Mar
10

Gaywads Want To Persecute Religious People!




Posted at 19:22 by HTML Mencken

That’s the basic gist of the following wingnut conversation, which boils down to, ‘homosexuals are intolerant of religious nuts’ intolerance!’

David Frum Canada starts it off, cites a new British law that requires all adoption agencies, including religious ones, to stop discriminatiing against homosexual couples. The outrage! Even more sickeningly, religious schools may no longer demonise homosexuals. BLARGH!1!!

There is a widespread view that gay liberation is a movement toward greater freedom. Up to a point, that was true. That point, however, is now receding in the background. The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow.

Then, gratutiously, he predicts that the new rules will only apply to virtuous Christian and Jewish bigots, not to the nasty Islamic bigots.


Above: Charles Nelson Reilly, destroyer of religious freedom

Andrew Stuttaford, a libertarian and frequently an adult voice in contrast to the Corner’s playground cacaphony, writes back to the effect that Frum wants to exempt religious bigots from anti-discrimination laws, which will not do in a democracy.

Frum says: ‘Sure, laws must apply equally. And that is…’

…precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

You can’t legislate away the majority’s bigotry! It’s from scripture: no man can take it away from a believer! Incidentally, Frum’s Schmittian reasoning here is identical to that which he used to justify the teaching of ‘intelligent design’:

Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I do believe in evolution.”

What he thinks of intelligent design: “If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that.”

How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. … Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. … I don’t believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle.”

But anyway, Stuttaford’s answer inspires Doughy Pantload to reply in an argumentative clusterfuck of wingnuttery. It’s difficult to parse, but I’ll try.

First Pantload says that what liberals regard as bigotry caused by religion is actually just the natural effect of the ‘social fabric’ that the Founders first weaved. Ok, then forgetting that discrimination is ‘not religiously based,’ he says it is, but that multiculturalism and other liberal movements are religions, too, presumably with their own forms of bigotry. Devious leftists know this, which is why they identify such movements with any word except ‘religious’. He says he’s opposed to Christian efforts at controlling society, but he just doesn’t see this happening much. But on the other hand, he is very tolerant of Christians controlling society at the local level. Thus, Pantload unwittingly reveals what Republicans actually mean by ‘federalism.’ But he is also against secular forces doing the same thing (no caveat here, of course, about ‘local’ efforts). He says that a movement shouldn’t be free to tell people how to live, simply because that movement is not religious. I missed where homosexuals were telling people how to live by demanding to not be discriminated against, but whatever.

Then Pantload strikes the familiar majority/religious notes of self-pity and persecution: Why should Gay Pride Day be allowed but Christian Pride Day be forbidden? Natually, the next step is invoking the Constitution — in favor of bigotry! Pantload insists that the Constitution gives wide latitude to religious freedom, and so it does, but not the freedom to legally nullify the civil rights of others. Simple, right? Not to Pantload.

Nor is it to Cornertard Jack Fowler, whose comments are generally few and brief, what with his other jobs of cleaning cubicles, sweeping Cheetos crumbs, and using a cattle prod on local bovines JPod and K-Lo. Fowler sneers that the filthy liberals can’t take away the Bill of Rights’ language which guarantees the “free exercise…of religion’, so the fags can put that in their pipe and smoke it! The majority is free to perpetuate or even strengthen the structures of institutional bigotry! And if fags don’t like it, well they can repent of their sins and stop being atheisticcommimexifascisthomofagfags!

Moral of the story: these Christians and Jews believe bigotry is an indivisible part of their religion, which says a lot not only about what they think of those against whom they discriminate, but about what they think of religion.

STOP TRYING TO DESTROY RELIGION, FAGG0RTS!!1!!!

570 Comments »

  1. Jillian said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:27

    All those anti-murder laws are illiberally prejudiced against my religion, too.

    God told me I have to put to death women who aren’t virgins when they marry! Why do all these Western liberal democracies hate religion so much?

  2. Marsupial said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:34

    How do they feel about Santeria? That’s a nice Xtian based religion for them. Would they still believe in their total religious freedoms if there were some animal sacrifices going on next door?

  3. Jillian said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:37

    Teh spam is slipping through a bit more than usual lately, it seems.

  4. davis said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:42

    Well, The Emancipation Proclamation contraticted Scripture, too.

  5. klyde said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:45

    In the UK religious schools are funded by the government. They want parliament’s money but not the rules.

  6. RSA said,

    March 10, 2007 at 19:46

    Why should Gay Pride Day be allowed but Christian Pride Day be forbidden?

    Why am I reminded of an adult’s response to a small child? “But Jonah, every day is Children’s Day.”

  7. mikey said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:01

    Now, come on y’all. The constitution expressly guarantees my right to hate select groups of people who are not like me. The founding fathers intended it to be that way. So if any of those groups try to prevent me from exercising my constitutional right to hate and discriminate, those people are simply by definititon anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-AMERICAN. And likely terrorists, too…

    mikey

  8. Otto Man said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:03

    This is just like during the civil rights movement, when segregationists complained that blacks were depriving them of their right to discriminate. They thought they had a right to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods, stores, restaurants, etc. and were incensed that society said they couldn’t do that anymore.

    Nothing like a persecuted majority to make the conservative blood boil.

  9. His Grace said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:04

    Look, it’s a clear cut constitutional principle here: Freedom of religion grants me the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason without challenge. On the other hand it doesn’t grant anybody who disagrees with me the right to express that opinion or immunity from persecution.

    Ok, they’re allowed to have that opinion, but they can’t shout it very loudly. It would offend my sensibilities.

  10. owlbear1 said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:06

    “Thou shalt have no god before me” certainly is a fun and empowering commandment ain’t it?

  11. Snag said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:12

    The thing is, in the Bible, God hates the homos. Pigs too, and seafood if I remember correctly. Jefferson was not a lobsterman. Ergo, Q.E.D., ipso facto, and res ipsa loquitur, it is constitutional to discriminate against gays.

    If you need me, I’ll be writing at the Corner.

  12. bloix said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:26

    He’s precisely right about this. When the government forces people to do things their religion tells them not to do it’s impinging on their religious freedom. Like forcing them to let black people eat at the same lunch counters and go to the same schools as them. Or forcing them to hire women and work alongside them. If my religion says that black people are inferior and women exist to serve their husbands then any rule that makes me treat women and black people as if they were equal to me is illiberal. Isn’t this obvious?

  13. Kathleen said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:32

    Moral of the story: these Christians and Jews believe bigotry is an indivisible part of their religion, which says a lot not only about what they think of those against whom they discriminate, but about what they think of religion.

    word.

  14. Non Nato said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:35

    I like how the founding zombies allowed for total religious freedom (except for the religions of the native americans and slaves from Africa).

  15. fardels bear said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:43

    Wait. Charles Nelson Reilly was gay?

  16. jhe said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:52

    I thought we were calling him SpongeBob Doughpants now. Did I miss a meeting?

  17. J— said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:52

    How do they feel about Santeria?

    You know, one could argue that there are some neighborhoods in Miami and New York where santería is the majority religion, in that a majority of the residents believe in it and practice it to varying degrees. Join Frum’s argument on the religion of the majority and Goldberg’s on the local and you have a formula for putting santero priests in charge of community improvement associations.

  18. nolo said,

    March 10, 2007 at 20:59

    How do they feel about Santeria?

    Oooh — I know the answer to this question!!! They hate it!!! One of my totally favorite U.S. Supreme Court opinions is Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, which aside from having a great name, is all about what happens when an average whitebread city council figures out what those Santerians do in their churches. Heh.

  19. mikey said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:05

    …..and you have a formula for putting santero priests in charge of community improvement associations.

    Now THAT’S a Faith Based Initiative I could get behind. It’d be off-the-charts funny to watch it all unfold…

    mikey

  20. Jillian said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:08

    ahem.

  21. Lesley said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:10

    But Christian Pride is banned. Gay Pride is well-funded.

    It sounds like Doughy is jealous of the support Gay Pride Day has. The parade wouldn’t happen if thousands didn’t participate. Local municipalities provide some funding and permits for Gay Pride Day because the event has enormous support in the larger community to do so. Gay Pride is festive and fun and thousands of people, gay and straight, enjoy it.

    Bite it, Doughy.

    Has anyone even heard of Christian Pride Day? I can’t imagine a more dreary parade, but if one were held and it shut down a few blocks for an afternoon, I doubt anyone who isn’t Christian would give a shit (or attend).

  22. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:15

    Is this close enough, Lesley?

  23. HTML Mencken said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:15

    This was always one of my favorite sites. Fittingly, sadly, it appears to have been euthanised sometime last year.

    It’s too bad; the pictures of their organized protests were hilarious. They used to cook baby dolls on bbq grills and people would dress up as giant penises.

    Good times.

  24. Rugosa said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:16

    So why not Santerian community improvement associations? I presume Santerians also want clean streets with nice flower boxes and a traffic light on that corner where the kids cross to get to school.

  25. Dr. BDH said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:22

    Stuttaford said it best: “… an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.” Pretty much sums up the Corner.

  26. mikey said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:24

    From the Santeria Faith-Based proposal for Federal Grant Money:

    Item 167.e(3): $1200.00 to be used for the purchase and storage of 200 chickens. NOTE: This is a quarterly, recurring cost center in the operational budget.

    mikey

  27. Some Guy said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:29

    It’s a classic religious right maneuver. “Liberals are actually the intolerant ones, because they won’t tolerate us trying to oppress others.”

  28. mikey said,

    March 10, 2007 at 21:36

    Similar construct to the whole “evolution is a religion” stupidity…

    mikey

  29. owlbear1 said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:07

    I think this goes further than just “Evolution as a religion” to “Scientific Method” is no more valid then “Faith”.

    It really always has been.

    Is the universe more completely interpreted via Faith in a plan and Judge?

    Or will the universe be understood through observation, measurement, prediction, and observation?

  30. tb said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:12

    Waitaminit, Charles Nelson Reilly is gay?

  31. Jeopardude said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:22

    Serrated Edge by the Dead Milkmen

    Up on the hilltop where the vultures perch,
    That’s where I’m gonna build my church,
    Ain’t gonna be no priest, ain’t gonna be no boss;
    Just Charles Nelson Riley nailed to a cross.
    I don’t piss, I don’t shit, I’m gettin’ no relief,
    People shake there heads in disbelief.
    GO!
    Just me on a hilltop with 15 girls,
    In a Nelson Riley orgy that’ll make your hair curl.
    I don’t piss, I don’t shit, I’m gettin’ no relief,
    People shake there heads in disbelief.
    Yeah Charles Nelson Riley he’s our man,
    He can’t heal the sick with the touch of his hand,
    He can’t walk on water, can’t make wine flow;
    Just another greedy actor on the late late show!
    I don’t piss, I don’t shit, I’m gettin’ no relief,
    People shake there heads in disbelief.
    GO!
    Just me on a hilltop with 15 girls,
    In a Nelson Riley orgy that’ll make your hair curl.
    I don’t piss, I don’t shit, I’m gettin’ no relief,
    People shake there heads in disbelief.

  32. owlbear1 said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:22

    Waitaminit, Charles Nelson Reilly is gay?

    Trust me. I have it on good authority he is Teh Gay.

  33. elephty said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:26

    No right to discriminate if they receive federal funds. It is this
    and only this that has the religious leaders up in arms, because
    the gravy train they were expecting under faith based initiatives
    will be cut off if and only if they insist on being creeps about their right
    to discriminate against anyone because of race, religion, sex, or age.

    Knowing Bush and gang, they’ll just ignore the troublesome law
    that prevents them from bribing church leaders who teach intolerance.
    Hey, guess what, it is just about all of them. “Whoopee we’re all
    going to die.”

    “Them thar pearly gates will be a swingin’ closed on dem preachers
    who been waitin’ in line with their damn hands out.” Every church has
    a program now, that requires funding. Get if from their congregation
    not from the tax payers who may not share their prejudices and
    superstitions.

    As long as the church is not preaching terrorist thoughts of discrimination, they’ll be able to receive all the federal funds that Georgie porgie can slip in their direction for those religious meetings where they discuss which political party god is behind. Hint: God is especially opposed to religions that use his name to start wars of aggression as well as singling out different individuals as if some swing d**k knows what God feels about each person. Don’t try to hand me some old book with a heroic fantasy, and tell me it’s the word of Yahwey or whoever. I want to meet this guy before I die and start hallucinating that he/she/it is talking to me and me alone.

    Until god speaks to me personally about this matter, I’m not giving one plug nickel that I think might end up in the hands of witch doctors, Eckankar,
    the Moonies, Father James Jones, or any other whack-o-the-week religion, which, of course means that I’m not going to give to any of them.

    I want to know what percent of my salary goes toward discriminating against minorities and individuals so that a church can be as anti-social, and anti-love as it wants to be, but not with my damn money. I’ll deduct the percentage set aside for faith based initiatives, and keep it myself, and with the savings start my own Xtian cult that discriminates against WASPs and Aleister Crowley fans.

  34. Mudge said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:35

    If Charles Nelson Reilly is gay..what does that make Britt?

    The world has gone topsy turvy. Where is the nearest Christian Pride Parade..I need one………..Oh..

    Give me a double Maker’s Mark instead then..

  35. elephty said,

    March 10, 2007 at 22:44

    With a little luck Harrison, Arkansas will have an earthquake
    from March 30th through April 1st 2007. I couldn’t think of
    a better group of people to experience the Revelation prophecy
    first hand. If any of them survive it, they can go on television
    and tell us all about it.

  36. tb said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:04

    Trust me. I have it on good authority he is Teh Gay.

    I can handle that, as long as I’ve still got Paul Lynnde. Good old Paul. I don’t know what I’d do if I found he was you-know-what.

  37. kingubu said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:15

    Rip Taylor. Now there’s a man’s man.

  38. Galactic Dustbin said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:18

    Christian Pride Day

    What? Wait- wait a minute! There are TONS of holidays for the Xtains: Christmas, Easter, ect… and if you are Catholic- man, everyother day was some St.s day, or some event took place some time ago- and when I lived in NYC, the Church down the street was constaintly celibrating something, blocking traffic, wearing fab outfits and marching, other then the tempo of music being slower, it wasnt all that different from a Gay Pride Parade.

    If the Pantload wants to have a Xtain Pride Day, he should find a different chuch, if indeed he goes to one.

  39. TRex said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:25

    STOP TRYING TO DESTROY RELIGION, FAGG0RTS!!1!!!

    Fuck.

    There go my plans for the weekend.

  40. the_millionaire_lebowski said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:32

    What?! You try walking through a mall with a cross around your neck and see how people look at you.

  41. kathleen said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:47

    It always makes me laugh when the Jewish Jonah Goldberg puts himself in the position of defending Christian conservatives. It seems to happen quite a lot. It *almost* makes me feel sorry for him.

    In other news, I used to think Jonah was a very cool name for a baby boy. That was before I knew about blogs. Now it is ruined for me. Thanks a lot internets.

  42. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 10, 2007 at 23:48

    Actually, GB, it’s every day.

  43. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 0:14

    Okay, a small bit of cheerful news from the frontlines of the Great American Homo Wars…..

    A couple of my students came up to me the other day and breathlessly informed me “Miss! Did you know that (one of my male seniors) is going out with (another male student who is a sophomore)”. The consternation on their faces was evident.

    I mentally prepared myself for yet the 637th repetition of the “It’s perfectly okay for students at this school or anywhere else to be gay, and just like I don’t let anyone say bad things about you for being black, I won’t let you say bad things about anyone else for being gay” speech, and began by saying “Yes, I did know they were going out…..”

    Before I could say another word, I got treated to “But Miss! That’s not right! (One boy) is a senior and (the other boy) is a sophomore!”

    Through a supreme effort of will, I kept a straight face, assured them that the boys would find a way to overcome this seemingly insurmountable class difference, closed the door to my classroom, and laughed my ass off for ten minutes.

    Kids these days….I really do love ‘em sometimes.

  44. ifthethunderdontgetya®©³² said,

    March 11, 2007 at 0:22

    Speaking o’ holidays, Proclamation Day was yesterday. Saint Patrick’s Day is next Saturday.

    Slainte!

  45. Matt T. said,

    March 11, 2007 at 0:39

    I think this goes further than just “Evolution as a religion� to “Scientific Method� is no more valid then “Faith�.

    It really always has been.

    It goes further than that. When dealing with issues of faith, reason is totally useless and it’s set up to be that way. I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on the early history of the Christian faith, the turnover from Greek rationalism and Roman social order to burgeoning Christian empire and early Christian church, plus stuff on the early fathers like Augustine and Jerome. I just got through reading Charles Freeman’s excellent The Closing Of The Western Mind, and he says the conflicts between the Apostles and Paul the Persecutor set the stage for early Christians in that authority and orthodoxy trumps all and views the rationalism of Greek philosophy with much suspicion.

    I’m also reading Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt, which explores religious skepticism throughout Western history, and Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers, which concentrates on American free thought, and all three are must reads for those who feel the whole “seperation of church and state” thing has something going for it. Is astounds me sometimes how little, it seems, American Christians know about the history of their faith and just how much politics played in the shaping what we now consider “God’s law”, from eliminating competing heresies for social stability to translation mishaps to just the flat-out lack of communication or cooperation between Rome and Constantinople. It’s illuminating stuff, even to someone who has little more than total disdain for orthodox religion in general and the argument that it’s “always been done this way because that’s what Jesus said”.

    Then I think to myself, ‘If they knew about all this, they may not pay much attention to them preachers anymore” and figure that answers my question.

  46. DeeLuzon said,

    March 11, 2007 at 0:55

    fardels bear said,

    “Wait. Charles Nelson Reilly was gay?”

    i’ll bet he still is (unless he’s spent a couple of weeks at the Ted Haggard Gay Rehab Center).

  47. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 0:58

    I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools

    WTF?? David Frumundacheese thinks 90% of Americans are offended by evolution? How the fuck could anybody make such a statement? 90% of the assholes he associates with maybe. He really is a member of the Taliban. We should just encourage whatever % of the population really thinks this way to form their own Christian madrasas and be fucking done with it already then lobby all the good universities to make a basic understanding of evolution a prerequisite to admission. Let them form their own underclass if they want to.

  48. Random Observer said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:03

    And then after laughing you called the police and had the senior jailed for statutory rape and sodomy.

  49. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:11

    The only problem with that is, Lawnguylander, is that they’ve gone from doing their own homsechooling to running their own college accreditation agencies to chartering their own universities to offering large numbers of internships in Washington, D.C. to those university students.

    They’re creating a shadow version of American society right alongside our regular one, and the two are slowly starting to bleed togther, with disastrous consequences for anyone who likes the old, regular reality.

    Oh, and evolution doesn’t offend 90% of Americans, only about two-thirds of them.

  50. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:13

    Nah, RO – they’re both under eighteen, and they’re both not that type of boy. At least, not as far as I know. And I know the one really well.

  51. Some Guy said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:30

    At least they’re focusing on what really matters in school, Jillian: social hierarchy.

  52. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:33

    I think we’ve all been out of high school for far too long to remember what a big deal it was when a senior dated a sophomore.

    Trust me – it’s a BIG DEAL. The kind of thing that can get you kicked out of somebody’s Top Eight, even.

    Be kind, guys – we were all sixteen and silly once.

  53. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:45

    Ah jeez, major tragic loss. It seems that Brad Delp died yesterday. Man, that dude sang some righteous rocknroll, and for at least 24 hours none of you better say “corporate rock” or we’re gonna go…

    mikey

  54. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 1:59

    I hear ya Jillian but surely there must be some real world consequences that will be specific to the wilfully ignorant. I’d be interested to see the economic demographics behind the real hardcore Christianist movement if such statistics have ever been compiled. Do the economic elites even in red states really want to give their kids educations that are inferior to the education the kids of blue state elites get? Or even the kids of non elite blue staters. A good % of rich kids in the bible belt must already go to private schools and if the Christianists get their way and talibanize the public schools completely then what? I think it was you who posted the links to the articles on the dominionist movement a little while back and I’m beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn’t a plot by The Man to give a certain segment of the population a one way ticket to economic palookaville. It just seems like common sense that if you choose to be ignorant you will eventually be at a disadvantage. If there were a God there would be anyway. And I half feel sorry for those people and half think the dumb fucks deserve what they get. Any of you that have to live side by side with these people have my sympathy.

  55. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:08

    Mikey,

    That is sad. I’ve got nothing bad to say about Boston(the band or the city but fuck the Pats, Bruins and Celtics). I think I got to 3rd base for the first time with them playing in the background so how could I hate on them?

  56. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:09

    I hear ya Jillian but surely there must be some real world consequences that will be specific to the wilfully ignorant.

    Yet another reason I’m an atheist, my dear……if there were a God, there would indeed be such consequences.

    There are two stripes of neocons, as far as I can tell: the Straussian disciples like Bill Kristol, who think that the “little people” need their religion to keep them in line, and that it behooves the proper ruling classes to pretend to a piety they do not feel in order to keep the little people appeased, and the true believers (I’d peg Bush as one, unlikely as it seems – he’s too stupid to be bothered by the hypocrisy necessary for him to hold such a position), who really do believe things like “there’s no need to care about global warming, because God is coming back soon”.

    Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter which they are, as Kurt Vonnegut has already told us – “We must be careful what we pretend to be, for we are what we pretend to be”.

    In the long run, yes, there will be consequences for the huge amount of dumbfuckery that’s taking over our country. We’re going to fall behind in biosciences and technology, and India is going to wipe the globe with us. We’ll end up a second tier, washed up, has-been country – but at least we’ll have Jesus.

    In the short term, it’s actually pretty profitable for them. Christians work for Christian firms, shop at Christian stores, give money to Christian charities, which kick the money back into their communities….they’ve set up a completely separate world inside of ours, and they keep the resources they have within the community.

    If you aren’t scared of the Christian right, you just aren’t paying attention.

  57. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:18

    Jillian, it makes me sad that you haven’t found Jesus. But Jesus is calling you. Can’t you hear Him? Can’t you open your heart?

  58. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:24

    Opening my heart requires, at the least, a scalpel, surgical retractors, and an environment sterile enough to risk breaching the pericardium. I don’t have any of those things, so I suppose that I really can’t open my heart.

    Why? Are you a thoracic surgeon? Are you single? My mom always wanted me to date a doctor…..

  59. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:26

    I heart Jillian.

  60. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:29

    But Jesus is calling you

    Ewwww. I get this mental image of jesus in hunting garb tooting on his “people call” from a tree hide with his shotgun on half-cock…

    mikey

  61. Some Guy said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:40

    Everyone knows Jesus hunts with a full-auto rifle, mikey.

  62. Hysterical Woman said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:41

    Is Jesus calling collect?

  63. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:44

    Of course he is, Hysterical Woman.

    How else do you think Jesus saves?

  64. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:45

    Do the economic elites even in red states really want to give their kids educations that are inferior to the education the kids of blue state elites get?…
    It just seems like common sense that if you choose to be ignorant you will eventually be at a disadvantage.

    You’re sounding a tad naive there, Lawnguylander. The whole point of being an economic elite is that you get to define what constitutes a superior education, and that definition is always going to be “The sort of education my kids are receiving”.

    Look at the British ruling class in the 19th/20th centuries, and their tradition of sending their kids to private schools to learn about Latin, Greek, energetic outdoor sports and buggery. It was not as if an education consisting only of dead languages and the rules of soccer would disqualify them for lucrative careers in the Foreign Office or the City… if anything, it was a requirement.

  65. islmfaoscist said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:47

    the Church down the street was constaintly celibrating something, blocking traffic, wearing fab outfits and marching, other then the tempo of music being slower, it wasnt all that different from a Gay Pride Parade.

    I especially loved the part where all the leetle cheeldren joined in the parade to help to crush the Jew Egg.

  66. atheist said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:49

    But Jesus is calling you

    That one’s bad. What is even worse is:

    “You made the baby Jesus cry.”

    I seriously don’t think I could continue to associate with someone who said that to me.

  67. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 2:51

    I dunno, Some Guy, Fish and Game says full auto is against the rules. Besides, we humans need full auto, or in my case I always loved three-round burst, but if you are the infallible son of god, you’re gonna hit what you’re shooting at every time, aren’t you?

    mikey

  68. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:05

    Of course he is, Hysterical Woman.

    How else do you think Jesus saves?

    Now that is funny! Nice one Jillian. I won’t say anything about the baby Jesus crying, but he does love every one of us, especially you Jillian.

  69. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:06

    Hmm, mikey’s post before mine was at 3:51, while mine was at 3:05.

    Perhaps this is a miracle! LOL.

    Sadly, not.

  70. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:17

    Awww………..if Jesus loves me, tell him my birthday is December 30.

    And I wear a size 10 shoe.

    And I happen to look especially fetching in black leather boots with stiletto heels.

    Then we’ll see how much he really loves me.

  71. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:25

    And I happen to look especially fetching in black leather boots with stiletto heels.
    Don’t we all?

  72. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:36

    I dunno. I have this thing for Machetes, and Bobby the Cat likes the dry food…

    mikey

  73. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:36

    He already knows your birthday, Jillian. I’m sure he’s got stilletos for you in Heaven. Size 10? So you don’t have to wear flippers when you go snorkling, do you? j/k

    So what do you think about Sam Brownback? Worse or better than media darlings Clinton, Guiliani, McCain and Romney? Personally they seem like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to me.

  74. J— said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:39

    Fish and Game says full auto is against the rules.

    Render unto Fish and Game what is Fish and Game’s. Render unto God infinite rounds per minute.

  75. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:42

    What good will stilettos do me in Heaven? Unless God has a shoe fetish that we haven’t heard about before…

    Besides, now Jesus sounds like all the other rotten dates out there. “Sure, I’ll give you what you want – just come home with Me first”. I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night, mister! How naive do you think I am to fall for that line? Why, that’s right up there with “hey, why don’t you come back to my place, and I’ll show you my stereo!”

    Hmph! I think not.

  76. Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:42

    Look at the British ruling class in the 19th/20th centuries, and their tradition of sending their kids to private schools to learn about Latin, Greek, energetic outdoor sports and buggery.

    Damn you, Doktor, I’d just cleaned the tea out of this keyboard…

    It was not as if an education consisting only of dead languages and the rules of soccer would disqualify them for lucrative careers in the Foreign Office or the City… if anything, it was a requirement.

    I note you didn’t mention the buggery.

    /levity

    Alas that the ‘fine education’ these days is not about learning languages, but learning the language: who you know and how you speak, not what you know and what you say. I remember one complete tossbag in my city, almost universally reviled as a member of the neighing upper class and a pretentious arrogant twat with not enough brain cells to stop his earwax sloshing from one side to the other, who walked, strolled, indeed, into a role as a government minister.

    I bet they regret that now, every time they hear the dickhead speak on radio.

  77. Some Guy said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:46

    While I’m sure Jesus Our Lord and Savior, Son of God, is an expert marksman, sometimes you just need that little something extra to take down a blood-lust enraged groundhog.

  78. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:48

    Hey Jillian. I’ve got a pretty amazing stereo. Lots of buttons and LEDs. Just sayin…

    mikey

  79. Zython said,

    March 11, 2007 at 3:59

    But Jesus is calling you. Can’t you hear Him?

    Crap, I should turn my cell phone on then.

  80. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 4:10

    Herr Doktor,

    Do you really think the elites don’t care these days about the practical quality of their kids’ education? Check out what happens in a wealthy school district when the trigonometry or chemistry regents show a drop off year over year. Whatever the relevance of 19th century British education, I’m just saying I don’t see a time coming soon where home schoolin’ and a degree from Bob Jones U. are a new grad’s ticket in to Goldman Sachs, a white shoe law firm or the fast track at any multinational. And in a globalizing economy having xenophobia as part of your core educational philosophy is not advisable either. My point about elites and even those a rung or two below elite status was that anyone who aspires to send their kids to the top levels of Wall St. etc, would likely be wary of undue wingnut influence that would merge the two educatonal worlds as Jillian described. Last night’s subject of mockery aside, I’ve seen more than one or two Ivy league kids getting hired over smarter state school grads based only on the school brand and the family country club(s) that can be name dropped in an interview. Whatever naivete I ever had about that kind of thing is long gone but if a kid gets through a prep/ivy kind of education without actually learning anything practical he could be reciting the Iliad backwards at meetings and it won’t help much in the long run if he’s not productive.

  81. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 4:19

    Lawnguylander, what makes you think those guys want to work for Goldman Sachs?

    They want to work in government. In Congress. In the White House.

    In fact, they already do.

    This shit’s been going on for years. It’s only now becoming noticeable, because the decades of groundwork they’ve done are only now starting to pay off.

  82. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 4:20

    Err, there’s supposed to be a link there.

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:uG7m4ZqO4tUJ:www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050627fa_fact+patrick+henry+university+washington+internship&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

    There. Try that monstrosity.

  83. Priscilla, Queen of the Beach said,

    March 11, 2007 at 5:00

    OH MY! Christian Pride day is EVERY DAY! Today is the Feast of St. Dominic Savio. From his biography:

    Born into a peasant family at Riva, Italy, young Dominic joined St. John Bosco as a student at the Oratory in Turin at the age of 12. He impressed John with his desire to be a priest and to help him in his work with neglected boys. A peacemaker and an organizer, young Dominic founded a group he called the Company of the Immaculate Conception which, besides being devotional, aided John Bosco with the boys and with manual work.

    Oh dear, this seems, well, a bit innapropriate in today’s Roman Catholic world, doesn’t it?

  84. Lesley said,

    March 11, 2007 at 5:15

    This is good.

    By Mica Rosenberg GUATEMALA CITY, March 9 (Reuters) – Mayan leaders will spiritually “cleanse” ancient ruins in Guatemala after a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush, unpopular here because of foreign policies going back to Central America’s civil wars. The leaders said they would hold a spiritual ceremony to restore “peace and harmony” at the Mayan ruins of Iximche after Bush tours the site on Monday. “No, Mr. Bush, you cannot trample and degrade the memory of our ancestors,” said indigenous leader Rodolfo Pocop during a press conference. “This is not your ranch in Texas.”

  85. Moominpapa said,

    March 11, 2007 at 5:24

    [J. Peterman moment] “Bosco….. BOSCO!”

  86. D. Sidhe said,

    March 11, 2007 at 5:43

    Late to the party again, but I still have to turn up long enough to tell Jillian, yet again, I totally want to marry her. My partner, as always, is cool with this.

    And Herr Doktor, I dunno what you look like, but my overheated imagination and the heels thing will carry me to my dreams tonight….

  87. jurassicpork said,

    March 11, 2007 at 6:36

    Fox “News” at its finest: A pictorial spread.

    These are but a few clues as to why the Nevada Democratic party pulled out of Fox’s debate.

  88. Random Observer said,

    March 11, 2007 at 7:14

    That link is priceless!

    “All Out Civil War in Iraq: Could it be a Good Thing?” Too bad I missed that debate, I’m sure it was very thoughtful.

  89. craigie said,

    March 11, 2007 at 8:56

    “hey, why don’t you come back to my place, and I’ll show you my stereo!�

    To which the only reasonable reply is “Stereo!? Come on, you loser, whip out your iPod right now!”

  90. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 9:00

    I’ve got a nice set of etchings. And a lovely bunch of coconuts.

  91. kingubu said,

    March 11, 2007 at 9:35

    And a lovely bunch of coconuts.

    Yes, and evidently they are all in your head. ‘Blogs 4 Brownback’? Seriously?

  92. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 9:36

    Seriously! Why, is the “4″ that’s bugging you?
    I didn’t set the blog up, I just work there. ;-)

  93. kingubu said,

    March 11, 2007 at 11:58

    Hm, let’s see… names Jesse Helms as his mentor, believes there’s a ‘debate’ about evolution (and favors teaching ID-Creationism), opposes equal protections for gay couples, co-author of that despicable court stripping Constitutional amendment, is essentially the Wingnut that other Wingnuts point to in order to prove their relative moderation by contrast…

    No, you’re right, its the ’4′.

  94. Ted said,

    March 11, 2007 at 12:09

    The outrage! Even more sickeningly, religious schools may no longer demonise homosexuals. BLARGH!1!!

    HTML, are you British?

  95. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 11, 2007 at 12:24

    Whatever naivete I ever had about that kind of thing is long gone but if a kid gets through a prep/ivy kind of education without actually learning anything practical he could be reciting the Iliad backwards at meetings and it won’t help much in the long run if he’s not productive.

    Hey, I don’t want to get into a More-Cynical-Less-Naive-Than-Thou competition, Lawnguylander. That could only end in disaster.

    I am happy to argue, however, that what is considered to be a Good Education goes involve an awful lot of what one might call “Socially-constructed knowledge”, as opposed to “objective-reality knowledge”. Examples of the former would include fine arts, or an old-fashioned Liberal Arts background, or legal jurisprudence. And example of the latter might be ‘melting points and ductility of various metals and alloys’. So who earns more, a lawyer or a welder?

    Now I don’t know much about the dominationist people, because we don’t get them in New Zealand, not in the fully-fledged or ‘rabid’ state of development. But it seems to me that it is not completely irrational for the home-schooling, Bible-University people to hope for a future where they can install their socially-constructed corpus of knowledge as the definition of a good education. Sick, yes; twisted, yes; but not completely unrealistic. This seems to be Jillian’s concern.

    Imagine a sufficiently large cohort of kids emerging from St-John-of-Patmos Revelations College with an in-depth knowledge of intelligent design to balance their ignorance about evolution. In any sensible economic system they would now be facing a future as street-sweepers. But this is not acceptable if their families have sufficient electoral clout, so one way or another, those dubious qualifications are going to have to become acceptable; jobs for them will have to be created.

    OK, their weird views about geology are not going to qualify them for a career in oil exploration, under any political dispensation.

    And I have had too many beers tonight to qualify me for a career in making sense.

  96. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 11, 2007 at 12:33

    …precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one
    And that’s really the money shot from Frum’s piece, isn’t it? Any kind of agitation to protect minorities is intrinsically illiberal. Though only for imaginary or complex values of ‘liberal’.
    The phrase has a kind of beauty, in its odd way, like one of Shakespeare’s oxymorons. I can imagine it turned into a big neon sign, flashing on and off, at the top of the Ministry of Truth building.

  97. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 14:50

    Please watch this Youtube clip. It shows an Evangelical mother “homeschooling” her son into believing that global warming is a liberal myth and so is evolution.

    Then stop to think that this child stands a good chance of going on to Patrick Henry University, from where he stands a good chance of serving an internship in Washington, D.C.

    Then stop to think that those internships are often the doorway into Congressional staff positions.

    To understand exactly what makes that so scary, you have to think about what a Congressional staffer does. We like to think that the people we elect to Congress are informed about the major issues of the day. This particular belief is, alas, the grownup equivalent to belief in Santa Clause. Members of Congress tend to know jack-all about everything – what they do is use their staff to fill them in on the issues. They hire staffers to help them figure out what to think about legislation and how to vote on it.

    This kid will someday be telling your senator how to vote on critical pieces of legislation.

    Hope I didn’t put you off your breakfast.

  98. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 14:55

    I blame my bad spelling on my lack of breakfast.

  99. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 15:07

    Kids who were once like him are already telling your senators and congressional reps how to vote on important issues.

  100. Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 15:51

    Jillian, you’ve put me off tomorrow’s breakfast. That’s scary, and I say that as a citizen of a country physically far removed from the US, but all too closely nestled in your sphere of influence. Our copycat Prime Monster will be hopping up and down, all mad keen to institute the exact same system as his friend George has.

    I’m sure he also buys the same underwear. Unless he nicked some from the White House when he was there, so he can have his Special Saturday Night when he puts on The Undies, and drives Jeanette wild.

  101. BOSSY said,

    March 11, 2007 at 16:26

    Bossy is intolerant of intolerance.

  102. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 16:48

    If that part of the documentary bugs you, you should all see the part where the children pray to the life sized cardboard cutout of George W. Bush.

  103. Dr. Squid said,

    March 11, 2007 at 16:49

    Does anyone know where I can find a Christian poker room?

  104. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 17:23

    Hey, I don’t want to get into a More-Cynical-Less-Naive-Than-Thou competition, Lawnguylander. That could only end in disaster.

    Oh come on, Herr Doktor, let’s. Even though I think you would probably win. Now would be my best chance though as my level of cynicism is greatly enhanced this morning by a hangover with a personality of its own. My attempt to envision a future where people who reject thousands of years of accumulated knowledge do pay a price probably means I’m not far removed enough from my own religious past where I thought there was such a thing as cosmic justice. I’ve been trying to construct a scenario in my own head that has the religious right and the economic elites here colliding over education but I can’t seem to even convince myself so I’m going to stop trying now.

  105. Lawnguylander said,

    March 11, 2007 at 17:38

    Oh and, Herr Doktor, my regards to the Coromandel peninsula. I’ve got Irish passports in order for my kid and me just in case but that would be an alternative if you’ve got any pull with the immigration authorities.

  106. Marmoset said,

    March 11, 2007 at 18:18

    This may be even bigger than suggested!!!

    In researching the topic, I found that the US government has been defying God’s Law for years by making it illegal, among other things, to stone adulterers and kill those who have defied the lord by not wearing their hair in the approved fashion. Until the book of Leviticus is codified into law we can fully expect to continue to face God’s most righteous wrath.

    Beware, sinners!

  107. ifthethunderdontgetya³² said,

    March 11, 2007 at 18:57

    Next thing you know, youse guys and gals are going to be telling me you don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monsterâ„¢! (Bless His Noodly Appendage)

  108. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 20:47

    So other than that, kingubu, Sam Brownback’s got it going on! Right?

    I do realize you probably aren’t likely to vote GOP, but if you had to choose between two candidates, one from each side, what would be your ideal matchup?

    Most of my liberal friends dislike Clinton as much as they dislike whoever the GOP candidate is going to be. So who do you want? Who’s got game?

    Democrat party: Silky Pony? Obama? Shrillary? Other?
    Republican party: RINO Rudy? Flipper Romney? Washed-up McCain? Or Sam Brownback (Principled. Conservative. Republican)?

  109. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 20:50

    Have some breakfast, Jillian.
    You can’t start the day without breakfast!

    Of course if your observing Lent, well….

  110. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 20:51

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU

  111. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:00

    I love how Jillian links to a scene from an anti-Christian Movie.

  112. thelogos said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:04

    *cough*Richardson*cough,cough*

  113. fardels bear said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:15

    So tell me, Psycheout, what exactly makes Brownback a “Principled Conservative Republican.” If conservatives are supposed to be about small government, how do you square that with the party platform and Brownback’s insistence that the government intrude into the most intimate details of daily life, including marriage, family decisions about life and death, and specific details about how to raise children?

    There is absolutely nothing conservative about Brownback’s principles, he is the least conservative candidate running.

  114. DAS said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:21

    precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

    Dear Mr. Frum,

    If I am not mistaken, you and I have more in common than the same first name. We also are members of the same religion. Our society’s majority religion is a different one, a religion which has historically condemned the behaviors associated with our religion. Are you arguing that it would be illiberal to extend non-discrimination principles to those of us who, for example, light candles and make kiddush on Friday nights, two behaviors that the Christian Inquisition would have deemed condemnable? Just wonderin’ …

    Toodles … see ya when Torquemada comes for the both of us!
    Luv,
    David Weltlich (*)

    * not my real last name but a bad attempt at a pun …

  115. DAS said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:30

    If conservatives are supposed to be about small government, how do you square that with the party platform and Brownback’s insistence that the government intrude into the most intimate details of daily life, including marriage, family decisions about life and death, and specific details about how to raise children? – fardels bear

    Not that I think this way by any measure (nor that you asked me anyway ;) ), but it’s not as inconsistent as we liberals would tend to think: the idea is that if government forces us all to be moral people in our most intimate matters, we’ll magically turn into good people and hence the government won’t need to regulate businesses, etc. — because people will, by being morally disciplined, do the right thing without government meddling.

  116. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:34

    What is with that bot or whatever it is???

  117. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:38

    I don’t know, Annie. It started stalking me here last night on the previous thread. I hope it’s not my fault!

  118. J— said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:39

    You’re not late, D. Sidhe. The party’s just getting started! Look who’s here—Psycheout and Annie Angel! Hopefully this one will go until 15 o’clock.

  119. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:39

    The posts are always dated December 31st, 1969. Maybe it has something to do with Daylight Savings Time?

  120. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:40

    Breakfast was awesome, thanks. French toast, eggs, toast, and hashbrowns. And sushi for lunch. I’ve been working all weekend, so I indulged in a few treats to keep my spirits up.

    Lent is silly.

  121. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:41

    Hi, D Sidhe!

    I may marry you yet, you know…… ;)

  122. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:47

    Mmm, I’m jealous of Jillian’s breakfast. And yes, lent is silly. I need to go scavenge the kitchen now, but before I go, I just have to point out how disappointed I am in psycheout, who started out so nicely and then oozed into the swamp where adjectives morph into nouns (at least those that refer to non-republicans). Tsk tsk.

  123. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 21:52

    I like Psycheout….just a gut feeling here, but I think he’s going to turn out to be the most fun troll we’ve had in a long time!

    I like him enough that I even totally overlooked the whole “your/you’re” thing – and that’s a lot for me!

  124. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:01

    Besides, his nom de blog, Psycheout is beyond just amusing – it’s accurate! He’s been psyched out by war loving racist bigots to abandon what principals he used to have and join the cheerleaders for endless war, the destruction of the American constitution and the creation of a permanant militarized authoritarian oligarchy. A true American Patriot, with the courage to stand up for the things America is supposed to stand for…

    mikey

  125. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:03

    Lent is not silly, oh “tolerant” ones.
    I suppose you mock Easter, too.

  126. Andrew Byrne said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:05

    *Click Click* well, _he looks_ clear, sir… just let me check the… oh wait… yep… almost got past, but 6/7 jus’ don’ pass the carlin standard.

