Skatje Myers reviews Harris’ The Moral Landscape

Sam Harris
Image via Wikipedia

This is probably a futile post, but I want to recommend reading Skatje Myers’ (PZ’s daughter) review of Sam Harris’ book “The Moral Landscape. Click here.

She rips it and Harris a new one. And she lays pretty hard into atheists for our collective ignorance about philosophy and our unquestioned love and affection for one of the four hoursmen.


From my ignorant rooftop, I enjoyed the good ass whipping.

199 thoughts on “Skatje Myers reviews Harris’ The Moral Landscape

  1. I tried reading it last night but PZ Pharyngulated her blog so I read it this AM.

    I’m still pissed that the book is on my Kindle and I’ve not made time to fully digest it. 😦

  2. Yeah, I posted this because I remember that you haven’t read it yet.

    It discourages me from reading it, but I guess I should give it a whirl if I get a chance.

  3. Slatje has even let a senile old fool like myself hold forth on her website. I say good for Skatje. She is sure a cut above her father!

    1. John,

      Who cares?

      I like your blog, guy. It defends your “senile old fool” description to a T. It may even dot a few unwanted “i”s.

      All the best,


  4. My blog is my legacy as a scientist and citizen. It is not a forum for pseudonymous sociopaths. Those like yourself who encourage comments from anonymous sources are no better than the users who practice that despicable tactic. EVERYTHING that transpires on any internet venue is the SOLE reponsibility of the owner of that venue. I am proud of the standard my website sets. Your blog is not different from Pahryngula, After The Bar Closes, Uncommon Descent, EvC, Panda’s Thumb,, etc, etc. As such it is a waste of my time.

    1. John,

      I want to point out right now that it’s a problem when you cut and paste the same response onto two different places on the same blog.

      Please stay on topic.


      1. I am going to make your response a t-shirt slogan.

        Who wants one?

        Please feel free to provide your t-shirt size.

  5. Does he mean being an atheist will make you gastrointestinally incontinent? Or is this just general advise about keeping oneself tidy while playing sports or going out?

    What the hell is this guy talking about?

  6. Maybe it’s that when you eat with a happy go lucky attitude, it’s only a matter of time before you drip or drop something on your shirt and stain it.

    One time I was at a fancy dinner and the woman to my left rec’d a steak that was not cooked to her liking. I told her I would switch my steak with hers.

    I pulled one of those “slide the knife under and hold the top with fork maneuvers.” Somehow I managed to drop the steak directly into her lap.

    The woman looked at me and said, “You enjoyed yourself and until you stained myself.”

    True story.

  7. For you illiterati, I meant GFY and KMA.

    As for Jeremy, Jeremy is a liar because I duplicated no post on his pathetic little blog. Now, Jeremy, you go right ahead promoting the same kind of clientele that one finds at Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent, After The Bar Closes, Panda’s Thumb, Sandwalk, EvC and These are the bottom of the intellectual barrel, unfulfilled little nothings who
    have achieved nothing in their pathetic lives and neither have you.

    1. Oh shit. You got me! I am a liar.

      Your duplicate responses were only somewhat similar. You crossbred the DNA of three different responses, and fooled me into thinking that they were the same.

      I see what you’ve done there.

      Good work, oh great one.

      Does anyone know what GFY and KMA are?

      1. Jeremy,
        I don’t mean to KYA- but I am loving these conversations with JAD- keep up the good work! This kind of conversation makes me horny, I think I’ll GFM.

        Does it seem surprising to anyone that JAD hates only the blogs that have moderated away his insane ramblings?
        Yeah, me neither…..

  8. Well unfortunately I believe I do, but they are usually typed out in their entirety on places like “After the Bar Closes” or for that matter on JoeG’s blog. I’m actually suprised he’d refer to such cursings, though abreviated. But I believe he did send me an email referencing “When in Rome” ?

    I have to admit, he will not allow posts which use usernames, since he refused mine. I posted on his censoring and banishment OP that Perry Marshall does the same thing, but because he doesn’t like usernames, it was refused. No problem though, I appraciated what he was saying. My problem is that the reasons I have a username and anonymous email is because back in the late 1990s thru 2008 I had to destroy an email I had had since using the public Internet. It was my personal an business email and unfortunately I received so much flaming and threats from folks I disagreed with that I had to dump it.

    Oh well!

    1. There is a whole lot of weirdness coming out of the woodwork around here.

      The response above reads like spam, but somehow reads like it is a response to Davison.

      1. Sorry, I guess it was a response to you about those initials Davidson was using. I’m actually suprised he used them, though I don’t really know the man. But he does send emails through the wordpress system even though he refuses my postings with my username. Why ? I don’t know.

  9. Eocene knows precisely why I refuse his comments. For some time now I have accepted comments from no one who uses an alias. Most recently, I have become even more demanding. Now I will allow no one to speak on my website until he has proven to me that he has purchased my book and read it.

    My weblog was never intended to be a forum. It is a journal in which I record my responses as a scientist and citizen to the world in which I find myself.

    1. That’s the problem John, you think you live in a world where your ideas are important and every thinking man has read your book. In reality, you are a crazy old coot who can’t come to terms with the fact that you…The Great John A. Davidson might be wrong.

      Your legacy will be a punchline. You are a legend in your own mind.

  10. I do not respond to those who must hide their identity as they attack a man whose name they can’t even spell properly. This blog is no better and no worse than most flame pits with which internet communication is so blessed. A man who cannot sign his words is not a man and neither are those who tolerate and thereby encourage such violations of civil discourse.

    1. John, first allow me to reciprocate your inanity, a little tit for tat, shall we:
      I do not respond to those who attack a man when “page” is a word they can’t even spell properly.

      You can’t counter ideas, because you are muddled in your own insanity, so you choose to fight on a different front: spelling and pseudonyms. You are an embarrassment to intellectual honesty, an embarrassment to human dignity, and an embarrassment to yourself.
      Let’s you and I be clear: you do not respond to peoples ideas because you are a self important and arrogant jackass who believes that his ideas are so superior as to not require defense. You have lost every serious debate you have ever been in because you are an abject idiot. Because of this, you have made it your life’s work to nitpick how people spell your name, or introduce themselves, or that they prefer reading “books” instead of toilet paper with words written on it- rather than actually defend your ideas.
      My name is easily accessible to anyone who wants it. You are asking the equivalent of having Prof. Dawkins always refer to himself as Professor Clinton Richard Dawkins, University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science every time he addresses himself. Jeremy knows my name. So does anyone who takes the time to look for it. I am not anonymous. If you wish, you could go back to your blog and look for my name- it is there as well.

