Comments by Styrer-

151. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204400 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Lastly, it takes two to tango and that would also apply to cultures at the brink of violent confrontation as I feel the situation is heading now. It is up to some of us to ameliorate heightened tensions to ensure that we dont' lose focus of what makes US different from THEM.

Hold on there a sec, Vin.

Two to tango? Are you implying that somehow we in the UK and in the US have done something to deserve and to require our participation in the deadly Muslim jig?

I cannot accept this.

I trust you are not a Chris Hedges supporter - utterly confused self-loathing westerner that he is - but are you even nudging slightly towards the despicable notion of 'blame the fucking victim' here?

I trust not.

Best,
Styrer

152. Does the Pope wear Prada?

Comment #204399 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Cunt.

No article required to confirm.

'twas always thus, and always thus t'will be.

Next.

Best,
Styrer

153. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204387 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Comment #204386 by clearmind on July 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

154. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204384 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #204367 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm

In part for the reason you give, no doubt. However, let's not forget that he said this (it seems - the article is a little unclear) in a speech at a Muslim centre in east London. Why he was giving a speech in a Muslim centre is a relevant question, but without seeing his diary, we have no way of knowing the significance of this.

Your position seemed to have been that he was quite right to say what he has. That you now - in the face of my rebuttal of your stance - should rather delimit your assertion to a 'well, he did say it to Muslims' seems an extraordinary climb-down from your initial position.

In fact, I think you have not answered my question of you whatsoever, in so far as it is true to what you have earlier said.

Absolutely not. Muslims are - and should be - subject to the same laws as everyone else.

And here you have totally lost me. Was it not your goodself who iterated: 'Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?', offering the obvious message that Muslims can claim a right to their own juridical and mediative measures, quite separate from those measures afforded to the rest of the UK's population? That, in some way, this was desirable or at least acceptable?

Sorry. I do not follow your argument.

Best,
Styrer

155. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204327 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Comment #204323 by lastgreekstanding on July 4, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I recall your contemptible presence now.

You're the fucker who said Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fraud.

Are you not that self-same cunt?

You'll understand when I take all of your current utterances in the same vein, and consider you an utterly ignorant fuck.

You may also wish to re-visit your method of commenting on posts. The above is an absolute disgrace. Do you think one-word epithets above blocks of comment, for which you provide neither rebuttal, insight, nor agreement, make of you any more than a twattingly intellectually vacuous irrelevance to the discussions involved?

Trusting you'll agree with me that you have shown yourself the cunt you've always secretly known you are. I refer you, if doubt remains, to your hilarious comments about Al-rawandi's magnificent corpus of knowledge, which you deride and simultaneously, I suspect, viciously envy.

Shithead.

Styrer

P.S. Don't forget to shove those perverse comments about 'fish' right up your fucking arse to reside stinkingly there till your next blasting fart takes the form of text on these boards. Agreed? Nice.

156. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204318 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Comment #204314 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Answer appreciated - thanks.

But wrong thread, mate.

Let's take it back to the 'Muslim puppy' one, lest we be castigated for trespassing on everyone's patience here. See you there.

Best,
Styrer

157. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204312 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Comment #204300 by eno on July 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Agreed.

I think that, as soon as the pernicious notion of a 'multicultural' society tried, by its proponents, to steal thunder from the wholly desirable idea of a 'cosmopolitan' society, then there were not enough wise voices to shout 'no, fuck the hell off'.

To such fuckwits as Phillips and Williams are we hence horribly reduced.

Best,
Styrer

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204304 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #204293 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Oh balls

When I wrote it i thought I had added enough exclamation marks to ensure I wasn't trying to chew Txpipers head off, looking back at it, I went over the top and I feel somewhat stupid.

Though it is precisely your nice, easy-going nature that is occasionally the groundswell of contrast for the more vehemently-languaged here to tear apart a fucking know-nothing theist laying out his/her bare table of wares, I suspect you wish sometimes to throw your tea-leaves to the wind and join in with us 'foulmouthed rednecks' and join the fuck in!

