Comments by phatbat
51. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #202205 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 3:32 am
Oh dear Robert has been caught wanking over at pharyngula, brilliant.
I think it's OK for someone to ban someone from a serious site, where they might want to keep threads on target, if they want, it's their site, and once you've given someone their turn to speak and they decide to waste it and also fill up threads with rubbish that everyone else has to trawl through then you can't really complain. Kind of like in a public speaking situation, if someone has their say, has their point dealt with and then keeps shouting out and interupting proceedings, making it take longer then most people would probably want him escorted from the building.
But i prefer to have less rules like this site so that you can get stupid people who have an unjustifiedly high regard for their own intelligence posting what they think are gems only to get shown as the shit they are by the regulars here.
I wonder when Robert will actualy demonstrate his amazing arguments which really demonstrate his understanding of the problem with the ontological arguement. I notice from his last session that he cherry picked just a few posts to misunderstand but left Brian's question alone. He's probably franticaly trawling the web for some authority to appeal to and then he'll post us the link.
52. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
Comment #202185 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 2:27 am
Thanks Quetz, Steve & Oystein
I think i understand a bit more - still very confusing though.
53. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
Comment #202158 by phatbat on July 1, 2008 at 1:24 am
This is the thing that is difficult to get your head around sometimes. Is it right to think of the 'gaps' between planets and stars, etc as also expanding at this great speed. So what we think of as just empty space through which galaxies move, is like a fabric that is also expanding just as the galaxie's are doing relative to each other. Except the galaxies have extra movement within this space, or gaps.
Am i somewhere near the mark?
Would it make any sense to ask the question what is the universe expanding into. Would it look like that space we see between stars and planets? like in the diagram at the top of the page. Or is it just better not to think about that.
54. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #201669 by phatbat on June 30, 2008 at 3:05 am
370. Comment #201667 by mordacious1
Do you mean Robert? He's confusing enough without changing his name.
Thanks mordacious - all sorted now.
55. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #201659 by phatbat on June 30, 2008 at 2:20 am
Oh dear, looks like predictions are coming true. Robert has decided to ignore the tough questions put to him and cherry pick a couple he "thought" he could deal with.
Robert came here so proud with comments like this:
8teist, you might be impressed by what passes for thinking here, but I am not. This is not my first time engaging rabble, and it won't be my last.
So tell us Robert when are you going to start engaging, instead of just telling everyone which amazing argument you subscribe to, and then proceeding to just restate it over and over again with your fingers in your ears.
and then theres this:
Comment #201180 by Robert O'Brien on June 29, 2008 at 11:28 am
"Section 10 here dispatches Godel
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html"
Please. Drange is a low-watt bulb, like just about every atheistic philosopher. I suggest pondering this:
http://huperborea.blogspot.com/2007/04/skorokhod-on-determinism-and-chaos.html
Order and disorder are "incompatible" and yet maximal order and maximal disorder are not only compatible but are the same.
Well at the moment you haven't actualy done any explaining yourself. You've just said this philosopher has said this. All the others that disagree are just wrong. But you have shown yourself unable to actualy deal with the holes poked by Brian and Mphil. Looks like a failed appeal to authority.
and this:
Comment #201095 by Robert O'Brien on June 29, 2008 at 2:44 am
I am a proponent of the ontological (as formalized by Kurt Gödel and emended by C. Anthony Anderson) and cosmological (as presented by either Mortimer Adler or William Lane Craig) arguments for the existence of God. (Yes, I have read Dawkins' chapter on classical theism. His attempt to discredit these arguments = EPIC FAIL.)
Well looks like you and RD are in the same failure boat then doesn't it. I'm glad you didn't bother explaining what the actual failings were because that just makes you look all the more impotent now that you have had your own epic failure with others actualy explaining where and why you've failed.
It's a good job that you realising you've been beaten is not a requirement for it to be true, and infact makes it all the funnier to watch.
Of course you could fix this by responding to Brian and Mphil's points about the ontological arguement. And by the way, just saying 'you lot just don't understand' doesn't actualy work, it just makes it look like you are evading something you don't understand.
Edited for name
56. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #201434 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm
i suppose we just need to accept that Robert won't actualy answer the tough questions. Or he'll give some half arsed response which doesn't deal with the issue and then, when probed further, will say i've dealt with that already.
57. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #201424 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Robert certainly gave his arguments a grand, complimentary introduction. I'm wondering when he is going to start using them on us.
Comment #201104 by phatbat on June 29, 2008 at 3:27 am
156. Comment #201095 by Robert O'Brien
Yes, I have read Dawkins' chapter on classical theism. His attempt to discredit these arguments = EPIC FAIL
perhapse you can explain what he's missed.
59. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200462 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
and don't tell me i'm miss-reading your adolescent drivel answer a straight question
60. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200460 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm
so tell me idiot - do you think there could be such a thing as a half paedophile?
61. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200458 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Half atheist - lol - that doesn't even mean anything. just cause a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it means anything.
Unless idiot is saying he has multiple personality disorder he is basically trying to pretend that the belief in creator gods is something different from the belief in fairies and that it needs an extra level of surety to declare yourself as not believing in it.
ROFL - half atheist.
62. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200325 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 10:11 am
Re: theidiot
I am so glad theidiot's rantings are down in print for all to see, that way he can't deny saying it.
Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.
OK lets read it again.
They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.
So either we are miserably clueless as to the reason we hate or we are not. You stated that we were clueless or seem that way. Which is why i wrote this:
seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.
meaning that we do have the ability to explain human emotions incluing hate and thus you are wrong.
Twat.
63. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200315 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:49 am
76. Comment #200314 by theIdiot
Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.
you're doing more than just claiming the potential - you are claiming to be a dipshit with us. Which begs the question why would you try and insult people by accusing them of being like you?
64. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200297 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 am
70. Comment #200260 by theIdiot
"but for good men to do evil, that takes religion, than it logically follows that this is also true "but for evil men to do good, that takes religion."
er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true.
Strangely one finds this oddity in the unbelievers argument, that it's nature that leads us to compassionate behavior, not one's religious upbringing, yet for some reason they work in reverse when in comes to hatred. They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.
seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.
Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened.
Ah silly man, do you think such practices were foreign to pre-islam Saudi Arabia, where the pagan religions that dominated had no bearing on morality at all? Religion wasn't the source of the patriarchal structure of the pre-Islam Saudi Arabia, nor is it the source of it post-Islam. Judging that this structure is all most universal for all civilizations at one point in time, a learned perspective involves far more than religious scapegoating. A social context doesn't emerge out of religion, religion emerges out of it's social context.
The origin of such practices is not disputed nor the issue. The issue is that it still goes on now and it is likely to go on as long as nearly an entire religious body of people idolise mohammed as a perfect example of personhood, and consider anything he did as good.
And relativist might argue with you, that your notion of a lack of compassion here, is the product of western arrogance and ignorance. A society might view the notion of an individual taking in a child of family who couldn't afford to take care of her, in a marriage contract that postpones sex until she is of an appropriate age, to be an act of compassion. In fact, I'd even argue that most individuals who support such acts, see it as such.
But hey, who the fuck are you to tell a Saudi what you think is right or wrong, to impose your western morality on him?
We are people who's moral code is actualy based on whether an act does actual harm to people. Not based on whether it supposedly pleases some imaginary friend. Since that little girl cannot simply choose to unmarry herself when she grows up and decides if she wants to be married to the person chosen for her then she is basicaly enslaved to the person of her father's choosing.
Twat.
65. I believe that there is no God.
Comment #200288 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am
Re - theidiot
Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he. Sounds like a petulant little 18 year old who hasn't learnt how to compose sentences yet.
Other than that his posts are basicaly full of shit. He seems to be well practiced in the art of not really making whatever argument he's trying to make.
also check this out:
Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits
At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol
Comment #199332 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Yeah the RD.net article is the reason i found out about it - i may well go along to one of those.
Thanks for the info matee.
Comment #199329 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm
54. Comment #199026 by TeraBrat
My my tera, yesterday you were typing an open letter on your disgust at the bad attitude of some, unnamed, people posting on this site who were being rude. Today you have been rude to someone (Mphil) saying he doesn't know what philosophy means in a condescending manner, and then not apologised for it. And then said you are sickened by the fact that a lot of people are too nice to certain people.
You are now starting to sound a bit petulent. If you are prone to ill informed accusations then do the right thing and just say sorry afterwards, you must know that gets a lot more respect in this life. And if you are going to complain about too much rudeness on this site on one day don't be stupid enough to be rude the following day and then complain about people being too nice.
