, he reveals some pathologically narcissistic trait which immediately triggers a flood of votes against him. John: keep your fingers off the keyboard and let Barb take the fall if you still want to post here... and consider therapy.
Barb the dogmatic is incapable of reassessing her ideology so any SIWOTI directed at her is merely shadow boxing.
I vote thumbs down on Pete Rooke, because he is the most successful troll, often generating 10 to 1 responses to idiotic posts, causing my scroll button to overheat.
I think the word 'Kwok', is pretty cool. We should vote on a meaning for it.
Kwok,
1. to loose or alienate friends:
Sally kwokked me when I threw up in her lap
2. antonym to Grok: to completely miss the point: astonishing ignorance: abject cluelessness
George kwoks that 1984 is a training manual for Utopians ?
Au contraire! (Mais franchement - c'est un emmerdeur)
Listen, Anthony, This guy Kwok sounds like he may have come from some place like Choate or Exeter. If you come from a place like that you're what is known as the Creme-de-la-Creme. You get the secret handshake and things like that. This guy might have stroke all over the place.
I don't think this vote should be open to everyone. Instead a panel should be comprised of the most fair and open minded people who post here. They should be the ultimate arbitrators.
I vote Silver Fox. Purely for the utter inanity of his 'argument'.
Silver Fox, here is something. Let's take your argument, which boils down to 'I assert God exists and created everything', and apply it to the claim that my pet cat created all life on Earth. He did this by happening to sneeze at the very point in time an ultra-rare microscopic tear in the fabric of the space-time continuum opened up for half a second right in front of his face. This allowed the cat snot to be catapulted back in time to the proto-Earth, where the bacteria in the cat snot found perfect breeding conditions. These were the first organisms from which all other life evolved. This also makes my pet cat God.
Winners should get a complementary tour of Dallas. Tickets to view for Pharangites- who wants the grassy knowl, who wants the premium seat in the book depository?
I don't think a guy like Kwok would refer to one of those academies as a "high school" - it's probably a flagship high school like Boston Latin (for example, though I don't think it's BL).
I wonder if John would be willing to duke it out with Milton Academy and Dartmouth alum (and affably smug creationist) Nat Weeks? I propose that Kwok be handed a reprieve if he goes one-on-one, for 1000 comments, with Nat. He'd be promoting evolution, engaging Nat, and staying out of our hair. Three birds, one stone.
Smidgy,
Your cat lacks the one thing all gods require: a name.
So, what is your kitty's name, and how do I gain his favor?
Oops, left something out. Your argument, Silver Fox, in full is, 'I assert God exists and created everything, and I'm right unless you can disprove this, even though I've defined God in a way that's impossible to disprove'. This means you have to successfully disprove the 'my cat is God' hypothesis, rather than me proving it.
Great idea! Let's have a series of open threads in which we all vote for who goes on the panel!
the U.S., the world's premiere democracy - aratina
Sez who? Richest and most powerful - yes. By any other criterion (largest electorate, most democratic, first in time) - no.
On the great banning debate, I see the arguments for banning Barb and Simon for repulsive homophobia directed personally at commenters; and Kwok for narcissistic creepiness; but I can't pick one, so I'll just record a vote against banning Pete Rooke, who has shown considerable improvement of late (I particularly appreciated his "frog - fuck off", which - whether justified or not - was both sincere and succinct!)
Well, his name is JD. He's quite partial to tuna.
Pete Rooke @ 208
That isn't the point of the exercise though. The point of the exercise is to provide an entertaining outlet for the readers of this blog to pick the people they feel are most deserving of the ban hammer. Fair has nothing to do with it. So far it is succeeding grandly I would say. You should feel free to vote as well, have a little fun with it. The more normal you show yourself to be, the less likely you will lose too, so win-win.
Why can't we have one of those "surprise" tribal councils and vote off two people? One male and one female, so as to be fair to the sexes. [Okay, and one transgendered person, if any of the candidates will so identify.]
194: Scooter: It's hard to ignore the trolls who post several screens worth of screeds. Or who are so blithely evil as, say, Barb. At times, it's a choice between responding or dying of apoplexy.
Everyone: Let's all be sure to tell John all about our Famous Friends with whom we went to High School. And maybe even middle school. Our famous friends whom we will not name, our famous friends whose names we're prepared to drop, our famous imaginary friends...
Kwok
Etymology: Indo-European kwokú an annoying hemorrhoid
-verb
1. to alienate potential allies through name dropping and narcissistic ramblings.
An alliance between the USSR and Communist China would have been possible if Stalin hadn't kwoked
-noun
2. a person who kwoks
Hmmm... I do believe I know where John Kwok went to high school. I know I said I wouldn't feed the trolls, but this has been bugging me to no end. From his own words:
"I have no doubt that fellow Stuyvesant High School alumnus Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, would concur with my assessment of the feasibility - or rather lack thereof - of having any form of creationism taught alongside valid science, especially in any of the science classrooms at our prominent high school alma mater, widely regarded as America's best science and mathematics-oriented high school."
John Kwok, Intelligent Design Belongs With Darwin in Classrooms; Political Correctness Does Not
I have never heard of this school. Ok, I am done with the little troll now.
I withdraw my vote for Simon (who seems to have buggered off of his own accord anyway) and nominate John Kwok instead - solely on the content of his post #147. He's just so much nothing; we don't need that here.
Silver 'Onward Zoroastrian soldiers - because by my logic I have to believe in their gods, too' Fox should be encouraged to stop running away from his responsibility to start showing the disproofs of gods other than his own - or admit his egregious logical error and withdraw his claim that atheists need to disprove his god.
If he continues to do neither then he should be banned. If I have to hear the ridiculous 'my (non-)argument for monotheism is that it is the only option because god is a union of perfect unity and oneness with himself' nonsense again I'm going to burn him in effigy using a bible as kindling.
I tend to glaze over when reading some of the commentators posts so I am not in any position to vote.
the most fair and open minded people who post here.
You rang?
Who said we had to be fair? Life's not fair - look at the stupid religious views it gave you - and I'm open-minded to the extent that I want to string up the bigotted and intolerant with piano wire - just like most liberals.
God, incidentally, is free to vote here as often He likes. Let's see what He wants us to do, eh?
I went to the same high school as Sally Field. This explains why, when I get up on a table and hold up a union sign, people applaud.
I'm almost positive John Kwok went to Stuyvesant. He said he attended the same high school that Axelrod and Holder did. It's a public school but pretty highly regarded.
Kwok--malignant narcissist....Barb--malignant god bothering black-hearted hate-monger. Quite a choice. Barb is the more useless waste of time. She poisons the air. I vote Barb
Barb.
The more time she spends inflaming sensibilities here the less time she spends energizing the rest of the bigots elsewhere.
Rowan:
I hate to do this to you, Rowan, but your not having heard of this school doesn't mean it's not a formidable high school with a long history of excellence. It is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
Be done with Kwok - be my guest, I'm not impressed with him, either - but you may want to restate your motives. Just sayin'.
Hey, what have I missed so far? I just got back from a long lunch with Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher. (We spent the whole time texting Stephen Colbert!#@) Does anyone have Murray Gell-Mann's number? I mean, I had it, but lost it (along with a signed first edition copy of Julian Huxley's collected letters which I think I'll write a preface for) and I need it for the poker game later tonight with Neil degrasse Tyson, Peter Singer, Dan Dennett and Howard Zinn. Brian Greene said he would come, but I don't know about that. I guess I'll have to see. Well, I guess I'll check in later as Lisa Randall (she's so purty!) just send me about twenty emails asking for my advice about her latest theory.
I am keeping my vote with Barb. Get her gone.
However, there is one condition. As she goes we have to play the Motley Crue song: "Girl don't go away mad (Girl, just go away)".
Sound fair?
Louis
Boy, Kwok has been his own worst enemy about the need to ban him. Simon was despicable to PZ this morning. Pete, if you do something smart like go away for the evening you might lose my vote. I need to think this over again.
I'm an economist so supposedly finance is my strong point. I'll try to make this relatively painless and short, so there will be much simplifying.
In 1981 an economist named Arthur Laffer described what's become known as the Laffer Curve. It's a mainstay of supply-side economics. The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue. Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far side of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government.
Laffer expounded on a statement by John Maynard Keynes:
The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment--and thereby the tax base--by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities. The arithmetic effect always works in the opposite direction from the economic effect. Therefore, when the economic and the arithmetic effects of tax-rate changes are combined, the consequences of the change in tax rates on total tax revenues are no longer quite so obvious.
The problem is that many politicians, particularly on the right and especially libertarians, fail to understand the Laffer Curve. They typically claim that every tax cut will increase revenues, when the curve clearly shows that only cutting tax rates on one side of the peak rate will increase revenues. For instance, Reagan's income tax cuts in the 1980s did not increase receipts, so the Laffer Curve would suggest that the economy was apparently on the other side of the peak. Even libertarian Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts reduced tax revenues and resulted in high deficits, though he supported them as means to restrain federal spending.
The basic idea is easy to understand. The implementation is hard. Too many people don't want to deal with the hard part of the idea so they try to make it easy. To quote H.L. Mencken:
Jeeves, I'd love to fill you in, but I have to go have dinner with my wife, an obscure former cheerleader from a small public high school in a nondescript suburb.
Oh God, not libertarianism! I just wish the goverment would send them all to death camps like they said they would; or at the very least make them pay slightly higher taxes.
Kwok went to Stuy? I know a few people who went there from my time in the USA. Good school from what I remember them saying.
Erm, and, uh, so fucking what? Wanna know who went to the school I went to when I was a kid?
No, and neither do I!
One of the things Dan Savage always says, that I always laugh at, is very often, the kids who fit in well at (high)school never leave. Isn't that kind of sad? Never to develop beyond 18. To know your best years are done before you're 20? Of course I'm sure it's not applicable to all cases, but isn't the "highschool quaterback who stays in the hometown and pumps gas for the rest of his life" something of a cliche in American culture?
Louis
"kwok" is a great word to use in place of "twat" - it even eliminates the sexist connotation.
I just now received a personal email from Jon Stewart advising me to vote for Kwok. So Kwok it is!
I would like to second the request to add more of the lesbian sex thread into this. It just adds a certain je ne sais quoi to the whole affair..
I voted for Kwok early yesterday, not because of his annoying name-dropping, but because of his blatant dishonesty on this Panda's Thumb thread. He argued for weeks about Obama's birth certificate, accusing him of outright fraud among many other crimes, and even when confronted with irrefutable evidence he ignored it and continued to repeat his lies. It was a very disturbing exhibition. Oh, and for anybody who looks at the thread, be prepared for name-dropping on a cosmic scale.
