…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Yup. You have described me to a tee. But the difference between us is that I know that Joe Gallien is an obnoxious, uneducated buffoon whose skills peaked at toaster repair (but I will buy new).
But I will at least give you credit in that you have never been stupid enough to claim that wavelength = frequency. In that aspect, you are smarter than Joe.
You do believe that wavelength does not equal frequency? Don’t you?
What a despicable person Mung is.
He asks that it is demonstrated that evolution is not guided by an intelligent designer, and when I ask that he demonstrates that it is he responds that it is guided and here’s some quotes to prove it.
Yet none of those quotes were talking about guided in the ID sense. But if you have to use such tactics to prove your point, I can only imagine what a disgusting person he is in real life. Imagine having to work with such a person! You arrange a task, you perform the task but no! You got it all wrong because Mung’s only concern was winning pointless word games and he did not tell you the crucial fact, instead waiting for you to fail then he can crow over what you did not know in the first place.
Mung, you truly are the representative that Intelligent Design needs. A disgusting liar for a disgusting lie.
Yep, I see that.
There really seems to be something about the general dishonesty of ID that turns some of its adherents into some of the worst liars and general assholes that we encounter on the web (unless they would be anyway–hard to say). It seems to go beyond lying for Jesus, there seems to be an inversion of the standards for honesty and decency, so that a filthy lying jerk like Mung will blatantly quotemine and appear to feel somewhat offended at being called on being the bald-faced liar that he is.
Somehow they seem to think that they’re completely right about anything they say so long as they’re lying with the “best of them,” like the carefully dishonest Stephen Meyer. It really has nothing to do with normal standards of truth, only with combat. All’s fair in love and war–and, most of all, in ID. For at least some of these lying hounds, anyhow.
Glen Davidson
Shorter Mung:
“Sure I lied with my dishonest quote mining of Krauss but due to a loophole in the rules such lying is legal, so neener neener neener!”
And Mung still wonders why he has the reputation he does.
Mung did not “quote-mine” Krauss: thanks to his addition of a terminal period, he fabricated his quote. That’s a BarryA level of dishonesty.
Not that I disagree… but aren’t we talking about a video-recording?
The transcript of the recording was provided which clearly shows Mung was taking the Krauss statement out of context to misrepresent Krauss’ position. Whether Mung pulled the quote from the recording or the transcript doesn’t change the fact is was a blatant and dishonest quote mined hack job.
Adapa,
There is a transcript? OK, then if mung copied and modified it from that, then it is hard to justify.
I was watching it live and taking notes. I’ve already stated as much.
You think that somehow justifies your dishonest quote mining?
According to Mung he was taking notes while watching the livestream of the debate. So he didn’t have a transcript to quotemine in the usual sense of the word.
It’s possible it’s not a deliberate fabrication. And if he had just admitted to a careless mistake when keiths provided the rest of the sentence, I would be sympathetic to Mung.
OK, then. Do you see that leaving out “by natural selection” which, in my view, entirely alters the thrust of what Krauss was saying, seems to the maybe-not-impartial reader to be somewhat disingenuous?
We’d only know that if we could read mung’s mind. Lizzie only requires us to assume that others are posting in good faith
It wasn’t just the chopped up Krauss quote that highlighted the quote mining. It was the snark added on by Mung
“Lawrence Krauss must be an IDiot.”
implying Krauss by his statement supported ID that sealed the deal.
I actually did assume that in my first response to Mung after he posted that truncated quote.
And I got quotemined by Mung for my effort, when Mung used my comment as “evidence” that people (or, at least, me) weren’t sufficiently familiar with Krauss to recognize when his views were misrepresented by a truncated quote.
That’s the moment when “assume Mung posting in good faith” flew out the window for me. When someone twists my words like that, I don’t assume good faith on their part any longer.
Something about “fool me once … ” seems apropos here.
I wish Larry Moran hadn’t gone with that meme.
OK, I missed that. That I don’t currently have time to follow conversations in detail is mainly why I’ve told Lizzie I’m unable to act as an admin at the moment.
Does Moran get the credit/blame for “IDiot”?
I never thought about where that came from …
but it’s a lot better than Dawkins:
Only the highly biased would consider leaving out “by natural selection” to be ok. But then, Mung has only ever shown himself to be highly biased about these matters, at least, so it’s entirely plausible that he just wrote what mattered to him, a quotemine.
That really isn’t an excuse, though, because people here really have the obligation to provide honest quotes, not quote-mines.
Then he doubled down on it, and continues to use whatever implausible “argument” he can to avoid dealing honestly with what he did. He maybe could get by somewhat on the first quotemine, because we all know that he’s extremely prejudicial about evolution, but the doubling down cements the notion that he really doesn’t give a damn about dealing honestly with us. He may not know what honesty is, having learned “integrity” from the scammers at the DI (possibly not all witting scammers, but some almost certainly are), but there’s really no excuse for that, and some concern for honesty should be demanded here, IMO.
