Comments by phil rimmer

Comment #199609 by phil rimmer on June 26, 2008 at 4:16 am

I rose to the bait because I have friends who have experienced this inequality.

There's nothing like evidence to throw a spanner in the works of a theory. Perhaps, its because I have seen women achieve all the respect and reward they deserve that I underestimate the remaining problem? Further, it occurs to me that we can better pressurize others to change if our own house is fully in order? But, but, priorities...

I must say however that the new Equalities Bill sounds pants. Meddling and counter-productive.

To quote Harman imagining how it might work in practice-

"We've got a new post coming up, we've got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team."

Choosing a woman in this circumstance does not require any new legislation! She is equally qualified. 'Nuff said.

We have good enough legislation. It just needs to be applied on a case by case basis.

252. God hates Mars

Comment #199598 by phil rimmer on June 26, 2008 at 3:56 am

Hef

I'm confident that you were dying to know that.

Uncanny!

253. God hates Mars

Comment #199584 by phil rimmer on June 26, 2008 at 3:15 am

Did somebody mention chocolate - http://www.greenandblacks.com/uk/productdetails.php?pageid=27&cid=6&pid=86

Oh, Lardy! Choccy Porn!
Oh, Lardy, Lardy, Lardy.......oh...oh.....ohhhhh

Sorry.

That reminds me. Does anyone remember Fry's Chocolate Cream?

The first chocolate bar ever, apparently.

Maybe this is one time we might have to thank a Christian (well Quaker) for making the world a nicer place.

Now where's Epeeist's website again?

254. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #199550 by phil rimmer on June 26, 2008 at 12:57 am

8teist

and still broke the crank in 3 places.

Could you fix it?

255. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199391 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 5:01 pm

decius

The risk of appearing callous.

256. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199385 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Podaar, decius,

I too had a soft spot for Richard and was concerned for his wellbeing. But..

On the bust-up thread was the last (of three) posts from a recovering schizophrenic who had struggled with her voices and come to manage her condition in a very positive and life affirming way. It is her I most think about, despite all the fuss and bother around needy Richard. She was the one with the real struggle and the real strength of character to rise above it through reason.

Lori her name was.

257. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199383 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Corylus

Good summary. Thanks.

What a roller-coaster of a thread it was. It brought out the best and the worst in us. With a few notable exceptions I think everyone was honest with their feelings despite the risks that entailed.

RM came across as such a needy person. Why he came to this site I'll never know. He never could get his head round the idea that a person professing niceness might not actually be nice and vice versa.

We can love Him, because He first loved us

As the Good Doctor would say, WTF??

258. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199344 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

decius

I just had to post this summary by Doc Beway of the Russian Cult Leader thread Richard Morgan picks out in Barry's link as the moment of his disgust with us heartless atheists. Its priceless and so, so accurate....

Comment #155772 by Dr Benway on April 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Hmm. Now that Richard Morgan and his sockpuppet, Diogenes2008 have deleted their posts, this thread has become difficult to follow. So to recap for the latecomers:

Chorus: OMG!!1! Man hits head wif log to kill self?!! WTF?
Richard Morgan: This site is sullied day after day by this sort of heartless reaction.
Chorus: We're not mean. We're just sayin'.
Richard Morgan: You would never see David Robertson laughing and jeering at an atheist's anguished distress and madness. Never.
Chorus: Well... log part was funny.
Diogenes2008: You people are appalling and your behavior is inadmissible. Shame!
Chorus: Ok, but log bit made us laff. Not all day, just a little.
Diogenes2008: I can't bear to read this thread further.
Chorus: ?
Diogenes2008: Earlier I said I'd rather hang with Robertson than you lot. That got no reaction. Did you not hear me?
Benway: Ha!
Richard Morgan: D'oh! *delete, delete, delete*

The moral of the story: Do not fuck with the human beings. Eventually they will suss you out.

259. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199319 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm

And most certainly mine!

260. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #199300 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm

HitbLade

FUCK YOU.

Would you like to aim that thing before you set it off next time?

261. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199296 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Huzzah!

262. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199294 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Brian

How do I become one of those high-faluting Gurus?

Apparently, by having people agree with you.....Hang on.... Dammit, you must be a Guru!

Oh, Wond'rous One. *fawns sickeningly*

No, hang on. *gets up off knees*

They agreed with you because you were right!......Faker!

263. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #199238 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #199189 by hungarianelephant
Comment #199203 by Podaar

The best way to influence your kids is by choosing their friends.

Kids learn from their peers not grown-ups. So, spot some nice intelligent, well-mannered, interesting kid in the school yard and sidle up to his folks and invite them round for dinner one evening. Kids'll do the rest...

264. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199167 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 9:03 am

Epeeist

I would take a little more notice if some women actually said that the battle was over

Well, I was very careful not to give the impression that the battle was won, hence the tipping point comment. What I was trying to evoke was that the nature of progress forward has now changed. It is much more about specific rather than generic problems, and that as the gap continues to close many other useful factors (apart from paycheque size) can be involved. It has moved on from being a BIG political issue.

I agree it will still be a while before a woman looks back and is surprised that equality was an issue.

265. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199151 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 8:44 am

Allan,

Make that 319 to 340. But whose counting?

I feel sure Tera will get to see major disagreements and bust-ups if she stays here for a while. It does seem rather a young persons mistake to think what you see at first glance is what there is. Fortunately, that's a problem that goes away.

Sent PM

266. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199140 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

Steve, (when you come back)

I have to weigh in with Al, Allan, TOCT etc. on this. I genuinely believe the back of the equality problem has been broken. The tipping point has occurred.

As I see it, the battles to be fought are individuals battles. Remaining fuddy duddy ideas will die with their fuddy duddy owners. Their kids are free and clear. (My kids and their friends have no expectation of glass ceilings or proscribed professions, which as prospective employers I see as healthy.)

Further, I believe by not hammering the thing into an absolutely prescribed hole, a better more, responsive solution results. (Is net pay the metric? Flexibility around a family? Career security? Training opportunities?) Given the right legislation and a rapidly shifting public attitude the market WILL get to value resources appropriately.

The BIGGEST problem we have in the world today is the huge mass of disenfranchised and oppressed women. Where is the Monstrous Regiment of Women that should be looming over those medieval male chauvinist bullies we all know to be the source of world misery?

267. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #199034 by phil rimmer on June 25, 2008 at 5:30 am

I'm not referring to god existing

And you think I am????!!!!!!

My whole piece was about people's beliefs and how it affects their behaviour in spurious and adverse ways.

I watched Atran's performance at Beyond Belief ages ago. It sent me scurrying to read more of his stuff. My conclusion. Atran is a poor scientist with a conclusion in his head that he seeks to match up with his scant data, whilst rejecting other valid data.

Regarding the use of his conclusions here, they are narrow and irrelevant. The mind of terrorists is a poor place to start in assessing the behaviour of the average religite.

Are you going to offer any relevant proof for your assertions that religious beliefs have no bearing on compassion or hatred?

Even IF it had no bearing, the point remains that hatred (say) justified by religious dogma is far, far more difficult to dislodge because religion demands (and gets) respect, and is allowed to go unchallenged. Even IF it had no bearing, religion "locks in" behaviours.

EDIT Are you suggesting that Muslims would show as little compassion for girls and women if they were atheist?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2770,Saudi-Marriage-Officiant--It-Is-Allowed-To-Marry-A-Girl-At-The-Age-Of-One

268. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198870 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm

but it seemed, well, a bit girly

Oh, Fuck!

269. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198848 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm

271. Comment #198832 by fizhburn
281. Comment #198845 by Frankus1122

Al cleared that one up to my satisfaction.

It is directed at every feminist who complains about the "glass ceiling" (of course competency of women can never be the issue, must be someone else's fault... another discussion) while women are bought and sold in the Gulf countries, while women are stoned and flogged in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while women are burnt alive in South Asia.

EDITED Couldn't find the quote quick enough.

270. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198837 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Tera

Just a little comment on insults.

Fucktard is fantasy swearing. A made up word, it just leaves a nasty smell and a little dent in someones pride.

Misogynistic is real. It pierces the skin and damages a reputation, if believed.

Feel free to use as many of the first as you deem necessary. Use the second only with the VERY best of evidence to back you up.

271. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198801 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Corylus

I had the pleasure of driving back with Ann Cryer from a concert recently. Her stories of the kinds of threatening pressure she was coming under at her office in her constituency were alarming. She's a brave and admirable women.

272. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198783 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

It is directed at every feminist who...

Better

(I really do hate PC. I know some great feminists...)

273. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198770 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Feminism is a lot more liberal sloganeering. It is something for college sophomores to make signs for and march around on campus. No real substance left.

Just for clarification, Al. This is in no way directed at the likes of Ann Cryer MP, right?

274. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198762 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Steve

Sorry. I was kicking a corpse, wasn't it?

We don't like to say it like that. Here we say Persistent Vegetative State.......

He looks so peaceful, doesn't he?

275. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198752 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Steve, leave it!

I know its sad, but there's no one there. Just that horrible neurological twitch. I guess they'll turn the machine off eventually.

276. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198726 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 11:59 am

I made a BIG mistake. I argued that we needed to confront Islam from a purely political angle. That this would "legitimize" the discussion and get it onto the airwaves and passed those too squeamish to condemn a whole religion.

I clearly should have said political and moral. This is monstrous in the EXTREME. The paedophilia is deeply sick, but the callous attitude to the feelings of other human beings (women) leaves me speechless.....

I do so not want to de-humanize these MEN. Thats what you do when you feel the urge to fight them, I'm told. I so do not want to de-humanize them...

But what if they do all the work for you?

(I do understand it may be a small minority of Muslim men. But you others.....be fucking outraged!)

EDIT Fanusi- don't say it OK?

277. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198633 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

God does not hold back individuals from loving

That's nice. God (Yahweh) has certainly been getting nicer and nicer over the last few centuries, at least, here in the UK he has. The Quakers discovered two hundred years ago that they had an "Inner Light" which could tell them what to do, without referring to the Gospels. (This was OK because it was God's Inner Light). Other dissident groups started finding the same thing, i.e. they just KNEW what God wanted because it was inside them somehow.

The niceness just grew and grew for some of the lucky ones, until we ended up in the UK with a God of Love and Niceness who pretty much trusts people to know what the right thing to do is ALL ON THEIR OWN!

But all is not nice in other places. In some places God doesn't trust people at all. In places in America he gets pretty cross with particular individuals and he makes sure EVERYONE WHO LISTENS knows all about how nasty they are and how they should be treated. Another God called ALLAH gets VERY CROSS at EVERYONE who won't be nice to him and that makes the people who do love him very cross as well....

Sorry, what did you say at the top?

Grow up!

Atran wouldn't know evidence if it bit him in the backside.

God licenses hatred in the heart of the religious. An atheists hatred must always stand on its own merit.

278. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198485 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 6:05 am

Brian,

Sorry 'bout the disappearing avatar. I get a little over-enthusiastic at times. Felt I had to rein it in a bit. (Last time it happened [over marmite abuse]Quetz had to call out the men in white coats.)

Boredom and forgetting to take the tablets are the real problem.

279. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198480 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2008 at 5:52 am

Jethro

God bless ... no, can't say that... Yes I can.

Of course you can. One kindly wish is as good as any other.

Shame about that post though..:-(

Come back soon.

280. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198326 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Frankus

In a free and open forum such as this anyone should be allowed to post whatever they feel is semi-reasonable.

Of course, you, Quetz and the others are entirely right. Having posted more than my fair share of un-reasonable posts (many of them this evening) it is only fair that I fall on my own troll button.

EDIT Not bloody connected.

281. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198315 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

SharonMcT

*presses thnx button*

Quetz.

Limit the max "troll" count per post.

Re first point...I haven't thought this through, have I? This is a free speech issue. Hmmm.

282. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198305 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Probably, ignoring them is the best solution.

I think a genuine threat of the loss of posting rights is exactly right for them. They need to be noticed. That is why they come.

They need to be given a three hundred strikes and your trolling days are over. Flag a score by their avatar.

This is all about good co-operative behaviour and being mutually constructive.

Or perhaps a timed ban in the naughty corner?

283. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198297 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

My irritation occasionaly stems from the fact that despite repeated markings as 'Troll' by a large number of the community, these posters keep appearing and are not relegated to an 'alternate commment thread'. Pointless, completely pointless.

As the buttons are quite clearly not connect up (cheapskate electricians!) I wonder if they might, at least, be re-labeled something a little more irritation-relieving?

*Hurt* though irritation-relieving is perhaps insufficiently moral for the likes of us.