I still vote for Barb. She can be funny (probably looking and/or smelling I'm sure) but it's funny in that one laughs at the continuous absurdities and by proxy, at her.
Kwok has made some threats but they are pathetic in that my dad can beat up your day fashion. But he's not as offensive as Barb. Maybe he just needs to get laid. Oops, now he's gonna cost me some Facebook friends too! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Hmmm, someone seems to fit a stalker profile and might have gone "Colombine" if he'd been bullied and teased more in high school.
I'll have you all know that, being raised in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, I went to the prestigious Oshkosh West High School. I didn't have to suffer the ignominy of going to Oshkosh North or (ugh) Oshkosh East. And my 12th grade history teacher was Harry Ahearn, who wrote THE book on ice sailing on Lake Winnebago.
Do lurkers get a vote? 'Cause I just had a go on my custom-made ouija board (built especially for me in a joint effort by Freydoon Rassouli and Carlos Santana so as to ensure maximal spiritual attunement)and the ghosts of Samuel Clemens, Douglas Adams, and Isaac Asimov (they'll only communicate with me 'cause they all think I'm teh best) all agree that Barb should be deboned figuratively and literally.
Tis Himself : Thanks! That was a nice explanation.
My vote was for Barb, due to the utterly despicable comments toward Janine of the many wonderful names.
As much as Kwok has done admirable work trying to sway my vote, I'm sticking with Barb.
John Cramer just advised I change my vote to Barb! So I won't. I still vote for Kwok.
Sorry, couldn't resist not getting in on the name-dropping fun.
Dang you, Facilis, for getting immunity! Now I have to vote for somebody else!
As much as I think Barb's homophobia is offputting, I'm going to go with John Kwok, because I can't help but be totally enamored by the facebook threat.
checked out the first page of that thread with Kwok.
That was enough.
Well, if he is a putrescent pretentious douche, at least he is exceedingly consistent.
Man. I'll bet he's the life of any party.
OH oh!! I'll bet he's really great in bed! Especially when he starts running down the list of "famous" people that might ever have seen, thought of, or been in the same room with his dick.
Meh. I'm bored now. I can't wait for this vote to be over.
Simon
They can all jump in the deep end of a lake as far as I'm concerned. None of these seven have any redeeming value. They all rob people of their precious time and their presence on any thread makes reading through the comments a more miserable experience than it already is. No offense to the core group of Pharyngulites who actually have thoughtful things to say, but the increasing noise over the last 3 or 4 years sure has made it harder to sift out any worthwhile signal, and you all know it.
Barb is a swine who notices whatever smells different than the slop she frequents and then figures it is important for everyone else to notice what her delicate swine sensibilities have nosed out.
Alan Clarke is a Bozo with a big red rubber ball on his nose who thinks he is thinking when he constantly shifts the filter he cloaks over his mind that faithfully rejects any evidence contrary to what he harbors in his clown-head.
Facilis is another joker who says things like, "How do I know? Because I goddam well say so; prove me wrong, if you can." and, "I know the Discovery Institute is a small group, but they are brave scientists who stand up for academic freedom and prevent dogmatism." which only indicates that he's not ashamed to sound like an imbecile who constantly asks the burning rhetorical question, "Am I right or am I right?"
John Kwok is very VERY special, and he'll let you know it whether you want to or not. He is a flaming narcissist who likes to brag he's not superstitious, even though he is. But what's really annoying about him is his pathological name-dropping that shows everyone that he must be a somebody. Here's a guy in search of a life who can't resist telling people he's got one. His posts read like the chipper 'family newsletter progress reports' one gets from 'super-competent' hockeymoms who think everyone else is so bored with their own lives that they can't wait to hear about all the wonderful things they've done or plan to do with theirs. (You know the kind: "Oh, and we are SO PROUD that our Patricia has gone out for the beauty pageant and that our Sam has been awarded a high school diploma! [Top THAT all you worthless ratfinks!"]). If given the chance The Squawking Kwok will start to tell us that he's off to launder is dirty underwear in the same machine with Ken Miller's or Bill Dembski's, or some such hideous mix. Some consider him benign, but he's not above seasoning his name-dropping with veiled insults and hateful wishes, as last week when he expressed this sincere hope to PZ: "On a more serious note, I hope you do get home safely. Regards, John." While in the maze of our incredibly innefficient air transit system that spent jet fuel carrying his mass all the way to ATLANTA from CHICAGO on the way to MINNESOTA, PZ in his inimitable way suggested that Kwok should get bent...an image which made my day.
Pete Rooke is an ass who imagines that his God feels as bad about all the tribulations and suffering He foists upon His victims as they or their loved ones do. According to his way of 'thinking', you deserve to get nailed, because you don't BELIEVE you've got original sin EVEN THOUGH steps were taken to ameliorate the problem when Jesus got nailed specifically to remove that pesky original sin. Of course he automatically expects the Second Coming, privately, as a means of redressing the balance...as ordained by God. He considers "faith" to be powerful, yet refuses to consider any possibility that faith and trust and acceptance and credulity and so on are precisely what the con-artists desire to cultivate in their marks. That makes him an ass, and you can tell it by the braying noises he makes.
RogerS is like Alan Clarke: full of believing he is DEEP IN THE PLAKTOW OF THOUGHT. Like Clarke, he's full of shit. You can show these guys evidence from now until you are dead, and they'll reject it just because it doesn't conform with what they already 'know' to be 'true'. Might as well persuade a couple of trees.
Simon is a scoundrel of the first order. That bastard is direct: he knows precisely what's on God's mind and, by God, he'll let you know. It's very simple: Simon IS God, for God's sake!
Get rid of ALL the shmucks. It couldn't possibly hurt. Knock 'em off. They don't supply anything other than a distraction.
PZ, I have to say I'm not clear about the objective of this exercise. If the idea is to get rid of the shmucks by democratically allowing readers to decide, that's dandy, but the perception can be entertained that it weakens your own authority over your own blog. That looks an awful lot like you are inching toward a greasy-slippery slope. I for one wouldn't like to see you slide down it and lose your authority over YOUR blog.
If you really MUST subject us to the prospect of continuing to see at least six of these seven for quite awhile longer in the future, along with the spectacle of providing an avenue for the most despised to somehow redeem themselves if they answer a single question (which can easily be taken care of with a reverse Poe) all of which to my mind can be construed as looking very much like an elaboration of FEEDING these jackoff trolls, what are we to look forward to but an increase in such feeding and more of the inanity that already pollutes the discussions and threatens to hijack every damned thread? Is turning up the volume on the noise going to make things more intelligible? I doubt it. Man. I hope you know what you're doing.
We are not worthy! We are not worthy! (Wayne's World bows follow...)
(No, I'm not being sarcastic. Ice sailing freakin' rocks.)
As for me... Umm... I had a history teacher who was charged with sexual exploitation once. That count for anything?
Well I sure hope there is going to be more than one round of eliminations, I certainly think there's more than one that is deserving!
There's a lot of potential on that list, but for now I'll cast my vote for Barb. Her hate-filled, creationist, anti-abortion, gay-bigot ass needs kicking. Someday maybe she'll learn not to hate herself and other women so much, but I don't hold much hope for that.
Maybe someone can help me connect the dots between being an atheist and lover of science and being... whatever the socially correct political adherence is around here at the moment. - speedwell
The phrase after the ellipsis rather gives the game away: there is no "socially correct political adherence" around here. Obviously the general tendency is liberal/left, but that covers a lot of ground - as your failure to identify a "socially correct political adherence" should tell you.
As for your joining the dots request - it's really rather simple. Adherence to "libertarianism" appears to require a contempt for rational argument and empirical evidence which sits ill with atheism and respect for science. Specifically:
1) Most libertarians reject climate science, because its findings are sufficient to show that "the market" cannot solve one of the gravest problems we (human beings) face. Those who don't reject it, either have to admit that the market cannot solve such problems (blowing a huge hole in their political philosophy), or wave their hands and suggest that consumer pressure would sort it (this was John C. Randolph's line IIRC).
2) For the past 3 decades privatization, financial deregulation, lowering of trade barriers, removal of controls on capital flow, cutting taxes for the rich, weakening welfare provisions - have been increasingly applied across the world. This is the direction of change "libertarians" want. Result: the worst economic crisis in at least 70 years. Yet I have not come across a single "libertarian" who even seems able to consider the possibility that this might cast some doubt on their ideas.
3) The "libertarians'" most favoured economic guru appears to be von Mises, who explicitly rejected the use of empirical, historical evidence to test his ideas.
4) With specific regard to American "libertarians" (who appear anyway to be the vast majority), there is a gross inconsistency between their devotion to property rights, and the contempt most of them demonstrate for the grievances of those whose ancestors were robbed, enslaved or killed in order to build the USA. Indeed, most of them are, despite their protestations to the contrary, fervent American nationalists, and have bought into the whole hooey about how the USA is fundamentally different from other great powers - some, like Africangenesis, being neocon-apologists, others extreme isolationists. When the inconsistency is pointed out, unfounded accusations of racism are the favoured response, rather than addressing the inconsistency in any rational way.
Hello. I am a friend of John Kwok's. Despite this, I would like to vote for Barb. I was also wondering - could this thread have more of a lesbian sex theme? Thank you.
I nominate John Kwok for expulsion because of his inept "Facebook" threat. This is my first vote, so no withdrawal in necessary.
John Kwok, it's time for you to bugger off.
It has to be John Kwok. Even if he doesn't win the vote, just to see how many friends PZ loses on facebook.
*standing ovation to Astrounit (#250)*
My high school biology teacher (I think I recall his name: Jeff Peters) disappeared on the second day of class. Come to find out he was trafficking in Birds of Prey across state lines...
*remembers fondly his brush with prison yard fame*
As I lay me down to kip,
libertarians can suck my dick.
I don't think Facilis should be eligible for immunity. The original challenge was to provide an answer that was logically coherent, and Facilis' answer was not. In it, he seems to imply that creationism and intelligent design are not the same things:
"I haven't been promoting creationism here on Pharyngula. (The closest thing was saying that I like the documentary "Expelled" which is really only about Intelligent Design..."
Which doesn't make any sense if you change "Intelligent Design" to "creationism" or vice-versa.
In any case, my vote goes to Barb.
Saber (#243):
Hey, I just checked on my Ouija board, and I contacted those very same spirits. They said "Fawn Kom." Now, as we all know, sometimes things in the spirit world get garbled. "Fawn" clearly rhymes with "John," and you can reverse the "m" to a "w," and flip around the "w" and "o" (a very common practice in talking with spirits), which gives you "John Kwo" with a silent Latin "k"--"John Kwok."
