Why does ALL SEEING 1 post?
John Ross
evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
resident idiot.
;)
John Ross
Nashton
That's nice. Why not go back to lurking?
Here's a gem from the other camp:
There is a woman abuser here (YOO), who has been going around claiming
that all drugs are derived from the ToE. Then this other idiot, Chris,
insists that it's more important to differentiate between modern and
other types of drugs because, well...just because.
Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
Stalin didn't even exist.
If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
You're welcome.
Rich Mathers
You have limited intellectual skills and they aren't helping you make
your case.
You have no knowledge of YOO abusing any women. This is a made up
story. It is pure desperation on your part to make him look
dishonorable. Yes he fumbled the ToE and drugs relationship. But it
has only led to you looking like a cyber-stalker with no sense of
Christian charity or moral character.
So! Take your own advise. "Why not go back to lurking?"
You're also welcome.
Will in New Haven
If all you're going to do is ridicule the dufus why are you de-
lurking. Of course, he's an imbecile but he does participate in the
discussion and it is mildly amusing to watch him. You have brought
nothing to the discussion. We can ridicule our own dufoi, thank you.
fnord
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Painter
Thank you for demonstrating that "all seeing 1" has a thought process
similar to others.
And rememebr that Hitler was doing the work of God. He says so several
times.
All-seeing-I
you know i'm right about the dinos. huh?
Chris
There's an example of Nashton's continuing self-alienation from the
truth just downthread.
You see, he made the initial claim, "All drugs are modern." It's
obviously stupid and wrong, and I called him on it. He is
constitutionally unable to admit error, and since he's wrong about
everything, it means he has to lie all the time. This is one of the
reasons he stalks me now, and cannot stop fixating on me. It's some
kind of brain-damage thing he's suffered.
Chris
David Hare-Scott
He is a well known troll AKA: Adman, (M)adman, Uriel. There is a very clear
pattern in his material and style, at a broader level including the attempt
to bait certain regulars and right down to the detail of his spelling
mistakes and odd turn of phrase.
His game is to post silly CnP creationist stuff and then try to extend the
life of each thread with misdirection, insults, non sequiturs, reference to
"ancient texts"etc. Anything to avoid actually addressing the weaknesses in
his material or to answer the criticism of it. It is a game to him played
for his own amusement. He doesn't care how retarded he seems - that's part
of the game.
David
All-seeing-I
It is NOT "All Seeing 1" dopey
It is "All Seeing I". As in me, myself and I
You are off to a GREAT start aren't-cha
All-seeing-I
i could see your were the
> resident idiot.
>
> ;)
THAT would be Y.O.U.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
John Ross
nonsense and retardedness. That makes sense, i can see how it's fun for
him, yes and your right i can see through many threads he post crazy
fantasies to get a reaction and doesn't address it when it's torn apart.
Wow, he's bored, does he get much sunlight? and did he actually just say
''NO YOU ARE!'' in response to me calling him the resident idiot. Should
i like challenge him to a fight after recess now? wtf?
Caranx latus
John, if it isn't too much trouble, could you leave in the material that
you're responding to? It makes it easier to follow the discussion.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/you_know_whats_stupid
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Wombat
IIRC, Bob was taking apart all of Suzanne's arguments re Werner von
Braun which lead, ridiculously, to the charge of abuse.
Wombat
VoiceOfReason
Eric Root
Seconded.
Eric Root
Frank J
Aka the Unholy Trinity. :-)
Frank J
The most reasonable explanation is that he/she/they just crave
attention. These are not your typical creationists like Ray, Pagano or
Nashton who have a long history of a deep fear of "Darwinism" and at
least some feeble attempt to concoct a stand-in origins account -
though the details of *their* "what happened when" scienario keep
getting fuzzier with time - losing confidence perhaps?"
Thanks to Poe's Law, we may never know about the likes of ASI (aka
"Madman" and other "nyms") or spintrpnic (aka "Bill" and other "nyms")
- detecting a pattern yet? - but they must know that they make
creationists look awfully pathetic to most lurkers. Might that be
their real goal???
Eric Root
Wait, so when Nashton is doing his constant whine about woman abuse,
he's talking about that argument about Werner von Braun in this
forum? What about it could be construed as abuse? And IRC, Ray made
some really brutal and sexist remarks a few years ago about one of our
female posters.
Several times I have asked him for an explanation of the "woman abuse"
charge, and he has always run.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> John Ross wrote:
> > I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
> > evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
> > flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
> > the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
> > immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
> > fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
> > every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
> > watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
> > resident idiot.
>
> > ;)
>
> That's nice. Why not go back to lurking?
>
> Here's a gem from the other camp:
>
> There is a woman abuser here (YOO),
A lie. Nashton can point to no evidence at all, otherwise we would
have done so at some point when requested. And you know that you are
the most verbally abusive poster on this forum.
> who has been going around claiming
> that all drugs are derived from the ToE. Then this other idiot, Chris,
> insists that it's more important to differentiate between modern and
> other types of drugs because, well...just because.
