201. Comment #228399 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #228398 by Tyler Durden

He seems quite shameless. I am going to dig out some of his trolling posts from the past, so next time he tries to act like the innocent victim...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

202. Comment #228401 by Tyler Durden on August 12, 2008 at 2:47 am

Steve,

Robertson is annoyed RD doesn't acknowledge his existence, he feels the need to play the "victim" whenever, and wherever, he can, while stamping his feet like a two-year old who can't get his own way. Sad really.

Vaal,

Thanks for the link but I'd rather poke my eye out with a sharp stick than read Robertson's puerile nonsense :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

203. Comment #228402 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 2:49 am

Steve Zara-

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1685,Teacher-I-was-fired-said-Bible-isnt-literal,Megan-Hawkins-Des-Moines-Register,page4#74561

The "dead baby" post.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

204. Comment #228405 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 2:56 am

199. Comment #228396 by Steve Zara -

Now, is that true David received a death threat on RD net?

No, it is not true. It was a joke in very poor taste, that was retracted.

But, so that no one is labouring under any illusions, when I said I was looking forward to pissing on his grave in many years time, I was not joking.

List of things for me to do when I'm retired:

1. Play lots of golf.

2. Do an OU Humanities degree.

3. Piss on David Robertson's grave

Other Comments by irate_atheist

205. Comment #228406 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:03 am

Checking back through David Robertson's posts as "The Wee Flea", we can discover some real gems, illustrating his typical tone:

Comment #51807 by The Wee Flea on June 25, 2007 at 4:58 am

Billy,

Obviously you're having difficulty with the English language.

....
Comment #51560 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

The great teapot - thanks for that incisive, intelligent and devasting bit of logic. I assume you think that your post represents the maturity of human thought?! I think I'll end for Mars....
....
Comment #48436 by The Wee Flea on June 8, 2007 at 1:12 am
Steve,

As I say it is impossible to discuss the homosexuality issue rationally. You have no intention of doing so. You know what is right and the question is only asked to establish my irrational and stupid bigotry.

....
Comment #47290 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

Stan, if that is what keeps you up then can I suggest that you get a good therapist or a life!
....

(And here is part of a discussion which shows David Robertson's "delightful" attitude to homosexuality)

Comment #46649 by The Wee Flea on June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am
Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

.....
The equating of homosexuality with paedophilia set the tone for me early on. He really is a nasty, sarcastic, sneering piece of work.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

206. Comment #228408 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:06 am

Steve - If we both survive long enough, care to joy me in my 'watering' expedition?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

207. Comment #228409 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:07 am

Comment #228408 by irate_atheist

I have no objection.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

208. Comment #228411 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 3:10 am

irate_atheist-

List of things for me to do when I'm retired:

1. Play lots of golf.

2. Do an OU Humanities degree.

3. Piss on David Robertson's grave

Why a humanities degree? :)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

209. Comment #228412 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 am

Do you think he'll have his cheque book buried with him?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

210. Comment #228413 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:15 am

Tyler,

I welcome your new avatar. I couldn't understand your fascination with one of the most mindless films ever.

Other Comments by decius

211. Comment #228414 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:19 am

Quetz -

Why humanities? Simple, really. The others subjects I'm interested in require maths that is far too hard for me (Physics, Cosmology etc). At least, too hard for the level I would like to study them too. History, Economics, Politics, Philisophy etc. hold an abiding interest for me. It would be nice to do something different.

If it had to be a science subject, then perhaps Biology would be an option. Not least because I didn't do it at A-Level. If one has to draw artistic pictures of things, however, I'd be totally fucked.

I don't really fancy doing theology, by the way. After all, writing, 'Because the author was an wilfully ignorant fucktard' in all of my essays, is unlikely to result in a 1st Class Honours degree, despite the accuracy of the statement.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

212. Comment #228415 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #228406 by Steve Zara

Steve, to be honest, I don't think those comments are in any way offensive. They fall well within accepted internet standards. Except, of course, for the one equating homosexuality with paedophilia, which plainly dumb and dishonest.

