This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Styrer-

Go to: Two articles on al-Qeda and Terrorism

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Styrer-

"And this is the same Iran that threatened Israel with annihilation"

LUIS: A fabrication, as I've mentioned earlier. Iran threatened no such thing.


Abdul seems to have some patience for educating you out of your bullshit. This comment of yours, though, takes you into the realm of the outright liar, where surely all patience must end.

Two seconds on Google results in this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

Shame on you.

Sean Tyrer

Sat, 01 May 2010 17:24:00 UTC | #464635

Go to: Two articles on al-Qeda and Terrorism

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Styrer-

I'm not sure who this Abdul-Al-Hardon guy is, but I very much welcome his clear thinking on this topic amid a sea of otherwise stinkingly putrid ignorance (Sciros magnificently excepted) on the topic heading this thread.

Though I suspect that he is a ladyboy in disguise, with a taste for donkey genitalia, I look forward to his future comments. Sorely needed here.

Sean Tyrer

Sat, 01 May 2010 04:37:00 UTC | #464464

Go to: Richard Dawkins' watchmaker still has the power to open our eyes

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Styrer-

My favourite book of Dawkins after 'The Selfish Gene' is this very same, and Radford pinpoints its brilliance as others have done before. It is one of the few books that I actually bring down from my bookshelf when in company.

That said, I must say I do not understand why this article is placed under 'latest news'. It's of course not latest news that this is a brilliant book - this is old news and hat together. It's a given.

I look to the 'Featured' part of this site to read endorsements of Dawkins' work, and to the 'Latest News' part for precisely that. There is a danger of making such worthwhile commentary seem unpleasantly self-regarding if not properly placed. If a third tier of 'Latest Dawkins News' were to be introduced, then perhaps this would be clearer for both compiler and reader alike.

Sean Tyrer

Sat, 01 May 2010 02:47:00 UTC | #464456

Go to: Sometimes, it really is hard to tell faith from a mental illness

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Styrer-

An almost perfect showing of piety from the behatted older males there (points deducted for that very short and perfunctory lapse in concentration to ensure the sick female did not interrupt proceedings unduly).

8 out of 10. Good effort, but less concentration on extraneous distractions required for a higher score.

Sean Tyrer

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:37:00 UTC | #463554

Go to: Diplomat disciplined over Pope memo is named

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 86 by Styrer-

Comment #484093 by Richard Dawkins on April 27, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Excellent stuff. I enjoyed that. Clever.

Now you've shared the contents of your missive, I do hope you'll keep us up to speed on the Master's reply, if you get one.

Let's hope it's in direct contradiction to the adjacent college's President Ivor's absolutely despicable and vile comment on the matter. Quite how Belloc would have composed a piece about that craven git is uncertain, given Hilaire's particular faith, though I trust many a Balliol man and woman are currently scribling down all manner of appropriate stanza suggestions for possible posting.

Best,
Sean Tyrer

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:49:00 UTC | #463510

Go to: James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 28 by Styrer-

Bonzai

I am rather more sensitive to Steve's account of this than to yours, may I say. He nails it absolutely in his first riposte to you, in his advancing the idea that 'not coming out' is itself a proclamation of concern, however silently expressed.

Thanks, Bonzai, for the link. It reinforces the idea that he's decided that he must get something off his chest, despite his refutation of any such idea. He presents no reason whatsoever for expressing through the media that he is gay, at his advanced age. But it clearly matters to him, despite the hopefully unfettered homosexual life he has enjoyed till now.

Why now does he feel the need to publicise his sexual proclivities? Why not continue to the end in silence, enjoying whatever male company he can? Why is he making such a fuss now?

If Randi has been enjoying the most fabulous of lives all these years, then why suddenly does he intrude upon OUR understanding of him by claiming that he is gay? What the hell are we supposed to do with this information? Ignore it in the way that Randi did not?

Randi has been unflinching during his career in confirming that truth is more valuable than lies. How can his confession-like statement of homosexuality at the age of 81, conducted in almost embarrassed and very quiet manner - as distinct from his easily conducting a million-dollar parade with fireworks and fun and games for all to celebrate his own identity/'coming out' - be anything but a betrayal of his own claims to openness and of those in the homosexual community who would have benefited from the kudos he'd have afforded them?