*poke* could be good for general purpose relief.

*goose* could be reserved for the really irritating cretin.

*crumpet* (as in "taking a crumpet from behind without blubbing") for use in an emergency only (i.e. Wooter).

EDITED for enhanced gratuity

284. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198266 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Steve,

We need to interact with religion where it tries to influence policies

Exactly! But we don't seem to do politics well here. We don't do practical solutions.

Sometimes I get flashbacks from meetings of The Peoples Front of Judea.

"You're right, bruvver. We need to act! This is going to need a whole new proposition...."

We're fantastic debaters about the philosophical errors of theism. But sometimes it seems like just that... one big mass debate....

*cloak*

285. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198252 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Steve

On the other hand, some of the rebuttals have been a true pleasure to read.

Hell,yes! Lets not forget the pure entertainment these IDiots afford us.

Re: Your approach. I think a bit of strict discipline is exactly whats needed to get them to pay attention in class.

However, I think most of these people will always be remedial cases. I would be happy if we could merely teach them enough social skills in keeping themselves to themselves, to make all our lives a little more bearable.

For me, teaching them how to talk properly to strangers and not assume those others have imaginary friends advising them will suffice for me at present. I am now firmly of the opinion that most peoples beliefs are sustained through habitual behaviours. Break some of those habits and beliefs will start to evaporate quite naturally.

286. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198221 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:49 am

Looking back over the tx posts I get the impression not of one of the abused / exploited but of a would be exploiter.

He will return to those eager, upturned little faces with tales of derring-do in land of the Satan's spawn, God's Truth intact. This Black Knight will do harm to others, despite the fact that he is too stupid to notice his arms and legs have been chopped off.

287. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198211 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

But we encounter another problem, how do we get people to wake the hell up and pay attention to what is going on. I don't know how it is in England, do people ignore the problem?

Politics gets debated plenty in the UK. Religion is STILL too much of a PC no-go area for my liking. Re-framing the debate in purely political terms licenses it for high profile discussion on the news and news magazine programs.

288. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198206 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 11:24 am

Fanusi

Islam is first and foremost a political project, then a system of spirituality.

But we need to separate the fascistic from the merely fatuous, to establish the essentially political nature of our complaint.

Who gives a stuff about the niceties? As I said before, the truth of the matter will come out in the ensuing debates.

Moderate Muslins who (universally!) claim that their faith is a religion of peace and tolerance (and do nothing) can now be given a clear option to choose against the fascistic politics, whilst being shown that they are not targeted at all (unless....etc.etc.)

Al

I am not one of the squeamish liberals, soiled with moral relativism, so I am happy to help others.

And there's a ton of us. We need to engage as many as possible.

elephant

Excellent definitions of Islamism etc.

The Daily Mail- "The newspaper for people who are scared of the world, and are angry about it."

The Daily Express- "The newspaper for people who are scared of the world, but don't like to make a fuss."

Yep the first one's about right.

289. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198180 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 10:12 am

But I am afraid that the sophistry from Muslims will continue. There will be no intellectual victory anytime soon, meaning Muslims won't ever concede any point, ever.

This is not part of a philosophical debate (it brings no new information), it is a means of better galvanising political action by helping to remove the queasiness people might feel if they thought they were attacking a religion.

290. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198171 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 10:00 am

Al,

It doesn't matter that definitions out there already are ambiguous, so long as we define it clearly in the way that we wish. Hence-

Islamism is the promotion of those aspects of Islam which are political in nature.

Or some such.

By shearing off the political from the spiritual and re-branding it it becomes easier to fend off the stupid attacks, of racism or not respecting other people's mind-murk, or whatever.

(even though we're allowed to not respect mind-murk)

EDIT Lets take control of the language here. In an attack on Islamism, define it right up top, so people can see what you mean. We need this word. Simply being able to say Islam and political in the same breath gets the point across.

291. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198164 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 9:45 am

Ok, I didn't get anything of this

Of course you didn't!

292. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198152 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 9:31 am

Can we label Islamism as essentially political in intention? Yes, I know Islam itself is substantially political, but using this other term creates further distance.

The truth of this will come out in any debate, but perhaps we can use this term as a signifier of our absolute right to challenge any of their inappropriate actions. We are not the Thought Police. Beliefs are beyond our legitimate area of political action. That their actions flow naturally from their beliefs is their problem.

293. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198075 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 6:49 am

It isn't about hanging racists out to dry, it is about showing these societal vandals (Islamists) that all speech is protected.

I completely agree with regards to "our" political strategy. Hanging racists out to dry is purely a personal strategy for individuals who wish to distance themselves from distasteful others. And "hanging them out to dry" means calling them for what they are not stifling them.

Liberals like myself have a lot of squeamishness to overcome.

294. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198065 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 am

Steve,

I would be deeply uncomfortable about tolerating racism.

Nor should you have to. If you make a point of hanging every racist out to dry when you spot one, it becomes increasingly difficult to label you as a racist.

A good track record in these instances is the only defence needed.

EDIT Do you fear the bulk of your fellow travellers may be racist? Does joining battle under the banner of being anti-Islamist add the necessary distance from the racist jibe?

295. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197996 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

Steve

I think until we actually start ... creating new organisms for general use in the laboratory, then I think the distinction between directed and undirected is problematic.

Won't computer programmes serve the purpose here?

Re: artificial / natural. Does the conceptual distinction not deserve to stand on the merit of being useful? "Unnatural", as far as a quick scan has shown, has not been defined here. If artificial can be said to be part of a subset in the natural camp, (as opposed to unnatural) maybe we just need another word for all things natural that are yet non-artificial to sit along side it?

EDITED to try and turn it into sense...

296. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197965 by phil rimmer on June 23, 2008 at 2:28 am

Comment #197828 by Cartomancer

Thanks for the corrective. Is there any single reference you could cite that provides a more balanced view of the history of western thinking in the first millennium than the Freeman?

EDIT In fairness I think a better rendering of the case would be that not a total stifling of creative thinking had occurred but rather, perhaps, that its rate of occurrence had fallen below some critical threshold. Below this level the "benign contagion" of creativity survives only in little pockets, but cannot thrive.

297. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197790 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

The utter completeness of that stranglehold on knowledge from the time of Emperor Constantine through until Thomas Aquinas is detailed rather well I thought in-

"The Closing of the Western Mind- The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason"

By Charles Freeman.

EDIT "Utter completeness" is a bad choice here. See Cartomancer below.

298. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197753 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Jethro,

And the people who reason that the onward march of evolution would be served by certain groups' being removed from the gene pool are fine because because they follow the light of reason.

No one here I think. That behaviour would be unreasonable to the point of barking madness.

You argue as if reason will always lead to the same conclusion, that would be true only of totally valid reason on the basis of all relevant information.

It may lead to the same conclusion given the same starting information. That knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete and the logical processes it is put through, NEVER perfectly validated in the novel situation its used for, is irrelevant in deciding the best possible course of action. The most corroborated evidence coupled with the most successful logical processes is the most MORAL place to start in a decision-making process that will affect others.

Rationalism as well as religion has its lunatic fringe.This thread argue that religion will always tend to fall over into authoritarianism and extremism because that is its nature.

But the lunatic fringe in rationality self identify by being irrational. I believe the natural tendency for religious individuals is to become less dogmatic and more open minded as the varieties of evidence and experience mount up. Only those religious societies with politically active priests etc. will move towards stricter dogma. Sadly there is a lot of extremism, "seeking to impose on" differently-religious-others out there for essentially political reasons. We desperately need rational/moderately religious folk to declare STRONGLY against this irrationality and against the use of arguments from Faith as a tolerable basis for imposing upon others (in areas like education, homosexuality, national governance, etc.etc.)

I could argue that atheism will always fall over into callous inhumanity because that is the essential nature of natural selection.

But, happily, the very fact of Richard Dawkins and the many other deeply moral people like him prevent you, don't they?

PS Hi, by the way :-)

299. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197723 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Marshall1

As for all the comments imploring me to prove my God. I don't feel like I need to.

I am an atheist happy for you not to prove the existence of your God. But I really would like an answer to the three questions posed in 204 above. Thanks.

300. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197517 by phil rimmer on June 22, 2008 at 9:25 am

Very Many Happy Returns to Ian McEwan.

I have been a great fan of his since his earliest short story days. I was astonished by "On Chesil Beach." I know of no other writer of such calm, clear compassion.

He more than any knows the value of what we have built for ourselves.