  11. If you want to be rid of me, I recommend you stop treating me with contempt. Two can play that game and like Franklin Delano Roosevelt –

    “I’m an old campaigner and I love a good fight.”

    So keep on revealing yourselves as the spineless cowards you all are. I’ll keep referring to you on my weblog.

    1. I don’t want to get rid of you.

      But apart from your hatred of anonymity, you haven’t said anything yet.

      I saw your comment from yourself at your blog about this blog.

      Did you know it was considered poor blog etiquette to be one of the only commenters on your own blog?

      Did you?

  12. Jeremy, you pathetic little illiterate. If you would read my Welcome pgae you would realize mine is not a forum for sociopaths but a diary recording my responses to the world in which I find myself. At present I have made it virtually impossible for anyone else to speak on my blog. In order to join that exclusive club you must first buy my book and then prove to me that you have read it.

    Got that? Write that down!

    1. Dear dear John.

      Are you getting angry? Do you need a diaper change?

      I am not illiterate. I read your welcome page. I understand there is personal logic behind the what you’ve done and how you’ve set it up.

      I’m only explaining blogging etiquette. Do you always kill messengers?

      Why are you so angry and yet still have absolutely no content or message?

  13. Any blog which allows and accordingly promotes pseudonomy is contemptible not only by my standard but by any criterion compatible with meaningful dialogue. With very few exceptions, internet communication is nothing but a Tower of Babel, your silly little efforts being a typical example.

    1. Who cares what you think?

      Blogs do it. Get over it.

      What are you going to change the way that most blogs operate?

      You are going to go down in history as the guy who was angry at pseudonyms.

      You’re wasting your time.

    2. Do you cry when you spill milk?

      Do you get angry when you see kids wearing their pants too low or text using ugly grammar?

      Your war is more futile than the war on drugs and the war on terror combined.

  14. You have the last word and indicted yourself with it as a shabby intellectual dwarf of no value whatsoever to the world of civil discource.

    1. Now that is some funny shit.

      Hey, George, I wonder if Davison realizes the irony if I never responded again to his last comment.

    2. That was pretty damn funny. But then again, I’m a bit buzzed from Margaritas right now so I may have to re-assess my position tomorrow.

      Nonetheless, John’s responses in the comments on the Domino’s parody are priceless!!

  15. Here is Davison’s terminal reasponse from his weblog –

    279. John A. Davison – August 2, 2011 [Edit]
    In re-reading James Lovelock’s “The Vanishing Face of Gaia,” I discovered the perfect explanation for the success of the Darwinista and for that matter the Fundamentalista as well –

    “The eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress.”
    page 199.

    No wonder Clinton Richard Dawkins is held in such esteem. He has held up progress in evolutionary science his entire adult life. Not satisfied with that achievement, with Paul Zachary Myers he is now doing his level best to destroy the Judeo/Christian ethic that formed the basis for Western Civilization. Such creatures have earned all the notoriety and eminence they now both enjoy.

    It doesn’t get any better than this.


  16. I am prepared to leave this pathetic little flame pit, but if you insist on allying yourselves with the likes of Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Royce Elsberry, Laurence A “larry ” Moran and Clinton Richard Dawkins, I’m willing to continue here a while longer, exposing you poor souls as the losers you insist on demonstrating yourselves to be.

    “PeeZee” Myers is by far the most disgusting human being that ever trod the sod and I now see he is your hero!

  17. Yes, John,
    Every person we speak of is our hero. There are only heroes and nobodies. No false dichotomy there.
    You betray your dogmatic allegiance to idiocy and intellectual laziness with each passing breath.

    Try and keep up, will you?

  18. George W. obiously terrified that he might be known.

    I am happy to identify my heroes, a collection of real scientists, every one of whom independently reached the same conclusion that I have. Here is a sampling.

    William Bateson, the Father of Modern Genetics.
    Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier.
    Rihsar B/ Goldschmodt

  19. I see I was interrupted. Let me continue. That should read –
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, the preeminent geneticist of his generation..
    Leo S. Berg, The most distinguished Russian biologist of his time.
    Pierre Grasse, Berg’s French counterpart.
    Robert Broom, who believed evolution was planned.
    Reginald C. Punnett, who believed the same thing. There are plenty more, not an atheist or religious fanatic in the lot.

  20. Come on you mindless little morons. Say something more to demonstrate your stupidity. This is great sport. Most flame pits would have shut me off long ago. You clowns are masochists!

    It doesn’t get any better than this.

  21. What happened to having the last word?

    I always wanted to be irresistible! Thanks for fulfilling my dream.

  22. My purpose is to spread our science wherever I am allowed. There is only one way to be rid of me. You must do what Dawkins, Myers, Elsberry, Dembski and every other insecure, egomaniacal ideologue has already done. You must silence me on your venue. Your insults only reveal your incompetence and spur me on.

    War, God help me, I love it so!
    George S. Patton

    1. Where have you spread your science?
      Not here. Here you have just enjoyed a auto-erotic circle jerk of arrogance.
      What you are saying is that if we want to stop patting yourself on the back for nothing, then we best ban you.

      I’m having too much fun laughing at your expense.

  23. As far as I’m concerned, you are silent.

    You still haven’t written one post of any substance, just empty moanings about nothing.

    Why silence you? You’ve got nothing.

  24. We offer a viable alternative to Darwinian nonsense. It is perfectly obvious that you aren’t enlightened enough to even consider it. Farewell you poor soul and all those like you.

  25. As I can see the debate is in its old tracks: Nervous darwinists are heavily criticising professor Davison and thinks that they are doing well. They think that darwinism – they call it nowadays “evolutionary theory” – is “science”. It is John Davison who could educate them, that there are more “evolutionary theories” and there is no need use orwellian newspeak to dismiss orthogenesis, nomogenesis, PEH… as if only one “evolutionary theory” existed.

    1. Do you guys need a room?

      VMartin, your little friend hasn’t shared one iota of information with us yet. He claims to have it, but hasn’t put forth one argument except for kvetching about pseudonyms.

      Thanks for validating that you both are pathetically ignorant of how the basics of Internet conversations work.

