Dr.GH

If rat ass is safart, then I am very relieved. There is one less mindfuck creto in the world.

This 2 buck Chuck is good wine!

Gooch's dad

This should be interesting. TW moderators simply aren't going to make Sock Rat tone down his vitriol, and it may keep a respectable Christian scientist like Denis Lamoreux away from TW. I doubt he wants to wade into such a cesspool of hatred on a regular basis.

I hope Denis sticks around there, though. He has a chance to sway a great number of Christian lurkers who read that forum.

Vorkosigan

Socrates just posted this here in this thread on Bib Arch:

These differences were most pronounced in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC. This is where Dr Immanuel Velikovsky and Dr Donovan Courville claimed that centruies have been erroneously added to Egyptian chronology. They were followed by Peter James (Centuries of Darkness and David Rohl (Test of Time).

Rohl is a total nut. We had a thread on him a while back. Rohl's hilarious website is at http://www.nunki.net/. A disciple has a website on him here: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/ that will also be quite fun. He writes in the best EVD style, describing a statue he has created by Photoshopping pieces of unrelated Egyptian artifacts:

"The big question is, could these broken fragments represent the surviving remains of one of the most valuable relics from Old Testament times - the cult statue of the patriarch Joseph? Time may eventually tell."

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Interestingly, she did not edit the post I made earlier, where I applauded Socrates for his wonderful post. They really need to crack down on him. It was not a bright move on their part to make him poster of the month. He's going to drive away everyone moderate Christian, leaving the only moderates there atheists and deists. That will be good for us, though. The great thing about Socrates is that he makes anyone who interacts with him look both (1) intelligent and (2) tolerant. Maybe we ought to send Offa and Amos over there. <hehehehe rubs hands together in evil glee>

Vorkosigan

S2Focus

I know that I have a copy of that love-letter from Woody stashed on a hard-drive in my old, dead 486 PC. I've been intending to pull out the old HD, install in my new (read "not quite as old and it works") machine and pull off some old files. I'll see if I can get a round tuit in the next week or so...

Jimmy Higgins

The tide is slowly starting to turn on us in there. Moderation has picked up.

Duvenoy

So good ol' Soc is most likely Safarti? Well, cuss me fer a mule!

I've had a nagging suspition that I'd seen his style somewhere else. Couldn't put my finger on it, though.

Hmm. If true, it puts TW in a whole, new light as no more than an advert for AiG. Sneaky. Clever. I like it! A pity it ain't gonna work.

Judging from the counts of people that look at a thread but don't post, I'd say there are a fair number of lurkers there. As mentioned, many of these are there to perhaps settle some personal doubts from either side of the question.

I think that the thing to do is to continue giving the best, irrefutable info we have to them. Those who are seriously inquiring will give the information and references due consideration. The rest, much like Socrates, cannot be reached, even with a rifle. We owe the inquisitive the best that we have.

So my boy the Soc just might be, and probably is, AiG's #1 jawbone. Who'da thunk it? I will try hard not to get banned.

doov (TW and II's iggnerent redneck).

pangloss

I'm pretty disgusted by PropagandaWeb. It looked promising at first, but it has quickly become the next BaptistBoard or CARM, wherein the so-called "moderators" get involved in the debates and blatantly apply the rules in a double-standard fashion. It really pissed me off when "Momma Dee Dee" wrote that it was not really ad hominem when Socrates insults people because he provides "evidence" - although I must say that I'm not sure what would constitute 'evidence' that TalkOrigins participants are "bozos".

It was also announced that when Socrates belittles the credentials of others, it is OK because he is speaking 'the truth.'

So, I started putting disclaimers in my posts about his and other AiG simpletons not having relevant degrees.

Some time ago, I wrote AiG correcting some information about an article Safarti had written about Joe Meert (as I understand it, there were many of us). Safarti replied, and many of his catch-phrases/terms have also been used by Socrates.

A sample:

"Evidently you fail to understand the nature of argumentum ad verecundiam."

Socrates has accused othersof using this argumentation. Which is funny, because HE uses it all the time, not only for himself, but for his pleebs at AiG.

Someone mentioned that Sarfati may be reviewing his own books/articles under a pseudonym.

I would not doubt that for one second. A few other professional propagandists have done this, officially and unofficially.

One example that I recall is Walter ReMine posting at T.O. (newsgroup) under the email address "laser_thing" and referring to "ReMine's" work and how "ReMinbe" wins debates, etc.

Later, as posters began destroying "laser thing"s posts, "laser thing" made the mistake of using "I" when referring to ReMine, and at one point made the HUGE mistake of actually signing his name!

The fact that he did this was later used by ReMine to claim that he was not really posting as someone else.
When it is pointed out that if that were true, then he would not have been referring to himself in the third person, ReMine stops replying.

In addition, at the TCCC website, reMine 'reviews' his debate with Pigliucci - favorably, of course. In this 'review' he refers to himself in the third person as well - doubtless to give the casual reader the impression that someone else was reviewing it and giving ReMine high marks.

It is really pathetic and indicative of the psychosis that, in my non-expert opinion, many creationists seem to suffer from...


Added in edit - the exchange to which I referred:

Socrates:
"and I have far more experience in chemistry yet SPLX splutters about chemical evolution), ”


Me:
What do you mean YOU? All you did was link to an AiG article. Edited by a moderator.I am far more qualified than you to talk about, anatomy, molecular biology, embryology, molecular phylogenetics, etc., but you don't see me feeling the need to advertise it in nearly every post, do you? Feeling insecure?

pangloss

Oh - one more "coincidence":

Socrates:
And for him to explain why he should even be trusted, since his own evolutionary philosophy provides no basis for a claim that lying is objectively wrong.

Sarfati:
But then, evolution provides you with no logical basis from refraining from hypocrisy.

RufusAtticus

What was funny was that they tried to pull this bs in a thread in which I demonstrated that Socrates does not support his rhetoric with evidence. When I pointed out how false the mods defense of Socrates was, they got pissy and tryed to say that if I was going to disagree with staff opinions that I needed to go to the "Dean's Office."