As one of the nicest blokes around here, do - even if only occasionally - and worry not what the fuck the hell anyone might think of you. Do not apologise. Don't feel stupid. Just remember that these fuckers - and we can certainly group them - just KNOW that you are going to burn for ever in the absence of the tea and deity of their choosing.

Diacanu will show you, sir, the way...and Irate... and the Reverend... and maybe... me (in small fashion...)

But never apologise for being horrid to a fucking theist!

:)

Best,
Styrer

159. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204299 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Comment #204296 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 4:15 pm

No problem - thanks for the interesting link, in any case.

I posed a question for you and Fanusi on the 'Muslim puppy' thread, in case you miss it. Fanusi's answered, and I look forward to your own answer, if you would.

Thanks,

Styrer

160. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204290 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Comment #204278 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

What Lord Phillips said was not a message of our weakness. It was a statement of what has been true for donkeys': you can settle disputes however you like, as long as you operate within the law of the land.

Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?

Rachel Holmes

If your contention is that there are many ways in which specific communities might wish to settle their disputes - as you at least envisage in your above question - then why did Phillips raise only one such group to the level of a public announcement as to its rights to mediate according to its own determinations?

Why did he not - at a stroke and at the same time - do so for all possible manners of - as you put it - 'settling disputes however you like'?

To follow your argument - why did he do this only for Muslims?

I strongly suspect that this fuckwit has only spoken up about Sharia for Muslims - and not the Beth Din for Jews as you introduced earlier - to APPEASE those very fuckers from whom he expects the most fervent demands - that they be afforded 'respect' for their religious rights - to simply grow in number and volume.

His statement is precisely - in glorious technicolour - 'a message of our weakness'.

Let me turn around your own words quoted above.

'Do you think that Muslims should be excluded from the very process by which the UK settles disputes as it sees fit?'

Best,
Styrer

161. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204267 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Comment #204256 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Do you really want a situation where people are only allowed to settle disputes by instructing qualified solicitors/going to court? Boon for the legal profession; bit of a bugger for everyone else.

Yes, if the alternative to UK forms of redress is Sharia, in any shape or form.

And I fucking hate lawyers. The fuckers have cost me an arm and a leg over the years.

But I hate (this is not too strong a word) Sharia - and Islam - even more.

Best,
Styrer

162. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204245 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Comment #204231 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Thanks for the answer. Looking forward to Vin's too.

A toi aussi, Fanusi. I suspect we will need as much 'bonne chance' as 'consciousness raising' to get through this one. At least in the latter you are doing, with others here, a first-class and educative job. I thank you for sharing it all, and am sure I am not alone in doing so.

Best,
Styrer

163. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204233 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #204230 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

You unerringly put your finger on one of the most important reasons why this type of gobshite 'announcement' is despicable in its import.

But the most important one which you omit is, I submit, that any movement of propitiation towards Muslims - even the merest nod - fails utterly to address the problem at the heart of all this - Islam itself - which will not be perceived as being properly 'respected' until its adherents have been able to enforce the whole damn lot of its inhuman tenets on all of its victims: Muslim, apostate and infidel alike.

Best,
Styrer

164. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204227 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Have I misunderstood something here?

The Lord Chief Justice, whose position as highest legal authority for England and Wales burdens him with upholding and championing the hard-won laws of these lands, with ensuring that mediation be conducted under the aegis of these very laws, is now saying 'well, there may be a better way. For some people. You know, for Muslims'?

What a fucking disgrace.

Quite how this man can be endorsing even the slightest part of this morally bankrupt, female-fearing, female-hating, human-demeaning cult's practices and holding them up for OFFICIAL inclusion in the UK's legal system is utterly beyond me.

For how much fucking longer must we really be forced to go along with this multi-cultural, appeasing and destructive bullshit at the hands of head-in-the-clouds theorists like Phillips and Williams? Theorists who know fuck all about the disgusting realities of issues they are determined to spout about, in arrogant ignorance of the horrendous implications of their words?