Other Comments by decius

213. Comment #228416 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 am

212. Comment #228415 by decius -

Splitter.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

214. Comment #228418 by Philip1978 on August 12, 2008 at 3:23 am

Funny, you will never guess who said this about David...

When you're a pastor, being a two-faced hypocrite goes with the job, I'm afraid.
In fact when I compare myself with David WeeFlea the main difference is that he's wrong about God and I'm not. The other difference is that I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.

I wonder if Richard Morgan would say that now...

Sorry, I admit I'm shit stirring a little here but I do find it interesting :)

Other Comments by Philip1978

215. Comment #228419 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #228415 by decius

That is my point really. I am not saying that there aren't sneering and sarcastic people on these threads (and many of them do it well). It is Robertson's pretense to be above all that that is the problem. Remember, he has been banned several times. That takes a lot of effort (persistent, off-topic sneering).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

216. Comment #228420 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

Decius-

I think the dead baby post, however, definitely qualifies as offensive (203).

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

217. Comment #228423 by Tyler Durden on August 12, 2008 at 3:27 am

Thanks decius.

It's Ambulocetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

I snapped it while in the Grand Gallerie d'Evolution in Paris last week. What an exhibition... magnifique!

You dare question the brilliance of Fight Club? Right, outside, now :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

218. Comment #228425 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:31 am

I just left a comment on the scotsman for David
"Regarding David Robertson's comment. He is indeed a regular poster on Dawkins' website. What he has however forgogot to mention is that he goes to great trouble to wind people up and insult them. A very small selection of some of his posts can be seen here http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2925,On-TV-The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-Presented-by-Richard-Dawkins,Richard-Dawkins-Channel-4,page5#228406

He most definately has not recieved death threats either. The incident that he refers to - which he well knows was a joke, but he has distorted that to demonise atheists. He has also conveniently forgot to mention the death threats that have been thrown at atheists on that site. Maybe he would also like to bring up a certain incident where he knowing signed a dodgy cheque to hire a bus. So David, how about a bit of honesty and retract those statements?"

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Unholy-warrior--Richard-Dawkins.4375690.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000#3112106

Other Comments by BillySands

219. Comment #228426 by Laurie Fraser on August 12, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #228419 by Steve Zara

Sneering? Sarcastic? Who, US, Steve?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

220. Comment #228427 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #228426 by Laurie Fraser

ALL of you. You are all sneering and sarcastic. Oh, and militant and fundamentalist. And followers of Dawkins. And I had better mention "tenets of atheism", just to complete the set.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

221. Comment #228428 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:40 am

218. Comment #228425 by BillySands -

And I'm not retracting my intention to go 'liquid gardening' in the future, either.

I may be forceful - rude even at times - but I reserve the right to be. Individuals like David Robertson do not deserve to be treated well in discourse. Neither he, nor his views, are worthy of respect.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

222. Comment #228431 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:42 am

I may be forceful - rude even at times - but I reserve the right to be. Individuals like David Robertson do not deserve to be treated well in discourse. Neither he, nor his views, are worthy of respect.

Seconded! He deserves ridicule and should be exposed as a lying fundamentalist - then preferrably burned at the stake and urinated on - quote mine that David!

Other Comments by BillySands

223. Comment #228432 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 3:44 am

Steve-

Oh, you think we're sarcastic, do you? We sneer a lot, do we?

That's it. At the next F.O.L.D (Followers of Our Leader Dawkins) meeting, I'm formally calling for you to be stripped of your membership. By turning against us you have violated one of the primary tenets of atheism. You know the one I mean.

Then you will be hunted through the streets, butchered, and the blame put on members of the nearest church.

It's the atheist way.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

224. Comment #228433 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:45 am

220. Comment #228427 by Steve Zara -

All of us? My dear friend, I strive to be and to have all those things, but - being a reasonable man - don't expect others to reach my high standards.

