Re: Kettle, you're a moron (Was: Physics and metaphysics)

From: Ed Earl Ross (edearl_at_satx.rr.com)
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:10:48 GMT

AntiSeptic wrote:
> Atheistagnostic (aka Skeptic, aka X, aka Rooster,
> aka Muddy Boggs, aka Boggs, aka Yoda, aka Todd
> Fields, aka *** Dragon, aka The Theenker, aka
> Dr. Sister, aka Tom Wetsuit, aka Hum), drooled:
>
> [snip
>
>
>>Very funny. That's your straw man claiming that, onto whom you would shift the
>>burden of proof; but that's not even a claim (a statement standing in need of
>>supporting evidence), moron, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the
>>burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, because shifting the burden of
>>proof, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_, is logical fallacy, moron.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> You calling somebody else a moron? That is
> really priceless, Septic, considering your
> history with your fellow posters here. That
> you're not considered a sparkling genius is
> evident from a few comments listed below:
>
> :Paul King: Up to now I've pretty much left the Twit
> :list alone but now I've found a candidate who is
> :eminently worthy for his invincible ignorance I am
> :forced to nominate "Skeptic" for retaining his bizarre
> :ideas concerning logic despite citing sources that
> :clearly contradict him and his demonstrated inability
> :to construct a valid logical argument...
>
> :Victor Danilchenko: Did you consider the possibility
> :that Skeptic is actually a theistic troll bent on
> :making atheists look like morons?
>
> :Maky: i have seen various opponents (and my self)
> :correct errors and mis-understandings through
> :discussions here, but not septic. that dude will
> :die dumb. believe me, after close to two years of
> :arguing with the ***, i am quite aware that he
> :is dumb to the core.
>
> :Mark Richardson: Do we think a charge of "invincible
> :ignorance" is now warranted for Skeptic? You are
> :completely insane.
> :---
> :Lawrence, my friend, you have probably by now began to
> :suspect that Muddy Boggs (aka Skeptic) is a fool and a
> :not very honest one at that. He is thoroughly discredited
> :in his home group of alt.atheism and I and many others -
> :some brighter and more eloquent than I - from that group
> :have spent many futile months trying to argue rationally
> :with him. We usually quit when we realize the futility of
> :this. He is most infamous for completely ignoring any
> :argument put to him and repeating a few stock phrases or
> :quotes ad nauseum. Just thought you should know - please
> :don't take his ideas (or tactics!) as typical of atheists
> :in general.
> :---
> :Sometimes I get the impression Muddy (Skeptic) simply
> :eats very large quantities of baked beans and then
> :transcribes the noises his bottom subsequently
> :emits into english words and then posts the results.
>
> :Niall McAuley: Therefore we can conclude that Skeptic
> :is the stupidest person alive. Skeptic has a variety
> :of the same illness which afflicts bleaters. He knows
> :his conclusion is true, so any argument which seems to
> :support his conclusion looks good to him, no matter
> :how full of holes the argument is.
>
> :Fish: In all sincerity, I am at this point deeply
> :ashamed that I in times past ever stuck up for the
> :mentally disturbed individual currently trolling as
> :Septic/Dragon. With that in mind, please allow me to
> :rectify this unfortunate past decision by formally and
> :publicly denouncing at this time the Usenet persona
> :known as Skeptic, *** Dragon (and any others that may
> :exist now or in the future). I refuse to be associated
> :in any way whatsoever with such a blatantly dishonest
> :and reprehensible *** as him.
>
> :Andrew L.: No. You're just congenitally incapable of
> :understanding that no one is saying any such thing.
> :Skeptic, you're a living example of the concept of
> :invincible ignorance.
> :---
> :The very fact that you believe that I'm arguing FOR the
> :possibility of gods says everything that needs to be said
> :about your amazing ability to read anything you want into
> :anything that anyone else says.
> :---
> :The POINT of my statement, not that there's any real
> :possibility of changing *your* understanding of it, was,
> :in fact, to illustrate the cultural double-standard that
> :we apply to the concept of gods, and NOT (!!) in any way
> :to validate that double standard. It does not, however,
> :surprise me that the deliberate irony of my statement would
> :elude you.
> :---
> :For the last <expletive deleted> time, I am a strong athiest.
> :My disbelief in deities is a positive one. I realize how
> :difficult it is for mere facts to penetrate that neurtrino-
> :grade shield you have around your mind but *please* try to
> :get at least that much through your head.