    Oh man… you almost had it…
    civility shattered in a “fuck art!”

  127. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:07

    But Psycheout, “tolerate” does not mean the same thing as “endorse”.

    I am VERY tolerant of Lent. I just don’t endorse it – it’s silly.

    And why would I mock Easter? It’s when we celebrate the rebirth of the Great Bunny who Gives Birth to Chocolate Eggs! It’s the second best holiday of the year, after Halloween.

    I mean, seriously, how does that damn bunny do it? Not just lay eggs, but chocolate eggs? It is a mystery.

  128. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:09

    Brownback opposes the troop surge, mikey.
    So that means you must be for it, right?
    But President Bush is for the surge, so you have to oppose it.
    Uh oh, now you’re agreeing with Sam Brownback.

    [mikey's head explodes]

  129. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:09

    Oh for crying out LOUD.

    Sadly, LAME! sucks these days.

  130. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:10

    I mean, seriously, how does that damn bunny do it? Not just lay eggs, but chocolate eggs?

    Er, Jillian, those round brown things you found behind the bunny…they weren’t eggs.

  131. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:10

    But they had cream filling!!

  132. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:15

    STOP IT!

  133. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:18

    Who doesn’t like pie?

    Especially chocolate pie. With cream filling.

  134. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:18

    Dammit, Jillian rendered my explanation of tolerance vs. endorsement moot. I’ll just have to think about cream-filled bunny eggs instead.

  135. oudemia said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:30

    And why would I mock Easter? It’s when we celebrate the rebirth of the Great Bunny who Gives Birth to Chocolate Eggs! It’s the second best holiday of the year, after Halloween.

    Back when I worked in children’s publishing, my boss (the art director) received an Easter card from a well-known and beloved children’s book author/illustrator. The pen-and-ink front of this card depicted a bunny crucified and bleeding with several other bunnies, prostrate at the foot of his cross, wailing and gnashing their bunny teeth. Slapped across the front of this very detailed drawing was — in bright red ink — a generic/institutional DECEASED stamp.

    (Everyone in children’s publishing is a sick, sick fuck.)

  136. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:36

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19144/the_origin_and_history_of_the_easter.html

    Idiots.

  137. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:38

    I suppose you mock Easter, too.

    I have a policy of not linking to my own blog, but this was just irresistable.

    mikey

  138. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:52

    If you like Paul Delvaux paintings, you can enjoy Easter and Hallowe’en at the same time!

  139. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:53

    Easter – It’s kinda like Pet Semetary, isn’t it?

    Only with chocolate cream-filled eggs. Or hollow chocolate bunnies.

    Me, I always liked the jelly bird eggs best. The white ones that are speckled in color and teh awesome.

    I bought some Peeps the other day. Oh, the delicious grittiness of the colored sugar! Now THAT’s a heavenly thing.

  140. His Grace said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:53

    Lent is not silly, oh “tolerant� ones.
    I suppose you mock Easter, too.

    Whereas the Christian theme park I saw on the news that crucified Jesus at 4:16 daily was a hallmark of good taste.

  141. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 22:56

    PEEEEEEPS!

    Peeps are beyond awesome.

    Did you know they aren’t kosher? They’re basically boiled pig’s hooves covered in colored sugar. MMmmmmmm………sugared hambones!

  142. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:00

    I am sure that peeps not being kosher is a real problem to the Jews. I can just imagine them sitting down for dinner on Easter Sunday, rubbing their bellies after eating that delicious Easter ham, and then mama brings out the peeps and suddenly all the Jews are like “we can’t eat the peeps! They aren’t kosher!”

  143. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:01

    the Christian theme park I saw on the news that crucified Jesus at 4:16 daily

    What, only one show a day? Lightweights.

    I have an actor friend who always gets cast in the Easter and Christmas shows at the Crystal Cathedral down in Orange County. Apparently, these shows are a great source of income for local actors, as well as professional stage flying technicians.

    sugared hambones

    I am rather dogmatic when it comes to Peeps. I only endorse the yellow, chick-shaped Peeps. I am intolerant when it comes to purple or blue or pink Peeps for me….not to mention, I think the bunny-shaped ones are heretical.

    Purple bunny-shaped Peeps make the baby Jesus cry.

    I am intolerant

  144. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:04

    Easter – It’s kinda like Pet Semetary, isn’t it?

    Uh, no, not really. It’s more kinda like about Christ’s Resurrection. You might try looking that up on the Wikipedia or the Google sometime.

  145. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:05

    You know, the ugly history of Peeps is that during the 19th century in Poland, during Holy Week the Catholics would rampage through the ghetto, forcing Peeps upon the residents.

    What the czar’s troopers used to use Peeps for was equally vile.

    Can I say this, or is it just too offensive – have I crossed a line here?

  146. His Grace said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:06

    What, only one show a day? Lightweights.

    I believe, though having never been to this theme park nor wanting to, it is a reference to John 4:16.

  147. Psycheout said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:06

    Word, g.

  148. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:07

    Peeps go way beyond just bunnies and chicks nowadays…they’ve got ‘em for almost any holiday you can think of.

    http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/

    I have a friend who drew up a phylogenetic tree for the various Peeps life forms (Peepiformes, don’t you know?)

    Oh, lord – they have sugar free Peeps now! That’s just not right.

  149. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:15

    Oh, I am thrilled with the Peeps site, Jillian. Check out the history section!

    Did you know Peeps were first made in 1953?

  150. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:20

    Peeps – offending Our Saviour since 1953.

    Now there’s a marketing slogan for you.

    I mean, I know that they really, objectively, are gross, but I can’t help it. They just taste soooooo good.

    If you eat a whole strip of them at once, the sugar will make you incredibly hyper…..I have been known to do a line or two of Peeps at work to make a slow afternoon go by faster.

    I’m sorry – were we supposed to take the discussion of religion seriously? This is just way more fun.

  151. tigrismus said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:21

    Oh my deity, Shoelimpy actually made a joke! A real joke! And it was pretty damn funny!

    And Jillian and D., if you do ever decide to tie the knot, come to Mass. and I’ll bake the cake(s).

  152. billy pilgrim said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:22

    actually, g, I believe ALL the peeps were made in 1953.

    They’ve just been selling the same batch since then.

    It’s what accounts for the gritty, chewy, nigh-indegistible character.

    I am a Peeps Heretic.

  153. Jillian said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:23

    Will you put Peeps on them, tigrismus?

  154. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:25

    On the Peeps website, it says they’re coming out with green Peeps for St. Patrick’s Day.

  155. Lesley said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:31

    And why would I mock Easter? It’s when we celebrate the rebirth of the Great Bunny who Gives Birth to Chocolate Eggs!

    Personally, I prefer the Belgian Praline-Chocolate laying Bunny sect.

  156. tigrismus said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:38

    Heck, I’ll ice a mound of peeps if that’s what you’d like. Actually, that sounds pretty gruesome, doesn’t it?

  157. g said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:51

    Then there’s always this tradition:

    http://www.broadwaycares.org/events/easter.cfm

  158. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:53

    tigrismus as mob hitman: I’ll ice yer peeps for ya. Fifteen large. Half now, half when your peeps are down…

    mikey

  159. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:54

    Matthew 15:10-11

    Jesus called the crowd to him. He said, “Listen and understand. What goes into your mouth does not make you ‘unclean.’ It’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you ‘unclean.’ “

  160. mikey said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:57

    Hey, g!! BC/EFA is a client of mine. The performance will be shot by Bradshaw Smith, of Broadway Beat. I’ll make and package the DVDs. You’ll be able to buy them from the BC/EFA website. I’m working on the ABC Daytime salute show right now! You can get the previous years Easter Bonnet shows at their site too…

    mikey

  161. annieangel said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:58

    NIV!?!?!?!?!?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Must be a Shoelimpy NAMESTEALER.

    Oh, you are gonna BURN!

  162. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 11, 2007 at 23:59

    Matthew 15:10-11

    And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

    Posted by the real Shoelimpyâ„¢

  163. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:00

    You need to repent Shoe.

  164. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:01

    Penance is between myself and my God, Miss Annie. I am not Newt Gingrich to make public that which is most private in the relationship between myself and the Lord.

  165. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:05

    Bullshit! You were dumbing yourself down for the room by using the NIV.

  166. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:06

    When one is discussing the Bible with barely literate heathens, one must at times make concessions, such as using translations which can be more easily read, even though said translation does not bear the accuracy of that which was authorized under the reign of King James.

  167. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:11

    Wrong! This is the internet, what if they search out your quote and start reading the NIV?? What if they base their decision to turn to Christ off of what they read in it??

    It is NOT authorized by God, Shoe!!! Can they really be saved based on the information you are leading them to? You should pray.

  168. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:14

    I can’t be saved by pie.

    Peeps, maybe.

  169. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:15

    Dicklimpy (and your imaginary gurlfren, annie):

    Please fuck off, die and fuck you again. You are either the biggest loser or best parody ever, but either way, you are annoying and stupid. Your vlogs are high comedy cause you look like a faggot, playing with your hair so much. Come out of the closet and admit it.

  170. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:15

    Oh Lord, I pray to you this day that those who have read this message board shall not be led astray by the perversions of your Word posted here in the form of a quotation from the New International Version, that vile concoction bred from the depths of Satan’s heart to mislead your followers and take them down the path of Destruction. I pray, dear God, that you might rectify both their hearts and their minds and that they may see thy Light of Truth shining through the darkness of that secularism which is the god of this age. We know, sweet baby Jesus, that you are The Way, The Truth and The Life, and it is only through the atoning blood of your sacrifice for us that we shall live in eternity in Heaven with you.

  171. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:16

    Oh, and MissDicklimpAnal, please stop pretending to be Christian, go and slurp Bush’s cock since that is what you already do figuratively ervery day on your socalled blog.

  172. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:21

    Hey, mikey! No kidding, small world. I used to be involved with some BC/EFA benefits that took place on the road, given by casts of touring productions.

    Good stuff. The Easter Bonnet competition sounds way cool.

    even though said translation does not bear the accuracy of that which was authorized under the reign of King James

    Right, Cause as we all know, the King James version was written in the language Jesus used.

    I am not Newt Gingrich to make public that which is most private in the relationship between myself and the Lord.

    Newt’s adulterous relationship with a woman 23 years his junior who was also a member of his staff was hardly “that which is most private” in his relationship with the Lord. It was common knowledge at the time.

  173. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:21

    FAGGOT????

    Oh you fucking HYPOCRITES.

  174. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:24

    Some guy, while you are performing admirably in demonstrating the innate hatefulness which is the core of the democratic philosphy, you might want to stop with your bitching before you shoot yourself in the fucking face.

  175. Psycheout said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:24

    I think Annie is right about the NIV.
    The King James Version is the real thing.

    What Bible do the rest of you read?

  176. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:25

    “Newt’s adulterous relationship with a woman 23 years his junior who was also a member of his staff was hardly “that which is most privateâ€? in his relationship with the Lord. It was common knowledge at the time.”

    Publicly acknowledged affairs and private penance to God are two separate issues, G.

  177. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:26

    “Right, Cause as we all know, the King James version was written in the language Jesus used.”

    Actually, if you had read the words you quoted, you would know that the King James Version is not written in the language Jesus used, but is a translation.

  178. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:28

    Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:24

    Some guy, while you are performing admirably in demonstrating the innate hatefulness which is the core of the democratic philosphy, you might want to stop with your bitching before you shoot yourself in the fucking face.

    Yeah, well you’re still a faggot. So bite me.

  179. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:32

    No shit, limpy

    Isn’t it teh awesome how people totally without a sense of humor can be so funny anyway? You crack me up! You and Psychobabble are like a paid of vaudeville comics – opening for annieangel’s burlesque act.

  180. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:33

    He’s hitting on you, Shoe.

  181. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:34

    Psychobabble is a Christ-pisser.

  182. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:35

    Regardless of how attractive such a proposition might appear to you, I have no interest in it, some guy. Since you seem incapable of holding any sort of coherent discussion but must instead engage in seemingly hateful rants, you might find this web site more to your liking.

  183. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:35

    THe only thing shoe is hitting is dick against his fist. That is all you are anal, a sockpuppet fantasy. And what a lame one one it is….

  184. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:36

    What Bible do the rest of you read?

    Hah! Y’know, asshat, if the bible is the infallible word of god, for an omnipotent supreme being kind of dude, he writes like a sixteen year old girl. I mean, c’mon, if it was really the word of god, it oughta be at least coherent and interesting. As holy books go, it’s not even in the top five.

    At least Michael Valentine Smith could explain his “miracles” in that science fiction novel. This whole raising the dead thing, transmorgifying water into wine (that’s the superpower I wanna have!), I mean, this is the stuff of comic books. Some of us got over our belief in superheroes with superpowers long ago…

    mikey

  185. Psycheout said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:37

    Hmmm, what’s with all the vulgar language?
    I hope there aren’t any children reading this site.

  186. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:37

    Humor works best when it is actually funny, G. Stop taking your lessons from Brad and Gavin.

  187. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:37

    Shoelimpy, admit you are a homosexual and that analtrannieannie is some wacky beard sockpuppet used to reassure all 2 of your fans — including yourself — you are straight. Admit it. Get out of the closet now.

  188. Psycheout said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:39

    Sure, mikey, but science fiction is fiction, while the Holy Bible is the Living Word of God. There is a bit of a difference.

  189. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:39

    Liberals like to call Christian men “faggots” on this site. But it’s ok when they do it, cuz “faggot” is only a bad word to non-liberals. Queers love having derogatory terms for themselves being used as an insult agaisnt non-queers, BUT only if libs are doing it.

  190. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:42

    Sockpuppets like to call themselves Christians on this site, too.

  191. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:44

    I’m pretty sure that neither of the two clowns you’ve mentioned are gay, Some guy. I’m just about the world’s biggest fag hag, and I don’t like either one of them, so they just can’t be.

    Besides, we all like teh gays around here. But those two are straight up pie for at least half the regs around here.

    Nah…..the best insult available for them is “Christian”. While it’s not necessarily a term of derision, it certainly is in their case.

  192. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:45

    We cannot forget the most popular science fiction story of our age, where evil capitalista pigdogs are, while hiding in their secret underground lairs counting up their money, hatching a top secret plot to create the ultimate superweapon, a heat gun that shall rapidly increase the temperature of the earth until it melts the polar ice caps and floods the world, leaving only the evil capitalistas alive to laugh maniacally and count the profits. But there is hope, the one man who can stop the evil mad heat ray: a failed presidential candidate by the name of Al Gore.

  193. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:47

    Some Guy is a regular Jillian. He is acting like all liberals act.

    Like a hypocrite.

  194. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:50

    Sure, mikey, but science fiction is fiction, while the Holy Bible is the Living Word of God. There is a bit of a difference.,

    So sayeth you, oh nutte of winge. Other than ted haggard told you, what’s your evidence?

    Oh, and yeah, I cuss. I’m gonna take the position that I have earned the right in my lifetime to treat people like you with disdain if I like you, and outright contempt if I don’t. If you don’t like my language, good sir, you do retain the option of sticking it up your ass sideways with a garden rake…

    mikey

  195. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:52

    I’d be scared of mikey. He cries.

  196. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:52

    Nobody’s ever been able to explain to me how it is that words “live”, anyway. Do they respire? Excrete? Reproduce?

    It’s humbug; right up there with “opening your heart” and the rest of the silly cliches they peddle. Luckily for them, this is a free country, and that includes the freedom to be as ridiculous in your personal beliefs as you choose.

    We’ll be tolerant of it, all right – but that doesn’t mean we won’t mock.

  197. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:53

    I’m not a big fan of calling people you don’t agree with faggots.

    I prefer “whiny ass titty babies”.

  198. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:54

    That works, too. :D

  199. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:54

    Anyway annieangel your statement is clearly false, some guy is not acting like all liberals act, he is acting like *some* liberals act. There are plenty of counter examples here.

  200. Psycheout said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:56

    Hmmm, I’ll pass, mikey.
    Besides, no garden, no rake.

  201. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:57

    Yeah Random, only becasue I’ve called you all out before. That is why Jilypants is being all scoldinglike.

    She’s gay bashed herself. She knows it.

  202. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:58

    And in the future, please reference Chrsitians doing things you don’t like with SOME, and Republicans as well.

  203. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 0:59

    I’ve never gay bashed anyone, I invite you to prove me wrong. I’ve never called anyone a ‘fag’ or ‘faggot’ in my life other than as a way to mock people who do it seriously.

  204. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:00

    “I’ve never called anyone a ‘fag’ or ‘faggot’ in my life other than as a way to mock people who do it seriously.”

    Like I said, it’s ok if you do it, you know when it is proper to call someone a faggot.

  205. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:03

    Wankery? I’ll give you wankery:

    ” Bouncing up and down on his side vigorously, Ignatius sensed a belch rising in his throat, but when he expectantly opened his mouth he emitted on a small burp. Still, the bounding had some physiological effect. Ignatius touched the small erection that was pointing downward into the sheet, held it, and lay still, trying to decide what to do. In this position, with the red flannel nightshirt around his chest and his massive stomach saggin into the mattress, he though someonewhat sadly that after eighteen years with his hobby it had become merely a mechanical physical act stripped of the flights of fancy and invention that he had once been able to bring to it. At one time he had almost developed it into an art form, practising the hobby with the skill and fervor of an artist and philosopher, a scholar and gentleman. There were still hidden in his room several accessories which he had once used, a rubber glove, a piece of fabric from a silk umbrella, a jar of Noxema. Putting them away again after it was all over had eventually grown too depressing.

    Ignatius manipulated and concentrated. At last a vision appeared, the familiar figure of the large and devoted collie that had been his pet when he was in high school. “Woof!” Ignatius almost heard Rex say once again. “Woof! Woof! Arf!” Rex looked so lifelike. One ear drooped. He panted. The apparition jumped over a fence and chased a stick that somehow landed in the middle of Ignatius’s quilt. As the tan and white fur grew closer, Ignatius’s eyes dilated, crossed, and closed, and he lay wanly back among his four pillows, hoping that he had some Kleenex in his room.”

  206. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:03

    annieangel, read the faq!!!!

    No, I agree actually, on the Christians part anyway. I don’t like any verbiage that looks like it came out of Mein Kampf. “They jews…” “the gays…” “the Christians…”. I give more leeway to things like Republican because Republican/conservative is an ideology. Sure not *all* Republicans believe certain Republican things but they do choose to affiliate with a party that does overall. Even if you don’t believe that gays are destroying America as a Republican you are identifying with a party that does.

    Christians don’t have a single ideology, other than the most basic believing in Christ thing, so it does bother me a bit when I see blanket attacks of Christians that really only apply to the religious right.

    I was an altar boy once myself.

  207. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:05

    I am calling the wingnut sockpuppets faggots because it hurts them. I don’t care if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings but theirs. You’ll get over it. They obviously are howling with pain. Fuck you limpannietrollshoefucker.

  208. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:06

    I’m putting you on probation, Random. ;)

  209. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:07

    In order for people to feel pain, they have to be moral agents, Some guy.

    These particular trolls have never given any indication that they are capable of moral judgement at all. You might as well try to hurt Ted Bundy by screaming “murderer” at him.

    You’re just wasting your pixels. But they are yours to waste.

  210. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:07

    It is not right to call Shoelimpy “faggot.” The correct word is “douchebag.” That’s something we can all get behind, no?

  211. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:07

    Annieangel what I meant is that the only time I call anyone a faggot is among people who know me well very sarcastically as a way of mocking people who would seriously call people a faggot and mean it.

    I never do that in open conversation (say on a message board I’m new to), only among people who know my exact meaning.

    My tone is usually something like:

    “YEAH! Fags are destroying America! Fuck those damn commie fags! How dare they want basic civil rights!”

    Context matters.

  212. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:09

    HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

    The pain! It burns! I cannot handle the pain! How can I ever live down the shame of being called a faggot by a homophobic fucktard?

    Woe is Shoelimpyâ„¢

  213. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:09

    Random, would a white person saying “nigger” in the same context as you quote be just fine?

  214. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:10

    stuff a sock in it, lump

  215. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:11

    JK, I might refer you to Three Bulls, and their excellent discussion of “cobag”. I suppose “db” works, but it leaves out such interesting options as “festering mound of gobshite”, “suppurating anal leakage”, or perhaps even “hyperattenuated vomitous mass”.

    The choice is yours, of course.

  216. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:12

    The candidacy of Mitt Romney provides true Christians an opportunity to reveal Mormonism for the sham that it is. Contrary to what they claim, Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a lie based upon the wild ramblings of con men and mad men that has no place in a true Christian dialogue.

    “Religious tolerance – it’s not just for other people!”(tm)

  217. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:12

    “In order for people to feel pain, they have to be moral agents, Some guy.

    These particular trolls have never given any indication that they are capable of moral judgement at all. You might as well try to hurt Ted Bundy by screaming “murdererâ€? at him.”

