Chez Watt Ballot, January 7, 2009
Harvest Dancer
ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, And also in quality as it
is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
institution of Chez Watt.
So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
======
File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
> We know about the force of gravity
> only because modern scientists have discovered it.
======
For the "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" Department:
> No, wait, I was thinking of Ed's penis.
======
>"Science offers no reason to why life or planets exist. If you think it
>all comes from a big bang then why didnt all life die at the time?"
======
In the " He's just Goofy", category,
>> You can't "defeat" any evolutionary scientist on this board because
>> you are ignorant of the nature of science in general and evolutionary
>> theory in particular.
>BWAHAhahahahaha!!
>Laffs! to PLUTO and back!!
======
Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
Chicken Little, what's the difference?
> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> happen.
======
In the category "And if he survives we'll *really* get
mean!":
>According to a recent study, 82 percent of Americans want to run over
>adman with a tractor
>According to a Gallup poll released Monday, 82 percent of Americans
>describe themselves as "wanting very much" to run over adman with a
>tractor, with 60 percent of respondents preferring that a trailer
>loaded with pig iron be attached to the rear of the vehicle. "These
>figures reflect a 12 percent rise from last year," Gallup official Tom
>Ross said.
>Of the dissenting 18 percent of respondents, 11 percent wanted to bind
>adman's ankles with a cable attached to the Space Shuttle, and 7
>percent wished to strap him to a stone slab and force him to watch
>"Life of Brian" for 800 hours on continuous loop, while an eagle
>devours his liver.
>do do
>do do
>do do do do do do
======
File under: "so befuddled cows jumping over the moon
seem ordinary in comparison"
> The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before
> your eyes with the evolutionists in America
> playing their tiny part as pawns in a game that is
> slowing taking place but has some pretty high
> steaks.
======
In the "screaming oxymoron" category,
>The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank,
======
In the "Ug, the trodglodyte, makes a declarative statement, sort of"
category,
>You ignoramus for all the class to see.
======
In the "what's wrong with this picture?" category,
>Even passed out in my own puke I know a damn sight more than you do.
======
Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look too
>hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be reasonable.
>But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts will
>take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
======
In the "Ultimate Projection, with Irony turned up to 11", category,
>> He has tossed out so many bogus arguments that it is
>> practically impossible for one of my Creationist co-workers to come up
>> with something that I haven't already seen smashed to bits a dozen
>> times.
>WoW. You must lead an incredibly boring life if all you do is read
>about and then talk about creation --even while at work.
======
In the "NEVER produced a rational argument, either", category,
>While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've NEVER
>been interested in back-and-forth discussion.
======
In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
> > The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
> > Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
> > the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
> > the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
> But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a black
> kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different colour
> while Rome burned? Literally.
======
in the "too bad it's epigenetically methylated" category,
>pffft... There is more combined intelligene on the AiG site then in 30
>talk Origin sites.
======
In the "The Surprise Is, If No One Said It Before" category:
> The Bible, with its "begats" is better seen as a procreation myth...
======
> It's as if he thinks Chez Watt isn't important.
======
In the "Cations, anions, oh my!" category,
>What's "pigion"? Is it a piece of free radical bacon?
======
In the "break out the disinformed bubbly, again" category,
>But we have a problem,. We have dishonest biblical teachers, a mass
>media that is out of control, and an obvious disinformation champagne
>being waged in America today.
======
In the category, "I would, but the line is too darned long."
> > By the way, set yourself on fire.
> Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself?
======
In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
Part One
>Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
Part Two
> This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
======
In the "clue eluding cretinist", category,
>The very fact that evolution does not need "God" eludes to the fact
>that evolution has nothing to do with what the bible teaches.
======
Nominated in the "I really am so dumb that I believe people make up
dumb Chez Watts about me."
>In the " I'm not really dumb. I just like making dumb Chez Watts"
>catagory
>> In the "clue eluding cretinist", category,
>> >The very fact that evolution does not need "God" eludes to the fact
>> >that evolution has nothing to do with what the bible teaches.
======
In "on the horns of de debbils' dilemma", category,
>All demoniations meet on the main points.
======
In the "Is that tautology FAQ ready, yet?", category,
>Slavery simply does not equal slavery.
======
In the "Do you think the Pope approves of this?" category.
> You colossal ignoramus
> you ignorant schmuck
> You're a useless dork.
======
In the "Shaving the number of gods you worship down to one" category
> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> and faith does not require this tool.
======
In the "At least my mom thinks I'm funny" category
> In the "Shaving the number of gods you worship down to one" category
>> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
>> and faith does not require this tool.
