201. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249446 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 6:16 am

Philip1978-

Satan told me that he's getting really pissed off with you blaming him for all your bad jokes. He wants you to stop.

202. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249441 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 6:08 am

Titania-

It seems, despite controlling post approval, DR did not control the decision to remove the site.

203. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249438 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 6:05 am

Coldfusionlazarus-

Leave your e-mail address as a comment on Laurie's blog. He can then note it and take the comment down.

204. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249420 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 5:37 am

Titania-

Here is the statement on the matter:

The Forum's hosting package expired on the 15th of September. Rather than renew it for another year in its current format, we decided to close it down to make way for a new and hopefully better discussion site in the near future

Quetz, the monkey just doesn't do it for me. I have to go to your blog (excellent BTW) to get my cute god fix.

205. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249412 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 5:27 am

Titania-

-Blushes- Thanks. I think you're the second or third person to mention that- I'm tempted to bring it back.

206. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249405 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 5:11 am

Vaal-

Much appreciated.

Apologies again to anyone annoyed by my self-promotion.

Laurie-

Read and commented- very good!

207. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249396 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 4:45 am

Apathy-

I'd also like to suggest narcissistic.

EDIT (with apologies to everyone for my act of self-promotion)

Here's the link in question Richard:

CLICK HERE

I look forward to your response.

208. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249394 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 4:40 am

So many words (including Vaal's apt suggestion), I'm going to settle for Troll.

Your blog's been a bit quiet lately Richard, nothing to say on there? Since FCOS is gone, I don't suppose you'd like to use the free time to respond to that post of mine you've completely ignored? Don't worry- I have a copy.

209. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #249389 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 4:34 am

Man, if I ever saw a wolf using an aircraft, I'd be sure to shoot them right down too. That's just scary.

210. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249387 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 4:29 am

Excerpt from PM I sent last Friday regarding the second link Richard Morgan has just put up:

The reason I didn't post this on RD.net is that it would attract RM's attention, and we don't want that. I wouldn't be surprised if he mentions it soon, however. He has a greater need for attention than I do.

211. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249352 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

Hungover-

Theistic evolution also makes a mockery of the idea of Original Sin- if there was never an Adam and Eve, just where did this sin come from that we are all supposedly damned for?

212. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249334 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 2:02 am

NJS-

Can someone tell me the exact date that Genesis stopped being literal truth and became allegorical?

What influenced that decision?

213. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249316 by Quetzalcoatl on September 18, 2008 at 1:21 am

It's almost as if Harun Yahya suspects, on some level, that "The Atlas Of Creation" is in reality nothing more than a piss-poor, shoddily-researched encyclopedia of crap fit only for recycling. Heaven forbid that anyone else should realise that.

214. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249162 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I'm really going to have to leave now- sleep beckons. Ongoing discussions here and elsewhere will be resumed at a later date.

Fare thee well.

215. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249160 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Brian-

Your eloquence verges upon the numinous. You know this to be true since I am not munificent in bestowing praise: but your words are nigh-transcendent.

thewhitepearl-

Excellent. You gain a brownie point.

216. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249152 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Apathy-

Yep, the guy's a dick.

217. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249148 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Brian English-

I use a lot of obscure words. Like mellifluous. And succubi- there's a word that doesn't get used enough.

Your statement is exemplary.

218. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249144 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Evening Brian-

Christian Voice are a bunch of pillocks.

219. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249141 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Heresy? For God's sake.

Apathy-

This idea has been circulating a lot recently. New Scientist discussed it a few months back.

220. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249136 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Night Sci.

221. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249132 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Sciros-

Thinking about it, I described the axe kick poorly- there isn't really an inside-outside element to it- it is pretty much as you described it, straight up straight down impact with heel or sole. I blame tiredness for my poor descriptive ability.

222. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249128 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Al-

I have quite a lean build, so as a result my opponent often outweighs me. When it comes to self-defence work I fight dirty; I have little choice but to!

223. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249127 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Sciros-

My instructor's a 5th degree black belt with the ITF. I think his instructor's 8th degree but I'm not sure. I wouldn't pay the discrepancies too much heed- I'm probably not describing them very well.

224. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249116 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Al-

My instructor emphasises two key points throughout the self-defence aspect of our training. If you can, run. Fuck losing face- you get away clean. If you have no choice but to fight, then put them down quick and don't hold back. If they have a weapon- well, they don't get up again.

225. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249114 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Sciros-

Taekwondo. That's how we do the axe kick.