    So let me see if I get this straight, Jillian. You are classing homosexuals in the same moral boat as murderers? You are classifying myself as a homosexual, but unable to be hurt by being called a faggot because I am incapable of understanding the moral truth that homosexuality is evil, at least according to your twisted liberal mind?

    What a hypocrite.

  218. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:17

    No, she’s classifying you as a jerk. It’s pretty simple. You flatter yourself to make anything more ofit.

  219. tigrismus said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:18

    *sigh* One good joke, and then back to the all-boring-all-the-time(though baby Jesus was a nice touch). Verily, like salt which has lost its savour.

    And mikey, keep that under your hat please. I don’t want to catch the attention of the marshmallow authorities…

  220. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:18

    Random, I assume you are making a reference to this post?

    http://bloggingpoints.blogspot.com/2007/02/blogging-points-scoops-ap-on-mitt.html

    My belief that Mormonism is not Christianity has nothing to do with a lack of “religious tolerance.” I do not believe that Muslims are Christians, does this mean I have no tolerance for Islam?

    Mormonism is not Christianity. All I desire is that people educate themselves more on the subject, and they will come to the same conclusions. If they don’t, they are still more educated on the subject than they were before. Being a strong believer in free thinking I believe that education is a powerful tool. It always amazes me how opposed liberals are to the idea of advocating knowledge. I understand that it would be much easier for you people if we were all illiterate and uneducated to make us more easily brainwashed to your way of thinking, but you could at least pay a little more lip service to your vaunted beliefs in “freedom.”

  221. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:21

    Can we talk about Peeps again? We’ve already wasted enough time with these losers.

  222. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:21

    “No, she’s classifying you as a jerk. It’s pretty simple. You flatter yourself to make anything more ofit.”

    So calling a jerk a faggot is the same as called Ted Bundy a murderer? All faggots are jerks and this is why they should be ashamed of their sexual orientation? Why should being called a faggot force anyone to make a moral judgment, unless you believe that homosexuality is in itself immoral? I certainly harbor no such feelings on the subject, but it seems that Some Guy, Jillian and most of the posters here do.

  223. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:22

    It always amazes me how opposed liberals are to the idea of advocating knowledge.

    Yeah, it’s totally fucked up the way liberals are always denying Darwin’s theory of evolution. Only people who are totally “brainwashed” would deny something that has so much scientific evidence behind it. Christians would never do such a thing.

  224. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:22

    The King James Version is the real thing.
    I’m with Psychout on this. Since the Bible is not noted for its plot, or for the strength of the characterisations, the whole point of reading it is for love of the language. And only the KJV has that Shakespearean cadence.

    I mean,
    1 Kings, 14.10: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

    In comparison, the NIV is a pathetic travesty. Why bother?
    Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel-slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone.

    – Only one of these translations inspires me to climb up onto the roof-top at midnight when I’m trolleyed on a Saturday night and recite it at the top of my voice for the benefit of the neighbourhood.

  225. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:24

    “*sigh* One good joke, and then back to the all-boring-all-the-time”

    I won’t be your monkey, Tigrismus.

  226. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:26

    I’ve never heard anyone gay take offense at my rare uses of the word ‘faggot’ and if they did I would probably stop. So far my meaning has been perfectly clear to everyone. (And I hang out with people who would tell me if it was offensive to them) Like I said, I only break out that language when I know the audience is going to understand the meaning.

    To answer your question, ‘nigger’ is a word that many black people will simply always take offense to, so it probably isn’t right to use it. Even if it was 100% clear I was making a pro-racial justice point it would still sit with some people the wrong way.

    ‘Cunt’ is a tricky one. I don’t think I’ve called anyone a ‘cunt’ in the last ten years or so but I feel like I should start now just to annoy the hypocrites at Feministe. But at the same time I don’t want to genuinely offend the non-hypocrites over there.

    Which is why “whiny ass titty baby” is the flavor of the day.

  227. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:26

    Check this one out, Herr Doktor!

    And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had hemmorhoids in their secret parts.

    Now, that’s some good stuff!

  228. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:29

    Goddammit, Doc, I wanna live in YOUR neighborhood. Together we’d be REAL popular…

    mikey

  229. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:30

    “Yeah, it’s totally fucked up the way liberals are always denying Darwin’s theory of evolution. Only people who are totally “brainwashedâ€? would deny something that has so much scientific evidence behind it. Christians would never do such a thing.”

    The theory of evolution, (And it is really improper to refer to it soley as “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution,” since while he laid many of the founding blocks it predates him and in fact has advanced far and beyond his original ideas, but i do understand your godlike reverence of the man given your secularist belief system) fits in very well with the liberal vision of the world, thus liberals are exceedingly interested in propagating its belief. When something goes against the liberal ideology, however, they fight as rabid wolves to keep it suppressed. It happens time after time.

  230. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:30

    My belief that Mormonism is not Christianity has nothing to do with a lack of “religious tolerance.� I do not believe that Muslims are Christians, does this mean I have no tolerance for Islam?

    Mormonism is a lie based upon the wild ramblings of con men and mad men that has no place in a true Christian dialogue.

    Hoisted by your own petard.

  231. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:30

    Why is name caling so important to liberals? Why not just debate ideas? Why bring so much hate into it?

  232. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:30

    Oh, and for you folks infected with a bad case of annie and the shoe? I’d really recomend the greasemonkey script. It fixed me up in no time, and the only side effect is a fairly regular craving for pie…

    mikey

  233. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:31

    the Holy Bible is the Living Word of God

    Which bible, though? NIV? American Standard? New American Standard? King James? What about the places where these translations of translations contradict one another? Who “wins” the “Word of God” prize?

    See, this is why I actually favor making the study of Teh Bible as literature more generally available in undergrad humanities curricula: the notion that the book the Wingnuts hold in their hands is the “one true literal word of god” cannot withstand even the most sympathetic presentation of the book’s historical provenance.

  234. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:32

    KJV.

  235. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:33

    One could ask the same of conservatives.

    Answer: because most people, regardless of ideology, are lazy thinkers.

  236. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:33

    When Tessie Bear and Noddy want a special kind of treat,
    An after-dinner winner that is gooey, soft, and sweet,
    What’s the treat that Tessie Bear and Noddy like to eat?
    Googleberry pie, googleberry pie!

  237. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:35

    Again, Random, I believe that you are referencing my above mentioned post, which can be found at http://bloggingpoints.blogspot.com/2007/02/blogging-points-scoops-ap-on-mitt.html
    ?

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with the origins of Mormonism. Joseph Smith, prior to his creation of the Mormon cult was a well known con man in the New York area who was tried and convicted of confidence trickery on more than one occasion. While the madness of Mr. Smith and Brigham Young is a bit more subjective a judgment, I think that it is certainly a fair one considering their actions. Again I entreat you to educate yourself more on the subject and you will see the validity of these words, petards not withstanding.

  238. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:35

    So Shoe, do you believe in evolution, or are you a brainwashed fundie moron who thinks the Earth is 5,000 years old? I’m going with “brainwashed fundie moron.”

    And Satan put those dinosaur bones in the ground, right?

    Douche.

  239. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:36

    I had strawberry pie for dessert tonight.

    Oh…..so good.

  240. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:36

    I don’t think SHoelimpy/Annie have actually earned any right to be taken seriously by anyone who visits this site.

    But he/she/they can be fun.

    But, some guy, using his/their own favorite terms just gives them fodder for their constant whines of Christianist persecution and liberal hypocrisy. Not that any of his/her diatribes mean anything, and you can certainly turn them all to pie as some have done, but it’s all kind of a bore.

    Any way to turn up the game a bit? I mean, either full blown ignore them, which seems to work on most weekdays, or at least play into their hands a bit less? It would be nice to see a thread here that doesn’t just devolve into AnnieShoe calling us all Liberal hypocrites, because one person says something that contradicts another person on a differnt thread.

    I guess it doesn’t help that I don’t care for the epithet faggot in any usage, and I’m pretty sure my gay friends don’t either. I think it would improve the level of snark around here if it wasn’t such a predictable entry in the comments.

  241. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:36

    Is it jsut lazy thinking? Or has America become so divided by how people vote that they have forgotten that the people we are voting for consider us all inferior.

    Maybe the fight between the sides is all that is mattering anymore. Cuz truthfully, all this hatred is pretty new.

  242. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:38

    Billy, if you run Firefox, you can get a gadget that will convert all of their comments to “I like pie”. Apparently it helps to ease the tedium associated with their presence.

    Just follow the link on mikey’s name, shoot him an email, and he’ll send it to you.

    Liberals are nothing if not resourceful.

  243. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:42

    When I first rode into these parts, before my horse threw a shoe and i had to quit driftin and get a job at Johnsons dry good store, the signature epithet around here, compliments of Bradrocket ™, the sledgehammer of justice, was, I believe “cum gargling ass twat”. Now them were the days when insults had bite, and y’know, not one single cum gargling ass twat ever showed up to complain they were being demonized or marginalized. I guess those times are gone forever, eh?

    mikey

  244. tigrismus said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:43

    Oh well, Shoe, you can just forget the bananas then.

    Why is name calling so important to liberals?

    Idiots

    And forget pie, I’m having Vin Santo for dessert.

  245. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:43

    No, Mr. 47, I do not believe in evolutionary theory. I am not one to believe in accepting such ideas as factual reality simply because they are in vogue at the current time, such brainwashing is not my bag. Since you are so informed of my own “brainwashing,” however, you should know that proper Creationist theory sets the age of the earth at roughly 6,000, not 5,000 years.

  246. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:45

    Pie Queen: Cuz truthfully, all this hatred is pretty new.

    Actually, its not. In fact your spiritual and ideological forebears got so high on their own sense of specialness before god (and concomitant disdain for anyone who who didn’t go along with their Jesus-approved-because-I-said-so social hierarchy) that they tried to break off from the US and start their own country. We fought a war over it; maybe you heard.

  247. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:46

    annieangel, read the faq!!!!

    Actually, Sadly, No! does have a FAQ of sorts regarding the Annie Angel & Shoelimpy traveling blog road show. Take, read. This is the body. Answers to most questions should be found in the comments.

  248. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:48

    Since you are so informed of my own “brainwashing,� however, you should know that proper Creationist theory sets the age of the earth at roughly 6,000, not 5,000 years.

    Bwahahhaaahahaahah hhooooehheeheeeeeheeehheeeooohhooooohhoooo

    Yeah, and liberals are the brainwashed ones. You stupid shit.

    So, Satan put the dinosaur bones there, right?

    Hahooohoooheeeheheeeheeeheheheoohhohohohehehhooo….

  249. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:48

    Why does Jillian envy me so much?

  250. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:51

    Shoelimpy, you implied you have tolerance for Mormonism, but your own words indicate otherwise. Calling something “a lie based on upon wild ramblings” shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I’m not a Mormon or a Christian, I don’t care to debate the legitimacy of either. Just don’t pretend you are tolerant of Mormonism when you clearly aren’t. If you truly have conviction you will say what you mean – that Mormonism is lame and its followers idiots.

    I don’t consider annieangel and ShoeLimpy the same person. (annieangel is more reasonable) I don’t like labelling people so we can immediately dismiss them based on whatever category they fit into. I don’t like being labelled a “lacrosse player defender” or “idiot white dude” by the whiny ass titty baby zuzu, so I extend others the same courtesy.

    I’m not on anybody’s side, I’m my own person.

    I don’t have any problem with someone pointing out that calling people you don’t like ‘faggots’ is kind of lame – because it is kind of lame. Especially when we are supposed to be high-minded liberals who embrace gay rights.

  251. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:53

    Shoelimpy is a creationist. That is all you need to know. He does not believe in science, yet he lectures us about how we try to “suppress knowledge.” What a complete douchefucker.

  252. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:53

    Well, Mr. 47, it seems that I am better educated on your evolutionary views than you are, yet you have not even the slightest understanding of Creationist theory. I have made an informed decision made on facts while you have accepted whatever has been shoved into your mouth by the liberal establishment. If only I could accept such intellectual laziness in my own life. *sigh*

  253. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:54

    I’ll have some pie, please.

  254. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:54

    I have made an informed decision made on facts while you have accepted whatever has been shoved into your mouth by the liberal establishment.

    Yeah, the “liberal establishment” being every goddamned scientist on the face of the planet.

    So, what about those dinosaur bones? Satan, put ‘em there, right?

  255. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:54

    You’re OK, Random.

    Now that I’ve said that, everyone will hate you.

  256. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:55

    “Shoelimpy, you implied you have tolerance for Mormonism, but your own words indicate otherwise. Calling something “a lie based on upon wild ramblingsâ€? shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I’m not a Mormon or a Christian, I don’t care to debate the legitimacy of either. Just don’t pretend you are tolerant of Mormonism when you clearly aren’t. If you truly have conviction you will say what you mean – that Mormonism is lame and its followers idiots.”

    I do not believe that Mormons should be persecuted for their beliefs. After all, it is their right to believe wrongly. However, tolerance does not mean that I should accept their claims as factual, or deny the fact that their religion was created by a convicted con man. That does not make me intolerant, it simply means I have a realistic view of the situation.

  257. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:56

    I think it would be funny if the SN! FAQ was just:
    “A: Fuck off!”

    Then you could legitmately say “read the faq!” and it would cover any possible complaint.

  258. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:56

    If only I could accept such intellectual laziness in my own life. *sigh*

    Hell, you’ve got annie right there in bed with you!

  259. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:57

    Ok.
    I’d like to officially apologize for ever having been nice to AA, and all the related stupid shit i did. I confused a one-hit wonder for something actually interesting. But, c’mon, who hasn’t heard a good single n mistakenly bought a crap album?
    Princess, limp- being assholes isn’t creative. I know you’re incapable of original thought, limp, but if you really cared about the princess you’d set her free to maybe at least be amusing. Being her sycophant degrades you both, hard as that is to do.

  260. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:57

    “Yeah, the “liberal establishmentâ€? being every goddamned scientist on the face of the planet.”

    Actually, not every goddamned scientist on the face of the planet accepts evolution to be true. And even if they did it would not make it true. History is awash with examples of accepted scientific theory which we now know to be false, it is the height of arrogance to believe that the “science” we know now is any different. Future generations will laugh at the backward thinking of the turn of the 21st century, mark my words.

    As for the dinosaur bones, I think it is fairly obvious where they came from: they are the bones of deceased dinosaurs. I don’t see what is so hard to understand about that.

  261. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 1:58

    Oh, lordy, JK47, creationists are the best toys to play with EVAR. Like, ever. Like, they are so much fun that it’s almost enough to make one believe in a god, because where else could the most perfect toy imaginable have come from?

    If you decide to play that way with them, let me know – I’ve been doing that for years, and have lots of resources to offer you. Trying to watch them account for the matching ERVs in the Pan and Homo genomes is usually pretty fun for starters.

  262. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:00

    Mr. Limpy, I beg to differ with your assertion of your understanding of Evolutionary theory.

    However, Creationism does not meet the scientific level of theory, since it cannot be tested. So as a scientific debate, creationism cannot be compared to evolutionary science. It is purely a matter of belief, unsupported by any significant research, regardless of the assertions of the Discovery Institute.

    Evolutionary science is well establisshed, and has stood the tests of thousands of independent discoveries over the past several hundreds of years.

    If you really want to get into it, Shoe, I suggest you visit Pharyngula, as they are much more knoledgeable about the subject than we are, as you so insultingly reminded us. However, wear a cup; as I suspect they will not handle you or your ill-informed views gently.

  263. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:00

    Okay, Limpy, we’ll make you a deal: we’ll pretend that evolution is a passing fad if you promise to give up everything that the study of evolution and its derivatives has provided the modern world. You know, silly shit like medicine (human and veterinary), most agriculture, computers…

    Incidentally, for those who don’t know their Bibles, nowhere does it even hint at the age of the Earth. The whole “6,000 Years” thing was created by a crackpot in the 19th century. (Same with the Rapture and a number of other of the the Wingnut’s top-ten knee-slappers).

  264. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:01

    Random Thought:

    It is truly amazing the number of Fundies who in the same breath can tell you they KNOW when they die they are going to ‘Heaven’ and then squeal in fear about how much their lives are endangered by a Muslims.

    Truly Amazing.

  265. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:02

    Actually, not every goddamned scientist on the face of the planet accepts evolution to be true.

    You’re right– there are still a handful of deluded dumbfucks masquerading as scientists trying to pretend their childhood fairy tales are literally true.

    Who needs all this science shit, carbon-14 dating and all that. We all know it was a talking snake in a tree.

  266. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:03

    Future generations will laugh at the backward thinking of the turn of the 21st century, mark my words.

    I just love it when it uses phrases like “mark my words.” Such a clever troll. It’s too precious!

  267. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:03

    It’s a little bit older than that, kingubu.

    It goes back to 17th century, to a man by the name of Bishop Ussher.

    Just goes to show there’s nothing so fucking stupid that you can’t find some moron to believe in it.

  268. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:03

    Now watch Shoe quietly slink away like the bitch he is.

  269. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:03

    History is awash with examples of accepted scientific theory which we now know to be false,

    None of the theories were replaced with “White guy in a purple robe did it” ,Limpy.

  270. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:05

    mikey, what’s for dinner up there? It’s already 5 o’clock, is it hot up north where you are? We’ve got 90 degree temperatures and Santa Anas.

    We’re thinking margaritas and tacos made from yesterday’s leftover steak.

  271. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:05

    Oh shit, if limp-ass was to go engage PZ, I want to know about it. ‘Cause that would be about the funniest thing I can imagine. How bout it limpy? Wanna make the jump to lightspeed, hop over to PZ’s place and explain to those idiot evolutionary biologist phds the reality of scientific creationism? C’mon, let’s do this thang!!

    mikey

  272. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:07

    Brad, you’re so boring it’s not even funny. It’s true, you just don’t know it. :)

  273. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:08

    Well, before we send him there, we should put him through the trials here, first.

    Like having him explain the occurence of seven identical endogenous retroviruses at the same location on the P. troglodytus and H. sapiens genomes.

    I mean, I’ve got a pretty simple explanation for it….I just wonder what his is.

  274. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:08

    If you don’t disagree with everyone at *some* point you aren’t thinking for yourself.

    The thing I like about a place like SN! is that I agree a lot of the time, and I won’t get banned when I don’t. Unlike certain other places…

  275. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:08

    “Okay, Limpy, we’ll make you a deal: we’ll pretend that evolution is a passing fad if you promise to give up everything that the study of evolution and its derivatives has provided the modern world. You know, silly shit like medicine (human and veterinary), most agriculture, computers…”

    Wow, isn’t this an original thought. I see no purpose in getting involved in the validity or lack thereof of evolutionary theory, since this is all ground that is very well established and I sincerely doubt that there would be any change of minds on the subject.

    However I will point out that a) your belief in technology as deriving from evolutionary theory is somewhat overstated and b) technology operates at a pretty fundamental level: it either works or it doesn’t. One can create technology that works even if they are incorrect about the basic scientific principles that serve as its basis. The fact that technology has been created by people using as their basis a theory I do not believe in does not mean that technology has no worth. It would be just as insane as me telling you to reject all technology that was created by those who believed in the theory that God created the world (which is, of course, the same technology which for the most part is the foundation of all modern technology). I mean, really.

  276. rotten apples said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:09

    man… if dude seriously equates libertarian principles to dominant religious mores, dude probably needs a couple more politics classes.

  277. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:09

    Ahh, who am I fooling?

    I’d guess annie and Shoe have long been banned from Pharyngula. PZ does not suffer fools gladly.

    Maybe they could go on the beginner’s track though, and try debating PZ’s daughter. I understand she’s quite handy with the Creationism-puncturing herself.

  278. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:10

    It’s been like 80, real nice. I went up the coast this morning for a meeting in half moon bay. Kind of took the long way home. I have a NY strip I’m thinking about marinating, I’ve also got this new recipe I made up for homemade chicken pot pie I wanna try. But with the weather the way it is, I reckon I’ll grill the steak, do some herb-roasted potatoes and a big-ass salad. I’ve got a heitz cab a friend gave me the other day (I can no longer afford 75 dollar wine, I’m afraid) that I might just crack…

    mikey

  279. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:10

    Jillian: It’s a little bit older than that, kingubu.

    Ah, thanks for the correction. I blame my laziness on demonic possession… or too much pie, take your pick.

  280. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:12

    Eh, swatting around creationists online has been a hobby of mine for about six or seven years now. It’s highly entertaining.

    One of these days, I’ll get a normal hobby.

  281. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:15

    But, but, but Jillian!! The second law of thermodynamics!! Not enough dust on the surface of the moon!! And NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILES!! Guess I’ve got you there, huh?

    mikey

  282. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:17

    So swat, Shoe, Jillpants.

    LOL. Scaredypants. :)

  283. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:17

    OH NOES!!!!

    Wait….I think you forgot “no beneficial mutations”.

    teehee

  284. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:18

    The fact that technology has been created by people using as their basis a theory I do not believe in does not mean that technology has no worth.

    Um, Limpy. If someone creates technology using a ‘theory’ you don’t believe “in” that means your ‘belief’ has no worth.

