Re: *** Cheney: Flip Flop - Flip Flop - Flip Flop

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:49:57 -0500, Charles Beauchamp pontificated:

> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 04:10:08 -0500, Charles Beauchamp pontificated:
>>
>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:20:26 -0500, Charles Beauchamp pontificated:
>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:56:18 -0500, Charles Beauchamp pontificated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or are you one of those uneducated racists that knows nothing of
>>>>>>> IRaqi history and thinks that this culture...which has had
>>>>>>> basically a secular rule for centuries will somehow discard their
>>>>>>> Constitution in favor of a radical theocracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Iran says hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> mmm hmmm...please stick with the conversation if you are going to
>>>>> chime in..kay?
>>>>
>>>> I'm so glad that you didn't even try to come up with a real response
>>>> this time.
>>>
>>> Why should I come up with a response to something that did not
>>> actually address what you were presuming to reply to?
>>
>> Are you attempting to claim that Iran did not have secular leadership
>> for centuries, or that they did not discard said leadership in favor
>> of a radical theocracy?
>>
>> Or are you attempting to claim that immediately neighboring countries
>> with similar histories, religions and cultural trajectories are, in
>> reality, completely unrelated to each other in every way?
>
> I am attempting nothing. I said precisely what I meant. Your vast
> knowledge of Iraqi history is as impressive as...well the nothing that you
> typically say on anything else you chime in on.

In other words, you have no cogent response for what I said, so you're
attacking me personally. Argumentum ad hominem. QED.

>>>> I doubt that you know anything more about Iraqi history than you do
>>>> about evolutionary biology, so it's probably just as well.
>>>
>>> Well that just demonstrates your flipping ignorance..but at least
>>> you are consistent. I also do not recall my saying much of anything
>>> about evolutionary biology.
>>
>> If you're going to tell a bald-faced lie, try telling one that can't
>> be so easily exposed. Your pontifications on subjects you understand
>> not a whit are permanently preserved in the Dejagoogle archive.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/882mz
>
> Let me see now, I do not recall is disproven by a link? That is curious.
> In the last few weeks there has been one oddball conversation that had
> anything related to evolution involved and I said nothing about evolution
> and commented entirely on an angle that I had heard mentioned as to when it
> should be taught. You proceeded to demonstrate your normal bigotted close
> minded argument trying very hard to turn it into a conversation that I had
> no interest in. Pretty simple stuff. Bringing it up again just is a
> demonstration of your stubbonr mindedness but has nothing to do really with
> what I was talking about.

You're a liar, Charles, plain and simple. And a truly terrible one, at that.

All from the post I cited:

"Neither is Evolution [science] since you cannot test the past by definition
which gets right to the basic idea I am presenting"

"It takes extraordinary leaps of assumption to begin to accept anything
regarding macro evolution"

"There is no record ever at all anywhere of what should be literally the
trillions of transitional species for large scale macro evolution to work end
of debate."

"And Evolution is not science simply because of assertion by some atheists."

If that's what you mean by "I said nothing about evolution", then I'm the
King of the Multiverse.

>>> I do notice that your personal bias in a recent
>>> thread was so evident that you did not actually address at all what
>>> was being said to you. Bigot.
>>
>> As I recall, Charles, you ran away from that thread with your tail
>> between your legs.
>
> As I recall more correctly I suggested a view and you and another poster who
> is equally bigotted tried to make the argument something entirely different
> not actually addressing what was said. So...I blew it off. Pretty simple
> stuff really.

I'm sure that's what you'd like to believe, but you and I both know that you
ran away from the thread because you were in *way* over your head.

>> Obviously, if I hadn't been addressing "what was
>> being said to [me]", you would have said so at the time, rather than
>> now attempting to twist your unmitigated failure of intellect into
>> everyone else's fault but your own. Your problem, Charles, is not
>> that people don't deal with you fairly, but rather it is that you are
>> completely full of ***. And your craven, spiteful behavior after the
>> fact indicates that you know this just as well as everyone else
>> around here does.
>
> Really? Thank you for the insight you who has proven no sense of critical
> thinking. You who does nothing but quote what others feed to you.

Quotation of others is the fundamental basis of good scholarship. I am
unsurprised at your ignorance of this fact.