======
Under "It's a whole new meaning of the word, all together!"
>> I'm confused. You've said that they are atheists when the sin is
>> committed. So that should mean that they aren't Christian at that time.
> Yes, makes sense.
======
>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for your
>> god?
> The truth hurts.
======
In the "never been on a farm" category:
> This is why the Deceiver
> dresses in sheeps clothing ("I am a Christian"), so he can have access
> to the hen house.
======
In the "Jesus was an Atheist" category:
> Persons who commit crime, get arrested, convicted and sent to prison
> are all Atheists (100 percent).
======
Is there an alternative for Chez Watt, something which, instead of
being
amusing, is deeply disturbing and/or offensive and shows the hypocrisy
and hate-filled attitude of some theists?
Such as this rather disgusting vituperation using Asperger's syndrome:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:18:28 +0000, he
> posted 994 lines of text to a thread that is long-abandoned by
> everyone else. 994 lines? I could see that he is deeply obsessed, so I
> consulted an expert who determined that he probably is afflicted with
> a demon of confusion, possibly compounded by aspergers syndrome.
Only a "true believer" could stoop this low.
======
I think this one should go in the 'ignorance is bliss' category:
> Fitness is a measure of the frequency within a population of
> particular genotypes over time. If any allele is reproducing more
> rapidly, it is more fit, regardless of what genotype it's associated
> with.
======
Chez Watt in the truthiness of "knowledge is lost" category.
> Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is lost. IOW
> man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
======
In the "hot and humid procreation" category,
>But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
>have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.
======
In the "Yes, it is THAT simple" category,
>> Myself, and obviously the author does not see it that way Dana. Is
>> this a spot of contention with you? Perhaps a sticking point in
>> evolution?
>Only if you're a gibbering moron with no real understanding of
>evolution ...
======
In the category "This place is a riot"
>> I didn't say I strove to please _you_.
>How inciteful.
======
In the category, What creationists know of human anatomy, sexuality,
and spelling:
> Be a good lady and bugger of.
======
In the "self-conflicting" category,
>Certainty be damned -- those things just don't happen.
======
In the "punctuation-free, internalized spoonerism, nested within an
imbecility", category,
>You are pissed that I can form a better theory based on obversations
>and data then
> you can
======
This portion:
> I know you feel all fuzzy and smug inside when you declare a Chez Watt,
> but to a French speaker, it's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
For demononstrating that a sense of humor is one of the many things
that he lacks.
======
In the " I do not really have Emotional Problems" catagory
> It is clear that you have emotional problems and TO is an outlet for
> them.
======
In the "I love the jokes" catagory
> The idiocy of creationists is a laugh a minute.-
======
In the category "Just because you're a girl it doesn't mean
you're a girl". Or maybe "Huh?"
>>> (actually, the last
>>> girl to show her face here was verbally abused by Ye Old One
>> On behalf of myself and several other regulars: we knew you were bad at
>> biology. Didn't think you were THAT bad.
>When and if the occasion arises, feel free to debunk any of my claims.
>In the meantime, catch you later.
======
In the "I Love Bullshit" catagory
> As opposed to bullshit from creationists?
======
In the "quite a bit of synaptic activity short of a complete thought",
category,
>A science that is in constant flux and often contridicts it self
>within a body of like minded people.
======
In the "Yoda meets creationist", category,
>Defiantly a misunderstood body of work the Psalms are.
======
In the Tommy Smothers subcategory " 'Well... well...OH,
YEAH?!' He demanded defiantly:
>In the "math is hard, I must be a blond" catagory
>> In the "Yoda meets creationist", category,
>> >Defiantly a misunderstood body of work the Psalms are.
======
nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
> Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> feet of female babys.
> So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> parent can be passed on to the child.
======
In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
was 100% right!"
>In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
>> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
>> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
>> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
>> > feet of female babys.
>> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
>> > parent can be passed on to the child.
======
In the "Oopsie, I admitted it was a myth", category,
>Moron. Abraham was from Ur where the flood myth originated. How could
>it be "cribbed"?
======
In the category: Well Said
> Creationists are so warped into believing in magical poofing
> mechanisms that they think evolution is merely magical poofing without
> God.
======
In the "Why do you hate Malaya?" category. Also, can a mutation
prevent a geographical location?
> Sickle Cell is a bad mutation with a beneficial use use preventing
> Malaya.
======
In the "What's that sailing way over my head?" category:
>> Similarly, one can assert its existence but *that* doesn't make it true
>> either.
> You have a point but the truth of the matter is that: HE DOES EXIST.