It's been long enough. No more.

Best,
Styrer

165. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204209 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #204185 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 10:21 am

Fanusi

Thanks for the link.

Satloff's hugely critical analysis of the book - assisted by the astonishingly dim-witted admissions of Mogahed herself - is very convincing. His bio reads well and he seems pretty distinguished, but I would hate to grant him approbation and discover later he's an utter crank! Is he as sound as he seems?

Reading the discussions between you and Vin, I am inclined to think the Hitch got it right when he said that all talk of the 'fringe' meeting the 'centre' was unnecessary and that it is far better simply to read those self-same foundational texts - the Koran and the Hadith - themselves to clue ourselves up on what Muslims are really thinking.

And that makes for a fucking terrifying conclusion.

Vin

Fanusi holds huge fears about the influence of Islam on both Muslims and on the rest of us alike. You seem not to share these fears, though you seem as read up on this issue as anyone, including Al and Fanusi. Could you explain why you do not see Islam as much of a threat as these guys, if this is indeed the case?

Thanks.

Best,
Styrer

166. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203609 by Styrer- on July 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Of course this article is absolutely spot on, to a degree that it seemed to me as if it was simply 'stating the bleeding obvious'. My reaction only reinforces, of course, the powerful message of crisis Hari is making and that needs to be taken on board.

Recalling my own 'science lessons' at my bog-standard comprehensive school some 20 odd years ago is not exactly pleasant. My lack of native scientific talent aside, there was never any attempt to bring the disparately taught parts - physics, chemistry, biology - together as features of a whole, to explain these disciplines as simply constituent parts of an integral, exciting, all-encompassing enterprise. A couple of lessons at the start, in the middle and in summary at the end of the year, explaining how they all fit together, might have added a much needed spark of interest.

Above all, what shocks me now - coming to Richard's books late, in only the last few years - is remembering that my biology classes were more a test of my equally non-existent artistic skills, as we all sat there, at the arguably intellectually receptive age of 12-14, colouring in our most atrocious renderings of a stamen, or a stick-insect. And not one single mention of Darwin, of evolution, of natural selection whatsoever, which would surely have raised the whole subject to heady new heights of fascination and importance.

The crowning glory was that I didn't even get to dissect a frog, which was commonly anticipated as the most exciting lesson, for which I was bloody well off sick.

Best,
Styrer

167. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202595 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Comment #202582 by BillySands on July 1, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I suspect he is way beyond any help, BillySands. If he is sincere in saying that he has read most of Richard's books, and yet he can still post his unbelievably ignorant rubbish, then he has surely chosen to remain uneducated and deluded. Has any member here ever noted him changing his mind about anything since he arrived here?

It's the kids, as usual, who'll suffer. How utterly contemptible.

Best,
Styrer

168. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202574 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Clearmind is a school teacher? What a truly horrifying thought.

Surely this fellow is simply toying with us? The alternative does not bear contemplating...

Best,
Styrer

169. Fire the starting gun! The Darwin year begins...NOW!

Comment #202544 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I suspect Richard is going to have an enormous grin on his face all year!

This should be an excellent time to reinforce Richard's 'consciousness raising', hopefully hugely educational for us all - particularly the still uninitiated - and I hope a good deal of fun at times too.

Good times!

Best,
Styrer

170. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #202457 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Comment #202439 by D'Arcy on July 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Well said.

It is a constant mystery to me how scientists - and eminent ones, on occasion - can truly believe in a supernatural realm. I understand Richard's compartmentalisation idea, but you really would think that scientists - whose day job is utterly dependent on evidence!- would know better.

Utterly baffling.

Best,
Styrer

171. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202256 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 6:37 am

Comment #202182 by Vinelectric on July 1, 2008 at 2:22 am

I objected, Vin, to what I thought was an attack on Fanusi made via an expressive post to ME.

I have never even fucking talked to you before, so what the hell were YOU trying to do?

