Actually, all are very good indeedIlovelucy wrote:Very good, though I still think my new sig's better.Simon_Gardner wrote:Aha. My favourite Tweets from today
Dawkins forum meltdown - perhaps a national day of prayer should be organised.
There's probably no forum... Now relax, and enjoy your life
He quoted me!Richard Dawkins wrote:Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.”
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
IDMD2Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
Spot on luis, well said.Luis Dias wrote:You don't know shit about "quote mining". There's no quote mining when I'm merely pointing exactly to what I disagree, when your fucking post is on top of mine, and I have not misrepresented your views.Chauncey Gardner wrote:you're quote mining luis diasLuis Dias wrote:He DOESN'T have to know "everything" to know that Dawkins and Josh treated everyone as imbeciles. That's a fucking ridiculous demand of yours. He just has to read what was put forth to him. Like I have. I felt insulted by both condescending "messages" from the high ground.Allow me to explain: you DON'T KNOW the full story Peter.
"Quote Mining" was what Dawkins did in his "Outrage" silly post. Go read it.
It's no "mob rule" at all. Dawkins built a forum, and now recklessly destroyed it without even giving anyone's notice, in the most condescending way. Thus, I say, fuck him. I don't care if Josh was inapropriate because her mother died. I don't hang out with condescending and dictatorial types.I don't subscribe to mob rule, luis, I would prefer to wait until the full facts are known. at the moment they aren't.
What happened resumes as follows. A friend invited us to his place. And then suddenly states that it's his place and thus doesn't want our presence anymore, in the most condescending manner. I say, good for you, asshole. Next time, don't fucking invite me. And all the 85k people, enraged with the issue, just goes out to find another nice place to chat, while not giving a damn for that obnoxious, snobby "friend".
In that thread, mine was the first use of 'suppurating rectum' but astonishingly it was taken out of context and my post was fully supportive of Dawkins (who later only very slightly diminished the respect I had for him by going off half-cocked with the 'Outrage' response, when clearly he had very little understanding of what had happened). It wasn't me who really went to town with the phrase though, I'll let them take the credit/infamy if they wish.Mysturji wrote:He quoted me!Richard Dawkins wrote:Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.”
Well, OK. Josh quote-mined me.
LMAO. the words memory and selective springs to mind.Luis Dias wrote:
It's no "mob rule" at all. Dawkins built a forum, and now recklessly destroyed it without even giving anyone's notice, in the most condescending way. Thus, I say, fuck him. I don't care if Josh was inapropriate because her mother died. I don't hang out with condescending and dictatorial types.
What happened resumes as follows. A friend invited us to his place. And then suddenly states that it's his place and thus doesn't want our presence anymore, in the most condescending manner. I say, good for you, asshole. Next time, don't fucking invite me. And all the 85k people, enraged with the issue, just goes out to find another nice place to chat, while not giving a damn for that obnoxious, snobby "friend".
U can haz mittens.ED209 wrote:In that thread, mine was the first use of 'suppurating rectum' but astonishingly it was taken out of context and my post was fully supportive of Dawkins (who later only very slightly diminished the respect I had for him by going off half-cocked with the 'Outrage' response, when clearly he had very little understanding of what had happened). It wasn't me who really went to town with the phrase though, I'll let them take the credit/infamy if they wish.Mysturji wrote:He quoted me!Richard Dawkins wrote:Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an “utter twat” a “suppurating rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum. A suppurating rat’s rectum inside a dead skunk that’s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino’s twat.”
Well, OK. Josh quote-mined me.
Sorry for bringing about the worldwide collapse of atheism guys...or you know, "Josh is scum" (depending on your outlook)
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
IDMD2Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
No.Chauncey Gardner wrote:LMAO. the words memory and selective springs to mind.Luis Dias wrote:
It's no "mob rule" at all. Dawkins built a forum, and now recklessly destroyed it without even giving anyone's notice, in the most condescending way. Thus, I say, fuck him. I don't care if Josh was inapropriate because her mother died. I don't hang out with condescending and dictatorial types.
What happened resumes as follows. A friend invited us to his place. And then suddenly states that it's his place and thus doesn't want our presence anymore, in the most condescending manner. I say, good for you, asshole. Next time, don't fucking invite me. And all the 85k people, enraged with the issue, just goes out to find another nice place to chat, while not giving a damn for that obnoxious, snobby "friend".
isn't it more correct to say that a friend invited a bunch of people to his place...after a while...a long while, the friend said he is going to change the living room and build an extension to his place....you all told him to fuck off, who does he think he is? etc. because he didn't consult you. he goes woah, wtf! and threw out the most abusive guests?
then the bunch of people went around other people's houses, inviting themelseves in..ranting and raving about the friend who has horns on his head or on his supperating scrotum....going on and on and on and on....to the point of distraction.
isn't that a bit closer to the truth?
+1.Mazille wrote:No.Chauncey Gardner wrote:isn't that a bit closer to the truth?
After the "Truth", eh? I know the type.Chauncey Gardner wrote:isn't that a bit closer to the truth?
It's one step closer to complete arsewankery, imho. But hey, that's just me.Chauncey Gardner wrote:isn't that a bit closer to the truth?
Oh, you mean like when he asked for help for his new book for children?virphen wrote:He was quite happy to post in that trivial forum when he needed help.
That was, like, two weeks ago or so, wasn't it?
Or hawking his wife's artwork. Or when he sometimes got tired of antics on the Front Page, and told people that if they really wanted to discuss XYZ, they could go and start a thread on the forum.ozewiezeloose wrote:Oh, you mean like when he asked for help for his new book for children?virphen wrote:He was quite happy to post in that trivial forum when he needed help.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