There is some shame to allot here: whether to James or to us all ourselves, or to a bit of both: I can't quite work it out.

Certainly James is not off the hook, not at all.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 05:26:00 UTC | #462034

Go to: James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Styrer-

Absolutely wonderful man. A hero through and through.

If the link I'm about to provide has any validity, then I am saddened beyond belief that this brilliant man whose forte has been the public evisceration of deceit in favour of truth at all costs should have felt so unable to apply the very same to his own identity, to himself, until this very late age:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/914-how-to-say-it.html

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:42:00 UTC | #462017

Go to: Mr. Deity and the Quitter

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 37 by Styrer-

31. Comment #479586 by Lucas on April 13, 2010 at 6:38 pm

Sean Tyrer - What is the point of you even commenting anymore? Seriously, you used to occasionally make points worth considering, but now all you do is decorate the comments section with your bile. Just convert entirely to a troll so we can ignore you.


If you think my heavy and unkind criticism of this piece and my personal admonishment of Dalton, with which all here are free to agree or disagree, are 'trolling', I ask you to explain quite how your own personal attack on me is not even more worthy of being termed so, especially as you have not made one single comment on this thread about the 'Mr Deity and the Quitter' piece whatsoever. Whereas my comment was about the topic offered by RD.net, yours was - trollingly - only about me.

I was tempted to dismiss your comment and not respond to it, but your type of censoriousness is becoming so ever more evident here that I thought I'd better put in a reply to you for the record, so to speak.

While I think that you are are a particularly loathsome epitome of 'trolling', I value your right to free expression more than you value mine.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:12:00 UTC | #460370

Go to: Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 361 by Styrer-

Hitchens is on the money as usual in his latest Slate piece, as is Dawkins in his various pieces over the last few weeks, in denouncing the vicar of christ on Earth. However they've decided to play this - with Dawkins claiming it was Hitch's idea and downplaying his own contribution, and the Hitch downplaying Dawkins' role, and his own, in his Slate piece - I am absolutely ecstatic about the two foremost atheistic voices unifying in such an unequivocal way. There will surely be bills to pay to the two fine solicitors prepared to take on this case.

I would welcome a mechanism, devised by RD.net or by Hitchens' own website presence, wherever that may be, to permit contributions to the fund. I'd offer confidently that other members would feel the same.

I'd call it vicarious redemption if it were not so absolutely sure to piss off Christopher. Vicarious participation might be closer to the mark.

Perhaps Richard would see to setting up such a fund-raising mechanism here.

I have not forgiven Richard for either his eradication from this site of words he'd spoken in making his remarks about Melanie Philips, nor have I forgiven him for his acceptance of Maher as an awardee in his Award's name. But I'm so glad to see the true Dawkins back again on this issue, fighting valiantly and apologising to no-one. My formerly-lost respect is on the verge of being re-found.

This is of no interest to anyone else, least of all to Dawkins, of course, but it means a huge amount to me.

If there is a fund which can be set up to serve in clarifying the illegality and the immorality of the Pope's actions, please provide it.

Recession notwithstanding.

Best,

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:57:00 UTC | #458724

Go to: We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Styrer-

Comment #479327 by Quine on April 13, 2010 at 3:06 am

it really does fall upon us, non-believers, to stand up and tell the world that religion has fooled us into granting status and authority to someone who is simply very successful at selling snake oil. The believers will not do it, even if in another religion, because they live in glass houses and know deep down that bringing up the subject demonstrates hypocrisy.


Extremely well said, Quine. Thank you.

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:40:00 UTC | #458721

Go to: Mr. Deity and the Quitter

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Styrer-

My contributional gene would be far better activated by the vision of Brian/Deity sitting in Hunts Point of New York than by seeing him sitting in a beautiful garden made up for him simply by ample sums of cash being thrown at the guy through his celebrity.

No money from me, you mountebank narcissist. You are, by the way, Dalton, only incidentally funny.

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:28:00 UTC | #458713

Go to: We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 19 by Styrer-

Hitchens is on the money as usual, as is Dawkins in his various pieces over the last few weeks, in denouncing the vicar of christ on Earth. However they've decided to play this - with Dawkins claiming it was Hitch's idea and downplaying his own contribution, and the Hitch downplaying Dawkins' role, and his own, in the above piece - I am absolutely ecstatic about the two foremost atheistic voices unifying in such an unequivocal way. There will surely be bills to pay to the two fine solicitors prepared to take on this case.