>
> :D.J. Nozem: This was for fun, Skeptic. Unless you
> :come up with some new arguments I'll take on a
> :different tactic. Reasoning the beliefs of fools
> :away can only be entertaining for so long...
> :--
> :You were talking to an incarnation of Skeptic. Skeptic
> :doesn't respond to content, he blindly fires automated
> :answers. There is no use in being offended by it, or in
> :responding to his posts in any other way, for that matter.
>
> :Evina: What are you talking about Skeptic? I responded
> :to a poster about the etymology of the word atheism,
> :because he used it to support his argument. Please
> :stop trying to read hidden meanings in my posts.
> :You are invariably wrong, and it's becoming annoying.
>
> :Jesse Nowells: Jeff left off half of the proposition
> :because he wants to turn claiming something is
> :possible into a presumption that something is real.
> :You assholes are burning up the bytes here spouting
> :off weak arguments & wasting everybody's time. Why
> :don't you take your troll asses & dangle, Skeptic?!
>
> :Rich Townsend: I have no problem with Huxley, dear
> :Septic. I totally agree that "his [the theist's]
> :proposition is not known to be true". However, I
> :disagree with your rabid assertion that this is
> :entirely equivalent to "his [the theist's]
> :proposition is known to be false". As Sniper has
> :pointed out many times, the latter assertion incurs
> :its own burden of proof, which both of us have
> :demanded you provide, to no avail. Your intransigence
> :would amaze me, had I not on my desk this top-secret
> :CIA detailing your historical penchant for moronic
> :argument and pathetic pettifogging. Go look up
> :"argument ad nauseam", and then go boil yer bum, you
> :silly little man.
>
> :Ted King: I've seen Skeptic make fun of the
> :educational accomplishments of a person who disagreed
> :with him who had earned a PhD in philosophy from UCLA
> :and who teaches philosophy. He regularly clips
> :carefully constructed responses to his points down to
> :single phrases or sentences and often interprets these
> :statements incorrectly because of lack of context. He
> :very often posts replies to points other people make
> :that are pat blurbs that he has said repeatedly and
> :which do not constitute an effort on his part to
> :actually understand the other person's argument and
> :which do not constitute an effort on his part to
> :actually understand the other person's argument and
> :craft a true response.
>
> :Kronk: Skeptic is truly quite fascinating. A mode
> :of thought governed by rules accepted on the basis
> :of their authority sources, selectively exempted
> :according to personal preference, and dogmatically
> :defended against all sense and reason.
>
> :Hugh Betcha: No, that's not what I mean, and it
> :especially pisses me off when you keep acting like
> :a *** and saying that it is. If that's what I meant,
> :I'd say it that way. Your wording implies that I
> :believe that a god exists, and that I'm insisting
> :that one does unless someone proves the negative.
> :I've said no such thing. You must be brain damaged.
> :I don't believe in any gods. I don't think it's
> :likely that any gods exist. Can I possibly be any
> :clearer, or do you need brain surgery before you'll
> :ever understand what I wrote? Well Skeptic?
>
> :Packman: Why don't you and Sniper just killfile
> :Skeptic like most people have done? You're not
> :going to talk any sense into him.
>
> :Gorgo: You sir, do not know what you are talking
> :about, the atheism web disagrees with you, basic
> :reasoning disagrees with you, and even Huxley
> :disagress with your assertion....now that I see that
> :your arguments are truly imbecilic and naive, and
> :that you fail to even recognize when you are plainly
> :wrong, then I am forced to agree with their
> :conclusions about you, Skeptic. <plonk>
>
> :Michelle Malkin: Since when has taking things out of
> :context and snipping all the actual meaning out of
> :things ever stopped Skeptic? This is why I killfiled
> :Skeptic long, long ago. Oh, yes, I also killfiled him
> :because his messages were BORING.
>
> :Raven: Next week's word is actually a phrase:
> :"Intellectually dishonest, invincibly ignorant clueless
> :troll". Which should be tattooed on Septic's forehead.
> :--
> :And you still have no idea what an argumentum ad hominem
> :entails. Nor have you *ever* had anything relevant to say
> :about anything, just a continual history of blatant dishonesty
> :and a completely phenomenal ability to misinterpret
> :practically any source you quote in support of your claims.
> :--
> :You're starting to remind me of "The Sage", from a few years
> :ago, who seemed to delight in wasting everyone's time by
> :making apparently deliberately erroneous claims about various
> :aspects of physics in his posts, then arguing ad nauseam when
> :people responded to correct them.
