51. SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout

Comment #299197 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 8:33 am

Well, that's it. We Brits should have copied the Americans and prayed for the Lord to save British Leyland.

After all, it was a bloody miracle if you got their cars to start first thing in the morning.

Indeed, the amount of oil they leaked was another miracle that defied all known science, reason and rationality.

52. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299192 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 8:24 am

Talking about TGD, my local branch of Waterstones is giving it special promotion alongside one of RD's other titles (I can't remember which one but it may be The Selfish Gene).

None of the religious books in the store were subject to special promotion.

Oh, and the only copy of Steve Fuller's latest ID book remains on the shelf. It's been there since at least August!

(For those not in the UK, Waterstones is the largest UK book retailer.)

53. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299190 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 8:15 am

Lucas says "Let's be clear: the university system (at least here in the US, but surely elsewhere) is a for-profit system, so many variations of institution exist, each catering to its own customer base."

IIRC none of the British universities (there's s little over 100 of them) are "for-profit" institutions. Like any organisation, they want more money but that's not the same thing.

One of the oddities that I have never really got my head around is who actually owns the universities in Britain. From my limited knowledge, it's actually a very complex issue.

54. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #299142 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 6:44 am

Posiedon - thanks for that tip. One of the members of BCSE used to work for Private Eye. I'll ask her for some help.

55. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #299111 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 5:52 am

One thing I would love to do is get some satire in Private Eye about the creationists (in particular) and the fundies (in general).

Alas, we were warned off trying some three years ago. The editor is a Christian.

Anyone know of another publication that might be interested?

56. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #299057 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 3:56 am

Breaking news from the BBC:

'Hybrid embryo' legal block lost

Christian campaigners have lost their High Court challenge to scientists being allowed to create human-animal embryos for research purposes.

The Christian Legal Centre and Comment on Reproductive Ethics had claimed the regulating authority had operated unfairly in permitting the work.

But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said all decisions were made in a transparent way that followed correct procedures.

The work aims to cure serious diseases.

The challenge was against an HFEA ruling earlier this year to grant licences to scientists at Newcastle University and King's College London in January. A third team in Warwick has subsequently been granted a licence as well.

Supporters of inter-species research say their work could one day help treat patients with serious medical conditions.

But Josephine Quintavalle, spokeswoman for Core and a named party in the action, said the regulator was "too pro-embryo research" and did not give opponents enough of a voice in the decision-making process.

"The way the regulator works is not fair. No-one representing the interests of the embryo can sit on the committees that make decisions and once a decision has been reached we cannot appeal it."

'Transparent'

She also said the HFEA acted outside its jurisdiction - at the time of the January verdict a bill was still in the process of being drawn up covering this very issue.

That bill has now been passed and will come into force next year allowing such applications to be considered.

The HFEA has always maintained it was right to consider the original application as the 1990 law it was working under stipulated the regulator was able to interpret guidance as science progressed so as not to slow down research.

A spokeswoman also denied suggestions its decision-making process was undemocratic.

She said each new application was subject to a public consultation, expert review and HFEA committee hearing - members of which were appointed by an independent body.

"It is a fair and transparent process."

57. Religious 'shun nanotechnology'

Comment #299024 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 2:19 am

" I am for building a long fence with trenches filled with water and alligators, but I can't find anyone to take my idea seriously."

I wonder why that is, DP?

58. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298666 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 am

DP!!! You haven't changed your name to Vanwall have you?

59. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298625 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 9:08 am

Strange, isn't it that the head of the RCs in Britain is so keen on other people not having Human Rights. I seem to recall that the RCs were behind Catholic Emancipation in the UK. One set of rights for them but for every one else?

Now, precisely, whose Humans Rights does this Cardinal think should be removed?

Perhaps he should contact the Daily Hate Mail which is screaming today about the iniquities of human rights (again).

Anyone get the feeling that he is in the same camp as every other reactionary of the right?

60. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298576 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 5:06 am

epeeist - yer, my sister was privately educated. Didn't do her any good, though.

I was state educated. Didn't do me any good either.

;-)

61. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298572 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 4:56 am

Thanks Anvil - we've received it. You'll hear back asap.

62. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298569 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 4:46 am

rod-the-farmer

I think it pretty well near universal that people find fault with the education system they went through until 18. (See Orwell's essay, Such, Such Were the Joys.)