But seriously if you haven't already turned to religion out of protest please stick it out here and you will learn to deal with all these things you don't like and grow an extra layer of skin or 2.
best
Comment #199315 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm
27. Comment #199308 by Enlightenme
Ah - small world indeed - i had thought about going to that science cafe thing - i signed up for the email updates but haven't been to any yet. What is it like? Do the audience get really stuck in?
Comment #199297 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm
22. Comment #199286 by Enlightenme
And what can I hear *right now* from my back garden? - Bon f'kin Jovi, playing at a soccer stadium 5 minutes away from me.
No way - i can hear it too, i live in clifton just past the top of clifton vale - what about you enlightenme?
Comment #198840 by phatbat on June 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Tera
Some people are used to pisstaking and name calling and other people are not.
When most of these 'offensive' posts are written they are directed at specific posts by the individual who is the target for said 'offense'. Thus taking the idea to task and exposing it for what it is.
Now this is exactly what you haven't done with your (probably inadvertant) broad brush stroke of disdain for this site in general. You should pick out the ideas and posts that you have a problem with and deal with it. This is what everyone else is doing. This kind of emotional response is what all too easily develops into a prejudice against a group. If you are not careful you will develop a prejudice against atheists because of some of your anecdotal experiences. This causes you to want to seperate yourself from the atheists and the only way to do that is to become a theist.
Now i think you must agree that this would be a bit silly wouldn't it.
71. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195894 by phatbat on June 19, 2008 at 2:05 am
8185. Comment #195756 by asfalios
Hi all,
correct me if I am wrong but in 6:14 to 6:26 of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAtc0ezpdc
does the professor suggest that there is possible evidence of design?
Your opinions?
thanks
I think that is the bit that Richard is talking about in the article on this page 'Lying for Jesus'
It is about the 8th paragraph from the bottom (ignoring the block quotes) and begins 'Another example....'
I think this explains what Richard was talking about
72. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195006 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I can see what Steve is saying actualy.
If we allow Brian's method then we need to refuse to acknowledge design/appearance of design because that is a claim that needs to be backed up. We don't ask for the case to be made for the designer until they have made the case for design.
We also shouldn't mention that a 3rd option is that anything just appeared, we should instead just say that it could be something that no-one has thought of yet (after all the universe is a mysterious place, and we've all heard that before haven't we).
We could hammer home the appearance of design being a statement with out substance by all the "bad design".
I think this should be less prone to attack.
Any takers?
Comment #194728 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:06 am
147. Comment #194704 by ketch22
At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 'vestigial' structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero.
Virtualy zero or zero?
No organ should be removed without good reason!
Which is a very different issue from it not serving any purpose and in somecases causing great harm.
Comment #194723 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:04 am
Comment #194710 by irate_atheist
A vague resemblance, visually, to George Galloway.
Now you could be onto something there, i'm not convinced that is who i'm thinking of but there is a vague resemblence. (sorry Epeeist)
Comment #194721 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:58 am
Comment #194689 by epeeist
Well it must be a famous person then. I can't help but think the person i'm thinking of has an irish accent.
nevermind, one day it'll come to me..
Comment #194683 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:29 am
144. Comment #194663 by epeeist
Well, you spoiled my second intention move, but never mind.
Sorry Epeeist.
I think that even if he didn't already know what was coming there is very little he can do to avoid it except what he already did.
BTW epeeist - I've always thought ur avatar might be a famous person but never been quite sure. Someone set me straight the other day and said it was actualy you. I can't put my finger on who you look like, have you ever been told you look like someone in the public eye, or do you live in either the Portsmouth or Bristol areas of england, which if so, i might have seen you around.
Comment #194653 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 6:17 am
140. Comment #194624 by pobalob
Personally, I think questioning why one believes one god over another is merely a distracting sideshow.
Yes, it is a valid question but I ponder the merit of asking the Thor followers why they do not follow A.N.Other god or the J-Christians the same query.
It could be a case of putting the cart before the horse but it is a very useful tool in getting the theist to try and squirm out of using the very arguments that an atheist could then use against them.