The distinction between axe and vertical as we've been taught it is that the axe kick comes across the body slightly as it rises whereas the vertical tends to come in slightly from the outside to hit on the left side of the opponent's head if I'm kicking with my right.

226. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249105 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Al-

I never said I would use it in a street fight.

Some good options there. Other choices I've been taught:

Punch to throat.
Flat palm directly to face.
Stiffened fingers to eyes (only if I had to)
Side fist to the temple or neck pressure points with protruding knuckles.

All depends on the circumstances. I am a blue belt. Hopefully I'll advance to red tag before the year is out.

227. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249088 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Rachel Holmes-

This evening we were mainly practicing axe and vertical kicks, both of which end with the side of your foot smacking into the side of the other guy's head. I'm gymnasticey enough that I can do that fairly easily.

I am a fast runner- which helps if I accidentally hit my opponent in the groin and piss them off!

228. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249084 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Rachel Holmes-

I can start a cartwheel, but it always ends with me lying in a heap on the floor. Nowadays I just kick people instead. It's better exercise.

thewhitepearl-

Don't go to any trouble on our account.

229. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249068 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

thewhitepearl-

Foot-in-mouth Quetzy! I mastered the art of the double back flip in gymnastics class some 10 years ago.

Bwhahaha

230. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249056 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm

After I converted to the Big Bang theory

231. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249054 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm

thewhitepearl-

Anyone can make paper shurikens. This is hardly admissible in determining my ninja abilities.

232. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248904 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 6:13 am

Vaal-

No, he doesn't, unfortunately. :)

God fearing Atheist-

Thank you. I'll put my hand up here and admit that I provided that link purely in hope of attracting more readers and commenters to my blog.

http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/

:)

(Last time I link to it unrequested)

233. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248886 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 5:25 am

Scottishgeologist-

theology: a house built on sand...

234. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248873 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

Billy-

That's right!

Quetzalcoatl (God, author and accountant)

235. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248861 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 4:49 am

Vaal-

I wouldn't bother explaining it to him. I once directed him to a blog post I did explaining that atheist fundamentalism is a contradiction. His response: you're wrong- never explained why!

Quetzalcoatl (author of ........ and ........)

236. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248854 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 4:31 am

Billy-

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-assisted-suicide-931266.html

Fifth one down.

EDIT-

You make a good point: perhaps I should start signing my name and mentioning the books that I have written.

237. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248844 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 4:08 am

AllanW-

When everybody laughs, are you tempted to laugh in a "Haw-hee-haw-hee-haw" fashion?

238. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248826 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:20 am

Vaal-

That was my point, hence the use of the word "briefly".

239. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248823 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 3:11 am

Beeline-

The practical approach might simply be to briefly deal with a couple of them, then if the pupil persists, suggest discussing it after class.

240. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248803 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2008 at 2:01 am

MatthewL-

When it comes down to it, Reiss made a poorly-judged statement that brought a lot of embarrassment down on the Royal Society. That's why he was asked to leave.

241. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248655 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Right, I'm going to depart now. Don't be a stranger, Brian!

Night all.

242. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248653 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Brian English-

Maybe, but it doesn't sound like quite so much fun!

243. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248644 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Thanks very much. Thought I'd say hey before I depart for the night. Things going well with you?

244. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248642 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Evening Brian.

245. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248640 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm

biology teacher-

Welcome to the site. However, there is no such thing as "atheistic fundamentalism". You can't be fundamentalist about absence of belief.

Creationism is unsuitable for the science classroom, since it is not science. The only discussion needed, purely in my opinion, is to emphasise how it is not science, and should therefore not be taught in that class.

246. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248630 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Do you really think people are that stupid? These videos and this kind of nonsense have been around for years

247. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248629 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Donald-

I didn't see your earlier post; having read it now, it does make a lot of sense.

248. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248614 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Donald-

You have so many propaganda outlets to service

249. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248592 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 1:58 pm

A statement on the total deletion of all FCOS posts might also be of interest- at least to me.

250. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248590 by Quetzalcoatl on September 16, 2008 at 1:54 pm

David A Robertson-

Do you really think people are that stupid? These videos and this kind of nonsense have been around for years. You decide to upload this just now because you want to have some influence on the US election. It has nothing to do with showing 'deranged lunacy' of religious people in general. It has everything to do with trying to imply that Palin is a deranged lunatic. You do not know that these people are 'otherwise normal and decent'. You are allowing your presuppositions and your irrational hatred of religion to cloud your judgement. Why do you need to reduce yourself to this level of ad hominem?