In a sense, it's what we make of it, with help from parents.

The state system will never be as good as the best of the private system because the resources will never be there. The annual fees to the snootiest of the private schools in my town are £30,000 a year. The equivalent cost (to the taxpayer) in its very good state schools is (IIRC) about £5,500 per pupil. Guess which gets the best teachers?

Seems to me that the problem in the USA is that education is part of the culture wars. The fundies, in particular, have it in for education because it threatens their ludicrous position. They either want to control education (which they can't) or destroy it.

Still, the core of education, the universities, is, by definition, liberal and as more and more pass through university, the more the fundies are isolated. Heck, it was a coalition of the educated, blacks and the young which have just told the reactionaries to go stuff their heads up a dead bear's bum.

63. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298562 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 4:16 am

Anvil "Get on the school boards, PTA's, Board of Governers etc' - write to MP's about the creeping creationism and the expansion of Faith Schools Blah Blah Blah..."

And join the British Centre for Science Education - www.bcseweb.org.uk

It's what we are doing.

64. If you want to know why our public schools are screwed up, here's one reason

Comment #298542 by Roger Stanyard on December 8, 2008 at 3:27 am

If you go back a few years, you'll find that the Southern Baptist Convention was close to destroying state education in the deepth south. It was close to calling for all Baptists to pull their children out of state education. The SBC fell into the hands of extrmists in the 1980s.

Of course, one alternative is to send one's brats to a British Public School (meaning a snooty private school). Then they really will end up as weirdos (ducks for cover).

65. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298358 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 11:13 am

Well, another right winger is Paul taylor, currently, it appears, Number 1 at Answers in Genesis UK.

66. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298357 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

alan baylis - so why was his name on the membership list?

67. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298352 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 10:56 am

Oh, the other thing I have to say about creationists is that they are like vampires.

As soon as you direct sunlight onto them, they run for the cover of darkness.

68. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298340 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

the great teapot - No, of course not. However, my view is that the matter is of serious public interest. This particular person has been involved over many years in lobbying in the political arena to get creationism taught in state school science lessons.

I also make the open claim here that he deliberately deceived the then secretary of state for education about who he represented whilst lobbying. That claim has been on the BCSE web site for well over 2 years.

Secondly one of the organisations he is involved with has told the BCSE that it has "gone underground" in its attempts to get creationism into science lessons. In other words, the public are being kept in the dark. The organisation is Truth in Science.

This is not a private person. He is in a very public position attempting to change the lives of children. If he wants to be a public figure involved in political activities then he should reasonable expect to face public scutiny as to what his political views and objectives are.

If you think I am wrong, I am more than willing to accept criticism on this view.

As I keep saying, creationism is a political issue.

69. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298328 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 9:46 am

Ok, the name on the BNP membership list is Paul Garner.

We've got a hell of a number of problems in handling this matter and would appreciate any advice or offers of help, particularly relating to legal matters.

It's all a lot more complex that it appears.

email me at stanyardrogerATyahoo.co.uk if you think you may be able to help.

70. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298298 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 8:06 am

The person on the BNP membership list to which the statement alludes is a seriously big fish amongst UK creationists - in my view one of the top two. He is exceedingly active and well connected in the creationist movement. He's head of one of the four main creationist organisations in the UK as well as an activist in Truth in Science. He also heads up his own ministry which proselytises in schools and universities.

He's long been an activist in trying to get creationism into state school science lessons.

71. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298283 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 7:15 am

The "contact list" is a membership list.

72. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298282 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 7:11 am

From the web site of Biblical Creation Ministies in the UK, posted today:

"From the Trustees of Biblical
Creation Ministries
December 7, 2008

It has come to our attention that the
personal details of one of our
employees were included on the British
National Party contact list recently
published on the internet. However, we
wish to state that none of our
employees or trustees is a member or
supporter of the BNP and never has been
in the past. Indeed, the person named
is not a member of any political party.
The website where these details were
published recognises that the list
includes individuals who have never
supported the BNP.

All of us, as individuals and as an
organisation, are glad of this
opportunity to explain that any form of
racism is entirely incompatible with
creationism. The biblical doctrine that
the entire human race is descended from
Adam and Eve and made in the image of
God is the only robust basis on which
to affirm the unity, dignity and worth
of every member of the human family."

73. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298244 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 5:42 am

Has anyone noticed that every other hack at the Torygraph seems to be their religious affairs correspondent?

Or do they just make it all up as usual?

74. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298229 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 5:12 am

Ivan the not so bad says "I should add that with the arrival in the past couple years of a very agressive and high-profile Islamist faction in the UK there seems also to be a counter-running tendency in those who previously showed no religious committment whatsoever to show a reactive assertion of their "Christian" identity."

Alas, that includes the British National Party.

See Christain Council of Great Britain.

75. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298209 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 4:26 am

""Britain's most senior Catholic leader says that the "unfriendly climate for people of all faiths" has united the country's three major faiths, Christianity, Judaism and Islam."

Perhaps the good Cardinal might want to consider the rights and views of the 52 people killed in the London bombings in 2005.

Strange, isn't it, that the biggest single act of murder of innocent people in the UK was organised in the name of the Abrahamic religion.

And the Cardinal (and the Torygraph) think the country is going to the dogs because of a decline in religious faith.

Or should we just be friendly to the likes of the London bombers?

76. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298190 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 3:39 am

Ivan the not so bad - yep, and we have the stats to back this up. The only significant group that is growing in numbers in Christianity in Britain today are the evangelicals - that movement is the home of virtually all the fundamentalists and creationists. It's the home of the Biblical literalists. The bigots, if you like.

77. Forced to Marry

Comment #298185 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 3:30 am

Johno - strictly speaking the BBC is not (largely) regulated. That's why, alone amongst British broadcasters, it has a renewable Royal Charter. Translated out of legalise, that means it is trusted to do what it wants to.

What's happening in television is the same as what has already happened to radio. Conventional linear scheduled television will largely be exclusively dedicated to live programnming - sports, news and pap. The "quality" stuff - pre-recorded - is moving to Internet as its prime viewing platform. The BBC is probably the best positioned broadcaster in the world to exploit the Internet option.

The RD.Net web site itself is a specialised TV platform.

78. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298174 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

Greyman says "So as the country is becomes more diverse, pluralistic, and multicultural, it also becomes repressive and intollerant. Errrr… How does that work, exactly?"

Yes, I was wondering that as well given that the RCs practised a form of religious apartheid for its members - seperate schools so the children wouldn't be corrupted by "prods", etc.. Good grief, it even had seperate professional football clubs (still has in Scotland and NI).

79. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298173 by Roger Stanyard on December 7, 2008 at 2:57 am

Methinks the Cardinal doth protest to much.

A secular society is an absolute pre-requisite for freedom of religious belief and practice.

Indeed, there is a strong argument that the fail of Britian to sperate religion from public life (i.e. lack of seperation of church and state, particularly in education) is the primary reason why most people in Britain are indifferent towards religion and why belief in it continues to collapse.

The irony of this (if I am correct) is that those who are opposed to religion should be pushing to continue to lack of seperation of church and state and keep religious education and practices in schools. The contradiction is something that has puzzled me for a long time.

The other factor that the Cardinal does not appear to address (I haven't read the book so I am guessing at this) is that as religious belief declines, what is left is moving more and more into the hands of extremists such as ultra-Evangelicals (fundamentalists and creationists) in the Anglican church.

Seems to me that much of the more open criticism of religion in the last few years is largely the fault of religion itself - the rise of openly politicised fundamentalism in the USA (which many, rightly, fear) and the shere idiocy of creationism (unknown in Britian prior to 1970). It's a fear of American imports - or, more specifically, the fear of importing the nasty side of the US culture wars and extreme right wing politics.

For some 350 years the Anglican church has probably successfuly protected the English from religious extremism. That roll will be dead in 10-20 years time - by then it will be controlled by fundamentalists.

The other nasty import is Islamic fundamentalism. almost universally perceived as a threat.

It's any easy copt out to blame liberals on the growing lack of respect for religion. Wrong target, wrong reasoning.

Unfortunately for the Cardinal, there is a deeply entrenched meme in the UK about Catholicism - that it is illiberal and intolerenet. Been like that for several hundred years. Few instinctively trust the Catholic Church when it comes to political influence and power. The same is set to happen with the Anglican church.

80. The Axis of Evo

Comment #298078 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm

the great teapot says "So shrug what."

So what is it you are trying to say apart from banal point scoring?