======
alextangent
First:
>> "Science offers no reason to why life or planets exist. If you think it
>> all comes from a big bang then why didnt all life die at the time?"
>
Second:
>
> I think this one should go in the 'ignorance is bliss' category:
>
>> Fitness is a measure of the frequency within a population of
>> particular genotypes over time. If any allele is reproducing more
>> rapidly, it is more fit, regardless of what genotype it's associated
>> with.
>
An immodest third;
Boikat
> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �December was a
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
> ======
>
Target rich environment. :P
#1
> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>
> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> > feet of female babys.
> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> > parent can be passed on to the child.
>
#2, the sequel to #1
> In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
> was 100% right!"
>
> >In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
> >> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
> >> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> >> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> >> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> >> > feet of female babys.
> >> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> >> > parent can be passed on to the child.
>
#3 I'm still wondering how everythng stuck to the ground before
scientists invented the damned thing.
> File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
> > We know about the force of gravity
> > only because modern scientists have discovered it.
>
> ======
#4 All your grammar are belong to us.
>
> In the "Ug, the trodglodyte, makes a declarative statement, sort of"
> category,
>
> >You ignoramus for all the class to see.
>
#5 Refreshing honesty. Obviously a mistake.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Oopsie, I admitted it was a myth", category,
>
> >Moron. Abraham was from Ur where the flood myth originated. How could
> >it be "cribbed"?
>
Boikat
rmacfarl
"Harvest Dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a378903e-cdeb-40a3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Wow, what a selection!
First vote:
> ======
>
> In the category, What creationists know of human anatomy,
> sexuality,
> and spelling:
>
>> Be a good lady and bugger of.
>
Second vote:
> ======
>
> In the "Is that tautology FAQ ready, yet?", category,
>
>>Slavery simply does not equal slavery.
>
Third vote (don't even want to speculate on this one):
> ======
>
> For the "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" Department:
>
>> No, wait, I was thinking of Ed's penis.
>
Honourable mentions:
> ======
>
>>"Science offers no reason to why life or planets exist. If you
>>think it
>>all comes from a big bang then why didnt all life die at the
>>time?"
>
> ======
>
> Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>
>>The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't
>>look too
>>hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be
>>reasonable.
>>But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts
>>will
>>take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
>
>
> ======
>
> In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
>
>> > The object of your schtick, like I said, is
>> > anti-evolutionists,
>> > Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact
>> > corroborates
>> > the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way
>> > street for
>> > the sole purpose of attempting to poison the
>> > anti-evolutionism well.
>
>> But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a
>> black
>> kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a
>> different colour
>> while Rome burned? Literally.
>
> ======
>
> In the "The Surprise Is, If No One Said It Before" category:
>
>> The Bible, with its "begats" is better seen as a procreation
>> myth...
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the "I really am so dumb that I believe people
> make up
> dumb Chez Watts about me."
>
>>In the " I'm not really dumb. I just like making dumb Chez
>>Watts"
>>catagory
>
>>> In the "clue eluding cretinist", category,
>
>>> >The very fact that evolution does not need "God" eludes to
>>> >the fact
>>> >that evolution has nothing to do with what the bible
>>> >teaches.
>
> ======
>
> Chez Watt in the truthiness of "knowledge is lost" category.
>
>> Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is
>> lost. IOW
>> man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
>
> ======
>
Xavier Onnasis
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
>======
>
> Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>
>>The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look
>>too hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be
>>reasonable. But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of
>>ruthless facts will take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it
>>senseless.
>
>======
+1 vote
>======
>
> In the "NEVER produced a rational argument, either", category,
>
>>While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've NEVER
>>been interested in back-and-forth discussion.
>
>======
+3 votes
>======
>
>> It's as if he thinks Chez Watt isn't important.
>
>======
+1 vote
>======
>
> In the category, "I would, but the line is too darned long."
>
>> > By the way, set yourself on fire.
>
>> Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself?
>
>======
+1 vote
>======
>
> In the "Shaving the number of gods you worship down to one" category
>
>> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in
>> science and faith does not require this tool.
>
>======
+4 votes
>======
>
> In the "Jesus was an Atheist" category:
>
>> Persons who commit crime, get arrested, convicted and sent to
>> prison are all Atheists (100 percent).
>
>======
+2 votes
>======
>
> In the "punctuation-free, internalized spoonerism, nested within an
> imbecility", category,
>
>>You are pissed that I can form a better theory based on obversations
>>and data then
>> you can
>
>======
+1 vote
>======
>
> This portion:
>
>> I know you feel all fuzzy and smug inside when you declare a Chez
>> Watt, but to a French speaker, it's one of the dumbest things I've
>> ever read.
