College credits for trolling the web ??
VoiceOfReason
-----------
"Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their
requirements. In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and
Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made
10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile'
websites. There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain
original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is
this the first case of trolling the net being part of course
requirements?"
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/08/10/1237245
-----------
Ron O
When Meyer and Wells ran the bait and switch on the Ohio Board of
Education in 2002-2003 Dembski admonished the other ID perps and said
that they should not overstate their case. It was such an ironic
statement that I couldn't believe that Dembski wrote it. It was as if
years of running the ID scam had not happened. This is the guy that
claimed that he was going to have a validation of the ID junk in his
book and when it came out all it was, was the tornado through a junk
yard probability estimate. He should send all his students here and
they can learn something about the blowhard.
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
Fantastic find.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Mike Lyle
Ah, as I suspected. Some at least of t.o's drive-by creationists really
could be students gaining credit for it on a training programme.
What value this exercise could have is presumably comprehensible only to
initiates. Maybe if you post and run with any old discredited material,
taking care not to read the replies, in your next sermon you can
truthfully claim that you sho' right up there with technicology and you
done post the Lord's word right on them innernets, and you ain't never
see no answer from them evilutionists, praise be!
It may not be the first, though. Some trolling in various groups looks
rather like some sort of research exercise or experiment.
--
Mike.
JohnN
I would think for the student to get credit, s/he would have to use
their real name so the professor/preacher will know the assignment
actually was completed. I think 99% of all trolls never use their
real names or email addresses.
JohnN
T Pagano
A tad hypocritical since you don't sign your full name here. And a
significant number of the atheists in this forum (some who are trolls)
don't use their real names.
Regards,
T Pagano
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <apagano-bnfog5dbbonf5...@4ax.com>):
Some names, please, Tony.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
heekster
wrote:
He expressed his honest opinion.
How can that be hypocritical?
Do you even understand what the word means?
>And a
>significant number of the atheists in this forum (some who are trolls)
>don't use their real names.
>
So?
>Regards,
>T Pagano
Desertphile
Wow, Intelligent Design is exactly like Scientology! Some how that
does not surprise me.....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
....and almost none of the fundies do; they assume grandiose
(and usually inappropriate) noms-de-post (All-Seeing-I,
backspace, spintronic, evolutionguru, etc, ad nauseum.
And I might point out that anyone with the slightest bit of
observational skill could have determined that JohnN's name
is John Norris, since it's right there in his user ID. But
expecting observational skills of you would be asking a bit
much, I agree.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
T Pagano
Boikat, Caranx latus, heekster, Ye Old one, Free Lunch, raven1,
Desertphile, kid_ego, stuart
These off the top of my head of relatively current threads; need more
you nimrod?
Regards,
T Pagano
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <apagano-9huog5hme64vb...@4ax.com>):
Tony, Tony, Tony... which of them are trolls, and which of them are mot
reachable by email?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <tmuog55dcqopmqg1v...@4ax.com>):
He _is_ Tony and is as thick as two short planks, after all.
VoiceOfReason
A significant number of Christians in this forum do likewise. Did you
have a point?
heekster
wrote:
Two points, Pagano, three, if we count the one atop your head,
I am not an atheist.
Pointing out your egregious errors in logic, and misrepresentations of
fact, does not constitute trolling.
>
>Regards,
How ironic.
>T Pagano
BTW, I am still waiting for you to produce your special dispensation,
exempting you from the constraint against bearing false witness, you
lying son of a bitch.
All-seeing-I
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:05 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:06:19 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> ><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:20:01 -0500, T Pagano wrote
Right. You must be a satan worshiper.
heekster
Wrong.
You must be uneducated, willfully ignorant, and really stupid.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <98oqg5ts06hgqbtqm...@4ax.com>):
Well... he _is_ a creationist cretin, so all of that goes without saying.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<157386d3-a9fd-4884...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
I'm not an atheist, either.
Not a satan worshiper, if it comes to that.
You, however, are a hell-bound heretic.
Ye Old One
I'm a satin worshiper.
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:06:19 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
How about All-Seeing-I, backspace, spintronic,
evolutionguru, etc, ad nauseum? I posted these and you (as
usual) ignored something which refuted your implied
contention. And the last I checked, Stuart is a name.
>These off the top of my head of relatively current threads; need more
>you nimrod?
Wow, J.J. is a mighty (or "skillful", or "famous") hunter?
Perhaps a dictionary is in order for Christmas; "I don't
think that word means what you think it means". And it's
especially ironic that it's a name from the Old Testament.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
My e-mail works just fine.