I would welcome a mechanism, devised by RD.net or by Hitchens' own website presence, wherever that may be, to permit contributions to the fund. I'd offer confidently that other members would feel the same.

I'd call it vicarious redemption if it were not so absolutely sure to piss off Christopher. Vicarious participation might be closer to the mark.

Best,

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:00:00 UTC | #458688

Go to: Toward Making the Blind See: Gene Therapy Restores Vision in Mice

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Styrer-

Comment #478292 by Otávio Magnani on April 10, 2010 at 3:11 am

With baited breath, I really must ask: the few more things, please?

You do a very gifted impression of someone who hasn't the faintest idea of what they are talking about. Quite like you so far, you cheeky little chap. Keep it up.

Sean Tyrer

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:02:00 UTC | #457690

Go to: Toward Making the Blind See: Gene Therapy Restores Vision in Mice

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Styrer-

This is wonderful news. Surely there can be no irrational argument put forward denouncing this real and tangible measure of benefit science has been able to achieve.

A relative of mine had one of his eyes shot out at the age of eight by a children's shooting arrow device and so this particular avenue of science would seem blocked to him, unfortunately.

One has heard, however, of the immense strides scientists have been able to make in embryonic stem cell research, which claims to be able to replicate the cells of any and every part of the human body. This line of research would seem to offer more hope of benefit to those whose ocular capacity is forever gone than to those who are suffering the pain and horror of retinitis pigmentosa. Unfortunately, there is for these people a great deal of irrational antipathy for such treatment, based mostly in the tenets of what is called a 'faith' of one sort or another, thereby bringing a virtual halt to such research in those countries where the most gifted would be most likely to shine a curative light on the problem.

My father is 65 now and I wonder if I will ever have the pleasure of looking into his eyes and knowing that he sees me, and the world around him, twice as vividly, because of the unfettered advances of science, than he ever has been able to do in the last 57 years.

Sean Tyrer

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:09:00 UTC | #457678

Go to: British Islamist Anjem Choudary: They Give US Money, But We Attack Their System

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Styrer-

42. Comment #476892 by Aiser on April 6, 2010 at 3:38 am

British people often "chuckle" away at "nutters ( using you're language here :) ) when some one like choudary appears on TV. They believe that Islam will play no role what so ever in the future of the U.K, but they are sadly mistaken. Given the horrible demographic trends, Brits having 0-1 child per family and Muslims having 4 kids per family will create a huge powder keg. Also add in the dhimmitude of the British people like for Ex how this women is wearing the head scarf as a sign of "respect". Brits are going to be in for a very rude awakening soon. Multiculturalism political correctness Leftist liberal policies Abortions of brits = The down fall of this once "Great" nation.


You pinpoint some very significant facts in the wilful Islamification of the UK, but you do so almost hysterically. You've got all the verbal power about you of a JihadWatch regular. Very little unfortunately, but with a point to make. Which of the mishmash of points you vomited above seems to you to be the most persuasive? You're so nearly there (and you haven't even met Nairb yet).

Islamification is not requiring further immigration (so be silent, racist high horse) but a perpetual capitulation by natives and government in place to say that 'it's multicultural and to argue against it is to be racist'. You have only to look at the texts that Muslims follow to know that you have some problems ahead.

Islamic doctrine falls into several categories but each propagates a notion of dissatisfaction with the world around it which cannot be quietened until the kuffar are converted to Islam or subjugated under its creed. Death otherwise follows.

The adoption of rather good English by these cunts is a touch concerning. It shows they've cared enough to learn and use our language but that they are still unconcerned about destroying the whole damn lot. The old idea of 'get your enemy to know your name, make him see you as a real person', so as to avoid a dehumanised execution, is now ever more the way to persuasively get yourself killed. Our identities have become x marks.

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 04:53:00 UTC | #456326

Go to: How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Styrer-

Comment #476895 by Chicxulub on April 6, 2010 at 3:50 am

35. Comment #476891 by Styrer

WTF?
You you're not interested then go to some place else. There's a lot of threads out there.


You inept little squit.

Bonzai is well-known round these parts for having a distaste for the philosophical. Perhaps I should have been less opaque in my comments, both denying the validity of philosophy and granting credence to Sam's use of 'value as fact' idea.