So what? We all said Ye Olde One's claim was wrong, and you lied, yes
lied, and said we defended it.
> Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
> bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
> Stalin didn't even exist.
So what? all sorts of people have mistaken beliefs. What's your
excuse for having such a rotten personality?
>
> If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
than you. Except your twin snex. You also know good and well that it
isn't an ideology.
>
> You're welcome.
Yeah, now that you've revealed yourself as another resident sicko,
Ross has someone else to make fun of.
Eric Root
Burkhard
wrote:
You mean "He's an idiot, but he is our idiot?" ;o)
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 6:30�pm, chicago...@msn.com (John Ross) wrote:
>> I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>> evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>> flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>> the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>> immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>> fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>> every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>> watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>> resident idiot.
>>
>> ;)
>
>It is NOT "All Seeing 1" dopey
>
The dopey part fits you.
>It is "All Seeing I". As in me, myself and I
>
The Triune Imbecile.
>You are off to a GREAT start aren't-cha
He already knows that your clutch is slipping.
Rich Mathers
All he has is ego and id, somebody swiped his superego.
Wombat
You missed it when Ray repeated it a few weeks ago, then.
Wombat
Ye Old One
The only person more consistently wrong about reality than you is
Spintoxic.
That really does tell us just how incredibly stupid you are.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>John Ross wrote:
>> I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>> evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>> flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>> the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>> immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>> fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>> every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>> watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>> resident idiot.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>
>
>That's nice. Why not go back to lurking?
>
>Here's a gem from the other camp:
>
>There is a woman abuser here (YOO), who has been going around claiming
>that all drugs are derived from the ToE.
Liar!
>Then this other idiot, Chris,
>insists that it's more important to differentiate between modern and
>other types of drugs because, well...just because.
>Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
>bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
>Stalin didn't even exist.
>
>
>If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
>You're welcome.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
Ye Old One
So it is really three idiots together. Figures.
>
>You are off to a GREAT start aren't-cha
--
Bob.
If someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown -
but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and whack them in the
head.
Rusty Sites
> John Ross wrote:
>> I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>> evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>> flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>> the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>> immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>> fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>> every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>> watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>> resident idiot.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>
>
>
> Here's a gem from the other camp:
The other camp being the one that isn't the resident idiots? The other
camp being the one you aren't in?
Boikat
Damn, you're stupid.
Boikat
Boikat
"I" for "idiot".
>
> You are off to a GREAT start aren't-cha
Better then you ever were, mr Cambrian mammal = trilobite.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is the great Boikat going to defend "Pecker J Ross"?
bwaHAhahahahaha!
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
<snip>
>Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
>bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
>Stalin didn't even exist.
Please cite the post in which I said this. (Note that
pointing out that religion has perpetrated at least its fair
share of atrocities over the centuries, in response to a
religious fanatic's post claiming that everything evil has
resulted from atheism, is *not* the same as what you falsely
claim I said.)
Or retract your lie. Apology not required; I'm familiar with
your inability to apologize for error.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eric Root
<er...@swva.net>:
>On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>> Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
>> bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
>> Stalin didn't even exist.
>So what? all sorts of people have mistaken beliefs.
Most of us do, anyway; Nashie's mother probably
thinks/thought her baby boy was a rational human being.
But the belief he claims for me is not one I ever posted,
nor is it correct. See my answer to him, complete with
support-or-retraction request.
Rusty Sites
> On Oct 3, 8:59 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 6:30 pm, chicago...@msn.com (John Ross) wrote:
>>
>>> I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>>> evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>>> flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>>> the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>>> immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>>> fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>>> every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>>> watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>>> resident idiot.
>>> ;)
>> It is NOT "All Seeing 1" dopey
>>
>> It is "All Seeing I". As in me, myself and I
>
> "I" for "idiot".
I think maybe it's just bad grammar and it should be "me" as in, "OOOh,
everybody is looking at *me*"!
reg
wrote:
>I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>resident idiot.
>
>;)
The next step is to realize that he works for the evolutionists to
keep the discussions at a cartoonish level so that serious questions
about the elite religion of evolution can be avoided. It's a religion
since the upper echelon elite worship themselves as highly evolved
god-men who have the right to rule the sheep-men and to sicken,
disable or exterminate them to whatever degree they see fit. Of
course, there are many who would be happy to support any such policy
as long as they can assure themselves that they will have a seat at
the master's table, not so happy otherwise. Rather a sordid little
affair, is it not?
VoiceOfReason
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:30:41 -0700, chicago...@msn.com (John Ross)
What's it like to live in fear of the dark?
Ilas
news:ha8ubj$ejh$1...@news.albasani.net:
> He is a well known troll AKA: Adman, (M)adman, Uriel. There is a very
> clear pattern in his material and style, at a broader level including
> the attempt to bait certain regulars and right down to the detail of
> his spelling mistakes and odd turn of phrase.