    Oh and Limpy, please which inventions rely on “God Created the Universe” to function?

  285. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:18

    One can create technology that works even if they are incorrect about the basic scientific principles that serve as its basis.

    Well, not really. The first time is called chance. The second time is called Luck. The thrid time is a failure, because without an understanding of the science behind it, you can’t repeat your success. Try using that method as an engineer. You’ll be canned before you draw your second paycheck. Engineers have little use for someone who tries to do it without an understanding, regardless of what you’ve read in Dilbert.

    The fact that technology has been created by people using as their basis a theory I do not believe in does not mean that technology has no worth.

    It just means that you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You’re convinced the underlying theory is wrong, yet you have no reservations about deriving personal benefit from it. Come On, man, sack up! You’re saying you’re too much of a coward to live by your principles?

    It would be just as insane as me telling you to reject all technology that was created by those who believed in the theory that God created the world (which is, of course, the same technology which for the most part is the foundation of all modern technology).

    As I said before, belief in God is a separate issue from science. One deals in faith, one deals in repeatable and predictable phenomena. Some scientists believe in God, many don’t. In all cases, reputable scientists do not let their faith dictate their science. Show me ANY scientific advances derived from Creationist Theory. Come on. One.

  286. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:20

    damn….sucks that I’m out of popcorn.

    I do have some beer left, though.

  287. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:20

    One of these days, I’ll get a normal hobby.

    Oh, please don’t. Leave shopping and TV to the Pinks. (Unless of course that new hobby involves those boots you mentioned ealier. In which case all I’ll say is “Godspeed, John Glenn…”).

  288. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:20

    The thing I like about a place like SN! is that I agree a lot of the time, and I won’t get banned when I don’t. Unlike certain other places…

    You haven’t read the FAQ, have you? Okay, there isn’t one, but one has to do something really egregious—like outing someone, disclosing private information, or threatening someone—to have a comment edited or deleted, let along get the commenter banned.

  289. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:21

    Nice that Jillian has a hobby, isn’t it?. :D

  290. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:21

    Owlbear, simply because the technology works does not mean the underpinning theory is there for infallibly validated. If you have any knowledge of the science of history you will know that it is awash with examples of technology created by people who did not have a proper understanding of why it worked, although they certainly had their own theories which led them to the creation of said technology.

  291. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:21

    Wow. You go to the movies for a couple of hours and the kids just open up all the cupboards and give every damn thing to the neighborhood trolls. Party’s over, guys. Clean up this mess or there won’t be any peeps for Easter. I mean it.

  292. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:22

    Please excuse my typo: “science of history” should read “history of science.”

  293. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:22

    This says it better than I ever could:

    http://www.politicalsports.com/idiot-america.htm

    The Republican strategy is to devalue the opinions of scientific professionals by claiming they are liberally biased, manufacturing controversy where no controversy exists (non peer-reviewed counter arguments, ‘scientists’ paid by vested interests, etc) and other tricks to get people to think “hey, nobody seems to really agree about evolution so I’ll just believe whatever the hell I want!”

    It’s almost impossible to argue with someone who has fallen for that sort of logic because they lack critical thinking skills. Evolution is a “theory” in the same way that *every* bit of science is a theory, Can the theory be improved? Sure. Can it be proven wrong? Maybe. But these counter-arguments never have any basis in science at all! They don’t advance a better scientific alternative or make science-literate arguments.

    Evolution may be a flawed or incomplete theory but nobody ever advances a better one that has any scientific merit at all.

    What’s funny is that the people devaluing scientific expertise are a disorganized bunch with opposite goals. On one hand you have radical conservatives and on the other social deconstructionists, both of which will argue that science is a social construction with no intrinsic merit, therefore allowing them to make whatever stupid argument they feel like.

    Of course the problem there is once you’ve rejected rational thought and the scientific process there is no way you can argue that your opinions have any more merit than any other opinions.

  294. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:22

    Awwww…………..but I LOVE Peeps!

  295. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:22

    NY strip is what we grilled last night, with a nice pinot noir. Tonight I think the leftovers will make some good tacos. My companion just made us a couple of margaritas with the end of a bottle of margarita mix topped up with a couple of limes from the garden.

    I don’t think what shoelimpy does is properly called “debate.” What he does is more like provocative posturing, followed by indignant expressions of outrage, followed by a turd-bomb of insult, after which he climbs back upon his perch of feigned outrage, and takes another poke at someone.

    Annie’s yapping at his heels like Honey-Bunny in the coffee shop in “Pulp Fiction,” hoping he’ll beat someone up for her.

    they don’t deserve “debate” because they aren’t reasonable people, and they aren’t here for debate. They’re hear because somehow they both get off on it in some kind of sick way.

  296. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:25

    Of course the problem there is once you’ve rejected rational thought and the scientific process there is no way you can argue that your opinions have any more merit than any other opinions.

    And this is the disturbing point of intersection between the pomo-influenced identity politicians and the reactionary religious folks in a nutshell. Neither has any epistemological foundation that allows them to rationally challenge opposing views.

    Have we come full circle at this point?

  297. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:25

    Peeps and gummy bears had a common ancestor. Evolution proved once and for all…

    mikey

  298. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:26

    Billy, as I stated technology works or it doesn’t work. However, simply because we have a a piece of technology that works using certain principles does not mean our underpinning theory of how that works is correct. I mean there have been medicines used by peoples for thousands of years despite the fact they had no knowledge of your vaunted “evolutionary theory,” which would be your reason for why these medicines work, does that mean they cannot continue to use these medicines?

  299. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:27

    D’oh!

    I missed where you said practically the same thing, RO.

    Sorry ’bout that.

  300. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:27

    So the missing link would be, what? Circus peanuts?

  301. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:27

    Douchey McHairflip probably thinks the sun revolves around the Earth too, and that Copernicus was part of the “liberal establishment.”

  302. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:27

    What about circus peanuts?

    http://www.oldtimecandy.com/circus-peanuts.htm

  303. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:29

    Now, here’s some old-school Christianity, my bretheren.

  304. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:29

    But Random, how many people on here are actually debating? Jillian claims that is her hobby, but she wont debate, she just makes snide comments.

  305. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:30

    MMMmmm, boiled peanuts, funnel cakes, corn dogs. Sure, one solid afternoon at the county fair could kill me, but that’s pretty much how I’d wanna go…

    mikey

  306. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:31

    Wait a minute, Jillian. If that’s a true representation of the earth suspended from an electro magnet, answer me this —

    where does the cord plug in?

  307. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:32

    I’m tempted to make a deific scatalogical reference, but I shall refrain.

    Call it an Easter miracle.

  308. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:32

    Only $1.49 a bag? Why, that’s a steal, g! Who could resist a pound of Circus Peanuts after gazing at that portrait of them all cuddly and . . . and . . . and delectable? Plus, as I recently learned, they’re evolutionarily significant.

  309. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:32

    We spent 3 months living in Scandinavia a while back. Does anyone here know about salt licorice?

    And, further, is there anyone here who can stand the stuff?

  310. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:33

    Two words, mikey: elephant ears.

    ’nuff said.

  311. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:34

    You used “epistemological foundation” correctly in a sentence, so you win automatically!

  312. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:35

    Actually, the fossil record shows that Peeps, Gummis of all kinds (except, Gummi Worms) and Circus Peanuts are all descended from Fudgie The Whale.

    No, that wasn’t a fat joke.

  313. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:35

    I love me some boiled peanuts. We like to buy them along the back roads whenever we go visit relatives in Florida.

    But they are NOT circus peanuts, not by a long shot.

    Circus peanuts are orange, but taste of banana. This is a truly mystical thing.

  314. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:36

    My dissolute youth was spent hanging out with barroom philosophers.

    Okay, so they were real philosophers, and my teachers at uni, even, but that doesn’t sound nearly as cool.

    I am the worst nerd ever.

  315. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:37

    Owlbear, simply because the technology works does not mean the underpinning theory is there for infallibly validated. If you have any knowledge of the science of history you will know that it is awash with examples of technology created by people who did not have a proper understanding of why it worked, although they certainly had their own theories which led them to the creation of said technology.

    And STILL none of them replaced the current theory with “a White guy in a purple robe did it.”

    Its sounds like you are arguing that ‘scientific theory’ is constantly changing therefore it isn’t valid but since ‘The White Guy in the Purple Robe” never changes it must therefore be valid.

    Is that what you are trying to say?

  316. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:38

    Wax lips

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Waxlips.JPG

  317. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:39

    I think SN is a lock on all the 2007 Weblog awards if only because the words circus peanuts and epistemological foundation appear repeatedly within the same short block of comments. The other blogs might as well give up right now.

  318. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:39

    The only person advocating a “White Guy in a Purple Robe” theory here is you, Owlbear.

  319. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:40

    I’m so tempted to dork out about the virtues of Nietzschean perspectivism right now.
    But i really should save it for the thesis i’m avoiding working on again.

  320. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:41

    annie it is outside the scope of this forum to debate evolution.

    I would suggest a class in the Philosophy of Science followed by reading of peer-reviewed journals, taking some actual science classes and talking to or reading the work of major scientists in a variety of subjects to develop an understanding of how science works in general. Then read on evolution in particular and try practicing some science yourself to try it on for size.

    I could make the argument but it would be extremely long, detailed and tedious, and a message board does not lend itself to that sort of thing. And if someone doesn’t buy into the basic tenets of science the argument will be lost on them anyway.

  321. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:41

    Here’s a fun little game. Believing in Douchey’s version of creationism inherently means that you do not believe in many things that are accepted as scientific fact. For starters, one must believe that Carbon-14 dating is a crock of shit, presumably concocted by liberals. Anybody else got any good ones?

  322. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:43

    Mort, I could help to wrap it up by accusing both creationists and radical feminists of fruitless appeals to antirealism, and then follow up with some of my favorite marshmallow fluff recipes…..

  323. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:45

    But it’s not outside the scope of this forum to debate the debate on elolution? Or rather state what the debate from the opposing side is, and that’s that?

    Even though we have a self professed creationalist swatter within swatting distance of the actual debate?

  324. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:45

    JK47, it means that you are incapable of believing in the results of a paternity test, so therefore Maury must’ve made them up to boost ratings, as he’s a well-known liberal.

  325. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:46

    Ah man. So I throw together this marinade for the steak, tamari, merlot, worcertershire, garlic, onion, rosemary, olive oil, and put it in a ziplok bag with the steak to do the do. Catastrophic bag failure!! Marinated kitchen!! Shit. I blame science…

    Sigh…

    mikey

  326. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:46

    You completely avoided answering the basic question Limpy.

    Do you believe in “Scientific Method” OR do you rely on your Faith?

  327. islmfaoscist said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:47

    Shorter afraid-of-science creationists:

    Doubt sucks. Certainty rocks!

  328. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:48

    annie needs some rigorous edumacation in Middle East history and politics to shore up her bizarre rants about current events, so a little scientific theory and the reading of peer journals would be a nice compliment, a rounding out, as it were, in her educational process.

    But I think instead she’s going to go buy some more bookcases at Ikea, take some more soft-porn photos of herself, and drink some more beer with limpshoe.

    Frankly, I’m done with both of them.

    Anyone want some Turkish Taffy?

  329. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:48

    Billy, as I stated technology works or it doesn’t work.

    Not entirely true. There needs to be a distinction between technology, which is direct application of scientific principles for a specific goal, and science, which is the process through which scientific principles are hypotesized, tested, and discarded or modified as the results of the tests indicate.

    If you are using a Windows computer, I forgive you the assertion that the tech either works or it doesn’t, because that is what one would assume watching Windows work (or not)

    However, technology is a case of developing something, like a toaster. you need to use a heat source: gas? Electric? Solar? and apply it to bread – using a conveyor? the pop-up thingie? And then put the thing together in a way that it will work consistently and safely. In order to do those things, you would need to have a thorough understanding of heat transfer, molecular theory and materials science, mechanical processes, and other things I’m sure I’m forgetting. A slap dash assembly of something hot and a piece of bread may get you a piece of toast, but it might be less than safe, and it might not work more than a couple of times.

    However, simply because we have a a piece of technology that works using certain principles does not mean our underpinning theory of how that works is correct.

    Again, not really. As technology has developed, so has the understading of the undeerlying principles deepened and become more thorough. For instance, early cars did not require an understanding of relativity and molecular physics, computers do.

    I mean there have been medicines used by peoples for thousands of years despite the fact they had no knowledge of your vaunted “evolutionary theory,� which would be your reason for why these medicines work, does that mean they cannot continue to use these medicines?

    God, where to start with the misunderstandings here? Primitive medicines as you describe are subject to a scientific process (although maybe the peoples involved don’t recognize it as such) called “trial and error” Through repetition, they have tried different treatments on people, and by observing who lives and dies, come to some conclusion as to the efficacy of these treatments. It’s a totally pragmatic approach, but it’s pretty hard on the test subjects. Obviously, there’s no reason these people can’t use such medicines to good effect, but the same medicines, subject to medical and scinetific study, may actually yield greater results with fewer casualties.

  330. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:50

    This thread has made me laugh my ass off more than any S,N thread in months. It’s fun again!!

    mikey

  331. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:50

    Jillian, might I suggest one of these?

  332. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:50

    The question was absurdly biased, not only for the straw man “White Guy in a Purple Robe” statement but also in its false dichotomy. I don’t see the point in answering questions based upon fallacious assumptioms.

  333. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:51

    Oh, yeah, Mort.

    With banana and honey, too!

  334. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:52

    I think Random Guy is probably right.

    I’m off to Feministe to argue about whether I should hold open the door for a woman or not.

    enjoy that cab, mikey.

  335. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:53

    Do you rely on your Faith or Scientific Method Limpy?

  336. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:55

    I’ve never heard of boiled peanuts. Boled peanuts, yes, but not boiled peanuts.

  337. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:55

    Mortician, that is one of wiki’s vaunted “true but funny” entries. They are a joy. “Fluffernutter before assembly”. “Completed Fluffernutter”. Now that’s funny@!!Oneeleven….

    mikeyh

  338. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:55

    I eagerly await a picture of Jillian with a word balloon “epistemological foundation” and a sandwhich photoshopped into her uterus. I think that would be a very accurate summary of this discussion.

  339. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:56

    J– I think that both the spelling “boiled” and your pronunciation are simultaneously correct…

    mikey

  340. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:56

    Billy, I can create technology using a seemingly correct but in fact incorrect scientific principle and that technology will still work. I could also use this as a de facto validation of my theory, in fact this is part of the scientific method which Owlbear has been harping about. However, it is not at all unknown that later study will determine that the underlying principles on which the technology work are not those which were first hypothesized, thus leading to revampings and at times complete revolutions in scientific theory. That does not mean the technology never worked in the first place.

  341. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:56

    This is what makes S,N! the best place on teh internets to hang out, RO! Everything you just said makes perfect sense.

    Where else could that be the case?

  342. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:58

    Random, I look forward to the Jillian photoshop — but only if the sandwich in question is a fluffernutter before assembly.

  343. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 2:59

    Shorter Douchey McHairflip:

    I will not answer Owlbear’s question except with verbal circumlocutions, because if I answer truthfully I will look like an assbag.

  344. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:00

    Just out of curiosity, has Limpy explained the shared endogenous retroviruses in the human and chimp genomes yet?

  345. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:00

    Owlbear, why must everything be either faith or scientific method with you? The scientific method is a very useful tool. Christians have been engaging in science for 2,000 years. That does not mean that they reject faith. How brainwashed is your mind to believe that faith and scientific principles must be completely opposed?

    Like I said, your question represents a false dichotomy and I have no intention of take part in a debate with you on fallacious assumptions.

  346. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:02

    I’m sure he did, Jillian, and we just missed it. I know in my case, it was probably because I was wrapped up making peeps-n-pixiesix sammiches.

  347. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:03

    The Peeps webpage has a recipe for a Peeps sandwich.

    sourdough bread, smashed Peeps, Nutella, and grilled panini-style.

    I think I have to do this.

  348. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:04

    Ooh, peanut butter, too.

  349. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:04

    Jillian, Limpy hasn’t explained why he can’t find his way home after work, or why when he stops at a bar for directions the denizens of said bar beat him up, or why he has no friends, nor why he finds trying to antagonize people smarter than him (ok, that’s not much of a subset of the human race and other higher-order mammals, but still) something that gives him what we like to call in scientific circles a “boner”. There is no explanation. There is only his game, or pie. Just knowing the rules of the game provides a certain freedom…

    mikey

  350. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:06

    http://www.peepresearch.org/

  351. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:06

    Peeps are kind of gross IMO, but I don’t have much of a sweet tooth.

    Also humans were created by super-intelligent peeps from the negative zone. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  352. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:08

    Boiled peanuts are a southern delicacy.

    http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/BoiledPeanutsHistory.htm

    In Florida, you’ll see a roadside stand with a hand-lettered sign saying “Boiled Peanuts”. There’s usually a charcoal fire with a big pot of boiling water. Sometimes they put some spices in the water like red pepper flakes. And lots of salt.

    They boil raw (not roasted!) peanuts in the shell in the water, and when you get a paper bag full of them, the shells are soft and the peanuts aren’t crunchy, they’re soft. You peel the shells and eat the peanuts and then as you’re driving along you either throw the shells out the window or if you’re more fastidious or community-minded, you find another place to put the shells.

    The texture of the shell and the peanut are similar to the texture of edamame, but of course the taste is way different.

    Salty. Kinda woody. There’s a good smoky taste, due to the charcoal fire.

    The site I linked to talks about keeping them and freezing or refrigerating them, but I’ve never done that. The only way I’ve eaten boiled peanuts is in the car, out of the paper bag while driving along, or at my destination on the road.

    With beer.

    Mmm.

  353. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:09

    Billy, I can create technology using a seemingly correct but in fact incorrect scientific principle and that technology will still work.

    Demonstrate, please, Mr. Limpy.

    Please do.

  354. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:09

    I think I have to do this.

    No!! Stop!! That’s nothing short of nasty. Just do nutella with a dusting of cinnimon sugar on buttered sourdough and call it just sweet enough. Don’t go down the smashed peeps road, we’ll find you in the gutter just givin it away for another couple yellow chicks, and have to do some kind of hella harsh intervention. It’s not too late to keep this thing from getting out of hand…

    mikey

  355. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:10

    something that gives him what we like to call in scientific circles a “boner�

    But wait. Shoelimpy doesn’t believe in science. Therefore, phenomena articulated in scientific circles do not apply to him. Ergo, he can’t . . .

    Oh. That explains a few things.

  356. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:11

    You have no idea how high my tolerance for Peeps is, mikey.

    I get the big twelve-packs of them.

    And I do a whole line of Peeps at a time.

    I’m hardcore, baby!

  357. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:12

    sourdough bread, smashed Peeps, Nutella, and grilled panini-style.

    What was the sandwich Elvis used to eat? Fluffernutters and Banana? I don’t remember, but no wonder he died as he did.

  358. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:15

    Elvis ate the world-famous skabana-nut sandwich (sorry, wiki doesn’t recognize it, at least not with my spelling). Peanut butter and bananas between slices of white bread, “grilled” in about a half pound of butter.

  359. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:17

    Oh, well, it’s the butter that does the trick.

    Uuuurpppphhh!

  360. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:17

    In 1974, some of my darkest moments, hitchiking around the south, trying to either understand or die, I met these two stunningly beautiful black ladies in crenshaw county alabama. And they taught me lessons I keep holy to this day. Lessons about ephemeral joy, peaches and peanuts, family and loyalty and what it means to live in the today…

    mikey

  361. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:18

    History is replete with examples, Billy. Science is based upon observation, and our understanding of these observations. The observation, for example, that living prganisisms change between generations, that there are many factors which contribute to these changes and that through manipulation we can change the course of these changes in a desirable direction are well established. However this does not validate many of the broader claims of evolutionary theory which were the specific matter of the debate begun my Mr. 47 when he was criticizing me on the idea of believing in Creationism. The fact that we can observe such things and manipulate them for our own good does not deny the fact that the universe was created by God.

  362. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:18

    oh i get this game.

    Ok, can they really be called Christians anymore if they’ve given up Faith to answer questions and instead turned to ‘Science’ to answer them?

    Faith is after all “Believe without proof.” A ‘Christian’ testing a hypothesis really can’t be said to be showing ‘Faith’ if they are asking questions.

    So, how can you sit there and say “Christians have been using Science for 2,000 years” if IN FACT those weren’t really Christians in the first place?

  363. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:19

    Sure you can write the name in different ways—boiled peanuts, boild peanuts, boiled p-nuts—but they’re called boled peanuts.

    (I live in north central Florida.)

  364. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:20

    Shh. Nobody say or do anything to bring mikey out of his happy place. Although I hope he doesn’t stay there so long that he has another marinade incident . . .