>
> For demononstrating that a sense of humor is one of the many things
> that he lacks.
>
>======
+3 votes
>======
>
> In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
> was 100% right!"
>
>>In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
>
>>> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>
>>> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of
>>> > flathead Indians would inherit the flat head which has been
>>> > produced by binding a flat stone on the soft skull of the
>>> > new-born infant or binding the feet of female babys.
>
>>> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by
>>> > the parent can be passed on to the child.
>
>======
+7 votes
>======
>
> In the category: Well Said
>
>> Creationists are so warped into believing in magical poofing
>> mechanisms that they think evolution is merely magical poofing
>> without God.
>
>======
+7 votes
--
XO
David Hare-Scott
>
> In the "NEVER produced a rational argument, either", category,
>
>> While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've NEVER
>> been interested in back-and-forth discussion.
>
second
> ======
> In the "Cations, anions, oh my!" category,
>
>> What's "pigion"? Is it a piece of free radical bacon?
>
first
R. Baldwin
news:a378903e-cdeb-40a3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. December was a
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
These two are very good:
>
> ======
>
> File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
>> We know about the force of gravity
>> only because modern scientists have discovered it.
>
>
> ======
>
> In the "NEVER produced a rational argument, either", category,
>
>>While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've NEVER
>>been interested in back-and-forth discussion.
>
But my vote has to go for this one:
Free Lunch
<harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. December was a
>ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, And also in quality as it
>is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
>institution of Chez Watt.
>
>So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
>======
>
>File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
>> We know about the force of gravity
>> only because modern scientists have discovered it.
Three.
>======
>
>Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
>Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
>> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
>> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
>> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
>> happen.
Two.
>======
>
>In the "screaming oxymoron" category,
>
>>The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank,
One.
Greg G.
Moist Lipwig
> ======
>
> In the category, What creationists know of human
> anatomy, sexuality, and spelling:
>
>> Be a good lady and bugger of.
>
> ======
Second place:
Cheezits
[etc.]
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for
>>> your god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
<ROFL>
Finally, someone admits it. :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Mitchell Coffey
> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �December was a
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
Third, that man is truly evil - what's important to understand is that
here ASI is defending slavery:
> In the "Is that tautology FAQ ready, yet?", category,
>
> >Slavery simply does not equal slavery.
Second - that man is evil:
> Is there an alternative for Chez Watt, something which, instead of
> being
> amusing, is deeply disturbing and/or offensive and shows the hypocrisy
> and hate-filled attitude of some theists?
>
> Such as this rather disgusting vituperation using Asperger's syndrome:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:18:28 +0000, he
> > posted 994 lines of text to a thread that is long-abandoned by
> > everyone else. 994 lines? I could see that he is deeply obsessed, so I
> > consulted an expert who determined that he probably is afflicted with
> > a demon of confusion, possibly compounded by aspergers syndrome.
>
> Only a "true believer" could stoop this low.
First, one of most ignorant paragraphs one is going to read - made all
the more so
by the CW by ASI that follows:
> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>
> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> > feet of female babys.
> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> > parent can be passed on to the child.
>
> ======
>
> In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
> was 100% right!"
>
> >In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
> >> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
> >> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> >> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> >> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> >> > feet of female babys.
> >> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> >> > parent can be passed on to the child.
>
> ======
[snip]
TheBicyclingGuitarist
> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �December was a
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
> ======
Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look too
>hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be reasonable.
>But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts will
>take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
--
The Beatles Help! done by The Bicycling Guitarist (please rate and
comment):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x31RbJ4pr3E
Sapient Fridge
<a378903e-cdeb-40a3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for your
>>> god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
This one.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<a378903e-cdeb-40a3...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> writes
>ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, And also in quality as it
>is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
>institution of Chez Watt.
Out of curiosity what happened to my nomination?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/a596533ccc1b04e3?hl=en
The subject is right and it's in December so shouldn't in be in this
ballot?
(not that it matters)
Burkhard
> For the "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" Department:
>
>> No, wait, I was thinking of Ed's penis.
>
>
> Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
> Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
>> I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
>
>> Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
>> Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
>> happen.
>
>
> Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>
>> The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look too
>> hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be reasonable.
>> But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts will
>> take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
>
> In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
>
>>> The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
>>> Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
>>> the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
>>> the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
>
>> But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a black
>> kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different colour
>> while Rome burned? Literally.
>
>
> In the "The Surprise Is, If No One Said It Before" category:
>
>> The Bible, with its "begats" is better seen as a procreation myth...