      You are the epitome of Internet social ignorance.


    2. You flatter yourself, and by extension Mr. Davison, Martin. I am not nervous at all. He has presented nothing on this blog. Not. One. Thing.
      He has come to complain that we comment semi-anonymously. Last I checked, that had nothing to do with evolution.
      He might tear you a new one for commenting as VMartin- when I know for a fact that is not your full given name. Does anybody want to place bets about whether JAD has the consistency to berate his supporters for this grievous sin?
      He will comment, if only to say that VMartin has his name and title on his blog. So do I! So does Jeremy! Thanks for coming out.

      The problem VMartin, is that this discussion with JAD is about pseudonymity- and we are “doing well” because JAD is commenting on a blog written by an author who has his full name: Jeremy Witteveen- and his job title, Photographer- and the city in which he lives:Chicago- and the business he owns: R25 Productions- all easily found on his blog. So JAD is being retarded- there is no point to his pathetic crotchety ramblings. It would not matter to me if I was talking to “my Hero” Paul Zachary Myers- or Clinton Richard Dawkins- or anybody else for that matter. If you are gloriously wrong, you are gloriously wrong. JAD could be right about evolution and still be a backwards ignorant luddite when discussing online communication. That is what we are talking about here. That is why we are “doing well”, because JAD is out of touch with reality on at least this issue- and possibly more. I don’t know if he is as wrong about evolution as he is about communication in the information age. I just don’t know. I have my suspicions, but he hasn’t given me reason one way or the other to consider his position.
      This is not a witch hunt. this is about someone being wrong- and not just a little wrong- on a very specific issue.

  26. You are wellcome John. I wonder if PZ Myers will send his minions, who he held for “knowledgeable evolutionists”. Preliminary new names, old fanaticism.

    1. Isn’t it a quaint that the guy supporting John A. Davison goes by a pseudonym and misspells so many words.

      When your done giving each other a reach around, might either of you be so kind as to actually present something of substance on this blog?

      Oh wait, you don’t have any substance.

      What is it, day 6 and still no effort to present any ideas?

    1. I love this line from VMartin:

      This post is nothing else as ad hominem attacks and I would not be surpirised if John Davison took some legal steps.

      Maybe English as a second language is to blame for VMartin’s inability to decipher the post.

  27. Jeremy, you miserable excuse for a human being.

    English is not Martin’s first language and since he has his own website, you can find his name there just as one can find yours here. You still allow trash to speak on your behalf, thereby betraying your own cowardice and incompetence. You are a disgrace. I feel sorry for your family if you have one.

    1. Why am I miserable? I’m quite thrilled to have you, and I have yet to call you a name.

      I’m feeding you as a troll, because I’m dying to hear what you’re preaching about.

      Stop whisking up names for me and lay it out?

      What do you want to say, John A Davison?

      Also, English as a non-first language doesn’t excuse the hypocrisy of a quasi-pseudonym … since that’s the ONLY information you’ve shared on this blog as being wrong in some way.

  28. Article 5 – John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005)

    This is a non-peer reviewed, proprietary journal. The article was only published here after the DI sponsored it – no regular journal would have it. However, it was recognised, and did indeed win an award, it was voted “crankiest” on


  29. Carry on but be sure to hide your identities. Kile, whoever that is, lies as well. The Discovery Institute wants nothing to do with me either nor I with them. Rivista di Biology is definitely peer reviewed and will no longer accept papers from me which pleases me immensely. You see I have alienated both sides of this mindless debate. The truth lies elsewhere.

    “I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”
    Samuel Johnson

    Who is next?

    You will find the argument on my ebssite and in the world’s libraries.

  30. John Davison’s Evolutionary Manifesto is available on internet. You may order John’s book as well.
    Do you read something else than darwinism or mutualy your own blogs? – It would be wiser than your futile rantings about John’s blog and my English.
    Try also something in Russian, Slovakian or Czech – maybe I will have fun on your noun declension.

  31. Martin

    The only difference between this flame pit and most of the others is that they haven’t got brains enough to shut us down. It doesn’t get any better than this.

    I love it so and so should you. Let us celebrate!

  32. “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
    Albert Einstein

  33. JAD, you should be careful who you quote…

    Einstein’s letter from August 7, 1941, which you reference had the following statement immediately preceding it:

    “I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it.”

    In his letter he was criticizing both sides of the aisle.

    However, later writings (1954) of his reveal that he had little or no use for religion, including his own Judaism:

    In the letter, he states: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people.

    “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

  34. Steve, whoever that cowardly blowhard is. Try this on for size. It is trash like you that give blogs like this a bad name all with the blessing of Jeremy Witteveen.”Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”
    Henrietta Huxley, Aphorisms and reflectios from the works of Thomas Henry Huxley, page 3.

    works of Thomas Henry Huxley, page 3.

  35. Internet weblogs are not where the battle is being waged. It is being waged where it always has been, in laboratories by real scientists who test their hypotheses and reject those they find to be without merit. Unfortunately, atheist inspired, Darwinian mystics are not scientists and never have been.

    Read my essay “Are Darwinians scientists?”

    1. And which laboratory, pray tell, have you tested your alternative “prescribed” theory Perfesser Davyson?

  36. I don’t respond to cowardly, illiterate blowhards such as those that one finds at flame pits like this one. Only Jeremy Witteveen was stupid enough to reveal his identity. I have made a note of his bravery and will see to it that he becomes widely known right next to Bob O’Hara, Pee Zee Myers, Wesley Royce Elsberry, Mark Chu-Carroll and a handful of others who were bold enough to use their real names while insulting a real scientist.

  37. JAD, I assure you I’m neither a coward nor a blowhard but that’s beside the point.

    And believe me, we all keep very good company here, so Jeremy is anything but stupid.

    You can quote whomever you like until your head hurts but my point was that you obviously did not take the time to fully understand Einstein’s position on religion before you started quote-mining and using him as an appeal to authority.

    The reason that your “theory” has never been taken up by mainstream science is that it’s based on a supernatural driving force. Science cannot, does not, and will not ever address it since it’s non-falsifiable. I suggest you go back and review Scientific Method 101 and also review the analogy of Russell’s Teapot or Carl Sagan’s “The Dragon In My Garage”.

    Until you can demonstrate that you comprehend this, you simply come off as an angry quack who is anything other than a “real” scientist.