You've totally lost me, and, given your last rant against me, without explanation, I won't wait up for some courtesy from you which will clearly never arrive.

Styrer

[Edit: Vin - PM for you.]

172. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202246 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 6:06 am

ForestMist

Thanks for that - but I think I've worked it out now.

The fucker has nothing to say of import, of interest, of originality or of entertainment value, and so he selects, in all his vacuity, someone whose opinions he probably dislikes, but whom he is unable to take to task in traditional e-manner, and goes for a piggy-squeal of 'ooh, bad language!'

Had 'bad' (ooh, don't like that!) language been his real target on this thread, I rather think poor Diacanu, in all his wondrous expression, would be feeling a tad left out by now.

I think a 'time of death' is in order, but I don't want to be presumptuous in calling it in the absence of its creator. I'll settle, therefore, for a small epitaph in the fuckwit's memory, straight from his own mouth:

I did say I wasn't very good at articulating arguments!

A fitting tribute.

Best,
Styrer

173. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202224 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #202215 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 1, 2008 at 3:59 am

Thank you for your kind words. Spoken like a true teacher.

It's probably a mind-set thing. Arts V sciences, and all. Plus, I was utterly shit at science at school.

But I will take you up on your offer! (Regretting making it yet?)

:)

Best,
Styrer

174. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202219 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #202210 by interested observer on July 1, 2008 at 3:41 am

Wow, near hysterical indignation! I'm getting better and better! Ok, a point; I agree with Styrer's goals. Another related point; I don't agree with his method. I hope that was both some form of a point and terse enough. Oops, I forgot, keep on topic; religious people are deluded.
And congrats on only slipping in one profanity in your comment there Cletus. Now trot off back to your thesaurus. Hysterical indignation, I like it.

Listen to me, you ignorant little fucker.

It may surprise you to know that, unless you are a fucking theist, you are not my enemy here.

By those same lights, I should not be yours.

If you continue in your uneducated, vacuous and puerile ad hominem attacks against me, then I will be forced to 'troll' your sorry ass.

You have contributed to this site - in your 4 debut posts - absolutely nothing by way of substance relating to the topics you surely - after 2 years of surveillance - know are the mainstay here. You have reserved for yourself the seemingly masturbatory task, grin in due place, of calling me out at each and every fucking chance.

Buck yourself up, pal, if you wish your stay here to be more worthy than the ignominious pile of unpleasant, personal and vicious shite you've made it so far.

If you do not so wish - simply fuck off and continue your wanking elsewhere.

Got it, ace?

Styrer

175. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202198 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #202194 by Philip1978 on July 1, 2008 at 2:56 am

Wonderfully expressed, Philip. Thank you.

I can barely begin to glimpse the sheer intelligence and understanding flowing between the gurus Steve and Oystein.

But it is an absolute pleasure to even be around it, for any shards of comprehension that may fly my way.

I wish all theists on this planet could share the same desire to know, no matter how much stupidity they may share with a cynical old atheist like me.

But they already do know it all. N'est-ce pas? What a fucking waste of a brain.

Thanks again, Philip. You made me ponder. Have an Earl Grey on me.

Best,
Styrer

176. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202187 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #202178 by interested observer on July 1, 2008 at 2:20 am

I do seem to have upset you awfully, and for that I am really, truly grateful.

I wonder if you would take just a few words - just a few, mind - to explain why you use so very many words to say so very little?

What an extraordinarily verbose chap you are.

If you do venture a - hopefully terse - reply, do you think you might include - oh, let me see - a point? Other than yet another expression of your sheer upset and near hysterical indignation at the naughty shenanigans of big, bad old Styrer?

Bonne chance, monsieur. Don't fuck up your big chance, now, ok?

Best,
Styrer

177. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202166 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #202157 by Quetzalcoatl on July 1, 2008 at 1:22 am

This is why I find religious claims that humanity is the centre of the cosmos to be so pathetic.