>
>
> In "on the horns of de debbils' dilemma", category,
>
>> All demoniations meet on the main points.
>
>
> In the "never been on a farm" category:
>
>> This is why the Deceiver
>> dresses in sheeps clothing ("I am a Christian"), so he can have access
>> to the hen house.
>
>
> ======
>
> In the "Yoda meets creationist", category,
>
>> Defiantly a misunderstood body of work the Psalms are.
>
>
> ======
>
Nashton
Perhaps you ought to acquire a life?
Ever thought of that? Dunno, take up a musical instrument, spend some
time with your wife and kids, get some exercise.
I scrolled through each and everyone of these and I didn't find any of
them funny enough to even make me smile.
Nonsense and a lot of it. Grow up.
alextangent
Read All About It! Today's headlines;
Usenet Addict Warns; Leave While You Can
"I'm hooked and beyond rehab, but I can still save innocent souls"
Ye Old One
>Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. December was a
>ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, And also in quality as it
>is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
>institution of Chez Watt.
>
>So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
>======
Second place.
>
>In the "screaming oxymoron" category,
>
>>The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank
>>
>
>======
Third place.
>
>in the "too bad it's epigenetically methylated" category,
>
>>pffft... There is more combined intelligene on the AiG site then in 30
>>talk Origin sites.
>
>======
First place.
>
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for your
>>> god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
>
>======
Honourable Mention.
>
>In the "Oopsie, I admitted it was a myth", category,
>
>>Moron. Abraham was from Ur where the flood myth originated. How could
>>it be "cribbed"?
>
>======
--
Bob.
Louann Miller
verbs.)
>>The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look too
>>hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be reasonable.
>>But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts will
>>take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
With honorable mention to this one in the "um, you realize you said that
OUT LOUD?" category.
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for
>>> your god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
Louann
Mark Isaak
First place. It is one of the few that made me stop and say, "What?!":
> ======
> File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
>> We know about the force of gravity
>> only because modern scientists have discovered it.
> ======
Second through tied-for-second place, in no particular order:
> ======
> In the category, What creationists know of human anatomy, sexuality,
> and spelling:
>
>> Be a good lady and bugger of.
> ======
> ======
> In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
>
>> > The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
>> > Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
>> > the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
>> > the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
>
>> But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a black
>> kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different
>> colour while Rome burned? Literally.
> ======
> ======
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for
>>> your god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
> ======
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
All-seeing-I
Many of them were actually good points. Not funny or ironic in the
tradition of the chez watt at all
That is why I refrained from voting this month.
All-seeing-I
In the "I'm not an Addict because I post every day" catagory
Kermit
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
<snip>
This, please:
****************************************************************
In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
was 100% right!"
>In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
>> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
>> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
>> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
>> > feet of female babys.
>> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
>> > parent can be passed on to the child.
*********************************************************************
Kermit
Boikat
Or maybe it was due to a sudden flush of modesty, since you were the
source of the more idiotic "Watts". That would also explain why you
thought most of them were "actually good points" too.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and RAM never post together. There is always a gap in time. Say
like, umm... long enough for you to disconnect and then connecting to
another ISP..
STOP NYM SHIFTING KOOK.
And take your meds.
Boikat
You're an idiot.
> STOP NYM SHIFTING KOOK.
You're imagining things.
>
> And take your meds.
Sounds like somebody already has. Yes. That would be you.
Boikat
Stephen
[...]
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
First:
> ======
>
> In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
>
> > > The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
> > > Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact
> > > corroborates the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a
> > > one-way street for the sole purpose of attempting to poison the
> > > anti-evolutionism well.
>
> > But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a black
> > kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different
> > colour while Rome burned? Literally.
>
Second
> ======
>
> File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
> > We know about the force of gravity
> > only because modern scientists have discovered it.
>
Third
> ======
>
> > "Science offers no reason to why life or planets exist. If you
> > think it all comes from a big bang then why didnt all life die at
> > the time?"
>
> ======
--
Desertphile
I like this one the most:
>>> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for your
>>> god?
>
>> The truth hurts.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 4:33�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> Harvest Dancer wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you ought to acquire a life?
>>
>> Ever thought of that? Dunno, take up a musical instrument, spend some
>> time with your wife and kids, get some exercise.
>>
>> I scrolled through each and everyone of these and I didn't find any of
>> them funny enough to even make me smile.
>>
>> Nonsense and a lot of it. Grow up.
>
>Many of them were actually good points.
So you really are this blindingly stupid.