    1. Oh, come on, Steve. Everyone knows you’re a “blowhard”.

      It takes a lot of lungs to get those balloon animal balloons to inflate.

  38. No one make so much fuss about “scientific methods” than Darwinists. Now it is Steve.
    He doubts our capacities to understand science unless we know what “method 101” and “falsification” is. I wonder why he hasn´t mentioned also by darwinists beloved “null hypothesis”.
    On the other hand I am sure that neither Max Planck nor Albert Einstein nor Erwin Schrödinger ever heard about those speculative methods. These men were doing real science, not darwinism. What I am sure that none of the mentor about “falsifiability” understand exactly the physics behind the black body radiation or Einstein’s theory of gravity.

    I even doubt they even know exactly about details of meiosis, the key concept of John Davison’s Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

    Yet what they know exactly is that darwinism hasn´t been “falsified” so far.

  39. Steve, whoever that is and I will never know because Steve is an intellectual coward just like every other unknown source.

    As for Einstein I quote him with his own words. He was a deeply religious man which I am not.

    I do not have a theory. I have a testable hypothesis in complete accord with everything we know from both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory. The Darwinians do not even have an hypothesis and never did have. It was always pure fantasy.

    1. Ah, I get it: you have tested your hypothesis in the labaroatory located somewhere in your mind.

      What a wonderful laboratory you must have, Perfesser Davyson, where all your tests validate your premises.

      I want a lab like that!

      But maybe your “lab” is a labrador retriever? You talk to a dog and it barks back affirming any hypothesis you come up with?

      I think I am beginning to understand you, Perfesser.

  40. Come on Steve. Give us your full name, your credentials and place of employment so I can add your name to Jeremy Witterveen’s and the mere handful of others who were brave enough to insult this real scientist using their actual names. It is a short list and I cherish it. That goes for anyone else who practices your cowardly brand of communication. The internet crawls with trash like you and blowhards like Jeremy Witteveen who cultivate you.

    Buy my book and read my essay –
    “The Cowardice of Anonymity.”


      Look at this guy, he’s a REAL SCIENTIST. We know because he says so!

      Actions speak louder than words, chum, and arguments are valid or invalid whether or not the person making the argument is anonymous or not. See Matt Dillahunty making arguments for atheism in drag for an example.

  41. I’m going to make this statement simply to clarify a fact and then move on. Einstein was *not* deeply religious. His name has been used in vain by creationists forever in their simple-minded appeal to authority without them ever taking the time to learn that he was indeed not.

    There’s no point in addressing it any further. A quote I read earlier on another blog is very apropos. “Some people only take their thumbs out of their asses long enough to plug their ears.”

    As for the scientific method, you and VMartin appear to be equally inept at understanding what it is and that, indeed “real” scientists use it.

    And, if you are so incredulously blind to the fact that Darwin did propose a hypothesis which has been continuously updated, revised, and supported through science then you are willfully ignorant.

    That’s the beautiful thing about science. It revises itself in the face of conflicting information.

    Here’s a great read for you:

    Note the following:

    That surprising fact falsifies a 13-year-old study and may help explain why dinosaurs were able to dominate the planet for 160 million years…


    The three scientists who conducted the original study welcomed her analysis and didn’t mind that she falsified their hypothesis, Woodward said.

    See, it works and it works really well.

    I have no desire to buy your ridiculous book since you have no demonstrable knowledge of the scientific method and make non-falsifiable claims yet have the audacity to call yourself a “real” scientist.

    You bandy that title about like it’s some privileged title that you and only you hold. You have a condition known as terminal uniqueness. And, in all cases it is a fatal character flaw if not treated. Again, I suggest you seek the support of a local mental health professional for a screening to rule out Delusional Disorder.

    Because you and your crony, VMartin, simply go around the internet and scream about what you think is some revolutionary idea, there is really little discussion left to be had here. It’s more or less the two of you doing drive-by idiocy.

    1. You have forgotten to quote this sentence from the article:
      Also participating in the study were the authors of the original study: Anusuya Chinsamy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, Tom Rich at the Melbourne Museum and Patricia Vickers-Rich at Monash University in Australia.

      So your sentece actually reads like:

      The three scientists who conducted the original study welcomed their own new analysis and didn’t mind that they falsified their own hypothesis, Woodward said.

      I just remind you that they accepted grants for the first as well as for the second study. It wouldn´t be surprise if they published also the third study in the future that will “falsify” the both previous studies. Darwinists like you would hail such a comedy as an excellent prove of darwinian “scientific method”.

      1. So perhaps in Universities Physics should be learned only a year of courses “how science work” and “scientific methods”. The lectures will give darwinists.

      2. I know it’s hard to talk so far up your ass. I think you need to remove your vocal cords from the area around your small intestine and take a breath of air to clear your mind.

      3. You must have missed something.
        I am writing, not talking.
        The method by which you are treated by your shrink would not help.

  42. “What hopes and fears does this scientific method imply for mankind? I do not think that this is the right way to put the question. Whatever this tool in the hand of man will produce depends entirely on the nature of the goals alive in this mankind. Once these goals exist, scientific method furnishes means to realize them. Yet it cannot furnish the very goals. The scientific method itself would not have led anywhere, it would not even have been born without a passionate striving for clear understanding.” – Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years


  43. VMartin:

    You said >>On the other hand I am sure that neither Max Planck nor Albert Einstein nor Erwin Schrödinger ever heard about those speculative methods.<<

    I replied with a quote from Einstein himself remarking on the scientific method and its use in scientific endeavors. Either admit you're wrong, or kindly shut the fuck up with your inaccuracies and falsities.

    1. See Kilre?
      I read your Einstein quote and immediately thought of Martin’s comment earlier:

      “The less science one does the more he speaks about ‘scientific methods’.”

      Does Einstein not do science, or does he just do less than Martin?
      The First Rule of using the Scientific Method is don’t talk about using the Scientific Method.
      Palahniuk is still, perhaps next to Vonnegut, the most prescient author of the last half century.
      Hey, Martin…What’s the Second Rule of using the Scientific Method?

  44. The game is over. Kilre has now session with his shrink, who treat his serious obsession with “scientific methods”. We with John move elsewhere.

    1. If I see you elsewhere, I’m going to call you on your bullshit.

      Because you can’t grasp that your beloved rhetorical diarrhea is fabulously inconsistent with reality.