Clearly, something is wrong with your Ouija board, or you're not talking to the real spirits of Douglas Adams, Samuel Clemens, and Isaac Asimov.
Went to tomh's link at Panda's thumb. Here are some remarks by Kwok:
Honestly besides (allegedly) going to a good high school I don't think John Kwok has done a thing with his life.
I disagree.As with the Rookie,Walton is young,inexperienced(you know what I mean...),but has shown great improvement and willingness to learn and think over the last year or so,these are not the people I want to see banned here.
My vote for John Kwok,creep extraordinaire,remains.
By any other criterion? Surely you jest with that piddling list. But no matter, it doesn't relieve Kwok of being a kwok.
I know. My dad had two DN ice boats. As soon as the lake ice was thick enough, I'd be out sailing.
We also had an E Scow.
I was sailing, one way or another, most of the year.
Whooooah hold on a sec there #125
.
That's pretty unequivocal. If someone gets a Ph.D in something they don't believe that's fine. It's kind of intellectually dishonest, but there are plenty of professional liars for Jesus. The important thing is, whether or not they can really explain the subject material. The important part isn't the belief, it's just that most people who get a degree don't do so to trash their subject. What a Ph.D shouldn't be allowed to do, is be ignorant because of their (in this case creationist) beliefs. It's a similar case with pharmacists. They can believe that birth control is wrong. What they can't do is be pharmacist, and not fufill the professional duty of one because of their personal beliefs. Don't want to give out birth control? Fine! You can't be a pharmacist though. Don't believe in (say) biology? Fine too. But you can't be a Ph.D who knows nothing about biology. Either know know the subject, or you're not a Ph.D.
Also, PZ didn't ask them to "believe" what they were saying, merely to give a specific type of answer.
THIS, a thousand times over. No running, no hiding, no equivocation. Put up or shut up. I think this is more useful than the "describe evolution in 200 words or less" exclusion test. It requires real thought and is more than simple parroting, and it's tailored to each individual troll.
someone posted another attempt in another thread somewhere. i recall it being pretty bad, but should be disqualified anyways for not following direction, since nobody seemed to have noticed its existence.
Oh, so it's fine for 'Tis to boast that he knew his dad, but as soon as John as much as mentions an old school friend....
As long as Walton doesn't drink, he's fine. He's testing out his philosophy and ideas so while some of it is annoying (He should really get away from the beliefs of Ayn Rand considering how depressed it's making him) I'm with clinteas and will say that he's been willing to engage in discussion and put his beliefs on the line in an open and honest way. All the others just want to evangelise, facilis has his TAG argument and Silver Fox has his notion that all sweet things are just sugar substitutes that don't rival the perfection of pure sugar. AfricanGenesis has the notion that he knows everything and thus all humanity should think like he does or is wilfully ignorant, and Pete Rooke has spent far too long looking at a mutilated Jesus on a cross - any religion that partakes in violent imagery in order to sell belief cannot be good for the mental well being of it's followers.My vote is still for simon, unless he's buggered off already in which case preferences go to that being whose life requires no outside energy source - Barb
Here's some real name dropping.
Unlike John Kwok from Atlas Shrieked, I went to a humble community prep school called Crazy Go Nuts University with the renowned Strongbad.
This is where Jeffrey Dommer worked in the cafeteria for awhile.
The Principal was Charles Bukowski
History was taught by Hunter Thompson, and Bill Ayers
We had a great physics department, but they were hired away by the Pakistanis.
Mathematics, statistics and probability were all the same department run by MIT undergrads who taught us card counting.
Economics, Madoff and Phil Gramm.
Ethics, Ben Stein
Religion, PZ Meyers
GW Bush taught English Class, but he never showed up.
We were especially proud of our hot sexy librarian, fresh out of Sunday school, Sarah Palin.
I'm sure you recognize some of these names, it's too bad, they've all gone downhill since then
My vote: John Kwok
I agree with those that are voting for Barb but, she is brain-washed, when the message from her superiors changes so will she. Not that we should be inclined to suffer her but she is one part of a dieing problem. Not soon enough, I know, but still in a steep decline.
Kwok is something else, he is more dangerous to society generally. Along the same mold that would beget the rove-cheney-bush regime. Not that I think he is any more than a piss ant, I just think that type needs to go.
Tom @ #262
You must be the one working with an inferior board if your communications aren't coming through clearly (mine has a certificate of clairvoyant clarity signed by Silvia Brown). And I just checked with the ghost of John Lennon (another dear departed friend of mine) and he said you were talking to the ghosts of a trio of traveling carnies who were yanking your chain. You should really start checking up on your supernatural sources...
'Tis
Isn't that some kind of Internets Boat?
Kel #271
In Walton's defense, he has specifically and repeatedly denied being an Ayn Rand Objectivist.
I don't really post here that often, but I'll vote for John Kwoks. At least the others offer arguments to refute.
And I'll add my word based on John Kwoks name:
kwoksotic (adj.)
1. being unable to understand advice or criticism; having an inability to listen to others
The kwoksotic general lost the battle after months of unsound decisions.
2. being pretentious without any viable ground for it, yet being pretentious on any ground possible
The 24 year-old living with his mother seemed somewhat kwoksotic in his mentions of all the famous alumni at his former high school.
Maybe so, but he still used that Ayn Rand philosophy of not being of any value to society without contributing because he was studyting instead of working. Nevermind that through an education he'll be of more value in the long term, but point received.
I vote for Simon: he's thoroughly unpleasant mentally and socially.
As for Barb: she's just a punching bag dummy, intelligently designed to hold the verbal throwing knives Janine's armed with.
scooter,
Scows are flat-bottomed boats. E Scows are 29 feet long, 6 foot 9 inch beam (width), and have a draft of 9 inches sitting upright. They don't have a centerboard and rudder, instead they have twin rudders and bilgeboards set almost all the way outboard. That's so when going upwind there's a rudder and bilgeboard in the water. They're massively oversailed (most 28 foot sailboats have a 170 sq ft mainsail, E Scows have 228 sq ft mains. They're the second fastest sailing monohull class, the only monohull class that's faster are the 37 foot long A Scows.
Here's a photo of E Scows going upwind. Unfortunately, I'm too old for that kind of sailing now.
I wonder if all of John Kwok's "friends" spend a lot of their time bragging on the internet about how they went to school with him. What do you think?
I vote for John Kwokjust to see if he can carry out his threat.
'Tis Himself (#232)
Interesting explanation. I wonder how much libertarnianism leads to premature discontent in regards to taxation and distorts the curve.
I'll stick with Simon, since best as I can tell all Simon does is try to annoy. For mine, Simon is a true internet troll.
The others? Well, at least have a view they're trying to express, rather than post purely for thread disruption.
Barb is annoying, but she's basically a drive-by and provides target practice for novice bashers. I do consider her a homophobic godbot, and an utter hypocrite.
John Kwok is just pathetic; also, whatever he's posted on other forums, the posts of his I've seen here are mere inconsequential clutter I can easily scroll past.
Facilis is just facile.
Alan Clarke is a run-of-the-mill godbot, but at least he has an agenda, stupid as it may be. The slabs of Babble copy-paste are annoying, I must say.
Pete Rooke tries to defend Catholicism, but just makes it look bad. So he's useful there.
RogerS is kind of a Barb-lite.
I'd vote for Barb. She's just tiresome and annoying. At least Kwok is amusing with his Facebook threat. Does this mean some nerds will not link to PZ now? Oh, Noes!
Maybe he'll get really creative for the next round.
Since I only went to high school with the #2 in the Heaven's Gate cult, the nurse who operated on the males to make them, um, former males,
I vote for Kwok.
Saber (#274):
Yeah, just as I thought, you're working with a cheap Chinese knock-off; the real ones spell Sylvia Browne's name correctly, but even those can't be properly operated unless you have three-inch fingernails. Finicky devices, the Sylvia Browne models. They may give the illusion of clarity, but any Ouijologist can tell you that particularly clear messages are often the result of trickster demons and other entities that are closer to the living planes. Good Ouija Boards are warded to guard against malicious spirit interference, which means that the message is often more garbled, but also more genuine.
Me, I've got a top-of-the-line Official John Edward "Crossing Over" Platinum Universal Edition Ouija Board, which is certified by the American Ouijology Conference as their top-of-the-line best. I know that's tough to hear, but it just goes to show that quality really is key.
If it's any consolation, John Lennon really does vote for Barb.
Still picking Barb.
Michael Heath:
Wasn't he suspected of reviewing a Dembski book without reading it? (Not just by the ID crowd, but by many over at Panda's Thumb as well) Perhaps not the most effective ambassador against dishonesty.
Anyway, the suggestion is just to ban him on Pharyngula, he is free to continue his activities elsewhere...
Name dropping. Hmmmm.....
My son went to the same High School as Brad Pitt. Okay, not at the same time, but still. Oh, and a good friend of mine knows Mercedes Lackey. My best friend is related to Mark Twain. And I used to know a guy who claimed to be a cousin of the Bee Gees (no documentation, though).
That's all I got. Clearly I can't compete.
Still voting for against John Kwok for the dungeon. See comments 36 and 58 for reasons. I think he's genuinely insane -- genuinely incapable of not dropping names --, so we can't get him to stop except by throwing him off altogether.
...and... ...and... ...and... I wrote all this before having read comment 115 = 118. Oh man. :-o
BTW, Leigh Williams for Molly. See comment 30.
----------------
Comment 853 from last time:
No, Silver Fox, that's not how science works.
Unfortunately, there's not a single thinker on your list.
I do agree, though, that it would be a lot of fun (for everyone but them) to have some or even all of these people commenting here. As has been mentioned, Theodore "self-proclaimed Voice of God" Beale has visited several times, and got torn to small pieces each time.
----------------
Read the challenge again: they're supposed to explain how evolutionary biologists answer the question of why there are still monkeys. The challenge doesn't even ask what they themselves believe.
That you even considered this non-possibility speaks volumes about your insanity, your detachment from reality. See comment 158.
Who the fuck cares!
Insane.
:-| I'm aware that I'm commenting here under my real name, but at the same time I have enough Asperger's to have trouble at anticipating all consequences of what I'm saying.
Errrrrrrrrrrr... I... if I'm already at revealing personal details here... I'm not a dog person. I personally believe that puts me completely out of the question.
(And fanfic is ipso facto creepy anyway.)
To the contrary! It has evolved away from that tradition and towards "Dance, trollboy! Dance!".
You see, we feed the trolls. Till they choke, or explode, or something similar.