> :--
> :Here's a clue for you: if you find yourself changing nyms
> :every week or so to avoid killfiles, odds are there's a good
> :reason why people are killfiling you. Perhaps you don't
> :understand logic quite so well as you think you do...?
> :--
> :.....You consistently and dishonestly selectively snip your
> :opponents arguments to change their meaning entirely; you seem
> :incapable of correcting yourself even when it's pointed out in
> :painstaking detail exactly why you're wrong; you've changed
> :handles to avoid killfiles over 100 times by Goldhammer's count;
> :you accuse anyone who disagrees with your misunderstandings of
> :logic of being atheist; you constantly regurgitate the same
> :misunderstood quotes that neither mean what you think they mean
> :nor support your position...shall I go on?
>
> :Daneel: *** off, Septic. You are a disgrace to any
> :group you profess to be part of.
>
> :Stoney: Septic, go *** yourself, you lying sack
> :of ***.
> :--
> :Septic is like that. He constantly snips and/or ignores
> :posts/sections which shows him for the moron he is. Looks
> :like he's in terminal meltdown with the barage of aliases.
> :Most folks have shitcanned him for very good reasons.
>
> :The Plasmatron:I think he (Skeptic) is a total kook
> :suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance.
> :I could be wrong, but there's my theory open for comment.
> :---
> :What a pathetic and uninteresting fuckwad you are. When
> :is the last time you got laid anyway? I'll bet you can't
> :keep anyone awake long enough to have sex even if you got
> :someone drunk enough to be willing. Hells bells, I have
> :to wonder if you're even a human being, or if you're some
> :sick joke running on a computer.
> :---
> :*** off *** rag.
> :---
> :Go blow a goat. You're a paranoid dip*** and no one
> :wants to play with you.
> :---
> :Believe that if you like. Truth is you're just a boring
> :kook. Kind of a shame you can't even manage to be a fun
> :kook. Ah well.
> :---
> :His posts are *deadly* boring, expecially considering
> :the level of interesting *** we've come to expect from
> :other kooks. Some poor bugger could seriously lapse
> :into a coma or something checking up on this ***.
> :At the very least I want his posts tested on some lab
> :rats before any humans are invited to read 'em. Sure
> :it's cruelty to animals, but better them them us.
>
> :Alex Hunsley: Skeptic is actually one of the only
> :posters I've ever seen in alt.atheism who passes the
> :UnTuring Test - i.e. the postings appear to be computer
> :generated, but are probably written by a human. The
> :UnTuring test is one of the cornerstones of AS
> :(Artificial Stupidity), for which Skeptic is our best
> :model currently.
>
> :Richard Harlos: This is UseNet, Skeptic. No one has
> :the right to tell you that you *should* just shut up
> :and leave. However, I think that for all the time
> :you've been allegedly citing "principles of reasoning,"
> :somewhere along the way you've confused "actual logic"
> :with "your beliefs."
> :---
> :Despite the number of different approaches that many
> :people have attempted to take in order to show you the
> :otherwise glaringly obvious errors inherent in your views,
> :you stubbornly refuse to consider -- much less acknowledge
> :that anyone other than you may possibly have a legitimate
> :perspective on the matter.
> :---
> :That serves as a strong indictment that you're behaving
> :consistent with the implications of the description,
> :"invincibly ignorant."...
> :---
> :I don't respect your lack of reciprocation in dialog, nor
> :do I find any glimmer of hope that you're really trying
> :to understand. Instead, I find you to appear quite
> :deliberately ignorant of all that you do not wish to
> :believe, and otherwise detrimentally deficient both in the
> :understanding of logic and in the correct application of
> :those principles about which you seem minimally aware.
>
> :jwk (to Muddy/Skeptic): Was I talking to you mud hole?
> :I don't want to get into one of your drawn out, worthless,
> :quibbling arguments. Especially since you always seem to
> :apply different definitions to everything than the rest of
> :humanity. Just go away......plonk
>
> :Fred Stone: It's a terrible judgement on my lack of a life
> :when I spend any time at all replying to Muddy (Skeptic).
> :He's hardly even worth getting up a good flame.
> :---
> :I might get into boring dead end threads but at least
> :I can manage to come up with different topics. Muddy
> :(Skeptic) only knows one song. Drag every thread around
> :to his version of BoP. Duh. One string on his violin
> :and too deaf to care that he's out of tune.