Oh, this is surely absolutely the nail in the coffin for that little theistic chestnut. Would that theists could share the wonder of it without rounding it all back to themselves.

I'm feeling pretty small at the moment, thanks to Steve's and Oystein's mind-boggling propositions, and I'm delighting in it. The fact that all those I know and love, including shithead old me, have actually come about at all in this astonishing place is surely worth more than an infinite number of theistic miracles.

Fucking amazing.

Best,
Styrer

178. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202150 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 12:53 am

Comment #202148 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 am

And, damn it, Scottie is going to be none too pleased...captain.

But aren't those galaxies rushing away at speeds in excess of the speed of light travelling through that very space which should restrict their speed?

Best,
Styrer

179. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202149 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 12:39 am

Comment #202104 by Vinelectric on June 30, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Vinelectric

You will do me an enormous service, sir, if you will quit making any points you wish to make VIA one of my posts, seemingly tangential as they may be to you, to or about another member here.

Take it to the fucker in direct question.

Thereafter, I advise you, sir, to have the fucking COURTESY to address me directly if you do not wish me to think you a completely ignorant cunt.

Agreed?

Styrer

180. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202143 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 12:15 am

Comment #202141 by Steve Zara on July 1, 2008 at 12:07 am

Indeed. And it isn't now. There are galaxies rushing away from us faster than light (the speed of separation of a galaxy from us increases with distance over large scales).

All that copy, pasting and blockquoting just for me to say: Wow.

Might as well say it again, with a twist: Fucking WOW.

How long has this been known and can I sue my 1980's school teachers for mis-informing me on the light thing?

:)

Best (and thanks),
Styrer

181. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202140 by Styrer- on July 1, 2008 at 12:04 am

And one of my reasons for supporting that program, instead of the neoconservative one, is that, in order to sort out Muslim states militarily, that is what would be necessary.

Fanusi - in terms of program, what is 'the neoconservative one' you mention here?

Sorry if you've explained before and I've missed it.

Styrer

182. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202133 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Comment #202129 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Ah, the old 'the universe itself was at maximal speed, not the stuff in it' idea.

So light has not always been the fastest thing in the world, so to speak?

So what was, if not? [Edit: to try to look less ignorant.]

Best,
Styrer

183. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202127 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Comment #202122 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I'm puzzled by the idea that inflation occurs at faster than light speed.

And was not I having a little chat with my dad earlier about this very phenomenon, with both of us wondering how on earth the very fastest of things - light - could reach so far in those early decimal points of a second after the big bang?

Yup, I was. Not a clue, unless matter travelled FASTER than light at some point my teachers at school omitted to share with us all.

Best,
Styrer

184. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202118 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Comment #202116 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 10:58 pm

If Brian English's translation should prove to be even slightly correct ('Speckpenis?'), then you are now formally absolved of any further responsibility to pass the 'I hate that fucking cunt Robertson 'cos he knows I'm gonna burn in hell' test.

With that, I offer to you my thanks for playing, and wish you well in continuing your disputations with others here who are not so "fjompenisse" and "rasshÃ¸l" as I.

Best,
Styrer

185. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202114 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Comment #202083 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Styrer, Styrer, Styrer... (shakes head in exasperation)

O.K. - the guy's a fucktard.

Well, quite. But we already knew that, and I wondered if Oystein had his own view?

As a former theist, with an Alpha plus mind, he may be able to shed some light on the twat's thinking, but be reluctant to so quickly turn on one of his former own.

I thought he might provide us with material enough to shut the fucker up for good in one, fell and glorious swoop.

I guess it's back to cheque books and fucking vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.

O woe is me. And you, Laurie, for spoiling the fucking fun. :)

Best,
Styrer

186. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202105 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Comment #202082 by interested observer on June 30, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Now put up your hands those here who believe they cut and paste the bile written by individuals like our mate Styrer and say "behold, here are the atheists, read their arguments and see what horrible, foul mouthed, inarticulate people they all are".