Glen Davidson
Referring to Adapa as an honest participant is a joke.
I see Mung is still lying and trying to spin his dishonest quote mining. What an ass.
Mung’s the kind of guy who would rob a restaurant at gunpoint then when the patrons call 911 and the police apprehend him start screaming “you have to let me go! The restaurant has a rule customers can’t use their cell phones!”
No fucking way I would ever assume an evolutionist is posting in good faith
Frankie,
Given up on your posts, Chubs? You just wade in without understanding the basics.. priceless!
No, Richie, I have given up on trying to reason with you. You are a waste of skin. Good luck with that.
But I see it upsets you that you don’t have any science to refute ID- heck you don’t have any science…
Frankie,
There you go with your negative case again. Go back to your thread and make a detailed, positive one. If you can.
LoL! So Richie is still willfully ignorant of the fact that science requires all design inferences to first eliminate necessity and chance. He is also willfully ignorant of the fact that once that is accomplished there still needs to be something POSITIVE- a pattern or specification- in order to reach a design inference.
I have already made then positive case for ID. You choked on it because you are a willfully ignorant asshole on an agenda.
Still waiting for details, Chubs. Keep those scientists busy for decades!
We have been waiting for details from evolutionism for many decades and yet nothing has come from it.
negative argument #36373276243. Joe still unable to support his post with details.
Obviously you are too stupid to have a discussion, cupcake. But I see that you are upset over the fact that your position has nothing.
Frankie,
Still waiting for the details Joe. Everyone is watching! You’re choking.
Please hold your breath while you wait. You are one fucking ignorant hypocrite, cupcake. And people are seeing that
Uncommon descent keeps getting shitter. Make an effort, guys!
That’s the “descent” part of the name.
Glen Davidson
hotshoe_,
I understand that it originated with Richard Fortey., author of the excellent Life – an unauthorised biography.
This information, interestingly enough, came via a Sandwalk piece in which Moran criticised Fortey for his use of the term ‘living fossil’. In comments Fortey showed up and claimed priority on the term – although name-calling seems generally at odds with his genial demeanour. Sometimes a decent bon mot wins out over politeness, I guess. It was bon in 2007 anyway. A bit tired now, perhaps.
eta – the Telegraph article is interesting, in light of the current kerfuffle.
Did you ever apologize for your dishonest quote-mine of Alan? Or are you still pretending that it never took place.
Fucks sake.
OMagain:
Indeed.
Mung, get back to me when you have some evidence.
I thought the claim made the other day on the Moderation thread that the term “IDiot” is not a pejorative was as silly as any assertion I’ve heard in the last few months…..and I’ve watched three Republican debates.
I agree (except for the part about watching debates). I avoid “IDiot”. For that matter, I avoid “rethuglican”.
You haven’t been paying attention. Charges of dishonest quote-mining don’t require evidence.
The charge against you was conclusively substantiated. You’re just too much of a dishonest prick to care. All Christian morals for Mung, all the time.
Errr. As the only person who has used that term on that thread this year, I have to tell you that you misunderstood me. Replying to Mung, I wrote:
I was referencing the ‘adoption’ of (obviously pejorative) terms such as ‘queer’ and ‘nigger’ by the group referred to. Thus, when Mung uses the term IDiot, we can assume he means ‘IDist’ rather than ‘idiot’. IDiot is obviously pejorative (although I did mis-spell the latter word), but it refers to an IDist, not an idiot.
Unless Mung has counter-examples, where that capitalization is used to refer to a non-IDist…
Mung, being the troll that he is, pretended to not get my point.
Not that I don’t have any actual evidence of keiths and his dishonest quote-mining, mind you. But it’s clear that there is no requirement to present evidence in order to substantiate the charge.
keiths quoted Alan Fox to the effect that Alan was an admitted liar. It was a dishonest quote mine.
Now perhaps keiths could put is legendary mind-reading skills to the test and tell all the nice people here exactly what I think of him.
Mung just keeps repeating his lies about his quote mining dishonesty. It’s like he can’t help himself.
It’s a great illusion.
Or not.
Glen Davidson
I thought that was a misunderstanding (irony detection failure), rather than a quote mine.
The thing is, he just took notes and didn’t have a script in front of him when he quoted.
So getting things right didn’t matter.
And yes, I suppose we’re piling on, and only because the lies keep coming. I mean, if they continue, surely that’s just an alternative world view.
Glen Davidson
Mung:
Alan is an admitted liar, having written this:
Eight comments and 2 1/2 days later, he tried to walk that admission back as “irony”, but it clearly wasn’t. It doesn’t even make sense as irony.
You know, you aren’t doing Alan any favors by keeping this in the spotlight. Perhaps that’s your intent. Better him than you, right?