#27,358 at amazon.com and it's even available on this blog.....ha

Thanks for the PI work on the source of the poll info and how it went from being on a discredited partisan website to a "reputable" (only in Olby's brain) "news" website.

NICE TO SEE THIS BUSY BLOG GETTING SO MUCH TRAFFIC..

It's pretty obvious, even to the brain dead, that this site is funded by FOX NOISE.....

Michael Savage thinks that the 9/11 attacks "was God speaking". Well, listen up, Savage:

MICHAEL ALAN WIENER (your rejected birth name).

That needed to be said. Some people may doubt, but that was something divine. Michael Savage should not say such things. Bad things happen to "good" people sometimes. Savage would not know. He is a bad person. Ha ha ha.

Nice recap Johnnny...KO is becoming irrelevant.

If Fox News is funding this where the hell is my paycheck????? Another Olbyloon lie exposed.

I feel bad that you guys at Olby loon watch have to watch his drivel every night.

He's like a broken record.

Keith Olbermann is becoming more blatant in his lying. We should soon find a more hazy target next time for a website ---

I'm not gonna swear. I'm not gonna use capital letters. And I'm not going to use exclaimation points.

I will in a calm concise post show who you olbyloon sycophants always stick up for.
Defend this olbyphants. This fuc!@ng BUFFOON actually took offense because Fox "Noise" (oh keith, you're such a card) ran a poll, that in his opinion (as well as the opinion of some broad named mancow?) was taken just to make the democrat party look bad. YOU'VE GOT TO BE f---!@NG KIDDING ME!!!

Olberdickwads whole f---!@ng show, night after night, week after week, month after month, is the same f---i@!g thing. Show as so many clips as possible that try to make the Republicans look bad.

Is this hypocritical homo that out of touch that he can't possibly see this?? And he has the audacity to refer to Limbaugh as a comedian? This f---I!@G MENTALCASE CANNOT, CANNOT, C-A-N-N-O-T, believe the garbage he spews.

Tonight was the night that finally did it for me. This pissant has to be taken to task. What can be done to get this cretin off the air. He's a f---ing joke!!!

So much for my vows at the beginning of this post. Keith SUCKS!!

Eddie Boston: Stop taking politics seriously. It is not really worth getting upset over when you get down to it. Keith Olbermann has a four year long contract, so you better get used to it.

Remember, that is Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor. Good weekend, all :-)

Great recap, Johnny, all it needed was a little James Bond music in the background.

And how many informal polls has MSNBC put up on their websites with topics such as "should Bush be impeached"? Should Donald Rumsfeld be fired, etc? Oh, there was no political bias in those questions at all was there?

Keith is soo into his groove with his shtick he is now teasing the WPITW segment with Conservative vs. Conservative. All pretenses of unbiased news coverage is long dead on Countdown.

paychecks will be passed out at the next Vast Rigth Wing Conspiracy mixer.

where is everybody?

Notice the Kult of eith is silent today. Johnny Dollar continues to expose Ulbermahn's Far Left agenda.

Tonight's episode was a real classic. Keith ran a full segment attacking the "bias" at "Fox Noise", and his featured guest was a person from Air America. Keith then goes on to say that "Fox Noise" has no business hosting Presidential Debates because they have a political bias. This while during Keith's show, MSNBC is running promos for their own Presidential Debates.

President Bush visits soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital. He apologizes for the conditions there and promises to make things right. And Keith bashes him for it.

Well I just got home and I'd like to say Olby WILL be talking about the hostage crisis on Monday, Tuesday at the latest.

I see O'Reilly had Anti-War Activist Col. Ann Wright (Ret.) on and she wouldn't answer any questions. Just spewing stuff and O'Reilly cut her mike with about :30 to go.

So look for Keith to have her on. ( Bash Bush, Bash Republicans, Bash The Troops, Bash Fox News, Bash O'Reilly.) WOW! We could even get a krazy komment out of this.

The clip is over at Fox News, The last :30 seconds is pretty funny. O'Reilly is pretty calm but making a point, and Col. Wright was there with her mike cut off still yapping.

"Craigs: Thanks for backing me up."

No Problem at all.

"My mistake was One thing is perfectly clear. The Olbermann haters are every bit as biased as he is. In short, they ARE him!"

No Doubt. I think Olbermann is quite biased but it seems many on this site are just fine with Johnny Dollar spinning right and smearing himself
Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 3:24 AM

This was the last thread carried over from March 29th. It got to be so late that I forgot to note this.