A good start for them is a foul mouthed activist sounding atheist who loves to argue. Poorly, but with great colour.

A Yobbo isâ€¦ well read Styrer's submissions again and that's a yobbo. So, for Brian English; sorry mate! (Styrerâ€¦.learned? Interesting interpretation of his writings)

Now I'm going to take my self-righteous attitude and try to get over myself whilst watching my kids at their swimming lesson (decided to leave propitiatory alone).

As I quite properly ventured down amnesia lane to see which of my arguments might have so enraged our new member here, two ignoble thoughts struck me.

I dismissed the first notion of 'sock-puppetry', as RM and DR - my only propositions - would actually be more convincing than even this gobshite.

The second - well, I smelled a hit and run. Or a hit and swim. I began to wonder if - in gobshite's ready taking of me to task for linguistic impropriety - he would ever find the capacity to post a comment on the topics offered here, or would not simply, er, swim by.

A most theistic departure, in other words, after a quick-fire drive-by.

I trust and hope, though, that he will simply towel himself down and return here, to make that first, deliciously substantive comment on the topics raised here that has so far, sadly, eluded the poor sap.

In anticipation,

Styrer

187. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #202093 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Believe it or not, I really did not realise just how fantastically almost non-propitiatory, non-appeasing and non-ingratiating PZ was about the whole NOMA idea until I heard his huge struggles to make his position take on some sense in this interview.

For what I heard was a man committed - by his lukewarm support of NCSE's Eugenie Scott, by his reaction to NAS's wishy-washy bollocks of 'have your science and eat god too', and by his endorsement of his own free-speaking site - to both saying you have to compromise in public, and at the same time saying that in private (on Pharyngula) he can say what the fuck he really thinks, and never compromise. What a fucking struggle indeed.

It is surely his blog that grants the true reflection of his thoughts, while the rest he offers in public is necessarily a dishonest approach to the relationship between science and religion. He seems to be all too aware of it, while castigating that very phenomenon himself in others.

'Shrill, militant and atheistic' are the adjectives he chooses to depict himself here; but I think he needs to go one step further - and he seems, from this interview, to be pulling back from it - to stating categorically that NOMA is a shit idea, that it is prolonging contact, chez theists, with a scientific evaluation of their beliefs, and that it is thereby prolonging the war reason must wage against superstitious supernaturalism the world over.

On the basis of this interview, he's close to saying it. I wish he would just get it out in the fucking open. He is, far more than most atheists, on precisely the right track here.

But he needs to draw a non-appeasing line, once and for all, between his blog - where he says what he really means - and his more public, currently self-confessed intellectually dishonest profferings. By so doing, that line can disappear for good.

Best,
Styrer

188. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202079 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Comment #202013 by ~manic-depressive on June 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Could only detect one well-handled metaphor, actually. Nicely done, sir.

Perhaps, instead of our erudite member Fanusi's proposal of carpet-bombing the motherfuckers, we should carpet-cartoon them with stuff like this.

If even one hate-filled Muslim can read this and raise even a small internal titter, then we can know that education - even if militarily controlled to deal with the young - can hold rather larger persuasive power than bombing the shite out of the lost fuckers.

Just a thought.

Best,
Styrer

189. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202073 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Comment #202069 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I agree. It's a real pleasure to have even the chance of understanding a word Oystein says. No such chance taken by me so far.

Stupid fucking Modern Languages degree. (Gnashing of teeth.)

I wonder if Oystein would permit me to look at myself with any sort of dignity again in the mirror - by telling me, as I asked before - what he thinks of that cunt Robertson?

Ahh. Feels better. Now that's my level.