      You can’t admit you’re wrong.

    2. Who has money on “We with John move elsewhere” is as empty a statement as any of the other tripe they have spewed on this blog. To note:

      The game is over. …..We with John move elsewhere.- VMartin, 8/8/11 @ 9:53AM

      (with, since there appears to be only him and JAD, a Royal “We” no less)

      I will now leave this pathetic flame pit in the hands of my good friend Martin Cadra.-JAD, 8/8/11 @ 9:28AM

      In response to someone JAD considers an “illiterate blowhard” in a “flame pit”:

      I don’t respond to cowardly, illiterate blowhards such as those that one finds at flame pits like this one.-JAD 7/8/11 @ 2:35PM

      Saying Good-Bye… again:

      Farewell you poor soul and all those like you.-JAD 5/8/11 @ 9:59AM

      Threatening saying good-bye:

      I am prepared to leave this pathetic little flame pit….-JAD, 4/8/11 @ 3:23 AM

      On Giving The Last Word…you know…..on Aug. the motherfucking 3rd!!:

      You have the last word and indicted yourself with it as a shabby intellectual dwarf of no value whatsoever to the world of civil discource.(sic) -JAD, 3/8/11 @ 1:39PM
      Once again, in response to someone who “must hide his identity”:

      I do not respond to those who must hide their identity as they attack a man whose name they can’t even spell properly. This blog is no better and no worse than most flame pits with which internet communication is so blessed.-JAD, 3/8/11 @ 8:37AM

      On Aug. 1st, showing us how much he values his time:

      Your blog is not different from Pahryngula, After The Bar Closes, Uncommon Descent, EvC, Panda’s Thumb,, etc, etc. As such it is a waste of my time.-JAD 1/8/11 @ 4:49AM

      Given all this, does anybody really think that JAD and Martin are done with this thread? Bets, anyone?

  45. Kilre is a clinical psychiatrist’s dream come true. Get rid of him Jeremy if you value your reputation.

      1. I would bet you $10 (US) that he’ll ignore you and be gone for good, but I know you wouldn’t take me up on that bet. Kilre nailed it though, this guy and his little minion are just attention whores.

  46. Do you mean John A. Davison with three solo authored papers in the journal SCIENCE? Where can one find papers by Dawkins and Myers in the peer reviewed literature. Not in SCIENCE, the American equivalent of NATURE in Britain. Not anywhere because those two creeps are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They both abandoned science years ago to promote the biggest hoax in the history of science. Now they have even given that up dedocating all their enetrgies to the descruction of the Judeo-Christain ethic


    2. No, John A. Davison, I do not mean the John A. Davison with three solo authored papers in the journal SCIENCE. I mean the John A. Davison who is an old curmudgeon and is entirely out of touch with the workings of the internet. What’s that you say? They are one and the same?
      Well, John A. Davison, I don’t remember ever having a conversation with you about any papers published in SCIENCE. I don’t remember having any conversation with you about darwinism, or evolution, or anything other than your ridiculous assertion that everyone on the internet should give their full name, credentials, workplace, and a short bibliography of how well read they are before having the right to comment on anything- oh, and that scientists don’t use the scientific method (which you have asserted but made no steps to evidence).

      Having three papers published in a journal does not make you immune from being wrong, especially on issues entirely unrelated to your published work. Nor does it give one license to make untenable assertions without evidence. All it does is show me that you have published three papers in a journal.

      If Einstein and I were having a conversation and he said that it was impolite upon meeting someone for the first time to refrain from cradling their testicles or vagina in ones cupped hand and shouting “Hand meet crotch and crotch meet hand, I know you not yet here I stand.” I would not much care that he is a great scientist, or a great mind, or anything else. I would think he was wrong, perhaps not on relativity, but certainly on the topic in hand (pun intended). You, sir, are no Einstein- and he he doesn’t get a pass for insanity….neither do you.


    Above are my peer reviewed papers up to 2000 when my home page was frozen by the University of Vermont. Try to find a comparable list by either Myers or Dawkins. You can’t because neither of those creeps will release that information. They are ashamed of themselves and they should be! I don’t believe Pee Zee Myers has ever published a solo authored paper in his entire life. He is nothing but a character assassin.

  48. JAD, you have now simply become a sniveling, attention-whoring liar.

    As of his 2007 CV, Dawkins had numerous publications in numerous scientific journals including both Science and Nature.

    Strangely enough though, a search of your name in the Science archives going back to 1880 does not reveal anything.

    1. Aww, misspelling on my part…

      Indeed you have been published. It is truly unfortunate that you apparently once had a promising scientific career and are now reduced to being an internet troll.

      Still, you are a liar.

  49. I take it Steve, whoever that cowardly blowhard is, is questioning my honesty. You better make damn sure I never find out who you really are, because I will destroy you with your own words and actions, the same way I deal with Dawkins, Myers, Moran, Elsberry etc, etc. We each compose our own epitaph. It only has to be revealed.

    “Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”

    Albert Eibstein

    1. Gentlemen, and ladies if present, I must apologize for the behavior of Johnny. You see, he has escaped from the dungeon of PZ Myers. The suppression software must have hiccuped.

      Come along, Johnny. You can finish your daisy chain and Kool-Aid by the picnic table under your favorite maple tree.

      No orange cushions will be present to frighten you, and yes, you can tell Nurse Wu that the frogs in the garden were “prescribed” to chirp thoughts into your brain.

      Again: so sorry for this interruption. .

      1. You’re so kind, PZP, for taking care of this minor glitch in the matrix.

        I’m sure we’ll be back to normal in no time.


  50. PZPolice is no better than Kilre, Steve, George W. or any of the other cowardly blowhards with which Jeremy’s pathetic little flame pit is so well endowed. I just sent a link to this pisshole to the “Big 4 of Darwinian mysticism,” Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Wesley Royce Elsberry and Laurence A. “larry” Moran, losers all!

    I love it so!

  51. Publish a link to Pee Zee’s peer reviewed papers. You can’t because he hasn’t got any that he wants dislosed. A list of peer reviewed papers is a mandatory feature of every scientists vitae. Where are Pee Zees?

    It doesn’t get any better than this.

    1. Check the first link I posted, dipshit. There’s links to PDF files of his papers. I know it’s hard for you to do internets, but seriously, you’re not even trying. Here, let me help you out a bit:

      Fucking pathetic troll.