81. The Axis of Evo

Comment #298075 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 4:38 pm

the great teapot - So? (shrug)

82. The Axis of Evo

Comment #298065 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 4:19 pm

the great teapot - you are wrong. British clergymen were at the forefront of both establishing the old age of the earth and accepting it.

It's any easy trick to blame ignorance on religion. Better get your facts right otherwise you will come a cropper in a real debate.

Mr DArcy "The contributions made by the various religious leaders into this acquistion of knowledge amount to bugger all. In fact they are the ones who scream and protest about "stem cell" research, contraception, evolution, immunisation etc.etc."

You sound like Dave Spart. Huge swaths of mainstream religion do not object to these at all. If you think otherwise you are as daft as a fundie.

Look, if you want to fight intellectual battles, get your facts right first. If you don't you just undermine yur own credibility.

83. The Axis of Evo

Comment #298051 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Stafford "Further, it's immaterial whether it's six, ten or twenty thousand, it simply doesn't fit the frame; of course, I agree their all out to lunch; but is that really something that atheists should waste time arguing about with them?"

Yes, because the fundies are a political movement trying to get the crapola into science education. Anything to show up the idiotic inconsistencies helps to undermine them.

The Discovery Institute is an open attempt to cover them up. Show it up for what it is.

You can take the view that this is an intellectual battle or a political battle. I take it as the latter because science has long won the intellectual battle.

It's up to you where you stand on creationism. If you ignore the creationists then you have lost the political battle.

84. The Axis of Evo

Comment #298049 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Vergil "Do really think so' Most "believers" I know probably couldn't even give a brief synopsis of the story."

It's pretty well documented. See the work by Lenny Flank, for example.

It may not be so explict now but I don't think that detracts from the issue.

As I have pointed out before, the KKK appears to have attracted 40,000 pastors as members.

The whole shooting match of the tinpot creationist universities such as BJU and Liberty has its origins in segregation. Even tothis day, the BJU is a byword in segregation and ignorance.

85. What's Old Is New: 12 Living Fossils

Comment #298025 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Steve's right. The report states that "Coelacanth vanished from the fossil record 410 million years ago — and then one was caught in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. A second species was discovered in Indonesian waters in 1999."

IIRC there are two howlers in that statement. Coelacanths "disappeared" from the fossil record in the cretaceous period.

Moreover, the two known species alive today are not only non-existant in the fossil record but are very different from those species that are found in it. The fossil species are generally small - about the size of a mackeral - and inhabited relatively shallow waters. The two species today occupy ecological niches at quite some depth and are about six feet long.

I have a distinct feeling (without checking) that the oldest fossil coelacanths are actually no more that 410 million years old. Correct me if I am wrong.

Of course all this won't stop the cretinist nutters from claiming that coelecanths prove the theory of evolution wrong - Woooter is, though, too stupid even to argue the standard cretinist claims on that. (Imagine the nutter actually in a debate with RD about the issue.)

86. The Axis of Evo

Comment #297967 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 10:09 am

Stafford - nah, the fundies can never agree on anything.

It's wishful thinking that the fundies believe the world is 10,000 years old. They are all over the place on that one.

87. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #297954 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 8:22 am

Red Foot Okie - I basically agree. It's why I have tried to develop realistic politics in handling creationism.

By broad framework is that religion should be kept as a private matter by individuals and within churches and there is no room for it, if we want freedom of religion (which most religious people do), outside of that sphere - and certainly not in politics or education.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that religion should be left at the school gate when it comes to education. It's the only way that children can be left to learn and respect each other's religious beliefs.

88. The Axis of Evo

Comment #297951 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 8:13 am

cryolophosaurus says "I think most young children are indeed inteligent enough to get some of the basic Ideas of evolution."

Yep, agreed but only if they are exposed to the idea.

In fact, I would go further in saying that most children grasp the idea long before they are formally taught it in school. My memory is probably faulty but I recall understanding the basics (and dismissing the Noah's Ark fable) when I was about 7 or 8 years old.

But at that time belief in creationism in the UK was utterly non-existant. The children's encyclopedias, Tv and radio, public libraries and so on all provided an introduction to the idea as a matter of course.

Evolution is not just central to biology. It permeates a wide varirty of subjects taught in schools. In my case, history (Malthus), economcis (Maltus), geography, chemistry and geology and no doubt subjects that are less frequently taught (archeology).