>
> His game is to post silly CnP creationist stuff and then try to extend
> the life of each thread with misdirection, insults, non sequiturs,
> reference to "ancient texts"etc. Anything to avoid actually
> addressing the weaknesses in his material or to answer the criticism
> of it. It is a game to him played for his own amusement. He doesn't
> care how retarded he seems - that's part of the game.
Bingo! He's actually pretty good at what he does too, even if what he does
is more than a little sad. But still, it amazes me how seriously people
take him. He's pulling your plonker, people.
Ron O
More like the three stooges, but there have been so many adman nims
that the Keystone Cops would be more like it.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
> > You are off to a GREAT start aren't-cha-
Ron O
We would have to do a quantitative analysis that pretty much isn't
worth doing. Both have worse records than stopped clocks. But
addledman has the edge in number of posts. If you post that often and
can't be right about something at least twice a day you have to be
trying to screw up.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:38:41 -0300, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>>Then, there is this Casanova that believes that everything religious is
>>bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
>>Stalin didn't even exist.
>Please cite the post in which I said this. (Note that
>pointing out that religion has perpetrated at least its fair
>share of atrocities over the centuries, in response to a
>religious fanatic's post claiming that everything evil has
>resulted from atheism, is *not* the same as what you falsely
>claim I said.)
[crickets...] Thanks again for admitting by your silence
that you lied.
>Or retract your lie. Apology not required; I'm familiar with
>your inability to apologize for error.
Seems your insecurity extends to retractions of false claims
as well.
snex
> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> isn't an ideology.
says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
because a really old book says so.
i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
jeeeezus didnt hear your prayers that day?
Garamond Lethe
If recent history is a reliable guide, Eric will get a POTM out of it.
Boikat
Is "Mr Cambrian mammal = Trilobite" going to defend:
That wars have been fought because science dispelles some aspect of
some religion?
That Kent Hovind was a "great" scientist who made many great
scientific discoveries?
That he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes?
That Hitler's understanding of the ToE was made manifest in WWI?
>
> bwaHAhahahahaha!-
Yes. It is increasingly obvious that you are a joke.
Boikat
snex
wrote:
thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
over a real intellectual competition.
Garamond Lethe
What objective measure did you have in mind? GRE scores?
Degrees conferred? Peer-reviewed publications?
Or were you thinking of a more subjective use of the word "objective"?
Burkhard
wrote:
I think under the "Pagano Rule" of engagement on ToE, the person who
first declares him/herself to be a winner wins. This is pretty
objective, as you only have to check the date of the posts.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
specific.
snex
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
>
>
> >On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 4, 7:16 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> >> >> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> >> >> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> >> >> isn't an ideology.
>
> >> > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> >> > because a really old book says so.
> >> > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> >> > and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>
> >> If recent history is a reliable guide, Eric will get a POTM out of it.
>
> >thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> >over a real intellectual competition.
>
> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> specific.
whats the matter? cant eric root speak for himself? or can he only
spew shit about me when it appears that im not around?
note for the future, all coward like root, i check for my name every
so often even when i dont have time to post. so if youre going to talk
shit, back it up when i come challenge you.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <qjvsc5theejrvrmbo...@4ax.com>):
Well, snex is definitely the more objectionable of the two.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ernest Major
<eacede1c-7547-4a0e...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> writes
>On 4 Oct, 02:02, Rich Mathers <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 6:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > John Ross wrote:
>> > > I mean everytime you post your ridiculous dim founded fabricated
>> > > evidence to support your backwood sheep minded belief that fred
>> > > flinstone was among the first of men in a 10,000 year old earth to kill
>> > > the dinosaurs and claim dominion over the earth, it's just hilarous. You
>> > > immedialty come off retarded, then everyone busts your logic and self
>> > > fabricatecd evidence with fact checks and common knowledge. I mean,
>> > > every time you post, they bend you over cuz your retarded. I've been
>> > > watching this forum a week and day one i could see your were the
>> > > resident idiot.
>>
>> > > ;)
>>
>>
>> > Here's a gem from the other camp:
>>
>> > insists that it's more important to differentiate between modern and
>> > other types of drugs because, well...just because.
>> > bad and that all ills of the world stem from belief in some God as if
>> > Stalin didn't even exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have limited intellectual skills and they aren't helping you make
>> your case.
>>
>> You have no knowledge of YOO abusing any women. �This is a made up
>> story. �It is pure desperation on your part to make him look
>> dishonorable. �Yes he fumbled the ToE and drugs relationship. �But it
>> has only led to you looking like a cyber-stalker with no sense of
>> Christian charity or moral character.
>>
>> So! �Take your own advise. �"Why not go back to lurking?"
>>
>> You're also welcome.
>
>IIRC, Bob was taking apart all of Suzanne's arguments re Werner von
>Braun which lead, ridiculously, to the charge of abuse.