Pointing out your mistakes is not trolling, though it does get
repetitive since you rarely acknowledge a correction.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <gverg5taov1k0pkq0...@4ax.com>):
> Wow, J.J. is a mighty (or "skillful", or "famous") hunter?
Of course I'm a mighty hunter. I catch creationist cretins all the time.
Although Tony seems to have vanished from this thread. Gee. I wonder why...
Ye Old One
<try.n...@but.see.sig> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:28:06 -0500, Bob Casanova wrote
>(in article <gverg5taov1k0pkq0...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Wow, J.J. is a mighty (or "skillful", or "famous") hunter?
>
>Of course I'm a mighty hunter. I catch creationist cretins all the time.
But they are such easy game a child could do it.
>
>Although Tony seems to have vanished from this thread. Gee. I wonder why...
Defeated.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:28:06 -0500, Bob Casanova wrote
>(in article <gverg5taov1k0pkq0...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Wow, J.J. is a mighty (or "skillful", or "famous") hunter?
>
>Of course I'm a mighty hunter. I catch creationist cretins all the time.
>
>Although Tony seems to have vanished from this thread. Gee. I wonder why...
Tony vanishes from nearly every thread, since Tony is a jerk
who doesn't want others to see his lame "rebuttals" (and
point out the errors in them) and thus finds it necessary to
change the subject before replying.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
T Pagano
wrote:
Then spell out for us your biases and we'll test them with your posts.
>
>Pointing out your egregious errors in logic, and misrepresentations of
>fact, does not constitute trolling.
With my large posting history notice that heekster offers not a single
quote to substantiate any of this.
>>
>>Regards,
>
>How ironic.
>
>>T Pagano
>
>BTW, I am still waiting for you to produce your special dispensation,
>exempting you from the constraint against bearing false witness, you
>lying son of a bitch.
Offer the quotes. Now who's waiting.
Regards,
T Pagano
heekster
wrote:
I said that I am not an atheist. It is none of your goddamned
business what I am. I corrected your egregious lie.
>>Pointing out your egregious errors in logic, and misrepresentations of
>>fact, does not constitute trolling.
>
>With my large posting history notice that heekster offers not a single
>quote to substantiate any of this.
>
How about the lie you told, where you said that I am am atheist?
Are you really this fucking stupid?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>
>>How ironic.
>>
>>>T Pagano
>>
>>BTW, I am still waiting for you to produce your special dispensation,
>>exempting you from the constraint against bearing false witness, you
>>lying son of a bitch.
>
>
>Offer the quotes.
>
No. I've asked you several times for why you think it is ok for you
to prevaricate. Produce your special dispensation first, otherwise,
you can go drive a Bore-Regard into your colon.
>
> Now who's waiting.
>
Your mother, for the fleet to come in.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <v9m0h5t7m23hbgpgv...@4ax.com>):
He'll ignore you.
>
>>> Pointing out your egregious errors in logic, and misrepresentations of
>>> fact, does not constitute trolling.
>>
>> With my large posting history notice that heekster offers not a single
>> quote to substantiate any of this.
>>
> How about the lie you told, where you said that I am am atheist?
> Are you really this fucking stupid?
Yes, he is.
>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> How ironic.
>>>
>>>> T Pagano
>>>
>>> BTW, I am still waiting for you to produce your special dispensation,
>>> exempting you from the constraint against bearing false witness, you
>>> lying son of a bitch.
>>
>>
>> Offer the quotes.
>>
> No. I've asked you several times for why you think it is ok for you
> to prevaricate. Produce your special dispensation first, otherwise,
> you can go drive a Bore-Regard into your colon.
Too late. He does that kind of thing on a regular basis.
>>
>> Now who's waiting.
>>
> Your mother, for the fleet to come in.
>
She doesn't wait, she swims out to meet it.
T Pagano
wrote:
Such anger. I suspect a short review of heekster's posts will
determine very easily what he is. I will expose you.
This will be highly enlightening. Just as Flank and Okimoto claimed
vehemently that they were not athesits. But their own words betrayed
them.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
Heekster couldn't produce the quotes to show I lie to save his own
pitiful arse. He produced nothing. Yet what will I find when I
peruse his posts? I will expose you for the atheist you are.
Regards,
T Pagano
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:15:33 -0600, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:57 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:39:49 -0600, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:05 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:06:19 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:20:01 -0500, T Pagano wrote
Contrary to what you think, a opposition to dishonesty is not the mark
of an atheist.