P.S. - I'm training my bladder, as we speak.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

225. Comment #228434 by Logicel on August 12, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #228412 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 am
avatarDo you think he'll have his cheque book buried with him?
______

Nah, since it is not Christian he will leave orders to have it cremated.

Other Comments by Logicel

226. Comment #228435 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #228420 by Quetzalcoatl

Sorry, I disagree.

This is precisely the mentality that we are here to fight against. Those people really believe to have the moral high-ground, and that without an ontological set of rules set by a supernatural entity there cannot be morality at all.

I don't find it offensive - I find it wrong, annoying, ignorant, pig-headed and worth of contempt.
Yet, there is a need to grow a thicker skin, if you want to effectively address the issue. Playing the offence card is what religious people do all the time and it just makes you look like a wuss.

Let them whine about perceived offences, and let's keep offending them with even more with ridicule and sharp logic.
In other words, tu quoque is not going to achieve anything, and seen from outside is pathetic.

Just my opinion.

Other Comments by decius

227. Comment #228437 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:47 am

P.S. - I'm training my bladder, as we speak.

More tea irate?

Other Comments by BillySands

228. Comment #228438 by scottishgeologist on August 12, 2008 at 3:48 am

Just to clarify - that "death threat" business was a joke that poster NMcC started relating to DRs trip to Northern Ireland. I ended up being part of it, which, in retrospect, I regret. The trouble with jokes, metaphors etc on the web/internet is that they end up getting taken out of context, or just simply misunderstood.

There was another instance of this recently where a poster on another thread alluded to John lennox as if he were an old horse fit for the knackers yard - he said something like "should be taken to the back of the barn and shot through the head"

To any normal person, this was OBVIOUSLY not a death threat, but of course to the likes of DR et al, this is just another example of "a*heist f*ndamentalism" (I refuse to actually write those words in full)

Jokes are fine, IMO, and taking the piss almost essential in this environment, but people do need to be careful, I think. Some things, even said jokingly can give the faithheads the break they are looking for.


So take the piss mercilessly......

:-)))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

229. Comment #228440 by Logicel on August 12, 2008 at 3:50 am

Perhaps my opposition to irate_atheist's plan to pee on the plot (DRs of course) has already been brought up. DR does not merit the resulting lush greenery that will follow such an enriched pissing as would be done by irate_atheist.

Other Comments by Logicel

230. Comment #228442 by BillySands on August 12, 2008 at 3:52 am

Logicel,

I think the shit he is full of will ensure lush greenery anyway.

Other Comments by BillySands

231. Comment #228443 by Logicel on August 12, 2008 at 3:56 am

So v true, Billy

Other Comments by Logicel

232. Comment #228444 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #228435 by decius

I am not sure I found that post actually offensive. I found it in poor taste to use a private tragedy to make such a point.

I have no objection to anyone posting in an unpleasant way, or even trying to provoke others. That is the way largely unmoderated forums can be.

What I think stinks is to do that and to then claim to be "holier than thou", and use the responses to your provocations (from a few) on an open site to make a point about how nasty everyone is on that site.

Robertson has had it pointed out to him repeatedly the problem with generalising about attitudes on an open site, yet he persists with this tactic. It is fair to find that a problem.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

233. Comment #228446 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 4:01 am

227. Comment #228437 by BillySands -

Bovril, man, Bovril!!!!

He probably likes a good cuppa, and I'm damned if I'm pissing something he might like onto him.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

234. Comment #228447 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 4:04 am

Hey. Did Richard Morgan ever reply to my posting of his posting the other day?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

235. Comment #228448 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 4:05 am

Decius-

Perhaps I was generalising a bit by calling it offensive. At the time, as I recall, there were some posters who did find it offensive. Speaking for myself, I suppose I see it as being more crass and a cheap shot than particularly offensive.