>
>Wombat
>
He did not confine himself to Suzanne's arguments, but also commented,
adversely, on her capacities. However, given Nashton's abuse-giving
proclivities he would be wise to refrain from using this particular
ad-hominem - even if he is sexist enough to attempt to confine his abuse
to men, he has collectively abuse groups that contain women, and he
couldn't be confident - you can't always tell whether a poster is male
or female - that he hasn't specifically abused a woman. (Is Chris
Thompson Christopher or Christine?)
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
>On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 4, 7:16 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>>
>> >> >> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
>> >> >> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
>> >> >> isn't an ideology.
>>
>> >> > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
>> >> > because a really old book says so.
>> >> > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
>> >> > and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>>
>> >> If recent history is a reliable guide, Eric will get a POTM out of it.
>>
>> >thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
>> >over a real intellectual competition.
>>
>> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
>> specific.
>
>whats the matter? cant eric root speak for himself?
It's a public forum. HTH
> or can he only
>spew shit about me when it appears that im not around?
>
>note for the future, all coward like root, i check for my name every
>so often even when i dont have time to post. so if youre going to talk
>shit, back it up when i come challenge you.
I see; you have no "objective" competition in mind and must
resort to invective as a distraction. More like a fundie
every day...
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
I can't disagree. He responded, and it's interesting that
the "Great Guru of Objective Evidence As the Only Real Sort"
had no suggestions for any sort of objective standards by
which such a "competition" could be evaluated. Duelling
Googles, perhaps. Or, taking a page from the UC Handbook of
Idiocy, duelling dictionaries. Scientism at its worst.
snex
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
hey moron, read my post again. i said "any." whats the matter, too
stupid to come up with one? is "whatever the sycophantic religiotards
on talk.origins will vote for" really your idea of an intellectual
competition?
snex
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:47:51 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:07:18 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
>
> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
whats the matter moron, arent you aware of ways to determine
intelligence? if not, why arent you telling root to fuck off with his
claims about my intelligence? explain to him that he has no objective
standards by which to judge my intelligence.
you cant have it both ways, moron.
Garamond Lethe
We were waiting for your to announce your idea of an intellectual
competition (of the objective sort, of course).
I think you've come to the realization that this is not the type of
competition where you're going to do at all well.
We know this. You know this. It's only a question of how many
posts you want to make reminding us of this.
Perhaps you should let it drop.
snex
wrote:
or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with
many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for
one? im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of
root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him.
Garamond Lethe
1. It's too easy to cheat. As soon as Eric beat you you'd be whining
that he must have used a chess engine.
2. It's not considered a proxy for intelligence, not even for machine
intelligence.
3. You've made your reputation by your inability to think, read and
write. Playing chess is not going to affect this reputation.
Sorry.
Eric Root
> On Oct 4, 7:16 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > isn't an ideology.
>
> says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> because a really old book says so.
>
Really? Who would that be?
> i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
You issue the challenge, so I get to pick the weapon: not intellect,
but personality. Oops, you lose.
(snip childish imaginings)
Eric Root
Eric Root
Plus, I don't pray for anything so shallow as victory in nonfatal
contests. That would definitely be taking the Lord's name in vain.
If snex (note lack of capitalization ) is such an intellectual giant,
how come he hasn't figured that out?
Anyway, the only way he could defeat me would prove that I'm wrong:
that he actually does have a better personality than Nashton. He
could do it in a heartbeat by showing an ability to admit he's wrong.
Maybe he could apologize to Garamond and offer to wash his car. That
would definitely defeat me, because I don't think it is in his power.
Eric Root
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Oct 9, 2:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:47:51 -0400, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig>:
>
> > >On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:07:18 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
> > >(in article <qjvsc5theejrvrmbosvk985tunjhb9i...@4ax.com>):
>
> > >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >>> On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > >>>>> <snip>
> > >>>>>>> If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > >>>>>> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > >>>>>> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > >>>>>> isn't an ideology.
>
> > >>>>> says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > >>>>> because a really old book says so.
> > >>>>> i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> > >>>>> and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>
>
> > >>> thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> > >>> over a real intellectual competition.
>
> > >> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> > >> specific.
> > >Well, snex is definitely the more objectionable of the two.
>
> > I can't disagree. He responded, and it's interesting that
> > the "Great Guru of Objective Evidence As the Only Real Sort"
> > had no suggestions for any sort of objective standards by
> > which such a "competition" could be evaluated. Duelling
> > Googles, perhaps. Or, taking a page from the UC Handbook of
> > Idiocy, duelling dictionaries. Scientism at its worst.
>
> whats the matter moron, arent you aware of ways to determine
> claims about my intelligence? explain to him that he has no objective
> standards by which to judge my intelligence.
>
> you cant have it both ways, moron.
I didn't make any claims about your intelligence; your thinking I did
speaks volumes about your intelligence. And I don't have any problems
with your intelligence (well, you do seem to have stuck in the
concrete level of intellectual development.) it's your personality and
manners that inspire pity, just like your pea-pod brother-in-spirit
Nashton. You're both angry and hateful, arrogant, incapable of
admitting error, and , very, very shallow. You've been bested at
every discussion here, and, just like Nashton, you somehow think that
collapsing into paroxysms of invective have the power to rescue you
from defeat. In fact, I don't think anyone, even Nashton, would be
better off being you (althought the rest of us would be better off if
Nashton wasn't a creationist.)