    1. I get what this is now…..
      This is another “JAD misinterprets the internet” moment.
      How else could anyone explain his actions here?
      He clearly is under the impression that some kind of point system is awarded for being banned from websites.
      Perhaps he is on a quest to prove that atheists all moderate their comments by trying every possible angle to get Jeremy to moderate his comments!

      Either way, how else can we explain someone who first tries whining about pseudonyms, then tries flinging insults, then tries disavowing science, then tries to pretend to leave numerous times, then, in a final act of desperation, tries to say that Kilre can’t produce PZ’s peer reviewed literature immediately after he did just that- followed by a triumphant “you cannot complete the task you have obviously just completed…I win!!!!”.
      He has to be trying to get banned, because he certainly isn’t trying to win an argument, and he just pissed away any and all credibility he had with his penultimate comment.

      1. Whoa, whoa, whoa … hold on a second.

        John A Davison had credibility?

        Let’s not go overboard.

  52. I love when JAD spells out Paul Zachary Myers when he goes by PZ.

    I know several people who do that.

    I do really like them either.

    Hey John, could you please refer to me by my full name? Jeremy Isaac Seth Robert Wilhelm Witteveen.

    Please spell it correctly every time.

    Now that you know my full name, I expect it fully spelled out as to avoid any confusion with other Jeremy Witteveens.

    Thank you,

    The Management.

  53. As for Pee Zee’s publication record, it isn’t hard to see why he is stuck at that boondock community college in Morris Minnesota. Has he ever been anywhere else? What a loser he is. He will be there forever because he has no credentials as a scientist. Nobody wants a loser. Besides, he is radioactive for one thing only – character assassination, his only talent. Thanks for providing that which he he hides.

    Why doesn’t HE display his credentials? He is ashamed to that’s why! Go to Pharyngula and poke the “about me” button. What a loser!

    I love it so!

    1. So, JAD, when you say you have bowled a perfect game, do you mean to say that you consider a gutter ball as being a kind of bowling “mulligan”?
      Since you first asserted that PZ has not published solo in a peer reviewed journal, and the evidence shows that he has done this at least as many times as you- as well as more than twice as many co-authored papers (something you have apparently not done,perhaps because other scientists wouldn’t risk their name or credentials on such a thing)- you now decide to say “well sure he’s published many peer reviewed papers, but he works at a community college in Morris!”
      You were clearly wrong about his publishing record. If a loser professor at a loser community college can outdo you in peer reviewed and cited research- what does that say about John A. Davison?
      You were wrong, and you decide to double down instead of admitting your mistake.
      I love it so!!!!!!!!!!!

  54. In the immortal words of Al Jolson –

    “You ain’t heard nothin’ yet.”

    Set ’em up in the other alley. I’m bowling a perfect game.

    It doesn’t get any better thn this.

  55. All you creeps with your phony handles just further lower the reputation of every website that fosters that sort of cowardice. That is just about all of them. A notable exception is –

  56. His little temper tantrum has actually elevated this post to page 1 of a search on his name, along with some of his other lashings out at the internet that just refuses to bend to his crotchety will. He’s the Charlie Sheen of trolls… legacy! Winning!!!

  57. I guess it is about time to seek greeener pastures, more assemblages of sociopathic cowards led by intellectual dwarfs like Jeremy Witteveen, Mark Chu-Carroll, Bob O’Hara, his spouse Devorah Bennu and of course the major exponents of the great Darwinian hoax, in no particular order – “Pee Zee” Myers, “Larry” Moran, “Wes” Elsberry and the most pathetic and “deluded” of them all, “Dick” Dawkins.

    The latter four I reach through their contact emails.

    “Oooooooooooooh how sweet it is!”
    Jackie Gleason

    1. Since I last posted your empty threats to leave this thread, you have threatened to leave twice more.

      Since you clearly consider any subject you speak about to be directly related to your scientific work, would you say that it is fair to assume that your scientific research is empty rambling as well?

      I love it so!

  58. Larry Moran discovered the way to deal with me which is to not respond to me when I expose you as the intellectual trash you insist on proving yourselves to be. I left six unanswered devastations of the Darwinian hoax and finally left for one reason only. I had established beyond doubt that Moran was impotent to counter my science. That was on his now infamous “Birthday Thead” on that blog he named “Sandwalk” after the place where Darwin strolled to ponder his fantasy about the origin of species. Check out that thread and learn from it.

    If you want to be rid of me and I suspect you do, just let me have the last word. You might be surprised how effective that strategem can be. But of course that is entirely up to Jeremy Witteveen and the cowardly blowhards he naturally attracts and allows to hold forth.

    “Birds of a feather flock together.”

    1. Guess what John A. Davison? I am 34 years old. I’ve got plenty of years left in me. I also have enough time on my hands to comment last every single day for the next twenty years or more. How many years do you have left?
      I know you are begging to get the last word. I know you really want to stop having to say ridiculous and foolish things just to feel that you have won a thread. You have not said one thing of substance thus far, and I don’t expect you will any time soon. All you will continue to do is pretend that we are trying to attack your professional reputation (not that you really have one) by disagreeing with you on internet etiquette and easily falsifiable lies and/or untenable logic.
      I’ll tell you what I’m going to do for you. I’m going to make it my personal mission to get the last word on this thread. I’m going to post a counter to your idiocy at least once a day(with the odd weekend off) until you can take it no longer. I’ll even try and post a weekly summary of the stupidest things you have said so that everyone can quickly get a summary of your abject idiocy. I’ll do this in perpetuity, making a Google search of your name bring this thread up as the #1 search result. I will make this pathetic conversation your legacy.

      I’ll make sure to make arrangements with Jeremy or Kilre, Glock or Luis to cover me on my vacation. I’ll keep commenting and we will see who can drag this out the longest.
      Listen, you can’t “win” here. You will just continue to look stupid, crotchety, insane, idiotic, pathetic, and wrong. I’ll continue to point it out every single time.

      I love it so!

      1. Hey sign me up GW! I love a good stupid slap-fest 😀

        “What me worry?”
        -Alfred E. Neuman

    1. Kilre gets 10 points for an Ocarina of Time reference. Though in honesty, JAD is more like the chickens in LoZ:LTTP. Keep poking them long enough and the only solution is to leave. I hate that they make me hide inside, and I won’t let JAD do the same…..