Hence, above you saw that Ketch pretended it was a silly question that didn't deserve a response. Now he knows full well that he tried to look for an answer and couldn't find one that wouldn't be just as valid against his own god so he sidestepped. People will see this.
Trying to get them to come up with a positive case for design is also an extremely good technique. His constant avoiding of the question is very telling to all that might view it.
78. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194260 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Quetzalcoatl
Thanks Quetz - I'ts been bugging me for ages now - He does look like someone famous though (maybe not that famous) but i can't put my finger on it.
79. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194247 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Frankus1122
You might want to edit for spelling too:
"grammar"
Nah - the word evolved mate.
;)
80. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194240 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Isn't it strange how someones avatar sets a mood?
Does anyone know if epeeist's avatar is of someone famous as it looks very familiar but i can never think who it looks like?
81. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194232 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm
7540. Comment #194224 by ReceivedTheGift
I am sorry, but there are just too many in your community that think otherwise for this to be so clear cut.
So how many then? - or perhapse what percentage of our side think otherwise?
82. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194216 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm
7528. Comment #194204 by Steve Zara
The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason. Ironically, you help such arguments evolve
Well said.
And thank you gift receiver for doing this in such a public setting, so that all those people who read this and may have been unsure about the supposed clash of evolution and cretinism, can see how week the ground is on your side of the fence.
BTW i love the way you fail to acknowledge when your arguments have been dealt with and then move on to the next one, and then return to one of the previous arguments (that was dealt with already) and say it all over again.
EDIT for grammer
83. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193950 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:32 am
7433. Comment #193943 by Steve Zara
So is this like a solid membrane of ice or many seperate floating ice crystals?
84. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193921 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:09 am
Is tx actualy suggesting that a sphere of ice might have formed around the earth and then melted and flooded the land?
85. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex
Comment #193911 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:00 am
glad to see research being done into this. Perhapse we could one day put 'gay is a choice' nonsense into the same archive as natural disasters being punishments from god.
Oh, hang on a minute, it already is.
86. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches
Comment #193902 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 am
It's interesting how they think a work of fiction should be hindered in its production if it portrays a fabricated series of events. I suppose they think a work of fiction should actualy portray events as they actualy happened.
Or are they saying works of fiction should never be produced which have anything to do with Christian history. Perhapse they have first hand experience of a lot of people believing fiction to be fact. I wonder what that might be.....
87. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy
Comment #193886 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:34 am
Amazing video's - very nicely explained.
88. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby
Comment #192533 by phatbat on June 13, 2008 at 10:08 am
I agree that the debates don't seem to sway many people but they are bloody good entertainment.
They are also very usefull as sources of ideas for debates of our own.
But the written format is by far the best if you are on the side of reason. All this talk of winning the debate is important though, winning should not always be a matter of opinion when the question being debated is a matter of logic or fact. The winner should be who's arguments stand up to strict logical analysis not consensus.
89. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school
Comment #192098 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I think that if a holy book contains possible justifications for violence towards someone or something except in cases of self defence (or defence of others from phisical harm) then it is not a religion of peace.
If said book contains a lot of explicit justifications of violence then it is not a religion of peace.
If said book contains no possible justifications of violence what-so-ever except in self defence as stated above then it is a religion of peace.
90. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #192051 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 11:52 am
1998. Comment #192036 by rontimus
1999. Comment #192044 by Steve Zara
superb.
I hope he responds and tells us all how these brilliant arguments work.
Comment #191872 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 am
133. Comment #191847 by Vaal
Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.
I kind of agree but i think all that is needed is for everyone to just stop telling DR what we think of him and just concentrate on the actual fallacies he produces.
What people tend to do is bring him up on something valid and then add some insults on the end. Then what happens is he responds mainly to the insults and not to the real meat of the post.
Steve Z seems to be achieving this with good effect which produces an actual (if not still wrong) responces from DR. severalspeciesof also did it above.
I know it is so tempting to let rip but it is this letting rip which is giving him loads of excuses to avoid dealing with the real questions which are so valid.
If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.
Worth a try?
92. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too
Comment #191696 by phatbat on June 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm
52. Comment #191669 by richard_dawkins
Oh dear we have a child let loose on a computer who is attracted to apes.
93. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #191128 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 9:12 am
251. Comment #191103 by larhule
Stryer, I dig your Socratic fire. You obviously don't need it but consider this a handful of encouragement for pinning responders to their words! The shit you catch for 'attitude' is totally fruitless and only serves to preserve a cold slate for everyone to hold hands and engage in boring, mass eye rolls in response to another stupid religious treatise.
I don't really understand what this means.
94. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Comment #191030 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 6:10 am
amazingly bad article - 'Canada Free Press' - i hope this means nobody had to pay for it.
Styrer
- Why so angry about this misunderstanding? It's a pretty simple principle and one that's been discussed on here a few times before if i remember correctly. If it was just a case of posters using the word faith instead of belief on a couple of occassions couldn't you have just said 'i could understand what you mean if you said belief instead of faith.....' not to mention the fact that faith does actualy have more than one definition, and if you check the dictionary, faith can be interchanged with belief quite easily within the confines of the established definitions. But i would agree using the word belief in this instance would have possible saved some confusion.
If your disagreement is something other than this then you have yet to have put your point in a way that is easily understandable.
Are you saying that you don't think believers try and find evidence for their belief and think they have found it with very bad results like this article?
If you do think they do this then surely you are agreeing that for these people faith is not enough on it's own for them to believe, they feel the need to find evidence to back it up. Because their need to find evidence for their prior assumptions/faith is so great they suddenly have a very different idea of what constitutes evidence, and just accept nonsense like this article. The fact that they haven't actualy got any evidence is beside the point, it is the fact that they wanted that evidence, sought the evidence and then rested on it that is important. No one is saying (i'm pretty sure) that these people actualy have anything other than faith to justify their beliefs, but that they think they do, thus they are really rebelling against the principle of faith. No one is saying that their faith is reasonable or that there is any such thing, just that for a lot of people they THINK it is. If it's reasonable then it doesn't need faith, if it needs faith then it isn't resonable (unless you're talking about the more wishy washy definitions of faith just being the belief/trust in something or someone where evidence or reasonableness is not an issue)
It really does seem like you're missing something here styrer.
Comment #185258 by phatbat on May 27, 2008 at 9:26 am
63. Comment #184918 by Sh!fty
Here Here.
There is a big difference between people like bullet and clearmind.
I would have thought one of the best things this site might achieve is to win hearts and minds of those that might be indoctrinated elsewhere, especialy the young and curious.
Granted no-one knew he was 14 till after a few posts filled with 'you have all got it wrong' type posts. But we must expect this from just about everyone who has been indoctrinated from early childhood with the religion virus. I think that by restraining your annoyance at the arrogance we get subjected to and just keep plowing out the same polite answers will at least be witnessed by the many people that view this site.
A lot of these people are victims remember.
96. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Comment #183892 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:42 am
346. Comment #183888 by Steve Zara
hehe - i didn't really think it was you Steve - i went and checked out your blog too - very good.
97. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Comment #183883 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:11 am
342. Comment #183876 by Bonzai
It could be Steve Zara - he never seems to be about at the same time as clearmind. He said he was going to work on his own blog for a bit but that could be a cover, while he practices typing in clearmind speak.
But seriously, i don't believe that he's an actual idiot, the occasional clear typing demonstrates that.
Every one should just ignore his posts from now on.
98. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found
Comment #180251 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm
1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris
If they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.
Good point. I don't know either.
Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid?
99. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'
Comment #180021 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 5:46 am
294. Comment #179998 by jayalenik
Boy, you girls really know how to hurt someone.
I don't think they were trying to hurt you, looks to me they were telling you what you either are or come accross as.
Like it or not, bad or no punctuation makes writing slower to read and confuses meaning. Now this is a fact for most people. If you don't like this fact, you can either do nothing and carry on as you are or try and change it so that your posts are more easily read. It's obviously your choice, but if you go to the trouble of posting on a forum i presume it's because you want to take part in a discussion, or make your views known. People will start to ignore posts that don't read well, so if you're happy with that then carry on.
It's always interesting to see how someone reacts when their faults are pointed out, and it's funny that your reaction turned out to be that of petulant little child.
100. The Neural Buddhists
Comment #179644 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm
17. Comment #179638 by annabanana
couldn't tell if this resulted from the author's having had knowledge of The Selfish Gene by RD or because he'd only read the title
I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks. He seems to contradict himself all over the place. I think he thinks he knows more than he knows.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