And I am not on a high horse, I'm barely on a Shetland pony. It only
looks that way from where you are.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
I'm open to suggestions. Got any?
> whats the matter, too
>stupid to come up with one?
It's *your* requirement; perhaps you should "come up with
one".
> is "whatever the sycophantic religiotards
>on talk.origins will vote for" really your idea of an intellectual
>competition?
Nope. But then, I'm not the one whining about it.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
>> >>>> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
Not really, given that the definition of "intelligence" is
vague even among researchers in the field. But I'm sure you
can post one which is both objective and scientific (i.e.,
repeatable and accounts for all known data). Do it now.
> if not, why arent you telling root to fuck off with his
>claims about my intelligence?
From
http://ask.metafilter.com/68163/Specialized-Phrases-in-General-Usage
"The words idiot, imbecile, and moron were once official
psychological terms to describe certain IQ levels. Moron was
an IQ of 50 - 69, imbecile was 20 - 49, and idiot was below
20. Now we use all three words as slang for someone who's
not too bright."
Note the last sentence. It's not up to me to defend you
against vague comments.
> explain to him that he has no objective
>standards by which to judge my intelligence.
The standards by which we judge the intelligence of others
are always somewhat subjective; there *is* no truly
objective way to measure intelligence. I imagine Eric was
referring to your often-demonstrated claim that anything
which can't be evaluated by science doesn't exist. And I'm
*not* interested in your usual attempt to cast this as a
question about religion There are many things which
demonstrably exist but which we can only evaluate
subjectively, or at most semi-objectively.
>you cant have it both ways, moron.
Have what both ways? I tend to agree with O'Shea; Eric's
comment was of no interest to me.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
Bad example for at least two reasons. First, a chess game
demonstrates primarily the relative chess knowledge of two
players. Second, and related, a computer has defeated human
chess masters; is the computer therefore "more intelligent"?
Intelligence is a *very* slippery concept, as you'd know if
you did any serious reading on the subject.
> im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of
>root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him.
See, that sort of comment is why you're often judged to be
objectionable; it's obviously incorrect (no one prays to win
chess games) and is based on your dislike of anyone who
doesn't embrace scientism. It also indicates your emotional
age, which is low.
Wombat
> In message
> <eacede1c-7547-4a0e-9fbe-54e6b1d06...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,Wombat<tri...@multiweb.nl> writes
My apologies. I did not take his comments about her intelligence etc.
into account.
Wombat
snex
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:25:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
>
>
> >On Oct 9, 5:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 9, 2:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> >> >On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
chess is an example of an intellectual competition. the intellect is
used to play the game. anybody who isnt a moron knows this. but like i
said, it is only one example, since you were too stupid to think of
any yourself.
>
> Intelligence is a *very* slippery concept, as you'd know if
> you did any serious reading on the subject.
>
> > im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of
> >root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him.
>
> See, that sort of comment is why you're often judged to be
> objectionable; it's obviously incorrect (no one prays to win
> chess games) and is based on your dislike of anyone who
> doesn't embrace scientism. It also indicates your emotional
> age, which is low.
i could care less that you idiots find me "objectionable." but if you
are going to talk shit about my intelligence in threads that i am not
even participating in, back up your bullshit or apologize.
snex
> On Oct 9, 10:02 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-10-09,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 5:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> > On Oct 9, 2:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> > >> >> >On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> how come he hasn't figured that out?
>
> Anyway, the only way he could defeat me would prove that I'm wrong:
> that he actually does have a better personality than Nashton. He
> could do it in a heartbeat by showing an ability to admit he's wrong.
> Maybe he could apologize to Garamond and offer to wash his car. That
> would definitely defeat me, because I don't think it is in his power.
>
> Eric Root
> Eric Root
nice try, liar. if you had simply mentioned my personality, there
would be no issue. but you mentioned my intelligence. so either YOU
apologize or back up your bullshit and accept the challenge.
snex
wrote:
> On 2009-10-09,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 5:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 9, 2:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> >> >On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
how is he going to cheat while sitting across a table?
notice how moron garamonde backpedals after i mention just one of a
million possible competitions.
snex
> On Oct 9, 6:09 pm,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 2:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:47:51 -0400, the following appeared in
> > > talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
> > > <try.not...@but.see.sig>:
>
> > > >On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:07:18 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
> > > >(in article <qjvsc5theejrvrmbosvk985tunjhb9i...@4ax.com>):
>
> > > >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> > > >>> On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Oct 4, 7:16 am,EricRoot<er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > >>>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>>>> If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > > >>>>>> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > > >>>>>> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > > >>>>>> isn't an ideology.
>
> > > >>>>> says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > > >>>>> because a really old book says so.