Just roll over, Mike. Say it. Olby is a liar. A rose is a rose and a lie is a lie. Leaving out facts is a form of lying. Olby spikes stories if they make him look like the biased "journalist" that he is. Besides the recent Iran story, there is also the Gitmo case he covered and covered, until the Supreme Court found no violation of the Constitution.
Posted by: Sharon at March 31, 2007 1:14 AM

Now, this is one of his responses:

That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Supreme court does it? It only means I have to accept it.

AM I CRAZY OR DID MIKE ANSWER AS IF HE WERE OLBERMANN?

Below is a recap of the point of contention:

Sharon: "The point is that you refuse to admit that Olbermann spiked the story because he has his own agenda"

I've never denied Olbermann has an agenda. However, I can't really see how spiking this particular story might have served that agenda?
Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:07 AM

So what is Olbermann's agenda?
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 12:25 AM

Ceceila and Janet pressured him into answering and it got ugly. I don't believe there ever was an answer.

If Fox News is funding this where the hell is my paycheck????? Another Olbyloon lie exposed.

Posted by: Brandon at March 30, 2007 10:48 PM

So you'r admitting you are Johnny $?

20 POSTS! WHAT A BUSY SITE! HA...HA...

Everyone was posting on the previous day.

Anon 7:53 observes....."20 POSTS! WHAT A BUSY SITE! HA...HA... "

Well, look over to TheNewsHole and find only on average 5-10 postings/topic....Keith Olbermann's very own blog barely gets hits....including the current discussion:

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/31/107908.aspx

Zero, nada, as of 8:16 EDST

Get a life Anon. If you like Keith, try to defend his silly behavior instead of the usual attack on OW.

Do you have a cogent comment on johnny$'s critique?

Hey cee,

It's funny that there's no post on olby's site. I left a post last night asking why they haven't mentioned squat about the hostage situation, when every other "news" channel leads with it. Don't tell me they didn't post it? They wouldn't do..... that...... would they? The sites just as hypocritcal as the moron it's about

eddie...

I succesfully posted one Olbermann-criticial item on that site....the replys from the few Olbermann apologists visiting the site were pathetic and typical of what I got here at OW from the same ilk....Either I am a stupid, Kool-Aid drinking neocon or a "FOX NOISE" true believer....Both of which I am not....

The straw men these radical leftists try to use simply shows how weak their arguments have become....it makes for humorous entertainment but lacks the challenge I look for in discussing the issues at hand.....a la my lack of posting here as of late.

The human and planet destroyer
The description of Olby's employer
War profits they'll rake
Much pollution they'll make
As Olby jerks off like a voyeur

Ceceila and Janet pressured him into answering and it got ugly. I don't believe there ever was an answer.

Posted by: Sharon at March 31, 2007 7:45 AM

Sharon, there was never an answer to the original question as to Mike's reasoning for characterizing the Iran story as being "nonpolitical" (he later framed it an attempt to embarrass the U.S. and Britain-- ironic since that action would be an inherently POLITICAL manuever....) or answered why he felt Countdown didn't cover "non-political" stories when they have.

Mike just makes assertions and then whines that he's being put into an unfair position or makes specious claims of "bias"?... when asked questions about those asserrtions.

The straw men these radical leftists try to use simply shows how weak their arguments have become....it makes for humorous entertainment but lacks the challenge I look for in discussing the issues at hand.....a la my lack of posting here as of late.

Posted by: cee at March 31, 2007 8:52 AM

Well, it's good to see you back, Cee! However, you may need to rethink your attitude.

It should be delightful to you to be automatically labeled a Fox News junkie/groupie by someone who characterizes themselves as being independent-minded while making half-baked stereotypical assumptions and using Olbermann's lingo of "Fox Noise".... :D

>>Tancredo to announce presidential bid

By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 30, 7:34 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, will announce his bid for president on Monday. Tancredo will kick off campaign with an announcement in Iowa, where political caucuses start whose the presidential nominating season, an official close to the congressman said.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

More "Real Conservatives" stepping up to highlight the failure and desperation of the Repukes.

AWHWWWW!!

Rudy looks soooooo cute in his RINO suit.

I didn't watch Meltdown last night because I wanted to get an update about the Iran hostage situation. Otherwise, I'd be bashing on Olby as usual. Wait - I forgot to post his Thursday ratings. That grip on second place has always been fleeting, contrary to the MSM lies.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/03/30/thursdays-numbers-36/#more-5374

20 POSTS! WHAT A BUSY SITE! HA...HA...

Posted by: at March 31, 2007 7:53 AM
That's 4 times the amount of posts in one day the WOW got in ,what, 3 weeks? Still sitting on that big number of 4 and 2 were just e-mails from a loon that were posted by the "webmaster.'

Johnny,

That progression whereby the Countdown folks laundered the origin of the assertions against the Fox News poll is fascinating!

JUST MORE KEITH STALKING BY THE Bush Supporters SUFFERING FROM "FOX DEMENTIA."