:)

Best,
Styrer

190. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202060 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Comment #202055 by interested observer on June 30, 2008 at 6:23 pm

This is my first post and ironically its off topic. I've been coming to this web site for a couple of years now and am a great fan of Richard Dawkins (along with the rest of the 'four horsemen') The carrying on and language of Styrer here is the sort of thing that can bring a world of hurt to our cause. It's the sort of thing that religious people hold up as an example of what 'all those horrible, deluded atheists' are really like. I'm sure Styrer believes his down to earth, redneck, foul mouthed approach is the way to go but I don't believe that's the case. Someone earlier used the word 'polarise' and that's exactly what that sort of over the top language will do. It will polarise those people who already think we are some kinds of demon possessed abominations. It will also turn against us those who are either fence sitting or generally indifferent to the whole religion thing. I'm fully aware that I can't articulate the atheist argument with anything like the eloquence of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, etc. I also clearly see this Styrer character can't do so either. The difference between him and I is I know my limitations.

Can't wait for the new book.

Interested observer - you are too kind, sir.

I shall continue to try to rise to the occasion.

Two years of visiting? And only joined today? Of all of the wonderful compliments you could have made of your first comment to members here more erudite, more unlikely to be held up by theists as an example of 'all those horrible, deluded atheists'', and less 'profane' than me, you select little old ME as the object of your first post?

Get over yourself, lad.

When the last theist on the fucking planet apologises to me for 'knowing' - either pityingly or rejoicingly - that I am going to burn for the rest of fucking eternity in hell-fire; when that self-same theist apologises to my new-born nephew, once he is old enough to understand, for having wrongly believed him to be coated in original sin, and to be as hell-bound as me; when that final APOLOGY comes my way for his or her disgusting, dehumanising and despicable fucking-up of the one good thing we all had going for us - REASON - then I shall tame my lexis.

Until then, you too, sir, can fuck the hell off with your self-righteous, propitiatory bullshit.

Styrer

191. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202056 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Comment #202053 by Christopher Davis on June 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Sounds like - in the light of your profile - you are feeling (rightly) pretty fucking unappreciated out there for all the efforts you're making.

Beyond 'build[ing] roads where we want them to go, whether the locals like it or not', what do you think should be done?

Whatever suggestions you may have, is it easy to get them heard by your powers-that-be? And acted on?

Best,
Styrer

192. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #202043 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Comment #202030 by Cartomancer on June 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Carto should really should give some thought to copyrighting some of his stuff (after due correction of Sybilline to Sibylline, perhaps).

Too fucking good not to make a buck or two.

If this one was as swift in the composition as it is hearty in the laughter, we could have a new Peter Cook on our hands here.

An absolute hoot of a rebuttal.

Best,
Styrer

193. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202027 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #201914 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 30, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Usually I find myself in agreement with your necessarily forthright condemnation of Islam, but your above comment seems to go against your excellent '7 point plan' outlined on the McEwan thread, wherein you explicitly dismissed the 'military warfare' you are now defending and proposing here.

Genuinely thought out and properly re-considered, or simply a (thoroughly understandable) outraged reaction to this thread's topic?

Best,
Styrer

194. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #202017 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #201983 by decius on June 30, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Hear, hear.

Relaxed, confident, professional and probing enough to elicit some fascinating insights from Richard. Both your and Richard's enthusiasm and erudition make for genuinely infectious viewing.

Very well done indeed and thank you!

Best,
Styrer

195. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #201919 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Maulavi Muhammad Asif, a senior cleric, stated, "This decision is for disrespecting the holy Qu'ran and the government should enforce the decision before it [comes] under more pressure from foreigners."

If the sentencing to death of this freethinking young man is not bad enough, how contemptible also it is to read the above. The dribbling, slavering, inhumanly ugly desperation the words convey only re-inforces the 'death wish' yearning of the despicable cult of Islam and its hate-filled adherents. 'Kill him! Now! Quickly! Before we're told by foreigners to stop!'

Cowardly cunts.

Styrer

196. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #201906 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am

Steve

Yes, I remember something about Richard and the former Bishop of Oxford Harries doing some work together to fight the introduction into schools of creationism, which is not exactly the same thing as 'promoting science teaching in the UK'. Perhaps I am unaware of some other work they did together, though. I can begin to see the short-term benefit of getting together with the seemingly extremely liberal Harries to give creationism a good kicking (though long-term, I still fear that the ultimate crushing of supernatural thinking is not being properly carried out by doing so), but I think Richard may have his work cut out to find similar common ground with the new and apparently more evangelical Bishop Pritchard.