And how do you find that out? By creeping through teh intart00bz and watching each of the 60,000 commenters for long enough to determine who are "the most fair and open minded people"?
I mean, if I were you, I'd just shut up and sit this out. You're going to be a distant third or fourth, the latter becoming more likely now that more people are aware of simon. Obviously, then, if there's an unfair bias against you, it's not statistically significant, and you can stop worrying about it.
Good night, have sweet dreams!
Priceless.
Ah, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates à-à la lanterne,
Ah, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Les aristocrates, o-on les pendra !
Hey, I can't help it, I'm in Paris here.
Still votin' for that rotten Kwok sucker. If you think he should stay and you haven't read his comments from Amazon above, read them before you solidify your decision.
There are thousands of Barbs in America. Being from the Bible belt, I am already immune to her brand of aggressive stupidity.
Bhoytony:
Why yes, now that you mention it. Daffy Duck said something just today but, the only part I could understand was kwok-kwok, kwokkk, kwok-kwok-kwok.
OK smartarse, so what do you think we should do with the fucking aristos-de-nos-jours? Moan, moan, moan, but when it comes to actually killing people for yourselves, you rationalists do fuck all.
Grrrrrrrrrr!
Troll foie gras sells for hundreds of dollars a pound.
PZ,
Why are you making this voting process so difficult?
Just create an on-line poll. ;)
-OEJ
I haven't been reading the relevant threads, but all this sounds amusing. Can someone please explain to me just what it is John Kwon is guilty of, apart from pompous name-dropping?
One Eyed Jack @296,
Where's the fun in that?
*INCESSANT*, pompous name-dropping. In the face of repeated attempts to persuade him to stop.
I still gotta vote for Rooke(d). There's just something vaguely "secret serial killer" about that boy. I keep expecting to see him in the news, with his neighbors saying "He ways always such a quiet boy".
As post #161 points out, banning trolls is not censorship. People earn the title troll by consistently not contributing to the conversation. If they were able to add something, they wouldn't be called trolls. A large, vibrant group of people freely discussing ideas is exactly the kind of thing that draws troll types. If Barb has a blog, I don't care, and I bet very few others would either. That's why s(he) is here. You aren't allowed to abuse the rules of discussion and remain in it. If trolls understood that, they wouldn't BE trolls
This is an open group. It's religious types who believe words have the magical power to offend all-powerful deities, not the majority of people who come here. And I think most people would more than welcome intelligent, on-topic discussions from believers. It's the entirely stale, ignorant crap that gets you kicked out.
John shows up here to complain about something PZ did or said, or didn't do or didn't say, about his friend Ken Miller, got into a massive argument, was pompous and self-serving, was told to shut the fuck up by PZ twice and still went on..then he appeared in another thread, still the same complaint, same reaction, except people remembered that he'd done the exact same thing on other blogs, told PZ he'd do something or other with famous friends and fellow alumni, been very very creepy all the time, and everyone's got so pissed off that they've all told him to fuck off.
Something like that.
I still vote Barb, because she's so wantonly, ecstatically cruel.
But Pete is a close second.
Kwok I would keep, just because I find the pompous funny.
Walton is ok; he does try to engage a lot of the arguments people put up to him, which makes him not a troll in my book.
LOL!
Or, rather, not. I was brushing my teeth at the time, managed to laugh through my nose only, and then narrowly avoided swallowing toothpaste...
Exactly.
"When you think, you only think you're thinking!"
Silver Fox
...since I have a feeling that (s)he'll be the obligatory-last-minute-super-surprise-twist-addition. I was really pulling for Facilis, though, goddamnit.
----------
BTW, good vote-counting suggestion from TheBlackCat back up at #13 (though I didn't strictly adhere to it).
It gives one pause to think that its come to this.
Reality TV was never a good idea for Americans. It brings out the worst in us.
that being said....
Barbarella, Queen of the Ignorant, Baroness of Bullshit and Princess of all that is Rancid, must be sacrificed on the alter of reason. Prepare the urine soaked feces!!!
bonez, if you can explain in words a human can understand, how do you do the flashing facilis thingy? (Though personally I feel it is a little meretricious for an austerely intellectual site like this)
I was just wondering, because it's very pretty.
I still vote to expunge Kwok. His witless self-aggrandizing comments are too much to endure.
AnthonyK,
The offensive section in question (tailored to its namesake) was done with CSS code applied to a span tag. Highlight my post, right click on it, click "View Selestion Source" (if using a real browser) to see exactly how it's coded. Most of the effects can be done with HTML, though; and the CSS can be applied to other tags, such as p or blockquote.
Please, oh, pretty please, no flash.
Test if class tags are now suddenly allowed.
-----------------
Oh, I'm very much in favor of public tarting.
TORTE STATT WORTE
Hmmmmmmmm. <stroking inexistent beard> Next time I go to the supermarket -- this being, as mentioned, Paris --, I'll read the fine print and see where all that foie gras really comes from. Sounds like you've been running a business for years.
d'oh, ...*Selection*...
Evolving Squid @ 160
You could totally put that on a t-shirt.
Or maybe in a Dominos ad.
Nay, David, I've already tried the class=creationist stuff. It would be nice, though.
I tried to be polite, I tried to be tolerant. But despite the best of my efforts, I cannot reason with you, PZ. It is time for the gloves to come off.
Do you have any idea just who the fuck you are dealing with? Are you so obtuse as to fail to understand that my connections are people in the highest of places? Can you not see when you are in over your head?
I just have to make one phone call - one phone call - and you PZ, along with all your rabble, will be thrown directly in jail. Please don't make me do this.
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
[No, this is not John Kwok. Don't do this -- spoofing someone else's name will get you banned. --pzm]
My vote this round goes to Barb for being a hate-filled, bigoted homophobe of little/no redeeming value, although the intensive lobbying done today by our name-dropping, malignant narcissist, Stuy Class of ’78 contender, John "I Like to Squawk" Kwok, almost swayed my vote in his favor. Unfortunately, I tend to pity those near age 50 who feel they must cite their high school from ~30 years ago to give themselves the semblance of credibility today. It isn't who you know or where you learned it, John; it's what you know and how well you can defend it. Narcissistic tendencies and hollow Facebook threats aside, Kwok doesn’t make the first cut.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I point and laugh at you, pathetic little man. Is your penis so tiny that you absolutely must make impotent little threats? Oh! Is the key word "impotent"?
Ooh! Have we hit a nerve? Impotent AND undersized?
Sad. Pathetic. Kwok.
That's not our John. He'd get a friend to make that call for him.
"John Kwok" #314 wrote:
something the real John Kwok probably did not write.
Please don't post things under other people's nicks. Bad form.
Facebook threat didn't work. Now moving on to next empty threat....
John Kwok (#314):
Oh noes!!!!1!! We're all gunna go 2 Gwantawnamoe!
Or maybe he's just going to make a "If 20,000 people join, PZ Myers will go to jail" group on Facebook.
There's no way this guy can be serious, right?
W-wait a minute...
John Kowk is sounding a bit like John_Howard (aka Jonny-Boy).
Oh noes, the World Internet Police are only a phone call away!
It's him. I promise.
Interesting -- consecutive "oh noes" at 321 posts.
/paying attention only to the hits...
Just to further the case against John Kwok here is what he wrote regarding his stalking of Abbie Smith:
Also on that that thread E.V. provided this useful piece of information:
Damn. Another nasal lavage and aspiration of Diet Coke. I should know better than to drink and read Pharyngula at the same time.
Wow. The best response you can come up with is a hollow threat? Stuy failed you, man.
Ok folks, whoever wrote #314 clearly was not John Kowk so no need to rag on him for what he didn't write. You'll just have to rag on him for all that other rubbish he's written. And to the true author of #314 - That was an excellent and funny impression. Thumbs up! =)
I'm with Sastra. IP check on #314, please.
Okay... That's funny, but that's cheating. So someone really wants Kwok to win this one, right?
Well, nice try, but I'm still voting for Rooke.
Also, the 'I'm one of the Illuminati' schtick is cute, but it's getting old*. Get a new routine... Possibly one with lesbians. Those are good. We like those.
Wait... Better... With iceboating lesbians. That would be teh hawesome:
Damn. That sings.
*Okay, so no it's not, and honestly, reading #314, I just spit a mouthful of Bushmills all over my cat. But then, I may or may not also have some money on this thing now, and this sort of tomfoolery is not helping my odds... Anyway, what's it to anyone?
Knockgoats @253, point 3: The "libertarians'" most favoured economic guru appears to be von Mises, who explicitly rejected the use of empirical, historical evidence to test his ideas.
OK, quite a fair criticism. If you're right, then it's absolutely ridiculous. I'll look into it, and one or two of your other points, immediately. (The rest will have to wait 'cause I'm in the middle of a big apartment spring cleaning.) Thank you.
David, there is a serious flaw in one of your postings.
I do not personally believe in your inexistent beard. Worse, you, even with your learning, could not ever demonstrate a proof that it exists - or the contrary.
The whole statement is empty and absurd.
In consequence I shall view all your posts from now on with the utmost suspicion.
Another of Goedel's sad, scientific victims.
Though it has to be said, most of the stuff you post is pretty good.
And bonez thank you. I almost speak that language
#314 is Kwok. That's my Criterion of Kwokness: If it's so insane that you think it's a sockpuppet, then it's really Kwok.
I vote for John Kwok.
When I first started reading John Kwok's name-dropping, I immediately thought of a long-time acquaintance who is also a habitual name dropper, so much so that I've been tempted to ask him, "Do you know everyone who has ever had his name mentioned in the NY Times?"
A further coincidence: Many of the names this guy drops are teachers and students from his "famous" and "very prestigious" high school.
Then Kwok mentioned Holder went to his high school. My jaw dropped. My acquaintance, who I am sure is not John Kwok (my acquaintance is a huge Obama supporter, for one thing) also had mentioned to me that he went to high school with Holder.
So, wow, two people with the same irritating name-dropping habit went to the same high school. Weird. Maybe there's something strange in the drinking water there.
Now that I think about it, this is looking less and less like mere coincidence to me.
In fact, the probability of two students from the same high school having the same name-dropping obsession would seem to be so infinitely small that I am forced to believe that some kind of not-so-Intelligent Designer must have been involved.
ZOMG THATS THE REAL FRANK MCCOURT I JUST KNOW IT!!!1!
Frank McCourt, sir, tell us - was John the reason you had to cheer yourself up by writing Angela's Ashes?
Wow. Frank McCourt for the win. (Ha!) Seriously, though, I just read through the NPR "This I Believe" thread...Good Grief.