  59. Do you creeps even know one another? You sure aren’t known to me because if you were I would add you to my rather short list of real people who are willing to openly treat this real scientist with contempt. That short list includes Paul Zachary Meyers, Wesley Royce Elsberry, Laurence A. “larry” Moran, Mark Chu-Carroll, Robert “Bob” O’Hara, his wife Devorah Bennu and a brand new addition – Jeremy Witteveen. It is a short but very significant list of big time losers just aching to be remembered as the enemies of scientific progress. You won’t find Clinton Richard Dawkins stupid enough to mention my name or that of my sources. Oh, I forgot to mention William Dembski who was so cowardly as to have his slave David Springer relay his appraisal that “Davison was nuts.”

    “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

    So I understand why you lily livered blowhards hide your identity.

    “Discretion is the better part of valor.”

  60. Anyone else curious why JAD is so obsessive about people using their full, real given names- yet repeatedly misspells PZ Myers’ last name? If you can’t be bothered to get someone’s name right, why bother demanding that they use their real name to begin with?

    Oh, John A. Davison, just a quick question- What is your Alma Mater? Where did you get your PhD? If anyone wants to guess, I’ll give them a hint: It’s a school whose Morris campus John has previously referred to in this thread as “that boondock community college in Morris Minnesota”.

    I love it so!

  61. The Morris campus is a mere satellite of the Universty of Minnesota where I earned my Doctorate in 1954. It didn’t even exist at that time. The Morris campus has its own Chancellor who is a flaming liberal who has publicly defended Myers’ hideous behavior. Largely due to the corrosive influence of Pee Zee Myers and the shameful tolerance of Governor Pawlenty (for whom I have lost all respect), Minnesota has become the center of atheism in America. When I attended the University of Minnesota the state was Republican and conservative through and through. Insurrectionist pseudoscientists like Myers and Dawkins pose a real threat to the integrity of Western Civiliztion, a civilization they both obviously despise. Unable to excel as real scientists, they have chosen to denigrate the poltical system which grants them the right of dissent which they both royally abuse. Neither has ever contributed a scintilla to our understanding of how we came to be here. Quite the contrary they remain the major obstacle to that central question by continuing to support the Godless paradigm which was introduced by Charles Robert Darwin over a century and a half ago. They represent the bottom of the intellectual barrel and the antithesis of the vision of the Founding Fathers who correctly claimed that the American way of life is only suitable for a Christian nation.

    Now try in vain to paint me as a Bible banging Fundamentalist. Any one even remotely familiar with our science knows better than to believe that. Our God or Gods are just as impersonal as Einstein’s and Spinoza’s and as far as I know are no longer with us. But that such entities must have once existed is undeniable and all those who blindly claim otherwise are fools.

    Thanks for insisting that I continue here. I explained how to be rid of me but you are too stupid to cooperate. I welcome every opportunity to spread our science and will continue in that mode for so long as I am able.

    1. Your endless assertions to your own importance and our worthlessness only highlight who logically is wasting the other’s more precious time. Legacy! Winning!

  62. Pseudonymus trash like Glock 21 has nothing better to do with his time than to expose himself as a lightweight sociopath who never had an original idea in his entire wasted life. Hold forth you coward, your mindless drivel defines only yourself and those who tolerate and encourage you.

    Incidentally, there is no room for logic or any other philosophical construct in the world of science and there never has been. The real world has always been one of genuine madness. It is the nature of the beast called science.

  63. To believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of non-living matter to self-assemble and then evolve even once is the most absurd proposal in the history of human communication. Yet that is precisely what every Darwinian must believe whether or not he is willing to admit it.

    I laugh at such insanity wherever I find it.

    1. Sadly you seem too adamantly obtuse to admit your ignorance about modern evolutionary theory or even Darwin’s theory of evolution by continuing to believe it includes abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, as we all know (even us evolutionary theory supporting dunderheads), has yet to be observed through any testing or observation via the scientific method, though it has yet to be falsified through such testing either. It’s still a wide open area of research.

      Your depiction of the chemistry involved in such theories comes off as childish ignorance, replacing chemistry with supernatural ‘musta beens.’ Your arrogance, so thoroughly put on display here, probably sheds more light on why you’re more comfortable with certainty in bullshit than admitting you don’t understand something.

      Legacy! Winning! – John “Whoever that is, GET OFF MY BLOG LAWN!” Davison 🙂

  64. Hey guys,
    My real name is Taylor Glen Muse, and I live in Austin, TX. I am a musician.
    I’ve just finished reading the entire thread, and admittedly, I planned to mock this guy, but now I just feel bad. My wife’s grandfather suffered from dementia, as well. It tough on a family, and even tougher on the internet.
    I’m praying for you, John.

  65. I have posted a link to this flame pit so that those who visit my weblog can keep up with your pathetic attempts to denigrate a real scientist with a real alternative to the Darwinian pipe dream. There as yet is no evolutionary theory. All there is so far is a couple of utterly failed propositions that don’t even qualify as hypotheses – Darwinism and Lamarckism and perfectly respectable hypotheses like our Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the related Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH). Darwinism is dead ladies. get used to it.

    1. I finally get what you’re saying. Wow, you’re right.

      Case closed. Darwin was a moron.

      Thanks for shedding your brilliant light on the topic that isn’t remotely related to this thread.

      Do you have any published papers about the meat at Taco Bell. It would make just as much sense to bring that up.

      By the way, nice play regarding the “ladies” bit. You’re smart and sexist. Getting to know you is like getting to know my great, great grandfather.

    2. Just to reiterate this for you John A. Davison, former Professor Emeritus at University of Vermont and as near as I can tell the only “scientist” (and likely the only person) to hold a “membership” in the “Natural History Society of South Burlington (Vermont)”, we are still not discussing evolution on this thread. We never have been.
      No one is castigating you for your evolutionary musings- as ridiculous as they may well be- anymore than anyone is criticizing your taste in music or the things you look at while wanking.
      Insisting that we are Darwinists on a mission to ruin your scientific legacy just continues the self-fulfilling stereotype that you are a crotchety old troll out of tune with reality.

      I love it soooooooo!!!!

      1. Yeah, the spontaneous generation from “moral landscape” to Darwinism is beyond me.

        It reminded me of a one-act play I read recently.