Tell us, Tony: because you think that the head of your own church is a
liar, do you think that condones lying?
RF
gregwrld
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:15:33 -0600, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:41:57 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:39:49 -0600, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:05 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:06:19 -0500, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:20:01 -0500, T Pagano wrote
I'm an atheist, Tony. I consider being
called one a compliment. You, on the
other hand are a sucker who has bought
into a bill of goods you can't defend. Not
much of a character reference for you, is
it?
gregwrld
T Pagano
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Out of christian charity and the holiday season Forrest is hereby
granted 365 days of mercy rule protection. This will prevent me from
further embarrassing Forrest and giving him time to regroup and do
some requisite reading.
Nonetheless he may continue to rant and rave (in the furtherance of
his own embarrassment) and I shant do a thing to stop him.
Regards,
T Pagano
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:23:27 -0800 (PST),
>"richardal...@googlemail.com"
><richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Out of christian charity and the holiday season Forrest is hereby
>granted 365 days of mercy rule protection. This will prevent me from
>further embarrassing Forrest and giving him time to regroup and do
>some requisite reading.
Woo-hoo. Tony is invoking the mercy rule to protect himself from being
whipped some more.
>Nonetheless he may continue to rant and rave (in the furtherance of
>his own embarrassment) and I shant do a thing to stop him.
Not that you could anyway, Tony.
Why are you opposed to learning? I thought you were RCC. They have
nothing against learning or against evolution. When did you become a
fundy?
heekster
wrote:
Who is going to review them, certainly not you? You aren't capable of
understanding them. Nothing special about my posts; you seem to not
understand most of what you "read", if I may use that euphemism.
>I will expose you.
>
Take your priest/altar boy fantasy, and shove it up your ass.
>This will be highly enlightening.
You have shown no indication whatever, that you are capable of being
enlightened.
> Just as Flank and Okimoto claimed
>vehemently that they were not athesits.
What's an "athesit, ament?
>But their own words betrayed
>them.
>
Unfortunately for you, Pagan, it is you who is already exposed as a
compulsive pathological liar, a hypocritical Christian of the first
order.
My "anger", as you term it, is directed solely at liars and imbeciles.
You fit both descriptors.
Sucks to be you.
heekster
wrote:
You can kiss my enormous, lily white, whammy-jammin' ass.
No tongue, though.
> He produced nothing.
You're projecting.
> Yet what will I find when I
>peruse his posts?
>
Peruse them and find out that they are beyond your stunted abilities
to understand.
Per me licit, abi in malam rem.
>I will expose you for the atheist you are.
>
You've already exposed yourself as a really bad liar, usenet loon, and
a world class imbecile. Keep up the good work.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:23:27 -0800 (PST),
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Out of christian charity and the holiday season Forrest is hereby
> granted 365 days of mercy rule protection. This will prevent me from
> further embarrassing Forrest and giving him time to regroup and do
> some requisite reading.
>
> Nonetheless he may continue to rant and rave (in the furtherance of
> his own embarrassment) and I shant do a thing to stop him.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
You are a stupid, ignorant, arrogant and dishonest liar, Tony.
You have embarassed nobody except yourself - or rather, you *should*
be embarrased by the fact that you regurgitate endless lies, never
address any evidence which shows that you are lying, and ignore the
questions which expose the utter lack of intellectual and moral
integrity of your position.
Tell us, Tony: Do you think that because you think that the head of
your own church is a liar, it is acceptable to lie?
Run away, creationist coward.
...but then, as I keep explaining to you, I post on this forum to
expose the ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty of creationists.
Has it never occurred to you that I am getting from you exactly the
ignorant, arrogant and dishonest responses I am looking for?
You truly are very, very stupid.
RF
hersheyh
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:23:27 -0800 (PST),
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Out of christian charity and the holiday season Forrest is hereby
> granted 365 days of mercy rule protection. This will prevent me from
> further embarrassing Forrest and giving him time to regroup and do
> some requisite reading.
Of what? Where is there any creationist literature that is worth the
paper wasted on it? I sure haven't heard of any. Could you give me a
list of the best creationist literature that you have actually read?
Not what you have heard is good. But actually read.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>Out of christian charity
Yes, we've noticed that about you. You're also out of
credibility.
So, Tony, let's try again with the question you waffled
about and dodged, but never actually answered...
If the Bible is contradicted by publicly-available evidence,
which is to be accepted as correct?
<snip>