John Kwok suggested that I vote for John Kwok.
Get me the President on the phone.
Stop it. Just stop it.
It's not like John can speak up for himself.
'Kay. The cat is really pissed at me now.
Yeah, John is doing a good job fucking up all on his own.
Sastra #318
You're right.
AnthonyK #317
For that reason.
My vote has to go to Barb. Every time I read one of her posts, I imagine her sitting at her computer wearing the sort of serene, beatific countenance that can only come with the immeasurable comfort she draws from the mindless, implacable hatred that seems to sustain her in the manner oxygen sustains the rest of us. Frankly, people like her terrify me in a way that the other candidates don't have a hope of matching.
If anyone else here has the same problem, thinking about lesbians for 15 minutes or so seems to do wonders.
Two observations:
1. Comparing Walton and Africangenesis is painful and unfair. Walton shows flashes of insight and humanity every know and then. Africangenesis is a fucking brick, like SilverFox.
2. If nothing else, these threads have caused an absolutely astonishing amount of former lurkers to come out of the woodwork, and to a one I am impressed. For every smart, insightful regulars, and even for every jackass like myself, it seems there are oodles of smart, insightful wallflowers.
If I were a troll, that would scare me witless. So those of them persist, they are truly persistent and fearless.
Or complete morons. Take your pick.
lol. this completely misses the point of a blog-reality-TV-spinoff. it's supposed to be cruel, fun, and increase viewerreadership, not be fair.
John Kwok.
Some people's parody detectors need some fine tuning.
I think we need runoff voting.
My order of candidates would look like this:
1. Barb (tiresome twit)
2. John Kwok
3. Simple Simon
4. Pete Rooke
5. Alan Cluck or whatever his name is.
6. RogerSHimself.
Alas, Silver Fox, he of the tiny brain and tinier character, isn't on the list. He'd be a very strong contender for #1 for thinking somehow that assertion=evidence and/or argument.
It doesn't you mendacious little fucktard.
My day isn't complete without calling SF that at least once.
Sastra #318
You're right.
AnthonyK #317
For that reason.
My vote has to go to Barb. Every time I read one of her posts, I imagine her sitting at her computer wearing the sort of serene, beatific countenance that can only come with the immeasurable comfort she draws from the mindless, implacable hatred that seems to sustain her in the manner oxygen sustains the rest of us. Frankly, people like her terrify me in a way that the other candidates don't have a hope of matching.
If anyone else here has the same problem, thinking about lesbians for 15 minutes or so seems to do wonders.
Losing... coherence... must go to bed.
OK, I'll bring an end to these amusing little whodunit shenanigans. I'm responsible for the last two comments posted under the name John Kwok. Just trying to stir the pot. :-)
If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.
In my comforting illusion, John Kwok is banned from Pharyngula. He used to knock me off the slide when we were in daycare together.
Barb doesn't terrify me, but she does baffle me. How she can be so unable or unwilling to listen to anything but the Bible, and deny everything that threatens the false reality she has constructed from it. It's just utterly baffling, there's no better word for it.
I guess that's the sign of a True Believer, and while they don't terrify me individually, as a group, they can be very frightening. Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers...
(In best Homer Simpson voice:) Mmmm.... Lesbians.....
#348
Sorry, there seems to be an echo in here.
If you close your eyes, and say "lesbians" slowly, three times....they will come....
They won't have sex with you, though.
She's the Dolores Umbridge of Pharyngula.
I think with the 1000 comments from the previous post and the 350+ from this one PZ is going to have enough problems tallying everyone's vote. I don't think we need to give him six times more work.
Perhaps we could simplify things by having everyone put in bold who they vote for i.e, I vote for ......
Or maybe have two threads, one where people only vote and another where they comment. Having an sort of online poll however is just asking for it.
Well, it's PZ's fault for setting up a great blog in the first place.
In a rare fit of tolerance, I vote for allowing everyone on. I only read what I want to anyway.
Vote 1: Barb the hate-filled bag of hate
Vote 2: Simon the faecophile
John Kwok might have a use. If we could harness delusional self-aggrandizement as an energy source we'd be able to run the planet off him.
Kwok...
because of my carnal relationship with a Nobel nominee and my Erdos number of 2.
What if you turn yourself into Mary Poppins afterwards?
What's all the fuss about? Don't let the trolls and posers and the losers and whiners and godbots get your goat. (Sacrificial or otherwise..)
Reason will always triumph. Calm and confidence will always win the day. Don't be a minion, be a master, be a mensch.
Take some joy, give some joy. Be the joy.
If your not having fun, your doing it wrong!
Koans for everyone! Better than tranquilizers!
End of PSA.
Tax Religion. Killfile is your friend. The DFH were right.
Tark
@AnthonyK [#330],
˙ɯǝןqoɹd ou
----------
@Feynmaniac [#356],
TheBlackCat had a simple solution to the vote-counting problem way back at comment #13.
Snort. Snort. Giggle. Ha ha. Ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now, THAT'S comedy, dammit!
AnthonyK #354
If you close your eyes, and say "lesbians" slowly, three times....they will come....
They won't have sex with you, though.
Pah. Having made them come, you'd think it's the least they could do...
Aha! So THIS is why the Intertubes have slowed down. Excellent contest.
The real reason, of course, is because the monkeys did not get the memo.
I stand by my vote to ban barb. It's been decades since I indulged in my polymorphous perversity, but barb makes me want to have public gay sex just to piss her off.
I am both astonished that facilis managed to ace the immunity challenge, and reluctantly impressed.
As for John Kwok, there is time yet for his banninating, leaving more time for both atomic situps, and a blanket party in his honor (first links on google explain readily enough), and yet he still wouldn't be able to take a hint. Whoever it was upthread who coined kwokking as the opposite of grokking, is responsible for a meme that must never be allowed to retire.
As for the rest of the reprehensible louts, how long they wish to be mice, toyed with by such a herd of cats, is, with these immunity challenges so kindly and creatively offered by our host, up to them.
Two minutes gone and I can't even muster a proper hate.
#357
That is so true. Hundreds of people commenting on all sorts of topics? You can't buy higher quality troll bait. I mean, trolls can only have so much fun smearing shit on their own walls.
I vote for John Kwok.
His itinerant name dropping reminds me of a story that I heard in my prestigious high school (as related to me by my famous professor and fabulist which shall remain nameless) which involved itinerant name droppers alienating the people that they were committing their itinerant name dropping against. Being lead in such a way by my famous professor and fabulist which shall remain nameless, I don't see how I can't vote for anyone other than the itinerant name dropper John Kwok.
Lest a copy error survive another generation...
The "background-position: center top" property in my blinking Facilis contained an error. Only top was required; and center wasn't expressed b/c top was the dominant attribute.
/(an attempt at) bio-tech humor
"How she can be so unable or unwilling to listen to anything but the Bible, and deny everything that threatens the false reality she has constructed from it."
The other day I was trying to pull out some very persistent weedy vines from my yard. They have grown there for many years, and they're starting to kill off my the irises (which have survived for three or so generations now). I lost my patience with just cutting the vines and started pulling at them. I wound them around my wrists and untangled many feet from the irises and then into the ground. By now the vines were really woody and I was using a lot of force, but it had also become gratifying. I pulled vines from deeper and deeper in the dirt, walking along as I pulled. After a while I had covered ten or so feet of walking distance and my arms were heavy and aching. I had a lot of freaking vine wrapped around me. I gave up and ripped what I had out of the ground. It was at least a eight feet from the irises. I had no idea there was that much vine.
Two weeks later my irises were covered in vines again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
That is what Barb reminds me of.
While I find all of the nominees entertaining, all but Barb seem to be basically harmless.
She, however, seems to be truly evil. As a longtime lurker who has only recently started posting, I find her vitriole
emblematic of the classic "right wing" crap that is not only becomming violent, but is somehow condoned and kept quiet by the MSM.
I therefore vote unequivocally for Barb. And hope she has the good sense to bow, say she's sorry, and then quietly commit suicide.
Simon, assuming he hasn't left yet. If he has:
John Kwok, for his deliberate trolling (or Sufficiently Advanced Obtuseness). His brave opposition to the Evil Space Butterflies with their mind control powers does not excuse his recent behavior.
Asherot:
And heliobates replies:
We've had some very inventive and entertaining humor here tonight, but this flash of insight wins the thread, at least for me.
... erm... having read through the linked comments from abb3w @ 120, I can't help but think of one question:
If someone has to be removed from here (and not kept merely for amusement value), then why vote for ONE and not just banhammer ALL of the people responsible for quotes like those?
I mean, seriously. Unless we're doing the equivalent of poking at the animal through the bars to watch its reactions when what we really want is a sane discussion environment, why bother with the voting?
Apologies if this has been answered between posts 120 and 350, I've only gotten so far so fast. Thanks, all.
Not a vote but a suggestion regarding vote tabulation:
1) There are free online poll sites such as http://www.createsites.com/pollsys/index-pollsys.html
2) Using your Mac OS X, ACGI Dispatcher ($15), writing your own applescript and HTML forms, and setting your machine to act as an HTTP server you could design your own polls to your hearts content. I would suggest keeping the data in a SQLite3 database (standard on OS X) or text files if you prefer.
If you enjoy applescripting at all ACGI Dispatcher really opens up what you can do with a website run from your Macintosh. I use it mostly for forms processing and serving dynamic pages, but I have also played around using the speech function to create an rudimentary audio chat application, a Lottery tracker/analyzer for my Dad, and running programs and services remotely.
Please, please vote for John Kwok, so that he'll be stopped from taking our school's name in vain. Oh, God, the horror...
EP@376, I'll take your offer of help as sincere and well-meant, but you've got to be kidding. PZ and cohorts have proven, if nothing else, that online polls exist for no other purpose than to show how easily they can be crashed.
Hey look, it's Tom Foss. Hello, Tom.
Hi to Leigh, too. Long time no see. Still posting over on beliefnet? I never did get to posting my Xeniasaurus thing over there. Maybe tangling with creationis on two sites, when one was already more than enough, slowed me down. Anyway, excellent summary of why Barb should go. If Texas were populated by a majority of people like Leigh, America would be a better country than it is.
Excellent comparison. Holier-than-though hatehive martinet.
Simon is a ventilated sewer.
Still tough to decide who to vote for. They all need their creepy-crawly ideas exposed under a very bright light. Are photons lethal to cockroaches? And yet, if any, or all, were to vanish into the ether tomorrow, none of them would be missed.
Barb. As a lesbian her comment that Janine (or me or any other gay) must have been molested as a child is beyond amusement value. Also, she would do well to realise that a considerably number of dhild molesters (Catholic priests included) identify as heterosexual right-wings.