I feel sorry for you guys having to listen to this guys same bullsh-t night arter night. He spouts one viewpoint, has the same choir echoing his bullsh-t and never has any opposing views to counteract his same old bullsh-t. Last night he had an airhead america host on to echo his views of fox being biased. How absurd can you get. Olbermann is a pathetic human being who has no clue on he he comes across to people who see him for what he really is.

JUST MORE KEITH STALKING BY THE Bush Supporters SUFFERING FROM "FOX DEMENTIA."

Posted by: at March 31, 2007 11:31 AM

What? No reference to "neo-cons" in that string of mindless buzzwords?

You're slipping...

Olbermann and Rachael Maddow were tsk-tsking over some sort of graphic that Fox put up while pundit Hannity doing one of his screeds.

Now we've all seen Countdown juxtapose Pres, Bush's head with a groundhog. We've seen Countdown, during stories about terrorism, show pictures of the administration with the words to the effect of "terrorists playing on our fears" at the bottom the screen.... or the logo to The Sopranos labeled with "Bush family values"...

Yes, it goes without saying that Olbermann and his "news show", as he called it, "nearly" always exempts himself from criticism when he does or has done the same thing he's condemning other media types and that other media outlet for doing... but did anyone notice last night during Oddball that VP Cheney's head was placed onto a cartoon body wearing prison garb?

"AM I CRAZY OR DID MIKE ANSWER AS IF HE WERE OLBERMANN?"

No I am sparti... er.. Olbermann

johnny you are noting but a disgusting smear merchant.

If JD is a "smear merchant", Keith Olbermann is the head of an entire smear corporation.

I watched that segment with the Air America woman about the polling questions and Fox and I must say I've never felt more incredulous in my life. Hypocrisy isn't a strong enough word for the conversation those two had. Do they think people are total idiots?

Air America

They still on?

Here's the latest from 'Zombie Nation' on Air America.

It seems that Air America stations have been flipping to ESPN sports. ESPN is owned by ABC.

Hannity's home base station is WABC.

Air America's Zombie Nation is saying it's Hannity's doing.

No guys, it's just the crappy programs you run.

Hannity's home base station is WABC.

Air America's Zombie Nation is saying it's Hannity's doing.

No guys, it's just the crappy programs you run.

Posted by: puck at March 31, 2007 2:55 PM

Wow!.... Disney has certainly invested a lot of power in Sean Hannity... :D

> johnny you are noting but a disgusting smear merchant.

I think you've almost got that correct. I AM "noting" a disgusting smear merchant. I note him and his disgusting smears five nights a week. Thanks for the compliment.

Don - Rachel Maddow's a woman?

Fans of both Air America (what little there is) and Olby are idiots. Olby and Rachel already know that. They're just playing to their base.

I AM "notHing" but a disgusting smear merchant.

There we go. put the "h" in and it does work much better. Thanks for the correction. Oh and you're a slimeball too.

"I AM 'notHing' but a disgusting smear merchant."

There we go. put the "h" in and it does work much better. Thanks for the correction. Oh and you're a slimeball too.

I AM "notHing" but a disgusting smear merchant."

There we go. put the "h" in and it does work much better. Thanks for the correction. Oh and you're a slimeball too.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 4:48 PM

Moving confession, craigs. Perhaps you could stop being one by not calling folks slimeball.

"This poll was released on Thursday, and within hours it was being attacked on one of the bluest of blue blogs: MyDD. This particular publication has a documented history of lying about Fox, among other things, but it also sucks up to Olby, so it's no surprise that Olbermoronn would hang out there and swallow every word as gospel.

MyDD's objections to the Opinion Dynamics polls are not very specific. All they come up with is that sometimes Fox will "stick in a ridiculously loaded question". No examples are provided, but remember: Olbermann Watch had just criticized Monkeymann for ignoring the poll. So to Krazy Keith, the MyDD article is like finding a wallet on the street. If he looks hard enough, he'll come up with something he can use to try to discredit the poll.

Olbermahn, or one of his crack staff--maybe even The Laughing Stagehand--pore over the raw data and think they've hit paydirt. They're ready to run with it, but there's a catch. The footprints are going to lead right back to a hyperpartisan, dishonest blog with connections to moveon.org. So it's time to muddy the waters a bit.

"Man on Fan" Olbermann, or one of his Seacaucus toadies, looks for a compliant water-carrier, and they don't have to look very far. At 1:17 today, TVNewser suddenly publishes an article about the questions in the Fox poll. A subject that, to our knowledge, Mr Stelter has never before addressed in his "blog". TVNewser headlines: "Interesting Poll Questions", and goes on to credit "an emailer" for bringing this to his attention. The "emailer" (guess who?) bloviates about how inappropriate the questions are.