Clearly this place is attracting members as ignorantly moronic as its /moderator.

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:59:00 UTC | #456320

Go to: How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Styrer-

What the fuck?

Has RD.net suddenly granted its license to a take-over by 'philosophers.are.us' dot cunt?

Don't want to understand a word. Not interested. Take it to another sodding site. As for you, Bonzai...! Participating and granting credence to 'filosofy'!!

For shame.

Harris is good, but unless he's really condensing it against religion, surely there's no need for thick cunts like me to have to wade through his stuff? Already thought that values are facts, thanks very much. How else to get on? Mine have always at least behaved as facts - utterly non-negotiable.

Sean Tyrer

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:35:00 UTC | #456307

Go to: British Islamist Anjem Choudary: They Give US Money, But We Attack Their System

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 32 by Styrer-

Comment #476788 by MarkSmith on April 5, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Yes, that bothered me too, until I realised that it doesn't really matter what a broadcaster on that show does or doesn't wear - it's about what that crazed Islamist fucker says. And here we are, listening to it, and how thankful we should be because of it. For in the UK, it's often hidden behind internal mosque walls, sandwiched between multicultural Governmentally-erected partitions and external mural notions of taqqiya. Good to have it stated plainly.

There is surely no way that this man's denunciations - a British Muslim - of the hard-earned ideas of freedom, democracy and liberalism can not send out a shock-wave of fear to our ever-appeasing, capitulating, cowardly Governmental voices, is there?

Don't you believe it. Watch out - it won't take a week before he's simply dismissed as 'unrepresentative' by some gobshite governmental or pro-multiculturalism hack, attempting to explain away our mad-hatter Muslim crank by way of saying it's all OUR fault, and we'd damned well better take some fucking blame for it.

Poor, down-trodden, misunderstood Paradise Seekers. If only we'll ever get to grips with the disgusting waywardness of our free, democratic, liberal ways of life. Shame on us.

Sean Tyrer

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:56:00 UTC | #456250

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1046 by Styrer-

Comment #475844 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Martin

You've strung all readers of this thread along for days now, promising a new way of scientifically dealing with your ever-yet unevidenced proposal that there is an immaterial part of the physical brain.

You've reneged on that promise, and yet you seem to think that all your unpremised statements ought to be treated with respect. I think you should be grateful that any here have had even the slightest amount of time to respond to you after such a dismal showing.

I didn't wish to parade my personal life around just for the hell of it. I ventured to offer some details of it to contrast my loved ones' own wonderful attitudes to life and death with your own terrified, belittling and crippling notions of dealing with the end.

I don't see the slightest bit of integrity or honesty in you, Martin. Your religion - whatever it is, as you seem to delight in never being specific about it - has perversely made of you a small and bitter and unsympathetic man. There does not seem to be the slightest shred of decency or kindness in you.

Simply, though, you could still disentagle yourself from the entire mess which is Martin Woodhouse's status on these boards by doing the one thing you've promised to do and never have. Justify your claims of an immaterial mind and of how it interacts with the material.

Claw back some respect. It's not too late.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:07:00 UTC | #455287

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1036 by Styrer-

Comment #475783 by Ignorant Amos on April 2, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Thank you, sir.

To /Mike

I cannot believe that you have done what you have just done. You have moved all of Martin Woodhouse's posts to a different thread which is never the first to follow what goes on. You have disjointed an entire thread, which now makes NO sense to anyone following it from the beginning. Is it your intention to be a complete censorious cunt on all matters which SOME deem important but which you DO NOT deem to be so?

Why the fuck move Martin's posts? You really are a crass idiot if you think you've improved the site. You've simply made it more INCOMPREHENSIBLE and denied access to NEWCOMERS to quite how the theistic mind works.

Repeat: this thread is NOTHING without the theist making AN UTTER FOOL OF HIMSELF FOR ALL NEWCOMERS TO SEE.

/Mike, you've lost the fucking plot.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:20:00 UTC | #455235

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1033 by Styrer-

I am stunned by the level of support I've received from all you good old members. Truly stunned and moved. Thank you, all. Corylus, Val, Steve, Titania, Epeeist, Quine, you know who you are, and thank you. Sincerely, as Nonie was my confidante and adviser, and I really didn't think that mentioning her and my grandfather would have brought such tears from my eyes from heartless fundamentalist atheist materialists as you lot.