  365. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:23

    Smiling Mortician: The Elvis entry at Wikipedia mentions the sandwich. Here’s the paragraph:

    However, after his divorce in 1973 Presley became increasingly isolated, overweight, and was battling an addiction to prescription drugs which took a heavy toll on his appearance, health, and performances. According to Anna Paterson, “binge eating led him to gain large amounts of weight. It wasn’t just the quantity of food that he was eating which caused the problems. Elvis frequently consumed very high fat foods. His favourite meal was reportedly peanut butter and banana sandwiches grilled in butter. Another famous meal he enjoyed was ‘Fool’s Gold Loaf’. This was a hollowed out white loaf, drenched in butter and then stuffed with peanut butter, jam and bacon.” This harmful behavior was “coupled with a heavy prescription drug problem.”

    I do so love the cacophony and chaos at Sadly, No!.

  366. Smiling Mortician said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:24

    Wow, J. I didn’t know about the Fool’s Gold Loaf. Yee gods.

  367. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:27

    Owlbear, now you are bringing up absolutely incorrect conceptions of faith. While I understand that this is a popular modern definition of faith you have given here, Biblical faith has nothing to do with “belief without proof” and everything to do with placing complete trust in our Creator.

  368. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:28

    Another famous meal he enjoyed was ‘Fool’s Gold Loaf’. This was a hollowed out white loaf, drenched in butter and then stuffed with peanut butter, jam and bacon.

    Umm, just out of curiosity, what kind of jam? Not that I’d ever make such a monstrosity, my docs would hunt me down and beat me up. And seriously, how good could something like that be? So just tell me what kind of jam, and how best to heat/cook it, and I’ll just be satisfied intellectually, y’know? And nobody gets hurt…

    mikey

  369. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:29

    Neither did I, Smiling Mortician. Did you read the Wikipedia entry for it? Elvis’ lifestyle was crazy, he was luxury lazy!

  370. The Ghost of Matthew Shephard said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:31

    annie,

    I just asked Jesus about you and he said, I know her not.

    But we are all praying for you, annie! Really we are!

    It’s not too late. It’s never too late to break away from Satan and his minions among the faux Christians.

  371. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:33

    Just to check….anything from Limpy on ERVs yet?

  372. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:35

    God, I don’t know. Strawberry?

    What kind of jam goes best with bacon? Blueberry, maybe, or something a little more tart, like apricot, to cut the salt and gaminess of the bacon?

    I don’t like the phrase “drenched in butter” to describe bread. Makes it sound like lobster.

    Lobster I can get behind. But not with jam.

    Have I told you guys how much I love you all? I am recovering from surgery 6 days prior, surgery of a rather embarassing nature, and I’m here in a haze of vicodin and margaritas, and did I tell you how much I love you all for making me laugh so much?

  373. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:36

    Yep. Limpy said the answer to every question on the test was “god did it”. And he expects a freakin A+ from you liberal motherfuckers…

    mikeye

  374. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:40

    Then why ask any questions at all?

    “Complete trust in our Creator”

    Your definition Damns all those ‘questioners’ even more so.

    By asking questions of “why do these things work the way they do” these people were very much not placing ‘Complete trust in their Creator’. Far from it.

  375. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:42

    God gave us the ability to reason and think. Understanding the way the world works is in no way taking away trust from our Creator, far from it. It is placing faith in our Creator that the tools and abilities he has given us are in fact useful, which they have proven to be.

  376. ifthethunderdontgetya³² said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:49

    Yippee!

    A 374 comment Sadly, No! thread. I just know there is a lot of pie in here!

  377. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:50

    Dood. Your “creator” fucked me over in twelve ugly ways. Why do I want anything to do with him? If he did exist, he’s a crazy, evil, sociopathic motherfucker. I mean, think about the meaning of the words “night battle” and that this god mofo seems to groove on people killing each other at eyeball range and tell me if he exists, exactly why he is good?

    Nah, don’t sweat it mortician, I’m still in a very nice place. But if these fucks wanna believe in a god that created 100 billion galaxies and still cares who wins the superbowl, then they have to find a way to integrate my life experience into their worldview, and I’m sorry, that god would be a fuckwad of the first order.

    Just sayin…

    mikey

  378. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:50

    We’ve been having fun, though! And not nearly as much pie as you’d think.

    You can come play with us now.

    Have a fluffernutter sandwich!

  379. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:53

    Well, I’ll have to give you that one Limpy. Faith has always been useful as a fall back position.

  380. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:53

    Mikey can read Shoe’s comments!! LOL, pie my ass.

  381. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:55

    This thread needs more whiny ass titty baby talk. You guys let it get all boring.

    Remember, you can make any point more salient by adding “whiny ass titty baby” to it someplace.

  382. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:55

    Now Mikey is blaming God for things HE did.

    Read Henry the Fifth. Every man’s duty is to the King, but every man’s SOUL is his own.

    Now stop crying.

  383. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:57

    Fine.

    Have a WATB fluffernutter sandwich.

    Better?

  384. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 3:59

    My kitchen smells funny. God hates me…

    mikey

  385. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:01

    See, the WATB makes it sound that much more appealing. It works!

  386. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:02

    She ain’t goin nowhere she’s just leavin
    She ain’t goin nowhere she cain’t breath in
    She ain’t goin home, that’s for sure…

    On the other hand, Guy Clarke might be god…

    mikey

  387. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:06

    Mr. Limpy.

    You have not given ONE example of technology derived without an understanding of the primary principles involved. You claim that history is replete with examples, but the only image I glean is those hundreds of failed attempst at flying by using wings that flap, like a bird. Even after the basic principles of the airfoil were established, it took quite some time for someone to come up with an operable flying machine; and that was developed through the construction and testing of models and mockups. Scientific processes, again.

    Your comments about God creating the universe, and bestowing reason upon mankind with which to understand the univers, does nothing to further any basis for Creationism. It is a description of the basic dichotomy between Faith and Science, and merely obfuscates the issue.

    However, that ability to understand, that you believe is God’s gift, HAS allowed us to understand the mechanisms and processes of evolution in sophisticated and well-established ways.

    Creationism has not. It merely posits a black box wherein ‘a miracle happens’ – a postulate that is neither reducible nor testable. Again, I ask you to point to one -ONE- scientific development based on Creationism.

    The fact that we can observe such things and manipulate them for our own good does not deny the fact that the universe was created by God.

    One has nothing to do with the other, sir. The second fact you mention there is not testable nor provable, again, so it falls in the realm of Faith, not Science.

    Unfortunately, I don’t like peeps or fluffernutter, and I don’t have nay good wine, so I’m reduced to working with pie.

  388. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:07

    Austin Powers is on TV.

    Great counterpoint to the conversation.

    annieangel’s acquaintence with Henry V is limited to the Cliff Notes.

  389. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:10

    I’ve got Sibelius on, which is the perfect aural accompaniment right now.

    Gotta go to bed in a couple, but trying to put it off as long as I can.

  390. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:11

    I believe the fork was invented without a proper understanding of eye-stabbing.

  391. Marita said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:13

    Wow. I conk out on NyQuil for a few hours, and now… this?

    The things you miss when you’re passed out and drooling…

  392. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:14

    Have a WATB fluffernutter sandwich, Marita!

  393. Marita said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:15

    Thanks Jillian! I think I will!

    And then I’ll pass out on a giant pile of Peeps.

  394. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:15

    I’ve got MST 3K on, which seems weirdly appropriate.

    If you’re wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts,
    Remember it’s a TV show, You should really just relax

    Maybe I’ll try one of those fluffernutter sammiches after all…

  395. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:15

    There is no “realm of fath,” Billy. Unless, of course, your postulate that such a realm exist is testable and verifiable? Didn’t think so.

    To stick with your example of flight, just as a for-instance, we can look at da Vinci’s helicopter, developed centuries ago. I seriously doubt that da Vinci was well versed in the mutliple scientific principles by which the helicopter functions.

  396. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:16

    I’m listening to sammy hagar and have the film “Heavy Metal” playing on the tv with mute on. Perhaps when Hannover Fist gets pissed I’ll bring up the volume…

    mikey

  397. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:17

    What *is* a titty baby anyway? That’s the one thing I didn’t get. I feel bad being banned from Feministe for calling someone that when I don’t even know what it means…

    Kids and their lingo today!

  398. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:18

    http://www.peepsshow.com/

  399. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:18

    I’ve gotta either get the meat on the grill or forget about it, call it the time change and just go with it….

    miky

  400. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:22

    And Da Vinci’s helicopter never really worked, either. It merely developed a concept that only became workable AFTER the prinicples involved became better understood. Although Leo was well versed in the scientific process, and was able to create a hypothesis, test it, and revise the hypothesis accordingly. Again, Science.

    By realm of Faith, I meant the ideological turf, Shoe, not a physical realm. And by that yardstick, there certainly is such a thing, by definition.

  401. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:24

    How yet resolves the UN of this world?
    This is the latest parle we will admit,
    Therefore to our best mercy give us our just war,
    Or like to men proud of destruction
    Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a Texan-
    A name that in my thoughts becomes me best-
    If I begin the battery my father started once again,
    I will not leave the half-attacked Iraq
    Till in her ashes she lie buried.

    Copyright AnnieAngel March 2003 , based off the kickass Shakespeare play Henry V :)

  402. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:27

    Billy, trying to get a creationist to understand science is all but impossible, because they just don’t inhabit the same reality the rest of us do. They live in a scary world where superheroes and supervillians are real, and everything they do on a daily basis is nothing more than a dress rehearsal for their real lives, which start after they are dead.

    Don’t think about it too much – you’ll just strain something. Have a WATB fluffernutter sandwich or something.

    But do try to make him tell you what an endogenous retrovirus is, and why it would be the case that chimps and humans would share seven of them on the same areas of their genome. If creationism really is as valid as evolution, he pretty much has to have an answer to that one.

  403. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:27

    I remember your Bush does Shakespeare, Miss Annie. It truly was brilliant stuff. And amazingly prescient, I might add.

  404. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:28

    Nobody say a word unless you have the

    solution

    mikey

  405. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:29

    What is the point of this discussion anyway?

    I’m sure *some* thing has been invented without understanding the science about it. I discovered that Whiskey in Coffee is really yummy without understanding why that is, but that hardly invalidates actual science to point out that people occasionally get lucky.

  406. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:30

    Billy, ideological turf is meaningless in such a discussion. You are creating a false ideology on my part and then debating with said false ideology and speaking of it as if it were a scientifically proven entity. And da Vinci’s helicopter most certainly was well on the way to being a viable machine, and would have met with much greater success if he had not died or had anyone decided to work more with the idea.

    As another example we can bring up the issue of gunpowder, which was developed and used long before we had advanced understanding of the chemistry and physics behind its functioning.

  407. Jillian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:31

    The point of this discussion is that people are not wearing enough hats.

    And with that, I’m off to bed. Thanks for the fun, y’all.

  408. Marita said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:32

    I remember your Bush does Shakespeare, Miss Annie.

    Is he referring to “Bush” as in the president, or umm… something else?

  409. J— said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:36

    I am recovering from surgery 6 days prior…

    I had a hernia operation a number of years ago, and in the days after the operation, my brother and father did everything they could to make me laugh. I had to squat down on my haunches to ease the pain.

    I hope your recovery is going well.

  410. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:40

    Jillian, Random, I know.

    I know.

    But nobody’s running around yelling “faggot” anymore, are they?

    Shoe, knowing that something explodes is well short of ‘inventing’ it. Again, gunpowder was developed through trial and error, which is an application of scientific principle. The development of gunpowder actually provided the understanding of the principles underlying it. That is how it works.

    I’m not going to get sidetracked by your dwelling on ‘the realm of faith’ Only in arguments with Creationists would that be an issue. By itself, it doesn’t ascribe anything to YOUR peersoanl beleifes, it merely says here is this group of stuff that falls under the term “Faith” including, but not limited to, God, Creationism, and Religion.

    It’s almost impossible to argue with someone who has fallen for that sort of logic because they lack critical thinking skills. Evolution is a “theory� in the same way that *every* bit of science is a theory, Can the theory be improved? Sure. Can it be proven wrong? Maybe. But these counter-arguments never have any basis in science at all! They don’t advance a better scientific alternative or make science-literate arguments.

    Random Observer, I believe the latter part of this thread goes a long way to supporting this hypothesis.

  411. Cutler John said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:41

    Poor Limpy. A brief perusal of early Christian literature (non-canonical Gospels, Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels, etc.) shows a great range of views about the terms of faith, how you understood Jesus not coming back, etc. Faith is a concept of trust indeed, but human trust undergoes a lot of tests and, hence, changes. The only way Christians are going to keep their intellectual integrity is to say “Look, these stories can be helpful in people’s lives. They do not possess absolute historical backing, and they don’t offer enough substance to compete with ‘science’ as investigation and theory. But they do shed some light on, for example, what it is to trust another human being (I know my friend loves me, but do I have scientific proof?), how to think of death and survival (say, what one’s life can affect in the world after one is gone), the nature of selfless love, etc.

    Not sure I’ll be buying any of it, and I’ll fight it hard when some wanker objects to to government helping my daughter get an inoculation against HPV. But I think that’s their best tack to take. Meanwhile, some evangelicals have said global warming is a Satanic myth…

  412. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:44

    The point of this discussion is that people are not wearing enough hats.

    And with that, I’m off to bed. Thanks for the fun, y’all.

    Pie, Jillian! Pie!

    I don’t wear hats, usually, but I’m a freaky long hair, so I don’t need to. And no occurence of MPB yet, so I don’t mind flaunting it.

  413. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:46

    “Shoe, knowing that something explodes is well short of ‘inventing’ it. Again, gunpowder was developed through trial and error, which is an application of scientific principle. The development of gunpowder actually provided the understanding of the principles underlying it. That is how it works.”

    Well yeah, Billy, that was my whole point. Who knows what the first people who developed gunpowder when they were creating fireworks and the like, but I doubt it was what we would consider today to be scientifically correct. It does not mean that gunpowder doesn’t work, though. If I told you that the forces of yin and yang represented by these two particular substances when they are joined together create an explosion, the fact that that description has nothing to do with why they explode doesn’t mean they don’t explode. I mean, really.

  414. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:46

    Yes, billy I would agree with you, and by proxy myself. (Pats self on back)

  415. islmfaoscist said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:47

    Biblical faith has nothing to do with “belief without proof� and everything to do with placing complete trust in our Creator.

    This word, “proof”. It does not mean what you think it means.

  416. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:49

    ” Scott Evil – I hate you! I hate you! I wish I was never artificially created in a lab!”

  417. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:49

    ” Scott Evil – I hate you! I hate you! I wish I was never artificially created in a lab!”

  418. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:50

    Shoe is taking you all to SCHOOL!!!

  419. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:51

    You just fly that flag, billy!! My hair is well down my back. Oh, it’s grey as hell, but I ain’t bald. But then, it was hot today and I’d forgotten how anoying it is to have long hair in the heat….

    mikey

  420. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:53

    Is he referring to “Bush� as in the president, or umm… something else?

    I dunno, check inside. Is there a sandwich-filled uterus?

  421. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 4:59

    Shoe’s acquaintance with School is limited to the detention office and Shop.

    Dr. Evil: “The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.

  422. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:06

    If I told you that the forces of yin and yang represented by these two particular substances when they are joined together create an explosion, the fact that that description has nothing to do with why they explode doesn’t mean they don’t explode. I mean, really.

    But it would prevent you from being able to realistically work with the substances, since by your definition, they are already singular. The development of gunpowder started with the combustible nature of saltpeter. The Chinese, in the course of experiments (although oddly enough, experiments in search of alchemy) tested different mixtures and configurations leading to the development of gunpowder. They were early scientists, and although their understanding of certain things such as alchemy was in error, when they applied the scientific prinicple without metaphysical mumbo-jumb, they were able to make progress.

    Interestingly, they were unable to make progress where they had an erroneous understanding- alchemy- but where they developed understanding through experimentation -explosives- they made progress. Kind of exactly the opposite of what you are maintaining, Shoe.

  423. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:13

    “They were early scientists, and although their understanding of certain things such as alchemy was in error, when they applied the scientific prinicple without metaphysical mumbo-jumb, they were able to make progress.”

    DUH! That is what I have been saying this entire time. Science is at its heart observational. Simply because our ideas of how these things happen could be flawed, the basic process of observational working can and do create technologies that were created despite the flawed thinking that went behind the creation in the first place. I mean that is exactly the position I stated in the beginning which you stated as false. I mean, really, the only person you are arguing with here is yourself.

  424. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:30

    I’ll try to make this a little bit easier for you, Billy. Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy for us today to look back at early scientists and say that what they did wrong was “alchemy” but what they did right was “real science.” However for them at the time it was all part of one and the same fundamental understanding of reality based upon their observational principles and own hypotheses. I mean every day there are scientists trying things based on ideas they gathered from evolutionary theory, gravitational theory, etc., etc., etc., yet you do not come out and claim that because their technology don’t work the basic laws of gravity of evolution or whatever it is aren’t real. And just because someone arrives at one result because they were seeking something based upon their own ideas (which may or may not have been correct) does not mean that technology is flawed or functional based upon whether or not their ideas moving into it were correct or not. Just because I can use an idea I got from reading the works of Stephen Jay Gould or some other evolutionist doesn’t mean that just because that technology works that men were descended from monkeys, any more than Böttger’s ability to create porcelain meant that there was a way to turn base metals into gold. I mean, really.

  425. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:34

    Moses just didn’t get me.

  426. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:41

    Okay, maybe we are arguing different sides of the thing.

    The point is, without the development of understanding, you are limited to observation. Di

    “Huh. Look at that. Saltpeter burns.”

    But that the development of understanding is the province of science. Ascribing the burning to yin and yang will get you exactly nowhere. It’s not until you perform the work on experimentation, and hypothesis, and further tests, that it can be determined that the addition of charcoal and sulfur makes it explosive.

    There was no flawed thinking behind the development of gunpowder. And that is NOT the position you stated at the beginning, to wit: I can create technology using a seemingly correct but in fact incorrect scientific principle and that technology will still work.

    You were saying quite clearly there that development of technological progress is NOT dependent upon understanding the underlying principles.

    the discovery that saltpeter is combustible is not an invention, an observation. You can’t claim to have invented electricity because you saw lightning once. The development of gunpowder is, however an invention, and that DID depend upon understanding how saltpeter and other substances work. Which depends on experimentation. Which is the basis of the scientific principle.

  427. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:48

    Is there some broader point you guys are dancing around?

  428. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 5:49

    Notice I said “seemingly correct,” Billy. As long as my observations match with what my hypotheses are, it would seem that my hypotheses are correct. That situation until such time at which observations are no longer match my hypotheses, at that point I must rethink my hypotheses. Secondly, accepting that some of my beliefs on what is going on is correct, enough to create a workable and usable technology, does not mean I must accept everything else implied by the scientist or his base theories. This was my point of the example of good old Böttger. Just because he was able to make porcelain doesn’t mean he was able to turn base metals into gold.

  429. Herr Doktor Bimler said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:03

    Thanks for the Peepsshow link, Jillian. It brought to mind a picture made by a mate of mine, out of 5040 M-&-Ms stuck to a backing board.

    … It was a portrait of Eminem, since you’re asking.

  430. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:07

    Well, Shoe, that’s as good a definition of science as any. Aspersions of ‘base theories’ notwithstanding.

    Now, explain to me why, again, you think that that statement is inoperative when it comes to evolution?

    Broader point? Not really, Random. except that Shoe can respond intelligently and reasonably when he’s engaged.

  431. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:08

    Arguments?

    I thought this was hitting over the head lessons.

  432. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:10

    Random Observer, one potential dancing broader point is aa and shoe are performance artists, and as such never argue anything in good faith.

  433. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:12

    It is not at all inoperative when it comes to evolution. However, while some aspects of evolutionary theory have been observationally verified, as I have stated before in this debate, that does not mean that evolutionary theory as a whole is verified, nor does acceptance of technology based on these observational principles means that I must accept all life on this planet is developed from some ameoba that crawled out of some pile of goo, just as you are able to enjoy a fireworks show without having to believe in the philosopher’s stone.

  434. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:21

    Yeah, I should have gone next door.

  435. islmfaoscist said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:24

    There’s just no way God would ever have allowed some ameoba that crawled out of some pile of goo onto the Ark.

  436. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:28

    Among respectable scientists who spend their entire lives studying the subject – this means biologists, paleontologists, geneticists and so forth – there is no question, none at all, concerning the veracity of the modern theory of evolution. It’s been observed and studied for over 150 years, and has yet to be seriously challenged by anyone or anything. Anyone who claims differently – which you will notice, rarely if ever includes anyone who studies anything close to evolutionary biology – is either willfully misinformed by this point or a kook, and usually both. There is simply no question about the veracity of evolutionary theory in modern science, and it’s dishonest to claim otherwise. Simple as that.

    Abiogenisis, that is the hows and whys actual life first emerged on the planet, is nnot a part of modern synthesis theory. To be sure, those making theories and hypothesis concerning the origin of life work from an evolutionary standpoint, but them that make claims concerning early life crawling out of anything and trying to tie it to evolutionary theory merely show they have no idea what they’re talking about. Read P.Z. Myers’ blog or the Panda’s Thumb, or check out the extensive files at TalkOrigins, or better yet, read Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale. The book is an excellent overview of evolution and human development. From what I understand, modern abiogenesis ideas take the tact that the line between life and nonlife is very blurry indeed. It’s pretty neat stuff, actually.