>Not funny or ironic in the
>tradition of the chez watt at all
>
There goes the rest of my stash of irony meters.
>That is why I refrained from voting this month.
>
Try refraining from breathing for six or seven minutes.
It will make the world a better place.
Harvest Dancer
wrote:
> In message
> <a378903e-cdeb-40a3-bc28-c42b31c26...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �December was a
> >ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> >is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> >institution of Chez Watt.
>
> Out of curiosity what happened to my nomination?
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/a596533ccc1b04e3?hl=en
>
> The subject is right and it's in December so shouldn't in be in this
> ballot?
>
> (not that it matters)
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net�http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer �*
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net�* � �today � �*
Sorry about that and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Whenever
I miss one I always include it in the next month's ballot.
Jason
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jan 8, 4:33�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > Harvest Dancer wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you ought to acquire a life?
>
> > Ever thought of that? Dunno, take up a musical instrument, spend some
> > time with your wife and kids, get some exercise.
>
> > I scrolled through each and everyone of these and I didn't find any of
> > them funny enough to even make me smile.
>
> > Nonsense and a lot of it. Grow up.
>
> Many of them were actually good points.
Including your defense of slavery? What about this monumental idiocy
you posted:
[quote]
> Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> feet of female babys.
> So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> parent can be passed on to the child.
[end quote]
Harvest Dancer
Watts. As usual, winning authors and winning nominators are invited
to come forward for credit or blame, as appropriate.
A runaway winner, by a champion Watter, accidentally telling the
truth.
> >> You are a very dishonest man. Why do you feel the need to lie for your
> >> god?
> > The truth hurts.
Second place
> Because reality don't need no stinkin' badges:
>
> >The nested hierarchy of life is a good example. If you don't look too
> >hard, "common features suggest a common designer" might be reasonable.
> >But if you dare to examine too closely a gang of ruthless facts will
> >take your hypothesis into an alley and beat it senseless.
Third place, a fall-down favorite
> File under, "Is that...THUD!...so?"
>
> > We know about the force of gravity
> > only because modern scientists have discovered it.
Fourth place, and I was careful to determine whether you were voting
for the original or the sequel
> In the category "I can *too* confirm my ignorance; Lamarck
> was 100% right!"
>
> >In the "Reasoning is Hard" catagory
> >> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
> >> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> >> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> >> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> >> > feet of female babys.
> >> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> >> > parent can be passed on to the child.
Fifth place
> In the category "set your metaphor-blenders to LIQUEFY":
>
> > > The object of your schtick, like I said, is anti-evolutionists,
> > > Creationists, IDists and never evolutionists. This fact corroborates
> > > the fact that you are practicing a schtick down a one-way street for
> > > the sole purpose of attempting to poison the anti-evolutionism well.
> > But surely that broken reed would pay the piper by tipping a black
> > kettle of fish out of the frying-pan into a horse of a different colour
> > while Rome burned? Literally.
On Jan 7, 2:49�pm, Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �December was a
> ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �And also in quality as it
> is always a riot when a creationist tries to attack the sacred
> institution of Chez Watt.
>
> So vote early, vote often, and may the best Watt win.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> For the "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" Department:
>
> > No, wait, I was thinking of Ed's penis.
>
> ======
>
> >"Science offers no reason to why life or planets exist. If you think it
> >all comes from a big bang then why didnt all life die at the time?"
>
> ======
>
> In the " He's just Goofy", category,
>
> >> You can't "defeat" any evolutionary scientist on this board because
> >> you are ignorant of the nature of science in general and evolutionary
> >> theory in particular.
> >BWAHAhahahahaha!!
> >Laffs! to PLUTO and back!!
>
> ======
>
> Chez Watt in the category: Fumbling fables: Boy who cried wolf,
> Chicken Little, what's the difference?
>
> > I don't suppose you read the story of chicken little, have you?
> > Just because there have been others in the past that cried: "The Sky
> > Is Falling" and it didn't, does not mean that it --will --not --
> > happen.
>
> ======
>
> In the category "And if he survives we'll *really* get
> mean!":
>
> >According to a recent study, 82 percent of Americans want to run over
> >adman with a tractor
> >According to a Gallup poll released Monday, 82 percent of Americans
> >describe themselves as "wanting very much" to run over adman with a
> >tractor, with 60 percent of respondents preferring that a trailer
> >loaded with pig iron be attached to the rear of the vehicle. "These
> >figures reflect a 12 percent rise from last year," Gallup official Tom
> >Ross said.