To /Mike

Don't you dare put paid to this thread. There is more to hear from the one man whose voice is different here. At least I want to hear it. Others can read and learn about the theistic mindset too, at least, and we'll never be accused of not listening and responding.

Shut it down and you'll be anti-Dawkins,anti-enlightenment, anti-knowledge.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:40:00 UTC | #455227

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1021 by Styrer-

Comment #475727 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 9:29 am

Dry, my love. Seems you lack finger finesse, as well as a point, evidence for said point, and - oh shucks - any notion of how to construct an argument.

Didn't realise that the provision of evidence was so sexually-orientated for you. Would the occasional 'ooh, sexy boy' incline you more towards providing your promised massive manifesto on how to demonstrate the immaterial (the material being so dogone easy to show and all).

And then - ooh sexy shudder - quite how the material and your non-shown immaterial get on down to some serious action? Ooh yeh.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:40:00 UTC | #455189

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1018 by Styrer-

1294. Comment #475722 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 9:18 am

I'm afraid you would be no match for the immaterial rubber dildo she'd take vicarious pleasure in shoving up your non-material arse.

No match for that fine lady could you ever be, you daft old fool.

Fortunately she was wise enough to know that she never would have to meet up with such utter idiots as you. Such is death, you see.

You've more work ahead of you to reach a 5 on my cunt scale. Pathetic 2/3 so far, old fart. Could really do better.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:28:00 UTC | #455186

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1015 by Styrer-

1290. Comment #475716 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 8:59 am

Sean


A decent old person will be the first to tell you that they do not deserve respect simply because they're old. If they say otherwise, fuck 'em.



Absokutely, I quite agree.

( I do think we've heard enough about your dear brave old gran Nonie and your grandad, though. )

};- >

M


'We've' heard enough?

If I've trespassed on the time or emotion unnecessarily of any member of these pages by mentioning the lives of my grandmother and grandfather, then I apologise.

By what right, though, do you, Woodhouse, declaim to all here that I have done so?

You really are a nasty piece of work.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:06:00 UTC | #455181

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1013 by Styrer-

1287. Comment #475712 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 8:14 am

That's it! That's it!
Keep 'em coming, Sean baby!

};- >


You're a screen scriptwriter, are you not, Martin?

Then this is specially for you.

'I look at you; I don't see an intelligent, confident man; I see a cocky, scared-shitless kid.'

And a nasty one at that.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:57:00 UTC | #455179

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1012 by Styrer-

1284. Comment #475703 by epeeist on April 2, 2010 at 7:25 am

Comment #475659 by Styrer-:
Pity due, because he's an old man?
Sean, speculating here and Bonzai is quite at liberty to telling me I am wrong.

I believe Bonzai is of Chinese ancestry. I wonder if he has just a touch of his culture's attitude towards the elderly?


Perhaps. Only he can say. I hope he knows there's a huge difference between taking care of old people and respecting their ideas simply because they are old. My grandad (married to my grandmother Nonie) died at the end of 2001, and he'd been fervent in telling me much earlier that age has no direct line to respect. Respect always had to be earned, according to him. He was raised Catholic, had suffered because of it and knew what true respect was worth. For him, it was never to be handed off willy-nilly on the basis of age. He taught me that. And he hated the fucking vicar of christ on earth and his demagogic control of a country he loved. His expletives and profanities in regard to what has come to light in Ireland over the last year might even have challenged my own.

A decent old person will be the first to tell you that they do not deserve respect simply because they're old. If they say otherwise, fuck 'em.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:30:00 UTC | #455177

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1008 by Styrer-

1281. Comment #475691 by hokusai on April 2, 2010 at 5:43 am

You'll never learn, will you?
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The True, True Face of Rational Atheism . . .

M


Do, Martin, read this back to yourself.

Read it to a friend.

Show it to a family member.

Do you expect them to rejoice in your formidable powers of persuasion, of disputation, of intellectual integrity?

Let's revisit:


You'll never learn, will you?
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The True, True Face of Rational Atheism . . .



You know, Woodhouse: when I started reading this thread, I thought you had the stuff about you to communicate something worthwhile. Truly. I was looking forward to something worthwhile.