> > > >>>>> i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> > > >>>>> and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>
> > > >>>> If recent history is a reliable guide,Ericwill get a POTM out of it.
>
> > > >>> thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> > > >>> over a real intellectual competition.
>
> > > >> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> > > >> specific.
>
> > > I can't disagree. He responded, and it's interesting that
> > > the "Great Guru of Objective Evidence As the Only Real Sort"
> > > had no suggestions for any sort of objective standards by
> > > which such a "competition" could be evaluated. Duelling
> > > Googles, perhaps. Or, taking a page from the UC Handbook of
> > > Idiocy, duelling dictionaries. Scientism at its worst.
>
> > whats the matter moron, arent you aware of ways to determine
> > intelligence? if not, why arent you tellingrootto fuck off with his
> > claims about my intelligence? explain to him that he has no objective
> > standards by which to judge my intelligence.
>
> > you cant have it both ways, moron.
>
> I didn't make any claims about your intelligence; your thinking I did
> speaks volumes about your intelligence.
dont lie you stupid shitbag. your words are right in the quoted
material: "Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is
smarter than you. Except your twinsnex."
> And I don't have any problems
> with your intelligence (well, you do seem to have stuck in the
> concrete level of intellectual development.) it's your personality and
> manners that inspire pity, just like your pea-pod brother-in-spirit
> Nashton. You're both angry and hateful, arrogant, incapable of
> admitting error, and , very, very shallow. You've been bested at
> every discussion here, and, just like Nashton, you somehow think that
> collapsing into paroxysms of invective have the power to rescue you
> from defeat. In fact, I don't think anyone, even Nashton, would be
> better off being you (althought the rest of us would be better off if
> Nashton wasn't a creationist.)
>
> And I am not on a high horse, I'm barely on a Shetland pony. It only
> looks that way from where you are.
and youve just proven what a worthless lying shit you are. what does
jesus think about that?
snex
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:09:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
>
>
> >On Oct 9, 2:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:47:51 -0400, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
> >> <try.not...@but.see.sig>:
> >> >On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:07:18 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
> >> >(in article <qjvsc5theejrvrmbosvk985tunjhb9i...@4ax.com>):
> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >>> On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Oct 4, 7:16 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
> >> >>>>>> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> >> >>>>>> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> >> >>>>>> isn't an ideology.
> >> >>>>> says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> >> >>>>> because a really old book says so.
> >> >>>>> i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> >> >>>>> and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
> >> >>>> If recent history is a reliable guide, Eric will get a POTM out of it.
> >> >>> thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> >> >>> over a real intellectual competition.
> >> >> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> >> >> specific.
> >> I can't disagree. He responded, and it's interesting that
> >> the "Great Guru of Objective Evidence As the Only Real Sort"
> >> had no suggestions for any sort of objective standards by
> >> which such a "competition" could be evaluated. Duelling
> >> Googles, perhaps. Or, taking a page from the UC Handbook of
> >> Idiocy, duelling dictionaries. Scientism at its worst.
> >whats the matter moron, arent you aware of ways to determine
> >intelligence?
>
> Not really, given that the definition of "intelligence" is
> vague even among researchers in the field. But I'm sure you
> can post one which is both objective and scientific (i.e.,
> repeatable and accounts for all known data). Do it now.
>
> > if not, why arent you telling root to fuck off with his
> >claims about my intelligence?
>
>
> "The words idiot, imbecile, and moron were once official
> psychological terms to describe certain IQ levels. Moron was
> an IQ of 50 - 69, imbecile was 20 - 49, and idiot was below
> 20. Now we use all three words as slang for someone who's
> not too bright."
>
> Note the last sentence. It's not up to me to defend you
> against vague comments.
>
> > explain to him that he has no objective
> >standards by which to judge my intelligence.
>
> The standards by which we judge the intelligence of others
> are always somewhat subjective; there *is* no truly
> objective way to measure intelligence. I imagine Eric was
> referring to your often-demonstrated claim that anything
> which can't be evaluated by science doesn't exist. And I'm
> *not* interested in your usual attempt to cast this as a
> question about religion There are many things which
> demonstrably exist but which we can only evaluate
> subjectively, or at most semi-objectively.
>
> >you cant have it both ways, moron.
>
> Have what both ways? I tend to agree with O'Shea; Eric's
> comment was of no interest to me.
in other words, you are just as childish as you claim i am. you just
think that coating your shit-talk with a thin layer of false civility
makes you better.
snex
> On Oct 7, 6:25 pm,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 7:16 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > > Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > > than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > > isn't an ideology.
>
> > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > because a really old book says so.
>
> Really? Who would that be?
you. you have admitted it.
>
> > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
>
> You issue the challenge, so I get to pick the weapon: not intellect,
> but personality. Oops, you lose.
oops, your claim was about intelligence. so back up your bullshit
coward.
Garamond Lethe
How are you going to get him across the table? Buy his airplane ticket?