I take your point, but I do think that it is important that we are able to point out comments where theists have crossed the line without being seen as "whining" about it.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

236. Comment #228449 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 4:06 am

Irate-

Shockingly, he's remained silent.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

237. Comment #228451 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 4:11 am

236. Comment #228449 by Quetzalcoatl -

How strange. [/sneering sarcasm]

Other Comments by irate_atheist

238. Comment #228453 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 4:22 am

Shockingly, he's remained silent.

Equally strange is that French music lover and "atheist", ddjango, has not posted anything either. How obliging of him to give Richard Morgan his feed and then vanish into thin air......

Other Comments by phil rimmer

239. Comment #228454 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #228453 by phil rimmer

Equally strange is that French music lover and "atheist", ddjango, has not posted anything either.

Boy, am I slow on the uptake.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

240. Comment #228456 by Matt7895 on August 12, 2008 at 4:27 am

Lying comes as naturally for Robertson as does breathing.

Other Comments by Matt7895

241. Comment #228459 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 4:33 am

Steve-

if you're slow, then so am I.

Phil-

Having looked, I notice he only posted one comment and nothng since. Are you sure he's RM's sock-puppet? Surely he wouldn't do the same thing twice? That would just be stupid.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

242. Comment #228460 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #228444 by Steve Zara

What I think stinks is to do that and to then claim to be "holier than thou"

You are right, it stinks and it's false, and - most importantly - it's a rhetorical device in the fundies' arsenal commonly used to sidetrack the conversation and distract the opponent.

Admittedly, Robertson deploys it at masterly level.

There are two possible responses to it.

- Fall for the tu-quoque fallacy (forgive the over-simplification, I know that there are nuances to this).

- Ignore it and keep focused on the actual issues exposing the pseudo-morality of religion. Scapegoating, vicarious punishment, endorsement of slavery, misogyny, hatred for the different etc. We could go on for two hours, just by listing them, let alone eviscerating them.

Now, let me ask you, what is more effective? And which one will more likely convince the fence-sitters?

Other Comments by decius

243. Comment #228462 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 4:34 am

Quetz -

The evidence is a bit thin on the ground. Circumstantial, so far.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

244. Comment #228464 by Quetzalcoatl on August 12, 2008 at 4:38 am

Irate-

I agree. Although ddjango was registered the same day as well, just a short time before the comment. I don't know.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

245. Comment #228465 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #228460 by decius

I don't think it is that simple, as it isn't a "tu quoque", as we don't claim to be nice.

It is quite in order for, say, a smoker to point out the problem when someone who claims they are vice free is spotted having quick ciggie behind the bike shed.

Logical arguments aren't going to work with Robertson. My view is that we have to keep pointing out the clear evidence of hypocrisy in the way he behaves and inconsistency, especially on matters such as evolution/creationism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

246. Comment #228466 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 4:40 am

I caught the sock-puppetry immediately.
He leaves behind clear clues.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2966,An-atheist-plays-Gods-advocate,Telegraph,page3#227913

Other Comments by decius

247. Comment #228468 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 4:40 am

EDIT I must unreservedly withdraw this comment as unsupported by evidence. RM my apologies for this.

There is a certain incompetent charm in the fact that RM has not yet learned to dissimulate like the new love of his life. Truly accomplished lying requires a high degree of sustained self-deception to appear natural to others. His incompetence almost gives me hope.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

248. Comment #228469 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 4:41 am

Quetz -

All we have is the balance of probabilities. Latest betting odds are as below.

7-4F - Sock puppet

5-1 - Real person

10-1 - Lord Lucan

All other explanations are 50-1 bar.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

249. Comment #228470 by Steve Zara on August 12, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #228466 by decius

Clues clear to you, Sherlock :)

I seem to be more of a Watson.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

250. Comment #228471 by phil rimmer on August 12, 2008 at 4:46 am

decius

You were certainly very quick spotting this.

ddjango is just the sort of atheist RM longed to be, free of "shouty nastiness".

Other Comments by phil rimmer