You've shown, unfortunately, that you have neither the wit nor the wisdom to keep pace with members here, or to offer anything by way of evidence for your frankly mad-hatted assertions.

There really is no fool like an old fool. If ever you were something special, then you've lost it, and shown no fear in vomiting your incoherent cerebral detritus all over a thread I'd hoped was going to teach me more.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:16:00 UTC | #455164

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1006 by Styrer-

Comment #475667 by Bonzai on April 2, 2010 at 2:03 am

I was not talking about fear of death, but the desperation to get recognition through self aggrandizement.


Understood. But I think you are buying into the idea, at whatever level, that treating an old man to ridicule and scepticism is more unseemly than doing so with a younger one. This is nonsense, and I don't need Nonie to tell you. (!)

In Martin's case, the fact of death and the 'desperation to get recognition through self aggrandizement' seem inextricably linked. He simultaneously on these boards has sung his own praises and claimed with certainty that he will survive his body's disintegration. He's singing his swan song here, presumably because there are not more receptive audiences elsewhere, and so would prefer to go out arguing, fists clenched, railing against Richard Dawkins, a monumentally more successful, famous and intelligent man than Martin has ever been. Unable to engage directly with Dawkins, he takes a pop at the hugely capable members here, and has his arse handed to him on a platter with olives every single time, coming back without thanks and without substance every single time for another head-smack.

I quite like this kind of thing, and I'm glad Martin's entrance survived the condemnatory hand of that ignorantly censorious buffoon /Mike, but his years don't interest me in the slightest unless they add up to some wisdom.

He's shown none. He's a crass and nasty man, a crank, a self-seeking mountebank with neither integrity nor substance of any kind, despite repeated requests. No matter how old he is, fuck him.

Sean Tyrer

[Edit: Ignorant Amos - cheers. 'So far up his own bangle'- brilliant - must remember that one.]

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:44:00 UTC | #455145

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 1002 by Styrer-

1236. Comment #475474 by Bonzai on April 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm

epeeist

I don't know. I feel kind of mixed.

I am happy that someone has exposed his charade because the guy does come across as an asshole.

But there is an element in me that feels kind of sad, maybe because he does have a real profile so he is not just a disembodied voice like many of us here, and he is an old man(I am sorry if that sounds patronizing, Martin) A part of me kind of thinks, let him keep his delusion of grandeur intact if that is what sustains him. And let's not forget, he was incredibly cute as a baby. :)

That's why I didn't and won't join the piling on if he does come back,--but believe me my finger was itching. :)


Bonzai

Pity due, because he's an old man?

My grandmother, Nonie, died last month at the age of 85. She was an atheist. Her mind remained as sharp as it was at the age of 25, quite while the final ravages of cancer ate her up. Her final few words, spread over around half an hour, were 'I love you all. I've had a great life'.

She would have had a few things to say to young 77-year old Martin, the ingenu.

Age has nothing to do with it. If, though, you wish to press the age point, then I would turn it around - I find old age fear of death to be a nauseating betrayal of experience, in the same way that I would find nauseating a grown human being about to die creeping up, snivellingly complaining about his or her lot, to a child.

Martin never grew up and thinks he'll live for ever, and he'll throw his dummy out of his pram every time he's told that he too will, in every facet, be annihilated in the end like the rest of us.

Don't feel sorry for such a craven, self-serving, narcissistic, nasty piece of work as MW. You would never do so if you'd met my grandmother, I'm sure!

Sean Tyrer

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:07:00 UTC | #455128

Go to: God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Styrer-'s Avatar Jump to comment 934 by Styrer-

This has been one hell of an educational thread so far, and special thanks go to Steve, epeeist and Mark Jones for their diligent working away on this, with jaw-dropping amounts of erudition thrown in en route. The scope of my ignorance has never seemed greater, as the list of terms I must now look up and ponder has increased dramatically. Epeeist, you hold more than your fair share of responsibility for this situation...!

Sadly, it seems that MW is not as keen to decrease the scope of his own ignorance. It seems that the self-aggrandising solipsism characterising much of his posting is not exactly new, either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Woodhouse/Archive_1

There was a worrying moment a day or so ago when /Mike was about to shut down argumentation I thought was the raison d'etre of these front pages. Good news he reconsidered his censorious proposal. I hope this doesn't change.

For what it's worth.

Sean Tyrer

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:29:00 UTC | #454843