> :---
> :You're a *fermenting* sack of weasel ***. You've been
> :lying out in the sun and the rain while the maggots crawl
> :and burrow in their nice warm sack of decaying excrement.
> :The sack glistens horribly as it sweats vile beads of
> :putrefying ooze. Every once in a while, the putrid gas at
> :the bottom of the sack bubbles up and you vomit forth more
> :vile stench to waft queasily over alt.atheism, Septic.
>
> :Andrew Bromage: Whoever says "it sucks to be you" to
> :Muddy (Skeptic) isn't looking at it from the right
> :perspective. Being that oblivious is probably quite fun.
>
> :Paul Murray: My bottom line is that I enjoy
> :picking up bad logic. I spent a lifetime being
> :a victim of christainity, so these days I try to
> :be more careful. Everyone needs a hobby or two....
> :I'm beginning to suspect that you (Boggs/Skeptic)
> :may be a xtian plant attempting to make scepticism
> :look bad by shoddy argumentation.
>
> :Abner Mintz: By the way, you may want to ignore any
> :posts from Muddy Boggs (Skeptic) - his main interest
> :is attacking people, and he's just sizing you up for
> :weaknesses rather than looking to discuss things with
> :you. If you get involved in an exchange with him, he
> :will just quote the same passages from logic texts at
> :you over and over in hopes of bludgeoning you into
> :submission. The texts rarely if ever support his attacks.
>
> :Terry Austin (To Boggs/Skeptic): Your claim, retard,
> :you support it. I'll happily assume you're just
> :another retard who can only masturbate while posting
> :to Usenet. Pathetic ***......Liar. As expected.
> :Have a biscuit. Suck some ***. Have mommy give you
> :another blowjob. You'll feel better. And it will keep
> :you off of Usenet for a while....You should have died
> :of stupidity at birth, and the universe fucked up....
> :Because that's not what was being discussed above, and
> :because that would be a mentally retarded view. That's
> :why you want me to say that - it would be easy to
> :refute. However, that's not what I said, and you are a
> :lying, masturbating piece of *** to imply that I did.
> :You are, in short, a liar.
>
> :Scot McDermid (To Skeptic/Boggs): All you did was
> :snip out the points in my last post. Just like you
> :do each time. "Argumentum ad snippage?" <plonk>.
>
> :Digital Man: Yes, if someone asserts that Muddy Boggs
> :has no intelligent brain cells, I would require that
> :person to provide some evidence. Put another way, if
> :someone asserts that " 'Muddy Boggs has intelligent brain
> :cells' is false," I would still need evidence. I wouldn't
> :assume that that proposition is true until proven false.
> :I would assume it was false until I read a few of your
> :posts. NOTE: That was not an Argumentum ad hominem. I am
> :just saying that for me, reading a few of your posts is
> :enough evidence to convince me that the proposition in
> :question is true. Had I never read any of your posts, I
> :would have to assume that the proposition in question
> :was false.
>
> :David Balfoort (to Boggs/Skeptic): What's this "your
> :side" nonsense. And why did you snip the rest of my post?
> :While you're explaining the meaning of things to everyone
> :else, go look up the word context. What, are you dense?
> :The whole post is pasted below for contextual purposes.
>
> :Brain Henderson (to Art/aka Skeptic): You're right,
> :there is nothing to debate. You've been proven completely
> :wrong, you're just too damned stupid to realize it.
>
> :Bob Harris (to Skeptic/Muddy): And the funniest one
> :of all...go back through my posts and tell me exactly what
> :case it was that you presume I made for god.
>
> :"God": Remain clueless oh Muddy boy, remain ignorant.....
> :Muddy, you should commit suicide. Life ain't worth living
> :as a confused person.
> :---
> :I don't expect you to understand this. I know you are
> :going to repeat that stupid paragraph of Huxley again,
> :Dummy Boggs. So go ahead, continue to remain ignorant.
>
> :KarenK: As you once again snipped the majority of my post
> :(including supporting documentation) and ignored all
> :straightforward and honest requests for information......
> :I can only conclude that you are indeed a troll and have
> :no interest in intellectual discussion. I've no time for
> :this sort of gaming. Play the games with someone else.
> :Ta ta, Muddy.
>
> :Scientia: Wow. You really are hard-headed. No matter how
> :much effort many of us put into moving the conversation
> :into some meaningful exchange, it always comes back dart
> :board game of alleged fallacies, and you the dart thrower.