Seems to me in much of the USA, children were denied these opportunities systematically and deliberately. And still are. The fundies are damn god at that - home schooling, getting the text books censored, crapola universities such as Liberty and the BJU, using fear to intimidate young minds. A well organised and thorough scam perpertrated on kids.

Of course, the real reason behind biblical literalismin the USA is racism - the literalism justifies keeping the blacks down (story of Ham, etc..)

Not surprisingly, we find that the head of one of the four main creationist groups in the UK is listed as a member of the BNP. He's also an activist in one of the other three which is openly dedicated to targeting schools to teach creationism.

89. Hunting new Earths and the edge of the universe

Comment #297936 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

jesusmasterbated - Felix appears to be a rank crackpot. He's apparently an architect by training.

It gives me the distinct impression that nobody bothers with him.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

90. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297919 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 6:18 am

"I bet you'd believe that even if I admitted I was gay."

Shrug. Another facile comment.

91. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297915 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 6:15 am

bernstein - sounds to me like an attempt at a snide comment.

92. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297912 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 6:10 am

Bernstein claims "Unlike most of the people here, I'm not gay."

So what? I doubt whether most of the others here are gay.

93. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297907 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 6:08 am

Chewedbarber - yes and no. He has no credibility (he is a YECer). But, what I have said, time and time again, is that he was not the only person behind the BCSE Revealed blog and web site. My question (which I've asked him at least six times), is who else was involved and where did the funding come from.

Anderson has openly bragged that he gets "clearance" from his "elders" as to what he posts on his blogs.

We know that someone (and we probably know who it is) has been downloading page after page from our web site for months on end. That person, if we have identified him correctly, is one of the "top" creationists in the UK and a member of the same sect that is financing Anderson's missionary work in Kenya.

Moreover, that same person appears to have very good reason to shut us up at the moment given what came into the public domain last month.

94. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297903 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:57 am

Thanks root2squared and Steve.

I suspect that Anderson may be panicking about recent developments. It's clear that he is censoring postings to his current blog as several here have found out. He's long refused to answer any of my questions or allow me to post to his blog. I've asked him several very embaressing questions which question his integrity.

But I don't really think that this answers my question as to why he is blocking my access. I think the matter is much, much bigger than this.

95. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297897 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:42 am

root2squared - thanks. I'm not on a network at home. The PC connects directly to Internet.

It seems from what you are saying, though, that access can still be denied by identifying my IP address.

It's not important that I do have access. Anderson's current blog is just drivel.

For what it is worth, I am much, much more concerned abut why this has been done.

It is not a casual comment. It directly relates to what I have been doing for the last three years regarding creationism as well as some very important developments in the last few months regarding the BCSE web site.

From what everyone has said, there is nothing to stop me accessing from anyone else's PC. That's more than easily done. So why has Anderson bothered to do this?

96. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297894 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:29 am

root2squared - I'm accessing it from home on my normal computer. I've always been able to access the two sites until I tried this morning. I accessed one successfully a couple of days ago.

I've emailed BCSE committee members on the matter to discuss.

97. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297893 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:27 am

Thanks Corylus.

I have been monitoring what is on Anderson's blogs for the last 2 years or so and have been making comments in various places for a long time.

He's a hard line creationist and fundamentalist.

Several people in the RD.net forum have recently tried to post to his current blog, mothwo, and found their postings censored.

However, the real reason I have asked for help here is not that. For legal reasons I have to keep my mouth shut but it is directly related to something I posted earlier this week which no appears to have quite grasped the significance of.

98. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297891 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:21 am

Thanks root2squared. The lunatic behind them is Pastor David Anderson who I have had more than a few run ins with.

This is what I get when I try and access the pages:

Access Denied (policy_denied)

Your system policy has denied access to the requested URL.

For assistance, contact your network support team.

99. Richard Dawkins and Aubrey Manning

Comment #297888 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:18 am

Thanks Steve.

For some reason (which I have more that suspicion about) I've been denied access to them.

This is the message I get when I try and access:

Access Denied (policy_denied)

Your system policy has denied access to the requested URL.

For assistance, contact your network support team.

100. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297884 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:08 am

Could anyone (and everyone) in here quickly check and see what happens with they try and go to the two following URLs:

http://www.mothwo.blogspot.com

http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com

I don't know what's happening so I can't explain what I think might be going on but it is important.