> >Of the dissenting 18 percent of respondents, 11 percent wanted to bind
> >adman's ankles with a cable attached to the Space Shuttle, and 7
> >percent wished to strap him to a stone slab and force him to watch
> >"Life of Brian" for 800 hours on continuous loop, while an eagle
> >devours his liver.
> >do do
> >do do
> >do do do do do do
>
> ======
>
> File under: "so befuddled cows jumping over the moon
> seem ordinary in comparison"
>
> > The worst parts of the bible are unfolding before
> > your eyes with the evolutionists in America
> > playing their tiny part as pawns in a game that is
> > slowing taking place but has some pretty high
> > steaks.
>
> ======
>
> In the "screaming oxymoron" category,
>
> >The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank,
>
> ======
>
> In the "Ug, the trodglodyte, makes a declarative statement, sort of"
> category,
>
> >You ignoramus for all the class to see.
>
> ======
>
> In the "what's wrong with this picture?" category,
>
> >Even passed out in my own puke I know a damn sight more than you do.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the "Ultimate Projection, with Irony turned up to 11", category,
>
> >> He has tossed out so many bogus arguments that it is
> >> practically impossible for one of my Creationist co-workers to come up
> >> with something that I haven't already seen smashed to bits a dozen
> >> times.
> >WoW. You must lead an incredibly boring life if all you do is read
> >about and then talk about creation --even while at work.
>
> ======
>
> In the "NEVER produced a rational argument, either", category,
>
> >While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've NEVER
> >been interested in back-and-forth discussion.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> in the "too bad it's epigenetically methylated" category,
>
> >pffft... There is more combined intelligene on the AiG site then in 30
> >talk Origin sites.
>
> ======
>
> In the "The Surprise Is, If No One Said It Before" category:
>
> > The Bible, with its "begats" is better seen as a procreation myth...
>
> ======
>
> > It's as if he thinks Chez Watt isn't important.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Cations, anions, oh my!" category,
>
> >What's "pigion"? Is it a piece of free radical bacon?
>
> ======
>
> In the "break out the disinformed bubbly, again" category,
>
> >But we have a problem,. We have dishonest biblical teachers, a mass
> >media that is out of control, and an obvious disinformation champagne
> >being waged in America today.
>
> ======
>
> In the category, "I would, but the line is too darned long."
>
> > > By the way, set yourself on fire.
> > Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself?
>
> ======
>
> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>
> Part One
>
> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> >the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>
> Part Two
>
> > This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> ======
>
> In the "clue eluding cretinist", category,
>
> >The very fact that evolution does not need "God" eludes to the fact
> >that evolution has nothing to do with what the bible teaches.
>
> ======
>
> Nominated in the "I really am so dumb that I believe people make up
> dumb Chez Watts about me."
>
> >In the " I'm not really dumb. I just like making dumb Chez Watts"
> >catagory
> >> In the "clue eluding cretinist", category,
> >> >The very fact that evolution does not need "God" eludes to the fact
> >> >that evolution has nothing to do with what the bible teaches.
>
> ======
>
> In "on the horns of de debbils' dilemma", category,
>
> >All demoniations meet on the main points.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Is that tautology FAQ ready, yet?", category,
>
> >Slavery simply does not equal slavery.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Do you think the Pope approves of this?" category.
>
> > You colossal ignoramus
> > you ignorant schmuck
> > You're a useless dork.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Shaving the number of gods you worship down to one" category
>
> > Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> > and faith does not require this tool.
>
> ======
>
> In the "At least my mom thinks I'm funny" category
>
> > In the "Shaving the number of gods you worship down to one" category
> >> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> >> and faith does not require this tool.
>
> ======
>
> Under "It's a whole new meaning of the word, all together!"
>
> >> I'm confused. You've said that they are atheists when the sin is
> >> committed. So that should mean that they aren't Christian at that time.
> > Yes, makes sense.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the "never been on a farm" category:
>
> > This is why the Deceiver
> > dresses in sheeps clothing ("I am a Christian"), so he can have access
> > to the hen house.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Jesus was an Atheist" category:
>
> > Persons who commit crime, get arrested, convicted and sent to prison
> > are all Atheists (100 percent).
>
> ======
>
> Is there an alternative for Chez Watt, something which, instead of
> being
> amusing, is deeply disturbing and/or offensive and shows the hypocrisy
> and hate-filled attitude of some theists?
>
> Such as this rather disgusting vituperation using Asperger's syndrome:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:18:28 +0000, he
> > posted 994 lines of text to a thread that is long-abandoned by
> > everyone else. 994 lines? I could see that he is deeply obsessed, so I
> > consulted an expert who determined that he probably is afflicted with
> > a demon of confusion, possibly compounded by aspergers syndrome.