> :--
> :Ultimately, you seem driven to have everyone agree with
> :you, while having no conversation of any substance at all.
> :Let's just all cut and paste fallacy allegations, and
> :forego any real attempts at conversation, Muddy (Boggs).
>
> :Earle Jones (speaking to one of Skeptic's many
> :recent incarnations): Hey Art, Art2, Arno, etc. It is
> :not an ad hominem attack to refer to you as a blithering
> :idiot *** troll, since you are indeed a blithering
> :idiot *** troll.
>
> :Steve Makohin: I have read a number of accusations that
> :TJ (Skeptic/Boggs) is an "idiot", or worse. I give
> :virtually everyone the benefit of the doubt. TJ has
> :squandered his opportunity. It appears from TJ's writing
> :that he is MUCH more interested in sharing his ill-informed
> :opinions with others rather than _learning_ something. And
> :_that_ is the classic Greek definition of the term "idiot"
> :(one who cannot learn from others).
> :--
> :He's a piece of work, for sure. I have a pet theory that
> :The Poster Formerly Known As Skeptic is put up to his
> :activity by a band of roving Theist Fundamentalists with
> :the sole purpose of demonstrating, through "guilt by
> :association," how inane atheists are.
>
> :JessHC (To Skeptic): No, you don't know. His argument, and
> :the argument of many atheists that you ignore because you
> :can't admit you're wrong, is that the true/false value of
> :"X exists" is indeterminable at present, and probably forever.
> :Until X has been proven to either exist or not exist, no
> :statement *either way* can be made about its existence.
> :Therefore, since it is impossible to demonstrate, there is no
> :certain way to claim that "any X does not exist." The
> :statement "gods might exist" merely concedes the fact that it
> :is impossible to prove no gods exist; it is not a claim that
> :gods exist, or a statement of belief in gods.
>
> :Torkel Franzen: There are those who claim that Skeptic
> :is an invisible pixie who cannot exist. There are those who
> :claim that he is an idiot. They are all wrong. He is a great
> :and awe-inspiring loon, a monument of the Internet. He
> :deserves being worshipped as a minor deity himself....He is
> :clearly a god, if ever there was one. He has supernatural
> :powers, of causing otherwise sane people to rant and rave
> :uncontrollably for months and years. Admittedly, this does
> :not amount to omnipotence by any means, so Skeptic qualifies
> :only as a minor deity.
>
> :Chris S.: What the hell are you talking about!? I'm an
> :atheist! I agree with your general philosophy (something
> :I'm starting to reconsider). I just happen to disagree
> :with your semantics.
>
> :Courageous (To Dixit/Skepticus/aka Skeptic): Another
> :element of your vapidly repeated mantra. "You theists", you
> :say. I am emphatically not one.
> :--
> :You are a vacuum headed dunderhead. Anyone with a half a neuron
> :in their head could figure out that I am not arguing in favor
> :of any such thing. I rank your talent for sarcasm up there with
> :your ability to read and comprehend philosophers like Russell.
> :Dim wit. No go away, and make sure to take your meds.
>
> :Christopher A. Lee: But septic pretends anybody who points out
> :the flaws in his "arguments" is arguing the theist position.
> :It's his troll-theme.
>
> :Pastor Njygaard (to Skeptic): Nonono, Skippy. It's you, you
> :see. You are the one with the great big honkin' problem here. It's
> :obvious that you need your genitals placed between a truck and a
> :hard place for your own good. Now try to act like a good boy and
> :stop being a pustulent sore on the labia of mother earth, or we
> :shall have to take steps.
>
> :Kelsey Bjarnason (Re: Skeptic/Muddy): I'm picturing
> :Bonehead's mother writing to him. I can imagine his
> :response being something such as this:
> :
> :Dear Son:
> :
> :Mother, "Dear" is a term of affection - of love. Now as
> :we're all told, repeatedly, God is love. Therefore your
> :statement "Dear Son" is an assertion that God exists.
> :Your theistic arguments that some invisible superfriend
> :may actually exist don't wash, as Russel proves.
>
> :Mekkala: Hello, Septic.
> :
> :*plonk*
>
>
>
>
You can add another.
The psychoanalyst program that comes with Emacs is more interesting
than Septic. For example, after I entered, "My brother killed me."
the psychoanalyst said, "Tell me more about your family." 

-- 
Humbly--Ed
Will Rogers
"We don't seem to be able to check crime, so why
not legalize it and then tax it out of business."
Quantcast