If we're still talking about collaboration between atheists and theists in promoting the understanding of science, I really do not see who the winners could possibly be. Surely one or other view - and I do see them as fundamentally irreconcilable views, as you must know from my banging on! - is necessarily going to lose out, if you grant even a little nod towards my contention that the wider war between reason and superstitious supernaturalism is weakened every time the notion of NOMA is given time (however well-intentioned the reasons behind it).

Best,
Styrer

197. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199548 by Styrer- on June 26, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #199539 by acarrionwasp on June 26, 2008 at 12:00 am

Now please do not post such uncouth trash EVER on this site. It is disrespectful and immature.

I hereby uncouthly, disrespectfully and immaturely ask you if you received a certificate of approval along with the notification that your appointment to High Chief Moderator of this site went through. Do take care of it, if so.

Congratulations, in any case. It's a thankless task. Particularly in this case.

By the by - any thoughts on the dynamics of the interview? Do you agree with my assessment? Disagree? What did you think of the interviewer? Incisive? Self-serving? Generously expansive?

Trusting you're not so gravely ill that you can't piece together at least one thought more worthy than the self-righteous shit you've already failed to dress up as interesting comment.

Best of luck, fuckwit.

Styrer

198. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199536 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Comment #199532 by ghost9 on June 25, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Ok, Ghost.

What do you think of the interview?

I note you omit your opinion on it while you venture to criticize some unspecified members for not staying on topic and for straying off into other areas.

Care to drag yourself back long enough from your off-topic criticism to talk about the topic at hand?

Looking forward to your re-focused thoughts.

Styrer

199. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199528 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Comment #199525 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm

So, my ridiculous little respondent, you are holding still to the idea that Richard Dawkins - who holds that the whole god question is a scientific proposition - should consider some notion of 'co-authorship' with the theist Ken Miller?

So we are back to where we started?

Ok. Let me spell it out for you. Ken Miller, with his theistic hat on, looks at Dawkins and KNOWS - not suspects, not wishes, not regrets, not relishes the fact but KNOWS - that his colleague is going, by dint of his lack of belief in his chosen deity, to spend the REST OF TIME in burning, torturous, unending, fire-laden hell, in the absence of that very same deity Miller will, with a huge grin, we suppose, be snuggled up to.

And you want Dawkins, with this knowledge of Miller's shitheaded thoughts about his so-called friend and colleague, to accept some form of 'working partnership' between the two of them?

Well, maybe Richard can work like that. Maybe your suggestion is, in fact, eminently sensible.

But I recoil, I denounce and I vomit over such a disgusting proposition as that. That you are unable to see that the disgusting tenets of religion are not to be given even the first time of day - not the slightest fucking nod towards acceptance in any form whatsoever - makes me question your knowledge, experience and thinking.

Check out the archives here and grant yourself a free education.

I hope you will reconsider.

If not, I suggest you PM Richard direct and tell him of your wonderful suggestion. Who knows? I could be totally fucking wrong.

Styrer

200. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199524 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #199522 by b0ltzm0n on June 25, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #199520 by Styrer

Because I'm not like you. I'd rather have a chance at convincing people rather than polarizing them.

But please, let's not fight here. We're on the same side, but just have differing opinions on how the fight should be waged. I'm of the opinion it will take all kinds, as there are all kinds of "faithful". Cheers!

Quit with your cheerful 'Cheers!' and we may begin to make a start. Smart arse.

I think you and I will continue to disagree, and I am now at the point where I am utterly divorced from trying to find supporters of my ideas. Never was good at or interested in politics.

But this one is a biggie. I tire of little piss-ants like yourself simply licking the sticker.

Perhaps I am wrong about you.

I'll step back and watch.

Styrer