  437. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:34

    Shoelimpy believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. This means he does not believe Carbon-14 dating is valid. This also means he dismisses the entire field of geology. This also means he is none too bright.

  438. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:35

    Random Observer, one potential dancing broader point is aa and shoe are performance artists, and as such never argue anything in good faith.

    Shhh! Dinosaur!

    If they find out, we’ll have to go back to Pie!

  439. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:38

    Unortunately, JK, he never comes out and SAYS anything that definitive, hoping for someone to pop up and make those interpretations, then he will claim you’re putting words in his mouth and he’s the aggrieved party.

  440. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:39

    Shoe is waaaaaaaaaaay smarter than you. It just KILLS you all that he is right and you are wrong.

    You should take this opportunity to learn something.

  441. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:41

    Unortunately, JK, he never comes out and SAYS anything that definitive, hoping for someone to pop up and make those interpretations, then he will claim you’re putting words in his mouth and he’s the aggrieved party.

    Exactly. I dare you to say it, Limp: “I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Carbon-14 dating is a crock of shit, and that the field of geology is pure bunk.”

    Now watch his evasive answer.

  442. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:44

    Sorry, JK, I learned on the playground I don’t have to do anything until you at least triple dog dare me. You’re not even trying!

  443. Lesley said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:45

    if anyone needs a break from trolls, NTodd has heart-crushingly cute pix of his petz posted!

  444. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:46

    orry, JK, I learned on the playground I don’t have to do anything until you at least triple dog dare me. You’re not even trying!

    That’s what I thought. You lack the courage to say what you actually believe. You just dance around it like the little sniveling, hair-flipping douche that you are.

  445. Kurt vonnegut said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:52

    Cool. Nearly halfway to 1000 posts, and no out-of hand trolls.

    (psst. nobody tell the Pie twins that they’ve been pwned)

  446. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:53

    Shoe, what exactly is your take on Carbon-14 dating? It’s a liberal conspiracy, right?

  447. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 6:58

    Wait-

    Charles Nelson Reilly is GAY!?!?

  448. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:00

    JK-

    I believe in Carbon-14 dating.

    However, I think helium should wait until at least 16 before dating. And then only in mixed-elements.

  449. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:01

    You don’t seem to be having any problem answering your questions to me by yourself, Mr. 47. I don’t see why I should interfere with your fun by trying to bring reality into this discussion.

  450. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:02

    You don’t seem to be having any problem answering your questions to me by yourself, Mr. 47. I don’t see why I should interfere with your fun by trying to bring reality into this discussion.

    You coward. Your beliefs don’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny, so you run away like a little girl.

  451. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:05

    I see no reason in debating with a person who has already come to his conclusions prior to receiving the facts. Talking with people so set in their ideology is kind of like trying to a nail jello to a brick wall.

  452. cokane said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:05

    ur an idiot shoelimpy. there are few credible biologists believing in creationism

  453. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:06

    Anyone who claims any sort of belief in the idea that the planet is 6,000 years old is suffering from stunning ignorance. Apart from the MASSIVE amount of evidence to the contrary and the little fact that the majority of major religions put no truck with it (including the Vatican), it was pretty much made up out of whole cloth by some English preacher in the 17th century. Guy went from the birth of Jesus (which is unknown, historically), added up all the dates mentioned in the Bible (most of which don’t mesh well or at all with other historical records) and in the places where dates were unknown or ambiguous, he just punched in numbers found elsewhere in the Bible. Sort of like the number of the saved (144 or 144,000 or whatever it is) was extrapolated from other numbers mentioned in the Old Testaments. I’m at my folks’ place in Mississippi and don’t have access to my books, so I can’t be more specific than that. Still and all, the 6,000 years is complete and total bullshit from the word go. I forget why the guy did it, but there was a reason. Humorously enough, this was before the scientific revolution and the resulting erosion of religious authority on such matters.

    The funniest thing, though, is hearing Young Earth Liars argue about it as if it was really something that had some sort of historical basis. I remember reading of a schism a few years ago over what time ago 6,000 years. Either 9 a.m. or noon. Seriously. Sad these folks can’t find something more positive to do with all that religious energy.

  454. Lesley said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:09

    2000 person pillow fight!

  455. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:11

    there are few credible biologists believing in creationism

    Correction. There are no credible biologists who believe in creationism. Many have problems with natural selection or other facets of evolution theory, but none believe in creationism. Doing so automatically destroys their credibility. Simple of that.

    And it should be noted that Carbon-14 dating isn’t the end-all and be-all of dating ancient objects. It only goes back 50,000 years or so. There’s also geological dating and radioactive dating and many others, all of which put theage of the Earth at pretty damn old. Anyone denying that age has to deny the entire weight of scientific achievement. You don’t get to pick and choose what makes for reality, end of story. Reality doesn’t give a damn.

  456. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:14

    I prefer triceratops.

    Although, perhaps with some potato and carrots, and a nice light crust, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmontosaurus pie would be nice.

  457. Famous Soviet Athlete said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:17

    Fudgie the Whale’s friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie_Puss

  458. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:17

    I see no reason in debating with a person who has already come to his conclusions prior to receiving the facts.

    This is coming from a person who makes a truly extraordinary claim, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you ain’t got the goods, Flippy. A person whose worldview requires that he dismisses the validity of Carbon-14 dating and the entire field of geology, just for starters. But I’m supposed to be the one deficient of “facts.”

    You have no “facts” to fall back on, Flippy. Your “facts” revolve around talking snakes in trees and arks and shit. Now you’re giving the “I’m not debating someone so closed-minded” argument, which is truly a bitch-ass way out. You are truly one punk bitch.

  459. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:24

    Actually, Mr. 47, I was correcting you on your so-called “knowledge” about creationism, which you erroneously stated put the age of the earth at 6,000 years. I am not here to defend Creationist theory, I see no point into getting into such a debate here as it would be merely a waste of my time. I have debated with evolutionists who know one hell of a lot more about what they are talking about than you before, and it always ends up the same way. If you have a fervent desire to prove your “superiority,” there are plenty of better forums online for you to partake in. As it stands I think that it would be better for us to agree to disagree on this subject, because neither of us is going to make any headway in changing the other’s point of view.

  460. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:24

    “Which you erroneously stated put the age of the earth at 5,000 years.”

    Please excuse my typo.

  461. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:25

    Dear perfesser limp,
    Could jeebus make a rock so big he couldn’t fit it up his own ass?
    It’s been puzzlin me, thanks.

  462. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:33

    And, no.
    That was not a gay joke.
    That was a your lord and savior is anally fixated joke.

  463. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:34

    Of course, shoelimpy has no point of view. Like annie angel, he just likes attention. And pie flinging.

  464. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:35

    I think you’re an anally fixated joke, Brad..

  465. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:36

    Mr. Limpy sez: …I have debated with evolutionists who know one hell of a lot more about what they are talking about than you before, and it always ends up the same way.

    I’ll bet it does.

  466. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:38

    There is no debate concerning the veracity and validity of evolution theory, not among actual scientists. Others who have a political motive for obscuring the facts trump up this “debate” as something that actually needs to be addressed, rather than what it actually is: pitiful individuals attempting to mislead the public, generally for political reasons.

    One’s “beliefs” do not enter into science, not one whit. One’s “point of view” is irrelevent in this case, much like in the case of global climate change. Any “misinterpretations” of Creationism is as valid as anything true creationists claims, because anyone holding any truck with creationism is either woefully ignorant of the last hundred years of scientific achievement or they’ve seen the evidence and just flat-out reject it. In other words, they’re being dishonest and they know it.

    Simple as that. There is no debate, only a bunch of yay-hoos misleading the public because they can’t handle the idea of reality not being all about them. End of story.

  467. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:42

    When you find a deity who isn’t wandering around the desert with a plunger up his ass, princess, I’ll stop makin jokes about it.

  468. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:45

    Actually, among “actual scientists,” not a single one disbelieves Creationism. Well, if I use the handy dandy definition that an actual scientist believes in Creationism. But even liberal organizations such as Religious Tolerance.org admit there are scientists who believe in Creationism, and I would suspect that these numbers are fairly low comparative to reality.

  469. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:46

    When you find a deity who isn’t wandering around the desert with a plunger up his ass, princess, I’ll stop makin jokes about it.

    ooo! I’ve got one! The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    He’s got noodles, and meatballs, and sauce, but no plunger!

  470. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:52

    See, I prefer following George Carlin in worshipping Joe Pesci, tho the FSM and Bob are worth respect.
    But Joe Pesci is a guy who can get things done, unlike a long dead anally fixated desert hippy.

  471. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:54

    Come on, Shoe, that article states right in it that many of the people included as scientists might be academics who have little or no connection to biology or evolutionary sciences.

    I will admit that it is possible to obtain a degree in computer sciences or mining engineering without learning anything appreciable about evolution.

    And even at that, they only come up with 0.14%! One out of 700.

    That’s such a low percentage it might encompass only scientists who are old enought o have developed dementia and did not understand the question.

    At that level, you might as well just say that NO actual scientists believe in Creationism.

    But the advantage of faith-based beliefs, is that when reality shows up in ways that contradict your presuppositions, it makes you free to say things like “I would suspect that these numbers are fairly low comparative to reality.”

  472. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:54

    Actually, among “actual scientists,� not a single one disbelieves Creationism. Well, if I use the handy dandy definition that an actual scientist believes in Creationism.

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Not a single scientist disbelives in creationism? What a crock. I suppose P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins aren’t “actual scientists”. Guess it’s a good thing for humanity you don’t get to decided what is and what ain’t an “actual scientist”, huh. Can you name any credible, working biologists or geneticists that support creationism and present valid links?

    And that link you provided proves absolutely nothing. For one, it doesn’t include biologists or geneticists as a seperate category, just lumping all “scientists” together. A number of your louder kooks in the ID/Creationism conjob include folks like William Debenski, folks who might be mathemeticians or engineers – but not biological scientists – who use their abiliities to mislead the public (willingly, to boot). But people who actually study biology, not so much. Pathetic, just pathetic.

    And, as usual, just because some person or some group is a “liberal organization” doesn’t mean they lock-step with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Some liberals are religious, but again, whatever one believes in metaphysical or spiritual terms means absolutely nothing in science. Again, plumb pitiful.

  473. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:54

    ShoeLimpy gave up his true nature when he refused to answer direct simple questions.That’s the mark of an intellectual coward.

    Reading all his stuff, I don’t see a single argument for creationism or against evolution, other than pointing out the blindingly obvious that science is not 100% infallible.

    The fact is creationism is not a scientific theory, it doesn’t even make sense to discuss it in scientific terms. What about carbon dating? Well, maybe whoever made the earth 6000 years ago created it to *look* like it was really old just to trick us!

    It isn’t predictive or testable – it isn’t a scientific theory at all and hence is not an “alternative” theory by any stretch of the imagination.

    What it comes down to is this – if you believe the earth is 6000 years old it is *despite* of any science or rational reasoning, not because of it. You believe it simply because you believe it. That’s the entire argument.

    Maybe we are all brains in vats sitting on a shelf. Maybe we are all dead and this is some weird afterlife. Maybe we are all dreams in the head of a sleeping giant. Welcome to Philsosophy 101 – yes all those things could be true but it is pointless to discuss them because you *can’t* discuss them.

    I submit to you that the earth is not 6000 years old, it is 1 second old. We all just appeared *right now* out of thin air. We have a bunch of memories and junk like that but they are all fake.

    Go ahead and try to prove me wrong! It’s impossible because it isn’t a scientific theory. No testability, no predictive power, no real explanatory power even.

    it’s just “something I think” and nothing more.

  474. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:55

    anally fixated desert hippy.

    well, you know, to each his kink. Whatever makes yer thing wiggle, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, I let live, you know.

  475. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:56

    Big fucking deal, I got it wrong, 5,000 years instead of 6,000. I admit I don’t know exactly what it is you crazy wingnut rubes believe in, but I’ll tell you this: the earth is a lot older than 5,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 or one million years. Any scientist who disagrees is a complete fucking hack.

    But go ahead, harp on inconsequential errors– it’s the only leg you have to stand on. You haven’t answered any of our legitimate questions about creationism, and you won’t, because you’re not here for debate, you’re here for attention. And if that means being completely pwned by just about everyone here, that’s fine by you, too.

  476. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:58

    Reading all his stuff, I don’t see a single argument for creationism or against evolution, other than pointing out the blindingly obvious that science is not 100% infallible.

    yeah, hence the ‘performance troll’ bit.

    Interestingly, you can blow most of a night if you go into it with him being aware of this.

  477. Cecil B. Demented said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:59

    I always knew you were the weak one, fidget.

  478. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 7:59

    patriotboy said,

    April 22, 2006 at 23:49

    Annie and her friend Shoelimpy convinced me to change my policy for banning people–I’m much quicker doing it now.

    It took quite awhile to convince me. You’re going through that now.

    And now, etc.

    As a dinosaur, I agree with the General. I think Sadly, No! is making a mistake here.

    In any case, don’t let them get on your nerves. They’re a couple of amoral whores with no stake in anything, no belief in anything, other than trolling the net.

  479. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:01

    In any case, don’t let them get on your nerves.

    Quite the contrary. This beatdown has been quite enjoyable. This is Limp’s darkest hour– he has really been exposed here. His attempts to fight back have been quite feeble.

  480. Nullifidian said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:01

    As it stands I think that it would be better for us to agree to disagree on this subject, because neither of us is going to make any headway in changing the other’s point of view.

    Dear Shoelimpy,

    As one of those ‘evolutionists’ who is, I flatter myself, rather knowledgable about his field (I’m a biologist with an emphasis in molecular cell biology and biophysics), I’d be more than happy to change your general experience of debating with evolutionists by pledging, right now, that if you were able to present positive evidence for the hypothesis of creationism of a similar quality to that adduced for evolutionary theory, then I would change my mind entirely. This can be done in any format of your choice. I have a university library at my disposal, and so can access the relevant literature, if that’s your choice, or I can approach this in a formal debate format, over this blog, or another blog, etc. All that I ask is that you stick to positive evidence for creationism (that is to say evidence which actually supports creationism, rather than simply attempts to establish that evolution is wrong). If creationism is established, the conclusion that general common ancestry is wrong must follow, but on the other hand the establishment that general common ancestry is wrong tells us nothing about how major classifications of organisms arose.

    I look forward to your response.

    Nullifidian

  481. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:01

    You missed the point of that comment, Matt: you just can’t arbitrarily state that all scientists believe in evolution because all “real scientists” believe in evolution. There are biologists and the like who disbelieve evolution, they may be few in number but that does not mean they do not exist or that they are suddenly “not scientists” because they refuse to believe in evolution.

    As for you, random, as I have stated FROM THE BEGINNING of this argument I have no desire to engage in a conversation about evolution versus creationism. My beliefs about creationism and carbon 14 dating have no bearing whatsoever on you, JK 47 or anyone else here. Sometimes discretion is the better part of value. I have already engaged you people for hours on whether or not I had the right to accept a prescription from my doctor, for goodness sakes. I am not about to waste more time arguing over the merits or lack thereof of carbon 14 dating.

  482. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:02

    Valor, not value.

    Please excuse my typo.

  483. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:03

    Hey, I’m not knocking the anally fixated, just saying I don’t take it as a sign of divinity.

  484. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:05

    Actually, not letting them get on your nerves is the only way to deal with them, Dino.

    They love being banned from sites, they wear it as a badge of honor. The Sadlies refuse to play that game, although I think Annie got a time out once that she’s never really gotten over.

    Some around here have gone the Pie route, which is another choice. But I couldn’t stand the weight gain of that many pie references.

    So once in while I engage. Like drinking a bunch of tequila, I almost always regret it.

    But oh well. Without it, this thread was going to be about nothing but peeps. And it started out so well, with the Christianist-bashing and Charles Nelson Reilly.

  485. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:06

    Oh COME ON. Shoe has soundly spanked all your asses.

    It’s been hilarious to watch. And now, because he was RIGHT all along, he should be banned.

    Huh. And not a mention of banning the moron who called him a faggot.

    Such fear!!!!!! Such fear of the TRUTH!

  486. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:08

    I never got a time out. Gavin threatened me once but he never actually did it.

  487. Gavin M. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:09

    Oh come on people, give it a break. I love bashing Creationists as much as the next guy, but is this really what you have lowered yourselves too?

    We really need to get a higher class of commenters around here. As for me I’ll grab my V-8 and be out of here.

  488. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:09

    …not I had the right to accept a prescription from my doctor, for goodness sakes.

    So we’re agreed that because of the Hippocratic Oath, your doctor has the obligation to give you a prescription and you have the right to accept it, but if you had the courage of your convictions, you wouldn’t take it.

    Goodness, even Christian Scientists can do that much.

  489. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:10

    I am not about to waste more time arguing over the merits or lack thereof of carbon 14 dating.

    See, another punk-ass cop-out. “I’m not going to flat-out say I don’t believe in the validity of carbon-14 dating, because it will make me look like the moron that I am.”

    He’s attempting to escape via the high road.

  490. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:10

    I think that was more because of Gavin’s lack of ability to actually carry out such a threat more than anything, Miss Annie. I don’t mean to make light of the guy but he can’t even put in a preview button.

  491. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:11

    Gavin’s grumpy before he’s had his V8.

  492. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:14

    You have already made the assumption I am a moron, Mr. 47. Anything I say beyond this point will make no difference one way or the other. Let’s us another example: say you were a Democratic Presidential candidate who was asked to appear on a news station where the owner had just made a joke relating you to Osama bin Laden. Obviously you are not very respected with said news organization, you might reasonably assume that the likelihood of your views being listened to is quite minimal. Would you consider this “hypothetical” Presidential candidate an intellectual coward if he chose not to appear in this debate?

  493. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:14

    They love being banned from sites, they wear it as a badge of honor.

    But does that really matter? Their opinions are worthless, because they stand for nothing. You aren’t engaging neocons here, or so-called Christians.

    Just a couple of people who want attention, and are happy to use any amount of human suffering to get it. So ban them. That is their just desserts.

  494. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:14

    We really need to get a higher class of commenters around here. As for me I’ll grab my V-8 and be out of here.

    Come on, Gav, there’s nothing else going on. Give us some Kaye! Gro,gan or P-Swank so we can change gears. I mean, the Charles Nelson Reilly post has been up there for like three days already.

  495. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:14

    Name some working, credible biologists who unapologetically support Creationism. Name one. Name some scientific papers that have printed articles with scientific evidence supporting creationism. Name one. You can’t. I never said all scientists believe in evolution or disbelieve in creationism. What I said was no credible biologist supported creationism and that what one “believes” is irrelevent. If a scientist “believes” in creationism and allows that belief to trump the MOUNTAINS of evidence can’t be called a serious scientists because, like you, he is being fundamentally dishonest. Anyone – anyone – who supports the creationist idea, scientist or not, is either ignorant or willfully lying.

    JK’s right. You’re just gutless and splitting hairs. You cannot provide evidence of anything you claim and your puppetmaster’s claims of “victory” are that much more pitiful and gutless. I got no use for someone who won’t show any backbone when challenged and won’t back up any of his claims yet declares victory.

    Pitiful.

  496. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:15

    You have already made the assumption I am a moron, Mr. 47. Anything I say beyond this point will make no difference one way or the other.

    EVERYONE here thinks you are a moron. Yet here you are.

  497. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:16

    No, dino, just been killing some time.

    Though We’re going for 500, by gum.

  498. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:18

    And I’ll lay money that ain’t Gavin. Personally, I’m not bashing creationists. There’s nothing to “bash” because there’s nothing to their claims beyond willful ignorance and out-and-out mendacity.

    End of story.

  499. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:18

    What makes you think I enjoy being banned from anywhere?

  500. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:19

    Gavin M. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:09

    Oh come on people, give it a break. I love bashing Creationists as much as the next guy, but is this really what you have lowered yourselves too?

    We really need to get a higher class of commenters around here. As for me I’ll grab my V-8 and be out of here.

    Don’t forget your /wonkette tag.

  501. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:23

    Whatever.

    Just wait till the rest of the gang sees what we built in the morning!

    Thanks, JK, Dino, Observer, Matt!

    And of course, our wonderful contestants Annie and Shoe!

  502. Matt T. said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:25

    Later, billy. I’m through with ‘em myself, for there’s nothing to gain with speaking with those who support falsehoods and misdirection. I gotta get up early and drive to Graceland, in any event.

    Thankyewveramuch…

  503. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:26

    Let me put it to you this way. It is not my responsibility to defend Creationism or attack evolution on every single board I come to. I simply made a correction to an error made on a statement about Creationist beliefs. I am sure you are well aware of Creationist arguments, just as I am well aware of Evolutionist arguments. Since there is no value to be had in rehashing this argument, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

    I take it from your ignoring my comparison with Mr. Obama that you believe that he and every other Democrat out there is an intellectual coward. It is good to see that we will be having more supporters for the Republican Presidential ticket in 2008.