  66. Thanks for preserving your reputations as “born to lose” losers. Your disease resides in your cowardice and refusal to disclose your identity, the same strategem employed by nearly every other so called “forum” with which internet communication is so infected. Imagine a scientific literature with unknown authors if you can. That is what flame pits like this emulate with all the significance that posture suggests.

  67. Johnny boy, you make neat-o sentences using words like “strategem [sic]” and “lose” … with absolutely no clue as to the topic at hand.

    You’re special.

  68. Jeremy Witteveen, you don’t seem to understand. I come to second rate flame pits like this with one purpose in mind. It is to expose them for what they all are. They are without exception dominated by narcissistic, intellectual nothings whose success depends on their willingness to allow intellectual trash to hold forth. You are nothing but one more “community organizer” seeking notoriey for yourself alone. You are just another Pee Zee Myers or Richard Dawkins, contributing absolutely nothing,an enemy of rational discourse to

    1. Funny that, John,
      I seem to have no problem posting complete sentences. I wonder if this fact ties into the subject that Jeremy and I have been discussing with you since you derailed this thread, the fact that you are woefully out of touch with modern communication mediums- both in theory and practice.

      I also wonder if someone who believes that they have disproved 150 years of solid science and that they are being shut out of public discourse because people are afraid of their brilliance ought to be referring to anyone as “narcissistic”.

      Got that?
      Write it down.

  69. *Fix your reply box so I can at least complete a sentence.*

    You have the picture which you have painted of yourself. You are pathetic.

    1. Let’s try this one more fucking time, you bottom-feeding, single-cell coot. This thread is on the topic of the book above. At least it should be, you second rate, shit-eating rodent.

      If you care to discuss evolution, go fucking find one of my many posts on that topic and leave me another one of your puny-minded, butt-scratchingly inane responses that belly-button grime is capable of writing better.

      Holding your shit-covered hand is not what any of us want to do, but because of your obvious mental deficiency that makes handicapped chimpanzes look brilliant, I am forced to, yet again, explain to your stone-cold stupid ass that you’re commenting in the wrong fucking thread, you composting dead worm with absolutely no worth to anyone.

      Here’s a quarter, you odor-ridden stink hole. Catch a ride on the clue train. If you don’t know how to use the Internet, go attend one of the many senior citizen classes, likely free, and come back when you can behave somewhat like a human with a partially coherent brain. Any understanding better than what you don’t have now would be a dream, you 200 pound layer of stinky pond scum.

      For the record, you started the name calling a long time ago. I’m just getting started. Let’s go, shithead.

  70. Second rate flame pits that were initiated by an outsider looking to start a fight rather than discuss things rationally. I know how it goes.

  71. Did John just call Jeremy a community organizer? Did I read that correctly? I have to ask since I’m part of the intellectual illiteratti of this flame pit.

    Damn! So not only does JW get the honor of being on Davison’s “short list” but he gets compared to that other guy who was also a community organizer from Chicago. Jealous!

  72. I thought John wasn’t going to leave until he got the last word?

    Funny that, it turns out that his promises are as empty as his theories on the information age, scientists, and scientific theories.

    Oh, well. I guess I’ll just wait for the next sad little troll to come along- it’s not like they are an endangered species….or that they will suddenly evolve into rational humans in a single step with the help of a Designer.
    Got that? Write it down!
    I love it so….

  73. Hi, is this where I can perform my victory dance celebrating my glorious overthrow of the filthy Darwinists?

    1. I need you to make more of an effort to not be a troll.

      What is your response to the above? Is it links for your blog?

      Because I’m going to remove these links if you can’t act within reason and reflect a general understanding of blog etiquette.

      1. I did not intend to break any particular blog etiquette, the links I posted are all in support of Sam Harris from very different thinkers.

        The Ayn Rand link:
        Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society


        addresses rights/values and moral principles

        the Rationally Speaking podcast :

        RS32 – Value-free Science?

        points out the underlying values of science itself and that there are no “facts” independent of “values”

        of course it is your blog and since you liked her rather unsophisticated/unlearned comments about Sam Harris’s book you will probably remove my links to sensor and quash disagreement

        please listen to the two/(three) podcasts

        much respect

      2. You posted to this blog, without explanation, on this post and another one, and I deleted them.

        You came back, posted again, and expect my readers to go to your blog to listen to your podcasts, or podcasts you’re associated with?

        Do you misunderstand how that qualifies as below-average intelligence quotient?

        SHould you have made a reasoned effort to establish a connection to us by showing your knowledge of the topic, then writing, “I have podcasts on that topic at this link if you’re interested,” that’s reasonable and understandable.

        I shouldn’t have to hold your head down in your own shit and explain this to you.

      3. qapla,
        Imagine yourself in a conversation in a coffee shop with a few of your friends- one of them says “Did you read Moral Landscape? I thought it missed the mark in several places.”
        Do you usually respond by saying “RS32 podcast, booyah!” and walk out? It is more likely that you might say something about how a podcast you heard is relevent to the discussion and why, and then suggest that people listen for more context. That is how “not-trolls” discuss things on blogs, kind of like how “not-socially-awkward-assholes” do in coffee shops.

        If this is considered appropriate internet etiquette, then you must also accept somone coming into a blog and linking to biblegateway saying “Romans” and leaving. Is that evidence of anything? Is there an argument there?

        To put a big, giant, I’m-a-class-A-fucking-troll cherry on top of your Brown Spiral Link Dump Sundae, you go on to accuse Jeremy of trying to “sensor” (I think you might want to look that up, I think you mean censor, sensor is something that senses) and quash dissenting opinion. I would suggest that that is possibly the worst way (or the best way, if you think about it) to clear up the question “Are you a troll?”

        Does that clear things up? Or would you rather I take a big stinking link dump here to counter your steaming link dump? I can, you know…….

  74. Don’t mind me, I’m just gonna grab my popcorn and have a seat over here. Carry on! 😀

    Also, don’t sensor [sic] me bro!

    1. I just re-approved the response qapla gave on this post, but over at the blog post titled, “Running and Gunning” so that everyone could see how utterly idiotic this person is.

      Here’s a link.

      Like I have to point it out but notice how off topic it is.

      1. I like your sense of humor and wit. Yes, you are right I should have explained more about my post. I only came acros your blog by accident when I was searching for Skatja Myers’ Lacrimae rerum blog which doesn’t seeem to be working any more.

        No I have NO affiliation with either podcast, but they do give context to the issues that most people are unaware of though.

        Again much respect

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s