Wow... just now seeing #374. I think we're on the same page, Leigh. =D
bonez: I LOLed.
Hey Kwok,
Did I tell you (and everyone else) that I TA'd for George Streisinger, and that Stahl got all my fish tanks and my Mom's Eugenics textbook when I finished my degree and went to post-doc? No? Didn't think so. I can't really remember all the places I went to high school, though. A shame, that.
Oh yeah,
Barb again. For all the reasons that matter. Again.
Although I must say that reading a thread made with simon's crap all over it yesterday almost made me change my vote.
Ken Cope #378
True enough. But you could at least limit the poll abuse from script kiddies using a combination of cookies, validation codes, and logging the users IP and email. No system is perfect I know, just spitballing.
As a lurker and occasional poster since around Crackergate, I'm not sure how much of a vote I should get. Although rational responses to the godbots, creotards and their ilk may serve to guide the undecided in the right direction and offer cogent arguments for those wishing help in trouncing the idiots, far too many chunks of threads become repetitions of
—Blah blah blah evilution! blah blah only a theory blahblah you can't prove it
—Response and refutation; facts, definitions, sources....
—Lalala, I'm not LISTening! goddidit, eviloution, I win!
So, yeah, some elimination of electron-torturers would clean up the place. Kwok is a self-inflated, puerile, posturing anal orifice I'd been ignoring till reading some of his appalling posts on Obama. There seemed to be some indication in the the recent freeforml/bacony goodness thread that Pete Rooke might have some possibility of rethinking his worldview; he's young, and anyway his "If gravitational theory is correct why are there clouds" gets him a pass this time for entertainment value and a good laugh.
Barb is unreachable and damn near unbearable; but Simon takes the cake, and my vote this round, for sheer unsavory, squalid, disgusting, unredeemable nastiness.
Voting for Barb again, because I despise that hateful twit.
Also, somewhat off-topic, but what's with the libertarian hate? I myself subscribe to some of the philosophies and I don't think I'm all that unreasonable. :S
what's with the libertarian hate?
I don't have all that much against Republicans who want to get laid and smoke dope and will only ever do so in their dreams, except for when they derail perfectly good threads with gobsmackingly inane arguments that make a DFH like myself consider running out to some Walmart (I'm sure there must be one around here somewhere) to arm myself to the teeth to take out the next FCCing threadjacking Libertard I encounter here on Pharyngula, content with the certainty that they'll have died happily advocating for my right to try to get away with such sociopathic behavior, becoming one of them out there beyond the pale; so I don't.
@Stu [#382],
**fist-pumps and carves another notch in keyboard**
The libertarian hate isn't so much a result of its philosophy (although a lot of people here do not like it) as much as the the derailing of many threads by the Libertarians. Often there were threads that weren't even remotely political and yet we had Libertarians quoting Ron Paul. PZ had an open thread allowing people to talk about any topic except Libertarianism. Can you guess what the Libertarians talked about?
Quite frankly I'm glad there were no Libertarians was on that list. If there were the Libertarians would come together, organize and come to the aid of their brother. The irony of that would be lost on them.
Also, I'm not sure in what way you are using the word. The current US definition is different from the traditional definition of the term. Noam Chomsky discusses it here.
Ah, fuck.
Libertarian derailment in 5,4,3,2....
Oh, I think any such stirrings of proto-solidarity would founder when they realized they couldn't figure out how each one would get reimbursed for doing so.
John "obviously still in high-school" Kwok
Barb is a hateful bi... bigot, but little johnny should really be spending more time pulling his underoos out of his armpits and hitting those books.
Thanks for the responses, Ken and Feynmaniac. I'll take a gander at that link tomorrow when I'm not sloshed.
Sorry, no threadjack intended.
Cath, that is sweet. Really, it is. But don't let other people force into doing what you do not want to do.
You really should ever use a word like glaze again. I know the word was not used, but still...
Go away for a few hour and I find out that lesbians are magical. Simply amazing what one can learn at a science blog.
C'mon Janine,
..these things we hold to be self-evident ...
Tax Religion. Praise the magical vagitarians and pass the bacon-munition.
Tark
I think what the Rookie meant to write was 'I tend to glaze over when reading some of the commentators [sic] posts - because thinking makes my head hurt, facts make baby Jesus cry and none of them write cool necro/sado/masochistic analogies like I do - so I am not in any position to vote.
You really should ever use a word like glaze again. I know the word was not used, but still...
mmmm
glazed donut face...
My girlfriend is giving me strange looks...
umm...
cu all l8tr
Wow @ 397
no position to vote? no problem, I'll hold him down for you if you wanna do a couple of rounds of instant run off on him.
ewwwwww
Hey, Kseniya sweetie, I've been missing you around here! Yes, I'm still a member of the Beliefnet community, but their technical problems for the last few months have been excruciating. I've tried to post, but their evil servers have eaten my words of wisdom and shat them out into the bit bucket. I read when the response time is not greater than 10 seconds . . . it's like being on dialup again.
It's a banner night for me. I've seen Kseniya, laughed my ass off, offered to Poe Barb, been mentioned by David Marjanović, and posted an opus on the "Fertilized Egg" thread (check it out, post 322).
I'm now going to mix a celebratory martini and retire to the Jacuzzi for a while. Mañana, my dears!
In light of recent events on the "fertilized egg" thread,I will change my vote to Simon.
Clearly insane,and has nothing to add whatsoever.
Simon it is.
Oh,
and Leigh Williams,
you are teh awesom !
Please vote for John Kwok!
I am so sick and tired of being referred to as "the wife of my famous high school's famous teacher", I'm Mrs. McCourt, Dammit!
For goodness sake John, high school was 30 years ago, it's time to grow up and let go.
Isn't that how the UN was formed?
I vote Barb. John Kwok is a pretentious git, no doubt, but he can at least spell and doesn't seem completely deranged in his prejudices.
I think we broke SB again lol.....
dev.scienceblos.com is not responding.
Still voting for Simon... too boring
i'm a long-time lurker, but this is only like my third post.
i vote for john kwok. barb is at least kind of entertaining, but i couldn't cringe harder when i read kwok's comments.
Still Barb for me.
OT, looks like the religious are scared of death and will try to avoid it as much as possible:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm
I vote for (or rather against) Barb too.
And I'd like to try my hand at the fateful question !
Why are there still monkeys? Well, monkeys keep evolving into humans, of course. But on the other hand, the lowest grade of humans (known as "creationists") keep climbing down the ladder and reversing into monkeys, although the difference is not very easy to spot. S the stock is always replenished.
(Hey, I'm joking, ok?)
Can we make a new rule for Day Three where Simple Simon the Subliterate Six-year-old Scatophile isn't allowed to post anywhere except for the Survivor: Pharyngula! threads for the remainder of the contest?
His allotted 2 hours of daily Intertubes time is really growing tedious, and he appears to be getting better at typing from within his straitjacket.
Once upon a time, there were no humans, and the most advanced of all species were monkeys. During this era, Pat Robertson's best friend in high school was some guy who ended up dropping out and becoming a milkman. Apparently said milkman was once making a delivery to Ken Ham's youthful looking great-grandmother, who, sadly, was slowly passing away. However, the milkman came to the rescue, and an embryo resulted from this Holy Union (and a surrogate pregnancy) resulted in the first human being. Today, while human beings still exist, natural selection disfavors them, due to their relative mental unfitness, and monkeys are now making a strong comeback.
Kel regarding your #271, Walton has stated he is not a fan of Ayn Rand. He still has what I consider nutbag libertarian stroke fantasies, but it is worth correcting the point.
Vote is still for Barb. The sheer mean spiritedness of that person is grounds for removal. Even if killfiled, Barb's posts leave enormous ripples that trash whole threads and leave their stain behind, like a bathtub ring after a leper has bathed.
Kwok, well, I have learned to despise him, but he is easy to killfile and easy to ignore the follow up posts about him. However, I find his delusions of adequacy mildly entertaining. What had troubled me about him are political thoughts, including apparent acquiescence to threats of violence against our current President, to which other posters have recently drawn my attention. I have not read his posts on those subjects fully, yet, so I may be overstating the case.
So - BARB (flush)
Ciao y'all
"...those actions are DEEPLY unnatural. Human anatomy dictates that the penis fits inside the vagina. NO other orifices evolved for this purpose"
I beg to differ: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b1e50c566e/further-proof-that-god-crea…
I've been reading this blog and the comments for about half a year now and learned a lot, especially from the trolls, because I never ever believed real(?) people could actually be that stupid or mean.
Anyway, too much is too much: Barb must go!
I'm a long-time lurker and first time poster, but I'll add my two cents anyway.
For a long time I couldn't decide who to nominate, Barb, Simon or John.
But I always come to the same conclusion, it has to be Barb. I can't stand homophobia and the way she attacked Janine was simply evil.
John is irritating with his name-dropping and self-importance, but he's also very pathetic and can sometimes be entertaining. He's a very close second to Barb though and I'll vote for him in the next round.
Simon's comments are stupid, but thankfully short and can be ignored. He usually doesn't have anything else to say than remind us again and again how fixated he is on feces. His abortion remarks in the butterfly thread almost made me change my mind though. He's just sick and disturbed.
I really love that lurkers are singing up right now in these threads to condemn the trolls and fundies that plague this dear blog. Welcome all you shadowy characters, it's always good to see a perspective on this blog not tainted by personal involvement.
I vote for John, but only because Barb is a goldmine for those brave patriots over at FSTDT.net
And amen !
@416: Oh snap!
Katrina @80
"Homemade limoncello"
Oh you just can't come on pharyngula and just say things like this.
Recipe please!
I'm changing my vote from Barb to Kwok.
I wish I could vote for both.
Yet another lurker breaking cover to vote for Kwok.
And BTW - those of us with external sexual organs are peni-tents. At least some mornings.
Speak for yourself you know ! LOL
I was actually being supportive of lurkers. They really should post more.
Agree with Kel,its been nice to see so many lurkers come out of the woodworks in the last few days !
I retract my snap. I read that as sarcasm.
OOOooooooogggg.... It's so hard keeping up with this, yet it is so interesting! I blame the time zones...
I'm having difficulty researching each troll (having enough difficulty keeping up with the hundreds of new comments to search through the old ones!) but have seen the highlights that have been posted.
None of Kwok's posts seem very trollish - they're just boring lists of people he knows with occasional arrogant claims/threats/anecdotes. I prefer my trolls offensive, stupid and stark-raving crazy. For that:
MOLERAT VOTES KWOK!