Let's see what you can do with this:
White:
Rooks at c7 and c8, queen at f8, king at f5.
Black:
Rooks at e7 and e8, queen at b8, king at d6, pawn at d5.
White retracts the last move and mates in one. How?
[Created by VN.]
> notice how moron garamonde backpedals after i mention just one of a
> million possible competitions.
If you want to impress, learn how to write at your grade level.
Eric Root
> On Oct 10, 3:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:25:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >On Oct 9, 5:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On 2009-10-09,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Oct 9, 2:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >> >> >On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > >> >> >> >On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > >> >> >> >wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> ><snip>
> > >> >> >> >> >> > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > >> >> >> >> >> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > >> >> >> >> >> isn't an ideology.
>
> > >> >> >> >> > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > >> >> >> >> > because a really old book says so.
> > >> >> >> >> > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> > >> >> >> >> > and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>
>
> > >> >> >> >thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> > >> >> >> >over a real intellectual competition.
>
> > >> >> >> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> > >> >> >> specific.
>
>
> > >> >> It's a public forum. HTH
>
> > >> >> > or can he only
> > >> >> >spew shit about me when it appears that im not around?
>
You also don't care that normal people find you objectionable. That's
what makes you inferior.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Oct 9, 10:41 pm,EricRoot<er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 10:02 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 2009-10-09,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 9, 5:55 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On 2009-10-09,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Oct 9, 2:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > > >> >> >On Oct 8, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
>
> > > >> >> >> >On Oct 7, 6:41 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com>
> > > >> >> >> >wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> On 2009-10-07,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> ><snip>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > > >> >> >> >> >> than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > > >> >> >> >> >> isn't an ideology.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > > >> >> >> >> > because a really old book says so.
> > > >> >> >> >> > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
> > > >> >> >> >> > and when i kick the shit out of you at it, what excuse will you have?
>
>
> > > >> >> >> >thats not objective in the slightest. no wonder you would choose it
> > > >> >> >> >over a real intellectual competition.
>
> > > >> >> >> What do you have in mind as an "objective" competition? Be
> > > >> >> >> specific.
>
>
> > > >> >> It's a public forum. HTH
>
> > > >> >> > or can he only
> > > >> >> >spew shit about me when it appears that im not around?
>
> > > >> >> >so often even when i dont have time to post. so if youre going to talk
> > > >> >> >shit, back it up when i come challenge you.
>
> > > >> >> I see; you have no "objective" competition in mind and must
> > > >> >> resort to invective as a distraction. More like a fundie
> > > >> >> every day...
>
> > > >> > hey moron, read my post again. i said "any." whats the matter, too
> > > >> > stupid to come up with one? is "whatever the sycophantic religiotards
> > > >> > on talk.origins will vote for" really your idea of an intellectual
> > > >> > competition?
>
> > > >> We were waiting for your to announce your idea of an intellectual
> > > >> competition (of the objective sort, of course).
>
> > > >> I think you've come to the realization that this is not the type of
> > > >> competition where you're going to do at all well.
>
> > > >> We know this. You know this. It's only a question of how many
> > > >> posts you want to make reminding us of this.
>
> > > >> Perhaps you should let it drop.
>
> > > > or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with
> > > > many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for
> > > > one?
>
> > > that he must have used a chess engine.
>
> > > 2. It's not considered a proxy for intelligence, not even for machine
> > > intelligence.
>
> > > 3. You've made your reputation by your inability to think, read and
> > > write. Playing chess is not going to affect this reputation.
>
> > > Sorry.
>
> > > > im not even good at chess, but i bet i can knock the pants off of
> > > >root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him.
>
> > Plus, I don't pray for anything so shallow as victory in nonfatal
> > contests. That would definitely be taking the Lord's name in vain.
> > Ifsnex(note lack of capitalization ) is such an intellectual giant,
> > how come he hasn't figured that out?
>
> > Anyway, the only way he could defeat me would prove that I'm wrong:
> > that he actually does have a better personality than Nashton. He
> > could do it in a heartbeat by showing an ability to admit he's wrong.
> > Maybe he could apologize to Garamond and offer to wash his car. That
> > would definitely defeat me, because I don't think it is in his power.
>
> >EricRoot
> >EricRoot
>
> nice try, liar. if you had simply mentioned my personality, there
> would be no issue. but you mentioned my intelligence. so either YOU
> apologize or back up your bullshit and accept the challenge.
Oh, I see, you are right (that was not difficult for some of us,) I
did mention your intelligence, in comparison with Naston's.
So, to prove me wrong, you would have to beat _him_ in an intellectual
contest. Who knows, you might be able to do it.
Eric Root
Eric Root
Hmm, so i did. I guess it is related to the idea that you couldn't be
very smart and have such a rotten personality.
Okay, I'll admit you might be as smart as Nashton, and I'll even grant
you no worse a personality.