>
> Only a "true believer" could stoop this low.
>
> ======
>
> I think this one should go in the 'ignorance is bliss' category:
>
> > Fitness is a measure of the frequency within a population of
> > particular genotypes over time. If any allele is reproducing more
> > rapidly, it is more fit, regardless of what genotype it's associated
> > with.
>
> ======
>
> Chez Watt in the truthiness of "knowledge is lost" category.
>
> > Noah's family and the fact much of the adamic knowledge is lost. IOW
> > man did not learn to wright, he re-learned to wright.
>
> ======
>
> In the "hot and humid procreation" category,
>
> >But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
> >have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Yes, it is THAT simple" category,
>
> >> Myself, and obviously the author does not see it that way Dana. Is
> >> this a spot of contention with you? Perhaps a sticking point in
> >> evolution?
> >Only if you're a gibbering moron with no real understanding of
> >evolution ...
>
> ======
>
> In the category "This place is a riot"
>
> >> I didn't say I strove to please _you_.
> >How inciteful.
>
> ======
>
> In the category, What creationists know of human anatomy, sexuality,
> and spelling:
>
> > Be a good lady and bugger of.
>
> ======
>
> In the "self-conflicting" category,
>
> >Certainty be damned -- those things just don't happen.
>
> ======
>
> In the "punctuation-free, internalized spoonerism, nested within an
> imbecility", category,
>
> >You are pissed that I can form a better theory based on obversations
> >and data then
> > you can
>
> ======
>
> This portion:
>
> > I know you feel all fuzzy and smug inside when you declare a Chez Watt,
> > but to a French speaker, it's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
>
> For demononstrating that a sense of humor is one of the many things
> that he lacks.
>
> ======
>
> In the " I do not really have Emotional Problems" catagory
>
> > It is clear that you have emotional problems and TO is an outlet for
> > them.
>
> ======
>
> In the "I love the jokes" catagory
>
> > The idiocy of creationists is a laugh a minute.-
>
> ======
>
> In the category "Just because you're a girl it doesn't mean
> you're a girl". Or maybe "Huh?"
>
> >>> �(actually, the last
> >>> girl to show her face here was verbally abused by Ye Old One
> >> On behalf of myself and several other regulars: we knew you were bad at
> >> biology. Didn't think you were THAT bad.
> >When and if the occasion arises, feel free to debunk any of my claims.
> >In the meantime, catch you later.
>
> ======
>
> In the "I Love Bullshit" catagory
>
> > As opposed to bullshit from creationists?
>
> ======
>
> In the "quite a bit of synaptic activity short of a complete thought",
> category,
>
> >A science that is in constant flux and often contridicts it self
> >within a body of like minded people.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Yoda meets creationist", category,
>
> >Defiantly a misunderstood body of work the Psalms are.
>
> ======
>
> In the Tommy Smothers subcategory " 'Well... well...OH,
> YEAH?!' He demanded defiantly:
>
> >In the "math is hard, I must be a blond" catagory
> >> In the "Yoda meets creationist", category,
> >> >Defiantly a misunderstood body of work the Psalms are.
>
> ======
>
> nominated in the "You fail biology forever" category
>
> > Chinese women will be born with small feet and the babies of flathead
> > Indians would inherit the flat head which has been produced by binding
> > a flat stone on the soft skull of the new-born infant or binding the
> > feet of female babys.
> > So Acquired characteristics are inherited. What was acquired by the
> > parent can be passed on to the child.
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the "Oopsie, I admitted it was a myth", category,
>
> >Moron. Abraham was from Ur where the flood myth originated. How could
> >it be "cribbed"?
>
> ======
>
> In the category: Well Said
>
> > Creationists are so warped into believing in magical poofing
> > mechanisms that they think evolution is merely magical poofing without
> > God.
>
> ======
>
> In the "Why do you hate Malaya?" category. Also, can a mutation
> prevent a geographical location?
>
> > Sickle Cell is a bad mutation with a beneficial use use preventing
> > Malaya.
>
Harvest Dancer
On Jan 11, 8:57�ｿｽam, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here we go, with the winners of this most excellent round of Chez
> Watts. �ｿｽAs usual, winning authors and winning nominators are invited
> Second place
> Fifth place
> On Jan 7, 2:49�ｿｽpm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Hoo boy, do we have a doozy of a ballot this time. �ｿｽDecember was a
> > ripe and rich month, at least in quantity, �ｿｽAnd also in quality as it
> > >>> �ｿｽ(actually, the last