After all, the ones who deserve to be banned (for being offensive, stupid and stark-raving crazy) will be banned soon enough. Might as well squeeze as much fun as possible out of them, which doesn't seem possible with Kwok.
However, if any can post me to more exciting Kwok posts, I may change - Simon and Barb especially deserve to go, but only after I've gawped for a bit longer.
It's nice to know I have the abilities of sarcasm by accident. When I actually use it, I worry that no-one gets it. Such is poe's law.
Missed day one so here is my chance to get rid of the putrescence that is Barb. Partly for her 'beating heart with no external energy source' stoopidity and partly for her attack on lesbians and equating it with or as a result of paedophilia.
If the vote is split, my second goes to John Kwok. For he has a brain numbing ability that is a wonder to behold and has numbed my brain on far too many of my favoured sites before he started his antics on this one.
This has been hilarious. I think I have to go with Barb as well for her just out and out bigotry.
Oh, and as an MD myself, I should point out that getting an MD means you have to be somewhat clever, decent at interviewing, good at exam-writing. It teaches you how to do your profession and in many respects more resembles a really advanced technical college than an actual science degree.
It certainly doesn't teach you how to think about life, the universe, and everything. Loads of my classmates graduated with their blinkered worldview intact.
And any MD (without a PhD, which incidentally, I don't have) who tries to refute that is either dishonest or deluded.
From Louis, #235
One of the things Dan Savage always says, that I always laugh at, is very often, the kids who fit in well at (high)school never leave. Isn't that kind of sad? Never to develop beyond 18. To know your best years are done before you're 20? Of course I'm sure it's not applicable to all cases, but isn't the "highschool quaterback who stays in the hometown and pumps gas for the rest of his life" something of a cliche in American culture?
---
John Updike's poem, Ex-Basketball Player: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=172264
Hmm. The only moderately famous person I associated with in school was the one that took his biology class hostage after we discussed how to hold a building like our school with only a small squad of troops.
I wish I was making that up.
Vote remains for Barb, but it's ooooh so close to flipping Kwok's way.
As a lurker here, I would post more, but I find I rarely have anything to add to the conversation that someone hasn't already posted. It's just fun to watch.
I'll try to post a bit more. :)
Cosmic Teapot @408
"OT, looks like the religious are scared of death and will try to avoid it as much as possible:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm"
I had a good laugh at that article - I thought the whole point of being religious was to make it into the afterlife as soon as possible. Just shows you when it comes right down to it......
Kel @416 and clinteas @418
I must admit, as a long time lurker, that sometimes I do feel a little intimidated by the regulars here - only because you all are so knowledgable about science. I'm not a scientist and I know not everyone here is one; so I lurk around a few of the blogs on scienceblogs. Especially Pharyngula, this is one place I know I'll learn something and have a really good laugh doing it.
I will try and participate more often though.
Janine, strictly speaking I'm already taken; I have a very nice bloke. But I'm one of the B in the LGBT set and have no problem (other than slight embarrassment at the silliness of it) with a little net flirting for fun, solidarity or mischief. Of course I'm quite certain that you *must* look rather like a combo of Patti Smith, kd Lang and Amanda Palmer :)
After sleeping on it, I'm leaving my vote the same (Pete Rooke). Barb still looks like the bannee to beat, and I'm sure the only way to get her to permanently leave is a plonking. I'm sure Kwok will do something stupid that will get him banned on his own. Simon is a miserable little troll, but will also step over the bounds and get plonked on his own.
We can't get rid of Kwok, he gives us all the excuse to trumpet our pasts. I went to high school with Prince, Oskar Eustis and Lea Thompson's big sister. That gives me props in music, theater and film. Top that!
I had a beer with Iggy Pop, who was at my house, with Link Wray and Robert Gordon.
I discussed short-scale bass guitars with Tina Weymouth and lo and behold, the next time I saw the Talking Heads she was playing a Les Paul bass just like mine!
I live in the house that Andre Cymone grew up in, where Prince would stay when he was on the outs with his mom. We have used the ouija board in his old bedroom, to no effect. I guess they're supposed to be dead or something?
I loaned a beat up flannel shirt to Paul Westerberg before the Replacements' Pacific Coast tour in 1981, when they played Seattle and influenced all the future grunge-rock kids. I take some responsibility for the most heinous fashion statement of the last 30 years, though I still wear a flannel under my leather jacket.
Well, that's all I've got.
I vote for Barb.
Kwok, because he's a birfer and an inveterate liar.
His stupid name-dropping, OTOH, is merely a symptom of pathological insecurity, and wouldn't be reason enough to ban him.
Please do. I think you'll find that the only people who get slapped down here are pompous fuckwits, and deserve it.
Personally, I'm as much interested in peoples' personal experiences as I am in their opniions and I like to read about those.
That, and people who make me laugh. Not mutually exclusive, of course. Oh, and personally, being really really rude to people with a hideous worldview - but perhapps that's just me.
#435:
I read this post and that funky guitar intro to Let's Get It On filled my head for some reason...
and
The same holds for me! I'm also worried about the language. By the time I've put together an English version of my thoughts, someone else has usually posted a reply that's much more to the point and I go - Hey, that's exactly what I wanted to say!
It's fun anyway!
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://www.lyricsdigs.com
De-lurking to come out strong for Kwok. If I could vote for two, the other would be Barb at a close second (she really is vile), but after throwing down the (pathetic and empty) gauntlet with the Facebook-de-friending threat, Kwok must go or he will become (even more) insufferable in the future.
Lurkers: Don't be shy. We were all new here once. I lurked for around two years before jumping in. I'm a science buff and erstwhile physics major, but certainly no scientist. Don't feel compelled to "speak just to hear your own head roar," as a friend of mine would say, but rather than think of your contributions as superfluous or trivial, think of them as contributions to memetic diversity. ;-)
Kwokness: My non-claims to non-fame are that one of my best friends is a successful novelist, I once ran into Paul Newman at Oscar's Deli in Westport, CT (no, I didn't put my ice cream cone in my handbag - I'm a guy!) I grew up with a girl who was in Animal House, Keith Richards bought a house on the street I grew up on, and I once shook Mitt Romney's hand. (Sure, I'd like to have that one back, but it would have been egregiously rude to refuse. Heh heh.)
Kel@424 and others:
Thanks, I'll try. I agree with the other lurkers though. I love reading the comments, but often I'm not sure I have something worthwile to contribute.
Or it takes me too long to write something due to limited time and translation/language difficulties, and then someone else has already written it much better than I ever could.
I don't really feel intimidated by the regulars because I know my limitations and not being a scientist, it's only logical that they know a lot more about evolution than I do. But as a librarian at a scientific library I know where to look for information and I have easy access to it.
All in all, I love it here! It's very educational and "enlightening".
Nah mate,we dont bite,some of us are more knowledgeable than others,there is a lot of very clever people on here,and you can learn something every day.
But no reason to feel intimidated at all.
Watchman:
I keep picturing that handshake like the one David Carradine intended at the end of Death Race 2000.
I'm sorry, I thought I'd given it on the first recipe thread. The more recent one got too long before I could post and, well . . .BACON!
Neapolitan Limoncello
You need:
2 liters of grain alcohol. The higher the proof, the better. If you can't get straight grain alcohol, like most places in the U.S., then use the highest proof vodka you can find. Here in Italy, the stuff I use is over 190-proof.
About 10 -15 medium-large lemons. The thicker skinned, the better.
2 liters of water
1.5 kg of sugar
Scrub the lemons thoroughly with a brush and clear water, then use a vegetable peeler to remove the lemon's zest, avoiding the white pith. You really, really want to avoid the pith, as it will make your limoncello bitter. Place the peels in a glass container that will hold more than 2 liters. I have a Mason-style jar that holds a gallon which I use for this process.
Add the alcohol to the peels, cover, and leave on the counter for a while (nice and precise). The length of time will vary depending on the potency of the alcohol. The higher the proof, the less time you need. You need to give the alcohol enough time to thoroughly extract all the lemon oil from the peels. Eventually, you will have a lovely golden liquid and bleached white peels.
Heat the water in a non-reactive pan (or stock pot) that will hold at least 5 liters. Stir in the sugar until dissolved. There is some debate whether or not to bring to a boil. I do, some purists say it isn't necessary. What is vital is to be sure that the sugar syrup has cooled to room temperature before going to the next step.
When the sugar syrup has reached room temperature, pour the lemon extract into the pot. Cover and let sit overnight.
The next day, strain the contents of your pot into sealable glass containers. Mason jars work well for this. If I'm being particular, I'll use coffee filters. This takes nearly forever. A wire sieve is good enough.
Store your jars in the freezer, and serve your elixir very cold. Enjoy!
Welcome lurkers. I have to admit it took a bit of bravery to make my first post after lurking for a couple of months. Not everyone here is a scientist (which is good), but after being around for a while you pick up the basics of how science is done. Add what you can where you can. For example, are you an expert or lover of music? Wait until Janine of many names links up some videos. Respond with those you like. We've had threads on politics, movies, ethics, food, and the topics wander like crazy in mid thread. Contribute where you can, and don't worry about saying something on every thread.
clinteas@447
Thank you.
"Nah mate,we dont bite,"
ummm, not that I would mind - I have a weakness for Australians. *blush*
oops, hope a little flirting is not seen as being to forward/familiar?
Flirting is encouraged. As for wondering threads topic, I know it was an open thread but...bacon? Strange and interesting things can happen.
Whew! Now I remember why I hate doing html. Trying to figure out what tags this blog will and won't allow nearly caused me to give up in frustration.
As a (mostly) lurker, I'm glad to see I'm in good company. My degrees are nearly as far from science as you can get, but I've always enjoyed it. I came for the science and stayed for the fun!
Oh no... I'm leaving work now - next time I'm online I'm guessing there'll be at least 800 posts here. Damn.
Lurkers, unite! Venture forth! I'm trying to comment more often, because I like the community here, but I'm a bit scared of doing it on my own...
That makes you a self-confessed troll. Have a look at the High Crimes and Misdemeanors list on the dungeon door.
I note the notorious name dropper Mr Kwok attended Stuyvesant High School and Brown University.
He is currently employed at City College New York. The 2008 America's Best Colleges ranked by Forbes.com placed City College at a lowly 355. I think Ken Miller should be told.
Hmmm, I guess I'm with you... until it gets really dangerous at least. I might run away as I have done before when I see people embarrassing themselves with "logical" arguments.
Hmmm, I guess I'm with you... until it gets really dangerous at least. I might run away as I have done before when I see people embarrassing themselves with "logical" arguments. I'm a bit sensitive there. But then I always came back to see that they got what they deserved.