> > And I don't have any problems
> > with your intelligence (well, you do seem to have stuck in the
> > concrete level of intellectual development.) it's your personality and
> > manners that inspire pity, just like your pea-pod brother-in-spirit
> > Nashton. You're both angry and hateful, arrogant, incapable of
> > admitting error, and , very, very shallow. You've been bested at
> > every discussion here, and, just like Nashton, you somehow think that
> > collapsing into paroxysms of invective have the power to rescue you
> > from defeat. In fact, I don't think anyone, even Nashton, would be
> > better off being you (althought the rest of us would be better off if
> > Nashton wasn't a creationist.)
>
> > And I am not on a high horse, I'm barely on a Shetland pony. It only
> > looks that way from where you are.
>
> and youve just proven what a worthless lying shit you are.
Actually, no I didn't.
> what does
> jesus think about that?
Why don't you ask Him if you are so curious?
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Oct 9, 10:33 pm,EricRoot<er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 6:25 pm,snex<x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 7:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > If you want idiocy, look at the people that share your ideology.
>
> > > > Another lie. You know good and well that everyone here is smarter
> > > > than you. Except your twinsnex. You also know good and well that it
> > > > isn't an ideology.
>
> > > says the guy who believes in magic men coming back from the dead
> > > because a really old book says so.
>
> > Really? Who would that be?
>
> you. you have admitted it.
>
>
>
> > > i will gladly compete with you in any intellectual matter whatsoever,
>
> > You issue the challenge, so I get to pick the weapon: not intellect,
> > but personality. Oops, you lose.
>
> oops, your claim was about intelligence. so back up your bullshit
> coward.
Too late, you lost.
Eric Root
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
>On Oct 10, 3:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:25:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<x...@comcast.net>:
<snip>
>> >... i can come up with
>> >many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how about chess for
>> >one?
>>
>> Bad example for at least two reasons. First, a chess game
>> demonstrates primarily the relative chess knowledge of two
>> players. Second, and related, a computer has defeated human
>> chess masters; is the computer therefore "more intelligent"?
>
>chess is an example of an intellectual competition. the intellect is
>used to play the game. anybody who isnt a moron knows this. but like i
>said, it is only one example, since you were too stupid to think of
>any yourself.
So you *do* think that a computer which defeats a human
chess master is more intelligent? And you say "I'm" stupid?
>> Intelligence is a *very* slippery concept, as you'd know if
>> you did any serious reading on the subject.
>>
>> > im not even good at chess
....which means that, according to you, you're less
intelligent than a chess master, and therefore even less
intelligent than a computer...
>, but i bet i can knock the pants off of
>> >root. he will be praying to his invisible god to save him.
>>
>> See, that sort of comment is why you're often judged to be
>> objectionable; it's obviously incorrect (no one prays to win
>> chess games) and is based on your dislike of anyone who
>> doesn't embrace scientism. It also indicates your emotional
>> age, which is low.
>
>i could care less that you idiots find me "objectionable." but if you
>are going to talk shit about my intelligence in threads that i am not
>even participating in, back up your bullshit or apologize.
Sorry, but I refuse to discuss intelligence with someone who
considers himself less intelligent than a computer.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
No, I really don't care if someone else calls you a moron.
Is that childish? I disagree.
> you just
>think that coating your shit-talk with a thin layer of false civility
>makes you better.
What "shit-talk" is that? Or is it "shit-talk" to point out
that you practice scientism, and that you're a foul-mouthed
twerp who probably knows as little about science as he does
about social interactions, and who retreats to ad hominem
and epithets when contradicted or when presented with
anything which would tend to refute your "science is all
that exists" quasi-religious beliefs? If that's the case, I
plead guilty.
snex
beating you would be more satisfying, as well as proving you wrong -
that is - unless you think nashton is smarter than you are.
snex
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:53:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
exactly where in this thread did i say anything to make root bring me
up?
snex
snex
no, things like that are what enable religion and other superstitious
bullshit to exist in the first place.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Well, snex? I know you're still here, so why haven't you
responded?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <xe...@comcast.net>:
You didn't have to; the similarity between your posts and
those of Nashie, in tone and lack of maturity if not in
actual content, is too great to overlook.
Garamond Lethe
wrote:
> On 2009-10-13, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >> >> Perhaps you should let it drop.
>
> >> > or perhaps you are just a complete fucking moron. i can come up with
> >> > many intellectual competitions right off the cuff. how aboutchessfor
> >> > one?
<snip>
> Let's see what you can do with this:
>
> White:
> Rooks at c7 and c8, queen at f8, king at f5.
>
> Black:
> Rooks at e7 and e8, queen at b8, king at d6, pawn at d5.
>
> White retracts the last move and mates in one. How?
>
> [Created by VN.]
How's that retractor problem treating you?
<snip>
Eric Root
But I already beat you, in a personality contest. That was _very_
satisfying.
Eric Root.
Garamond Lethe
Any better luck over the weekend?
>
><snip>
>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com>:
He's pulled a Tony. Again. He'll come back blustering about
being too "busy" (i.e., "important") to bother answering in
a timely fashion.