  504. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:30

    Your comparison to Obama is ridiculous. You are an internet troll. You willingly come here and fling shit around, then puss out when confronted with tough questions. If you were really like Obama, you would just go the fuck away.

  505. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:31

    Billy got schooled and now he’s feeling stoopid. :)

  506. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:32

    JK47 is a troll. Just look at him flinging insults around. He wants Shoe to go the fuck away because Shoe made him look stoopid.

    Seems to be lots of that going around. :)

  507. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:33

    This is the sign of a healthy community and attitude.

    Let’s face it, a lot of this argument has been rather silly. But everyone here is a big boy and girl – if you don’t like it you can scroll past it. People on both sides have been at least somewhat calm, respectful and level-headed on a topic that is quite stupid.

    Now compare that to a place like Feministe, where pointing out that writing five articles about how awful ‘cunt’ is while continuously decrying all ‘white idiots’ will get you banned right quick.

    Under the guise of “off topic” or “trolling” they will silence all discussion they can’t respond to. You don’t want to be like that.

    If you don’t like what ShoeLimpy has to say you can ignore him, it really does no harm.

    I would love to have a place on the web where I could ask questions like “why are most of the feminist sites so condescending?” and “why do so few people, even women, identify as feminists?” But there isn’t any place I can ask that without either being banned immediately or being categorized and dismissed as a troll within seconds.

    Yet at a place like this people will try to engage in somewhat rational discussion over whether the earth is 6000 years old or not!

    It’s funny, the other night I spent a couple of hours writing a computer program that compared the Fordham Law Review masthead to some entries in the wayback machine to try to figure out who one of the AutoAdmit guys was. (Yes, I am a nerd) Next day I’m banned for being a troll!

    If you are going to err, too much tolerance is far better than not enough. We all know how frustrating the feminist echo-chamber mentality is – it is literally impossible to have a reasonable discussion while disagreeing on a lot of Feminist sites. I’m not sure if anything in life is more frustrating than a bunch of people who appear very wrong but who won’t take the fingers out of their ears.

    You don’t want to be those people. (You want to make fun of them)

  508. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:34

    Oh, annie, you silly thing. How adorable it is to see you kissing Shoe’s boo-boos and putting band-aids on his ow-ies. Shoe got absolutely slaughtered here repeatedly, and you fucking know it.

    Shoe, does your little sister always have to fight your battles for you? :)

  509. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:36

    Shoe WHOOPED your asses.

    Read this thread again tomorrow. :)

  510. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:37

    Without it, this thread was going to be about nothing but peeps. And it started out so well, with the Christianist-bashing and Charles Nelson Reilly.

    Still, you have to admit that pounding on the Limpster is a bit like screwing a blow-up doll: one-sided guaranteed self-fulfillment made pointlessly complicated by the use of props.

  511. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:38

    Night everyone.

    It’s been funny. :)

  512. Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:39

    Good night, all you denizens of Sadly, No! I can’t say it hasn’t been real. I feel you should follow Annie’s advice and reread this thread tomorrow, I think you will find it very interesting just how it evolved.

  513. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:39

    Yet at a place like this people will try to engage in somewhat rational discussion over whether the earth is 6000 years old or not!

    My point is there are some people who think they’re engaging in a discussion about whether or not water is wet, and an alleged other side who just wants to have a 500 post thread all about themselves.

  514. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:40

    Honestly about 100 posts ago I stopped understanding what this debate was even about anymore, it seems to me Shoe and Billy were going back on forth down some rat-hole that had nothing to do with any broader issue.

    Shoe is a creationist but he won’t explain why, Shoe is anti-evolution but he won’t explain why. That’s his right but then there is no point in engaging him.

  515. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:43

    That’s the danger of free and open discussion.

    The alternative is far worse. Better a couple weirdos than extreme group-think.

  516. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:45

    Me, I think the whole thing was a put-up to keep us distracted from the fact that Bradrocket didn’t post the results of the GlennBot contest judging.

  517. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:47

    Random Observer, shoe isn’t a creationist, or anti-evolution. He is pro-look-at-me!

    Anyways, have a good evening. Maybe we’ll have a new post tomorrow!

  518. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:50

    This is what happens when there’s no new post for a day or two. It’s like when you leave food in the sink too long– the roaches start to show up. Late night, Sunday night, no new thread, I don’t see the harm in cracking a few troll heads.

    This wasn’t about creationism vs. evolution– it was about how far these douchebags will go to defend the indefensible. When they don’t like the facts, they just fart out some pseudo-intellectual bullshit and claim “victory,” all the while refusing to answer simple questions on the ground that it would be “wasting time.”

  519. Dave said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:52

    I just dropped in to say where the hell are you guys? when lo, I found 522 comments, the last of which reads “This wasn’t about creationism vs. evolution.”

    [slowly backing away]

    [rapidly running away]

  520. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:54

    Still, you have to admit that pounding on the Limpster is a bit like screwing a blow-up doll: one-sided guaranteed self-fulfillment made pointlessly complicated by the use of props.

    But sometimes, ya just gotta get off. You use what’s available. And I did it without talking dirty. But I do feel soiled now.

    and an alleged other side who just wants to have a 500 post thread all about themselves.

    well, sure, I’ve never had one, and… Hey! I think I’ve just been dissed by a Dinosaur! I mean, it’s one thing to be picked on by annie and Shoe, that’s just goofy, but this…!

    C’mere, man, I’ve got this pit I want you to look at…It’s kind of tarry, but I think you’ll like it.

  521. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:56

    Annie’s blog and cafepress stuff is pretty fucking funny I have to say, just for the picture of the cat if nothing else. Hard to say if she is an intentional troll or not…if she is I tip my hat to her. Come on…”Only Whores Serve Frozen Orange Juice.” You have to laugh!

    Once you give people like that a little bit of power, they think they are gods or something and will begin censoring people they don’t like until they have molded the message board into their own little “vision” ignoring what is really good for the community. Not a good thing.

    This is something ShoeLimpy said on her blog and is quite correct.

    Unless someone is spamming viagra ads I don’t see the harm, and honestly someone like JackGoff is far more annoying than ShoeAngel as he is just clearly trolling a lot of the time without making any point at all.

  522. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 8:59

    Okay, I regret the whole thing.

    Looking back, it’s a night of my life I’ll never get back.

    I could have spent it watching “The Santa Clause 3″

  523. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:03

    I dunno if anyone’s said it yet, or if yer really new, but welcome, Random Observer. N not just for being someone capable of the difficult feat of both believing in the feminist enterprise and recognizing the flaws in the movement.

  524. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:08

    adb, you were killing me with the anally fixated Jesus gags.

  525. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:09

    N lemme warn you about AA n limp, as I made the same mistake.
    Those are their greatest hits, from years ago. It is amusing stuff, but not reflective of their work nowadays. Mostly today they seed threads with contrarian bs in the hopes of annoying someone into playing.
    If AA managed work consistently as good as the christian wife stuff no one would be complaining about her, but, alas, mostly a one hit wonder.

  526. Kathleen said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:11

    how the F did we end up with 530 comments?

  527. kingubu said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:14

    how the F did we end up with 530 comments?

    Limpy and the Pie Queen hooked a fish.

  528. a different brad said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:22

    It goes back to boarding school, kingubu, n a time when I could do a real good jebus impression.
    Really pisses homophobic christianists off when you respond to their you’re liberal and therefore gay taunts by shaking yer hair out, assuming the jebus pose, then bending over n asking who wants to fist your ass.
    Thus was born anally fixated jebus.

  529. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:26

    ADB, have you heard this one?

    Q: Why do chicks dig Jesus?
    A: Because he’s hung like this: (hold arms out in crucifixion pose)

  530. Mr. Bath Bear said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:38

    1) Somewhere in the middle of this thread I got this supertrippy MC Escher-style mental image of Annie and Limpy as googly-eyed parrots sitting on one another’s shoulders, and now I can’t get rid of it.

    2) Darryl Strawberry is 45 years old today. Sigh.

  531. Retarded Donut said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:40

    We should be more tolerant of our Creationist brethren. It is so sad that they think so little of God that they cannot imagine the part of evolution in his divine plan. They prefer their tiny, little view of God, that mirrors only their tiny, little prejudices.

    Those of us who prefer a larger view of God and his works should pray for the souls of annie and Shoe in the hopes that they will one day see that they are doing the work of Satan by making Christ look intolerant, stupid, dishonest and hypocritical.

    We are praying for you! Please, annie and Shoe! Please try to break away from the grasp of Satan!

  532. Random Observer said,

    March 12, 2007 at 9:44

    Thanks brad, I’ve been sort of lurking for a bit. Don’t worry, sooner or later I’ll say something you vehemently disagree with (“your sandwhich photoshop caused WW2!”) then we’ll see where we’re at.

    I didn’t really engage with Annie and Limpy other than about the “faggot” stuff, and even if Annie is a pure troll I still agree with her that calling people you disagree with faggots is kind of lame.

    It was kind of a fun thread until Jillian went to bed, then it got all serious and stuff…

    I do kind of like poking in open sores a bit and I appreciate a place I can do that without being terminated with extreme prejudice.

  533. Xel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 11:01

    I think that all organizations that want to discriminate should be allowed to do so, since then the government can break all ties with them. However, the majority can never ask a government (which is a non-private, non-voluntary ‘organization’) to discriminate against a minority, or the other way around.

  534. Ivan Awfulcat said,

    March 12, 2007 at 12:46

    Hmmm, what’s with all the vulgar language?
    I hope there aren’t any children reading this site.

    I’m only five! Won’t someone please think of my tender years? *Snicker* *Ahem*

  535. Ginger Yellow said,

    March 12, 2007 at 13:41

    Holy mother of fuck. It took Prussian Blue a year to generate half as many comments.

    Anyway, there’s now way I’m ploughing through all this, so apologies to the three hundred people who’ve probably already said this:

    “When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.”

    The state already does police, control and punish adherents of religion. It’s called the rule of law.

  536. Dick Mountjoy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 15:54

    “And on the eighth day, He did take Him dough, and fashioned therefrom a pantload. And it was good.”

  537. Dan Someone said,

    March 12, 2007 at 16:43

    Well, I see the adults can’t go away for a couple of days and leave you kids in charge. I’m pretty sure we had a “no parties” rule, misters and misses. Look at this mess! Pie all over the place. Troll footprints. Oh, good grief — Creationism? That’s just disgusting! You’d better get started cleaning this up, because I want this place spotless when I get home from work. And you can just forget about going to Great America next weekend!

  538. owlbear1 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 16:45

    Limpy started it.

  539. tigrismus said,

    March 12, 2007 at 17:09

    Somewhere in the middle of this thread I got this supertrippy MC Escher-style mental image of Annie and Limpy as googly-eyed parrots sitting on one another’s shoulders, and now I can’t get rid of it.

    Mr. Bath Bear, I *love* it.

  540. fardels bear said,

    March 12, 2007 at 17:37

    I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that Shoelimpy’s bible quotation way upthread:

    Jesus called the crowd to him. He said, “Listen and understand. What goes into your mouth does not make you ‘unclean.’ It’s what comes out of your mouth that makes you ‘unclean.’ “

    Clearly indicates that gay sex is ok if you swallow instead of spit.

    This should stop the bickering about gay adoptions by christians, which, in case y’all have forgotten is the topic of this thread.

  541. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 18:02

    Billy got schooled and now he’s feeling stoopid……Shoe got absolutely slaughtered here repeatedly, and you fucking know it….Shoe whooped your asses!

    Yawn. I really hate this stupid jingoistic idea of someone being “Whooped!!!!11!! or SALUGHTERED!!!11

    People, let’s not be stupid. No one whooped anyone. This is a fucking message board where people TYPE WORDS. The ass-whooper and the whooped ones alike walked away from the computer unharmed and ended up sleeping happily in their beds. The arguments are pointless, they don’t mean a goddam thing. Nothing’s at stake here, so why talk as if it’s some cosmic battle US vs. THEM!!

    Let me tell you what really happened.

    some people answered Shoe. Some scrolled past Shoe’s nonsense. Some scrolled past all the comments except the ones they wanted to read. other people got up from their computers and left to go to other things. Other people came and sat down, opened up the thread to see what’s new and then closed it again Other people wrote blistering answers and then, bored, erased them.

    No one got convinced of something he/she didn’t already believe. The body of knowledge about the subject was not enriched by these comments. Adherants to one or the other view in the argument were not strengthened by the results of this thread.

  542. Dinosaur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 18:23

    Oh Yeah, g?

    Well I’m still extinct. And all because some dude named Noah wouldn’t let me on his boat.

  543. billy pilgrim said,

    March 12, 2007 at 18:26

    well, I’ve become unstuck in time.

    So I’m starting this damn thread again.

  544. Karl Rove II said,

    March 12, 2007 at 18:31

    All the poo and pie went to waste…damn shame.

  545. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 18:59

    Limpy and his sockpuppet GF are still fags (no apologies for offending anyone, it offends them most, so I use it). And cobags. And asslicking fascists.

  546. Karl Rove II said,

    March 12, 2007 at 19:03

    “What?! You try walking through a mall with a cross around your neck and see how people look at you.”

    “It’s not a cross, it’s an X…It’s one of those X marks the Jew necklaces from Wall Mart.” – Dahlia Malloy, The Riches.

  547. EdsAppliance said,

    March 12, 2007 at 19:24

    SWANK!!!

    Wait a minute, no it’s not. Carry on.

    Someone left the pie out in the rain.

  548. g said,

    March 12, 2007 at 19:25

    sorry, dino. I guess the vicodin wore off. Not to worry. fixed that.

  549. prozacula said,

    March 12, 2007 at 20:27

    gawd damn.

    I really hates me some fucking annie angel. I really hates me some DickLimpy.

    what I also really hate is how much these and other mouthbreathers like them quibble amongst themselves as to which translation of the Bible is an apostacy and which is the inherent true and unerring word of god.

    splitting hairs at the atomic level doesn’t really make much sense.

    but then again, annie is a stupid fucking washed-up old hag who not only doesn’t get laid, but feels the need to come over here and curse and wail at a bunch of lefties. annie – you are old. you are ugly. you are stupid. please take your tina turner legs and walk the fuck out of here.

    dicklimpy – just fuck off already. proselytizing only makes people hate you more than your stupid ideas already do. ‘pearl pushers’ are just as welcome around these parts as rightwing assholes. the two groups you just coincidentally belong to. fancy that.

  550. JK47 said,

    March 12, 2007 at 20:59

    No one got convinced of something he/she didn’t already believe. The body of knowledge about the subject was not enriched by these comments. Adherants to one or the other view in the argument were not strengthened by the results of this thread.

    True. But the object was not to change Shoe’s mind or “debate” with Shoe. The idea was to expose Shoe as an idiot, which admittedly is a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel scenario. That he also revealed himself to be an abject coward was a nice little bonus.

    I promise I won’t play with them anymore.

  551. Mr. Bath Bear said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:06

    Confirming that Limpy is an idiot is like confirming that shit also tastes bad. You have every right to do it if you want, but practically no one will want to watch.

  552. les said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:10

    I can’t believe, in a comment fest all about science (that’s what it’s about, right?), Jillian brought up http://www.peepresearch.org/ and no one–no one!!!–cares enough to at least bemoan the fact that such important work is so woefully underfunded by the scientific establishment. The guy’s a genius, working on his own on th edge of knowledge. And so caring, too.

  553. Raggedy Annanalthouse said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:18

    I heard on timecube that if a thread reaches 1000 posts an angel get it’s blood wings.

  554. annieangel said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:22

    Girls can’t be fags. Sorry, some guy. I’m sure Shoe is HOOOOWLING with pain again though. :)

    Ah, what a BEAUTIFUL thread. I do so love watching Shoe school the stoopid.

  555. Karl Rove II said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:26

    Poor annie, she made teenage Jesus pull that plunger out of his ass…now he’s sobbing like a prison bitch.

  556. bartcopfan said,

    March 12, 2007 at 21:28

    mikey, thanks for the word on Brad Delp, sad though it is.

    And kudos to the scrumtrilescent CNR!!

  557. Some guy said,

    March 12, 2007 at 22:25

    “Girls can’t be fags. ”

    You aren’t a girl. You are a pair of legs limpdicky took from a Flickr page.

    ” I’m sure Shoe is HOOOOWLING with pain again though. ”

    Good.

    “Ah, what a BEAUTIFUL thread. I do so love watching Shoe school the stoopid.”

    I’d like to see Shoelimpy enlist for this war he loves so much. They need him. Unless he’s gotten too fat fighting with the 109th Chairborne.

  558. MacArthur said,

    March 12, 2007 at 22:51

    Someone left the pie out in the rain.

    You kids get outta my park!

  559. mikey said,

    March 12, 2007 at 23:54

    Someone left the pie out in the rain
    And I don’t think I have the gusto
    ‘Cause I hate a soggy crust Oh!
    I guess they made the filling out of Limpy’s brain!!!

    mikey

  560. thelogos said,

    March 13, 2007 at 3:13

    Sounds almost like some cadences we used to “sing” there mikey.

  561. Candy said,

    March 13, 2007 at 3:19

    Don’t forget that 3/14 is pie day!

    What’s that you say? Pi?

    Oh, nevermind.

  562. ifthethunderdontgetya®© said,

    March 13, 2007 at 5:41

    Pie Are Squared. So that we’all mite be saved. Ramen.

  563. the poster formerly known as said,

    March 13, 2007 at 6:14

    Manipulating fotos for fun and profit (if by profit one means ‘a copy of an old book and a bottle of beer’) is all well and good, but you know that Freedom of Speech at its worst will be exploited by those who HATE our country?

    Go ahead, click the link, scroll down past the pictures of your heroes Hanoi jane ( name left uncapitalized on purpose) and Sean Penn. Is that you? Why does your ilk hate America?

    These colours don’t run, bitches.

    I see, call my comment spam. You ilk can’t handle the truth.

  564. Anne Laurie said,

    March 13, 2007 at 10:20

    What *is* a titty baby anyway? That’s the one thing I didn’t get.

    Old anthropological term. Titty baby is still nursing, knee baby has been bumped down by the younger sibling. Useful distinction during the period of economic development where the average female between the ages of puberty and menopause produces one offspring every 18 months or so. A titty baby is too young & helpless to survive except as a total parasite, thereby the term’s extension as an insult. Acquistion of minimal typing skills & somebody else’s credit cards aside, there are those in the S,N! blogoverse who have worked hard to convince us that they are intellectual parasites with reasoning abilities inferior to those of the average 18-month-old toddler.

  565. Marq said,

    March 13, 2007 at 17:36

    Personally, I want to persecute them by getting them drunk and/or high, stripping them naked, tying their hands behind their backs, insert a ball-gag into their… mouths, and leaving them wandering the streets of San Salvador. Yeppers. That’s what I’d do.

  566. Karl Rove II said,

    March 13, 2007 at 17:46

    “These colours don’t run, bitches.”

    That would explain all those faded 9/11 bumper stickers and tattered Murikan flags on cars…a gathering of Beagles indeed.

  567. Clutch414 said,

    March 13, 2007 at 18:38

    “Manipulating fotos for fun and profit (if by profit one means ‘a copy of an old book and a bottle of beer’) is all well and good, but you know that Freedom of Speech at its worst will be exploited by those who HATE our country?

    Go ahead, click the link, scroll down past the pictures of your heroes Hanoi jane ( name left uncapitalized on purpose) and Sean Penn. Is that you? Why does your ilk hate America?”

    So…in order to protect the country…we have to destroy everything that makes America…well America? Are you REALLY advocating getting rid of the First Amendment? How does that make ANY sense? You surely don’t protect the constitution by destroying it.

    WHO really hates America? And why does the right hate the Constitution?

    First you guys did away with Habeas Corpus, now you want to do away with the grandaddy of the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech?

    Then again…since when did sensibility have anything to do with ANY policy that Tighty-Righties have advocated?

    “These colours don’t run, bitches.”

    No, only your leaders do when pressed and drafted for military service. Cheney, Bush, etc.

    Plus…if your going to act the part of the psuedo-tough-righty-religious-super-patriot…you might not want to use the British spelling of the word “color.” It just undercuts the false-uber-American-super-patriot-masculinity.

    “I see, call my comment spam. You ilk can’t handle the truth.”

    Spam? Maybe. Un-American, absolutely. Tighty-Righties just don’t get it.

    And it seems obvious that your ilk can’t handle the English Language, liberty, freedom, democracy, or the American way.

  568. Gloria Throckmorton said,

    March 14, 2007 at 15:22

    Please explain the numerous references to pie. Does it refer to the cosmic justice visited upon the hatemonger Ann Coulter and her Ur-model Anita Bryant?

  569. Righteous Bubba said,

    March 14, 2007 at 15:56

    Pie explained.

  570. Gloria Throckmorton said,

    March 14, 2007 at 19:43

    Righteous Bubba, you live up to your name. I thank you and all the other Sadly Noians. Utile et Dulce is not dead!

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()