I'm glad Facilis has been given a chance. Don't forget, I was a Christian apologist when I first began commenting here, but have now changed my perspective. He seems like a bright guy, and I think he's learning and expanding his horizons just as I did; I have no idea what conclusions he will eventually come to, but it's a worthwhile process and I think it would be a huge mistake to axe him.
Barb, on the other hand, seems like she may have some mental health issues (this isn't an attack, since I have such issues myself); even if not, she certainly doesn't seem interested in productive debate, and doesn't appear to be benefiting from her time here. If she does have mental and emotional issues, the vicious abuse she's receiving here certainly isn't going to help the situation. For her own good, therefore, I would therefore suggest that, if anyone is to be banned, it should be her.
I don't see what's so wrong with John Kwok - I haven't seen many of his posts, but most of what I have seen has been relatively sensible and measured. Yes, he's a little pompous, but the same could be (and is) said about me.
I vote Kwok gets the boot. Many have cited his threat to, (presumably), kill off everyone on PZ's Facebook friend list, like some sort of creationist Freddy Krueger. I don't vote him down for the threat itself, but because the threat is so sad and nonsensical and desperate that I simply pity the guy. I would hope that if I sank to the same level someone would have the decency to put me out of my misery.
I will also second my fellow-lurker Kaessa's comment that I often find that any comment I might contribute has already been said, and generally said better than I would have.
Yet another seasoned and dedicated lurker, voting for Barb. But reluctantly, because I have to work with people like her every day, who freely and without fear of contradiction, much less recrimination, spout the same exact stuff. No way can I even politely beg to differ or question, if I hope to keep my job, but I get a huge boost from reading what people say to Barb and those like her here. I can just see the knowing look of concern and "love" on her face as she consigns people to hell, because I see it on the faces of all those sweet ladies I know every day.
It's FUN to read the comments to her, even though she is no more affected by them than are the people I know who spout the same lines, because they would NEVER find their way to Pharyngula. They are much too busy sending the glurges about Jesus to everyone on their spam list.
But, Barb, okay. I'm sure there will be a replacement soon, anyway.
@ The Wife of John Kwok's Famous Teacher -
If you are whom you claim to be, please identify yourself by your maiden last name and your occupation. And if you are that person, do you know now who Rick Moody is (I only ask because if you are that person, you seemed absolutely clueless when I had mentioned his work.)?
@ those still critical of Ken Miller, I'll only take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
And compare and contrast it with here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers
You should also take a look at Ken's website:
http://www.millerandlevine.com
The fact that Ken is interested in disseminating at no cost all of his material that he's been using to fight Intelligent Design creationists and other creationists should, I hope, register with you. His position is similar to that of the National Center for Science Education, which also posts at its website, extensive resources of a similar nature:
http://www.ncseweb.org
antedritian: Tales like yours make be ever so grateful that I live in Massachusetts. Hang in there.
Nerd of Redhead, OM
I'm more a jack of all trades, master of none, unfortunately.
Janine @452
Great to hear flirting is encouraged! *grin*
All this is starting to remind me of the Two Minutes' Hate. What has Kwok done to deserve this treatment? Sure, name-dropping is highly obnoxious, but come on. There's no need to carry on like this over an annoying quirk. It sounds as if people here are actually jealous. That's right, jealous. Maybe a few of you are feeling bitter because you fear he's better educated than you. How else to explain this sheer volume of hatred?
Actually, forget Nineteen Eighty-Four. The savagery in this thread is such that Lord of the Flies seems more appropriate:
Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Spill her blood!
I vote for removing Barb, who seems like a properly despicable person, judging from what I've seen.
I've lurked through two days' worth of this stuff, so I must cast my vote:
John Kwok
Yes, I hate Barb as much as anybody, but the comment that really got me about Kwok was not the comical Facebook threat, but his name-dropping on the basis of who he receives e-mail from. Guess what? For a year or more before the election, I received one or more e-mails every day from Barack Obama himself. I know it was really him because of the of the return e-address: info AT barackobama DOT com.
Bow down and worship me, John Kwok.
Wow. Kwok's satire/awareness of surroundings filters appear to be worse than mine. That's an achievement.
Another occasional poster/mostly lurker - vote for Barb. But, JK, at 463 - are you seriously asking someone to hand out on a public website the sort of security information you get asked to supply by banks, etc? If the person who posted that really is someone you know out in the real world, do you have that low an opinion of their intelligence that you're expecting an answer?
De-cloaking to vote for Barb.
@ John Kwok # 314 -
Sorry, but that's not a good impression of me IMHO. Ditto for those lurkers who claim to be "Frank McCourt" and his wife.
Since I get a chance to vote, I vote for Barb and Silver Fox
(However, simply for entertainment value, I think that they should stay. In Silver Fox's case, I'll get the chance to serenade him with the Christmas classic "Silver Bells" each time he stops by.).
@ John Kwok # 314 -
Sorry, but that's not a good impression of me IMHO. Ditto for those lurkers who claim to be "Frank McCourt" and his wife.
Since I get a chance to vote, I vote for Barb and Silver Fox
(However, simply for entertainment value, I think that they should stay. In Silver Fox's case, I'll get the chance to serenade him with the Christmas classic "Silver Bells" each time he stops by.).
John Kwok #463 wrote:
I don't get this: as far as I can tell, nobody has been critical of Ken Miller on this thread. And when he has been criticized on Pharyngula, it's not been for his competence, value, person, or ability as a scientific educator and warrior on creationism. We grant all that. It's been a very specific complaint re his position on the relationship between science and religion, or science and God. So you don't need to defend him.
Kwok is hilarious. Why would you want to ban him? Why would you want to be infuriated by his singular name-dropping quirk, when you can be amused by it?
John, tell the truth, now. Did you lose your sense of humor in a tragic irony refinement accident years ago?
Oh John. It's bad enough that you're clueless, but you seem to have missed the entire point of teh interwebs.
I sentence you to two years, less a day, lurking on Slashdot.
@ Sastra # 473 -
I don't agree completely with Ken Miller's views on the relationship between science and GOD. However, I don't go out of my way criticizing it like some on this thread have done, most notably, its moderator.
Erasmus: I'm not in favor of banning Kwok, but if you review the past two Survivor threads you will see that the name-dropping is only the tip of the liceberg.
John Kwok #477 wrote:
Since it's a legitimate issue, nobody needs to go "out of their way" to criticize it -- least of all a blog which regularly deals with the interface between science and religion. I don't think Ken Miller would have written about the topic if he felt it was part of his private life.
Yes, John Kwok, the moderator is so critical that threads like this do not appear.
Now that's our John.
Just to make it clear what he's moaning about, PZ called Ken Miller a creationist. Which, being a theist, he surely is - little point in worshipping a deity if it didn't at the very least create the universe, eh? Ken is most definitely not a Creationist, though.
Do you, gentle reader, understand this?
John doesn't.
So....all this is over that long dead, utterly unimportant spat between two men who may differ, but who are both on the right side in the culture wars.
And John, and his friends, who frankly seem more numerous and well-connected than all the gods in Valhalla, won't let this go.
Fuck knows why, but there you go.
And every comical attempt he makes to bring it all up again gets more votes for him to be kicked off.
Second only to Barb! And he's an evolution supporter!
@ heliobates -
I think it's hilarious that there are lurkers posing as Ken Miller, myself, Frank McCourt and his wife (BTW, I know for a fact that Mrs. McCourt doesn't use that name for her professional work.). In fact, to be perfectly honest, I've been stopping by today just to laugh at all the inane comments about me that have been posted since last night, because they're not only silly, but, in many instances, really reflect more the prejudices of those posting than of yours truly (Nor does it mean that I am a narcissist, eager for the attention. I stopped posting last night hoping you'd forget me, but instead......).
If I can't laugh at myself, especially when I've been silly, then how can I laugh at others?
me2 - Flouncing is also encouraged, along with mincing and strutting.
John,
When I explain to you that the "lurkers posting as..." don't for a second think that anyone will mistake them for the real Frank, Ellen, Noam, Bob, or even John, and that's the point, will you start to understand?
Didn't think so.
Whereas brazen hussying and harloting are discouraged during the first year.
I went to high school with John Kwok. Frankly, I always wished that I could live up to the high standards he set through his insights and actions.
blockquote>Nor does it mean that I am a narcissist, eager for the attention
I would like to draw attention to the fact that I, too. am not a narcissist.
John, please do shut up. Or say something like - "ummm...I guess maybe I am a little pompous...it might be better if I didn't say quite so much..." and fade into the bandwidth for a while.
I wouldn't like to see you banned here, believe it or not - and not just because your weirdly un self-aware posts are so damn funny.
Watchman, why the restrictions? I think both Patricia and I were identified as brazen hussies shortly after delurking.
@ heliobates -
And you've obviously missed the point that I think it's hilarious that there's some lurkers posing as those I've mentioned.
Good Grief! Get a life please. Am posting now since it's lunch time and I have some available time....
Well, I did. But that's because years of watching him post on PT, ERV and Amazon have left my reality testing in shambles. "Did he really just say that? Yes. He really did," was a recurring theme in my head through most of it.
I believe I will need extensive psychiatric treatment, and probably some drugs, to correct this problem.
Me2, just join in where you feel comfortable.
Patricia, you forgot twirling. ;-)
Watchman - Why? Don't you enjoy "watch"ing the younger set brazen a bit? *grin*
We think it's hilarious that you think they're "posing" as the people you've mentioned (mentioned over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over,.....)
Good advice. From which one of your famous friends or school chums did you borrow that? We're all dying to know.
@ Dustin -
So are you enacting a scene from "Watchmen"? Or are you craving for attention? Or both, perhaps?
No, John. It's just that I'm madly in love with you and wish that I could know even half of all of the A-list celebrities, diplomats, secret agents, and Senators you rub elbows with on a daily basis.
Nerd - I'm hogging the twirling to myself. ;)
It's about time for me to go deliver eggs. I'll leave the brass bosoms and magic bracelets on the trebuchet for you Janine.
Isn't this pretty much playing "which mental illness do we like the least?"
My personal least favorite is "sanctimonious concern troll".
@ heliobates -
Maybe you ought to get a life and start now by ignoring me.
Why? Because I am about to name drop now:
I don't think I have ever discussed McCourt with Ken Miller, period. Never had any good reason to.
None of my "famous friends" are as arrogant and conceited as some who've had the gall to criticize me here in this thread. Nor have I seen them act with any semblance of arrogance or conceit. Moreover, they are far more humble than PZ, believe it or not.