> You are
> no brighter a bulb then mianderson...but mianderson has an excuse at least
> being a kid. You lack insight or originality.

Sure, if you redefine "insight" and "originality" as "expressing views that
Charles agrees with". Too bad for you that isn't what those words mean.

Besides, I'd rather be right than either insightful or original.

> What you refer to as my
> problem seems limited only to those that agree with your personal bias.
> That is no reflection on me.

You go try and pull some of the *** you've tried with me on someone who
actually works in the life-origins field, and you'll be treated no
differently than I've treated you.

In fact, they'll probably treat you worse. And no, it's not because they're
biased, too, it actually *is* because you're full of ***.

> It is more evidence of your weak mindedness
> and cowardice. You serve no real purpose in this newsgroup. You are not
> very interesting and I am pretty sure that there really is not anyone who
> likes you.

Very mature. I'm sure you're a big hit in those playground insult-fights
you're always getting into.

I'd advise you to stop taking argument advice from your children. You'll be
calling me a "poopy-head", soon.

> Your only ability is that pointless computer ranking that does not really
> generate much conversation and very rudimentary flameskills. You are one
> step to the good side of Jeff Tindall on most things....except that Tindall
> is actually funny at least some of the time.
>
> As for speaking for eveyrone else around here...my inbox on a daily basis
> says you are of course wrong loser.

Prove it.

And if, like the last time I asked you point-blank to support your aimless
maunderings, the only response you can think of is "I don't have to", don't
bother responding at all.

>> So if forcing you to admit your own preternatural ignorance makes me a
>> "bigot", well, then I guess I'm a "bigot", and so is pretty much
>> everyone else on RSFC.
>
> Nope. Your almost pathological attacks on faith without actually engaging
> in honest consideration of the other view is bigotry.

Faith is, by definition, the complete lack of honest consideration of the
other view.

And for the record, the fact that I have rejected the "other view" in
question as an untenable superstition based ultimately on ancestral ignorance
and fear of the unknown is not evidence that I have not engaged it in honest
consideration. Given your near-total ignorance on the matter, it is highly
unlikely that you have done the same with evolution.

>> On the other hand, I no longer have any qualms about treating you
>> like the cowardly little liar that you so obviously are. Apparently,
>> that's what you prefer, anyway.
>
> Well if I were you would have a point.

We don't need you to admit to being a cowardly little liar for it to be
blindingly obvious that you are, in fact, a cowardly little liar. As with the
theory of evolution, the evidence speaks for itself, quite independently of
your personal involvement or mine.

> You are nothing more then a small
> minded weak willed little man. It must be lonely being...well you. Will
> anyone care when you leave this world? Those times that you stay away from
> the group...no one ever says...hey where is Seriff.

Is this seriously the only response you can come up with? *These* are your
big rhetorical guns?

Are you five years old? "It must be lonely being you" and "I'm pretty sure
nobody likes you" are the last resorts of the preternaturally defeated. That
childish bull*** is one step above Godwin's law.

I'm actually embarrassed for you, Charles.

> So...this little
> exercise felt pretty good. I do not like you Dan. I think you are a
> useless vile piece of ***.

As I have said many times before, what you think is irrelevant. Your personal
approval or disapproval of a given person or idea in no way affects the
nature of reality. QED.

> Were I to contact you in person I would likely
> be polite in the best just how my mama raised me...but you get to know...I
> would be faking it. You are simply put an unamusing ***. Your act is
> worthless. Your views are not challenging and you think you are a lot
> smarter then you project.

If I'm not a challenge to you, why do you start screaming bloody murder every
time I expose your ignorance for what it is? And I'm just a guy with a
healthy interest in science. I can't even imagine what kind of temper-tantrum
you'd throw if you tried to go up against an actual life-origins biologist.

You talk a big game, Chuck, but you always manage to trip over your own
shoelaces.

--
Daniel Seriff

Moral crusade: Public activity undertaken by middle-aged men who are cheating
on their wives or diddling little boys. Moral crusades are particularly
popular among those seeking power for their own personal pleasure,
politicians who can't think of anything useful to do with their mandates, and
religious professionals suffering from a personal inability to communicate
with their god.

--John Ralston Saul

.