Now Olby wants it clear that while he may be picking up something from that "respected" TV news blog, he won't be a suspect in providing it to TVNewser in the first place. Here the Countdown blog comes into play. At 3:29 The News Hole does a piece on the "biased" questions in the Fox poll, and is careful to include links to suggest that the story came from somewhere else. The links go to where? MyDD? The desk of Keith Olbermann? No. They go to TVNewser. Twice.

So a story that began in a discredited blue blog goes to A-Mess-NBC and Olbermahn, they reverse leak it to another blog under strict conditions of anonymity, TVNewser obediently runs it, then Countdown picks it up from them as if they had no hand in it whatsoever. And the involvement of MyDD and the moveon crowd has been successfully obfuscated. Well, in this case, not exactly "successfully"."

This was really interesting Johnny. Do you have any proof?

I know things.

"Moving confession, craigs. Perhaps you could stop being one by not calling folks slimeball."

Oh, it seems I left the quotes off when I corrected Johnny's writing. It is there on the second post.

As for the slimeball thing I really want to fit in here, so I figured I would do that by making as many personal attacks as possible. Since Johnny Call's keith "Fat Ass" and "Monkeyman" regularly I figured I would join in the name calling.

I mean come one, calling someone Roger Ailes or Chris Wallace is really offensive

"I know things."

So you don't have any proof? I think you are lying. I think you're a liar. nice to see you hold your self to keith's Journalistic standards.

I mean come one, calling someone Roger Ailes or Chris Wallace is really offensive

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 5:17 PM

True enough. If Johnny called Olbermann "Ailes" or "Wallace", I'm sure both Roger and Chris would be HIGHLY offended.

"True enough. If Johnny called Olbermann "Ailes" or "Wallace", I'm sure both Roger and Chris would be HIGHLY offended."

He does, everynight: "Fat Ass" (Ailes) and "monkeyman" (Wallace). Every single night.

He does, everynight: "Fat Ass" (Ailes) and "monkeyman" (Wallace). Every single night.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 5:28 PM

In Keith's case the shoe fits.

Liberals Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermahn were parroting "Fox Noise" like a couple of giggling 3-year olds (their target audience?). Funny how MSNBC can seriously claim Countdown as their "news show of record". Simply pathetic.

"In Keith's case the shoe fits."

So you think it is appropriate to call someone Ailes or Wallace? Well the rest of us decent human beings find it highly offensive.

Well Johnny, if you don't offer any evidence to your extraordinary claim, I have no choice but to brand you a liar, until you can come up with something.

I have spoken.

So you think it is appropriate to call someone Ailes or Wallace? Well the rest of us decent human beings find it highly offensive.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 5:35 PM

Tell it to Keith. He admitted to being a fatass when he apologized to Ailes the other night.

"Tell it to Keith. He admitted to being a fatass when he apologized to Ailes the other night."

I'll be sitting on pins and needles waiting for Johnny's apology to Keith.

Tell it to Keith. He admitted to being a fatass when he apologized to Ailes the other night."

I'll be sitting on pins and needles waiting for Johnny's apology to Keith.

I'll be sitting on pins and needles waiting for Johnny's apology to Keith.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:00 PM

If Keith says he's a fatass who is Johnny to differ....

"If Keith says he's a fatass who is Johnny to differ...."

Why he would call himself Ailes is beyond me. Some folks are just too hard on themselves.

Sorry if you all have already documented this, but I just came across it today...I wonder how long it will stay and/or if Sir Olbermann will have his page locked and sanitized.

New entry on Wikipedia for Sir Olbermann:
Allegations of bias
Although it began as a traditional, apolitical newscast, Countdown With Keith Olbermann has gradually adopted an opinion-oriented format. Overt and occasionally scathing criticism of prominent Republicans and conservatives (especially the Bush Administration and conservative commentators like Bill O'Reilly, who Olbermann routinely dubs "Worst Person In The World") has become more and more common on the show. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has written that Olbermann is "position[ing] his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to The O'Reilly Factor."[9] This has led the conservative media group Media Research Center (MRC) to routinely accuse Olbermann of liberal bias.[10][11] The MRC compiled the recipients on his World's Worst List and found that of the approximately 600 recipients, 174(29%) conservative figures/ideas were criticized compared to only 23(4%) liberals.[12]

In an interview with Al Franken, Olbermann noted that in 2003 after having Janeane Garofalo and Franken on his show, his network NBC Vice President had questioned him on inviting liberals on consecutive nights. [13]

Keith Olbermann has responded to accusations of liberal bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[14]

Why he would call himself Ailes is beyond me. Some folks are just too hard on themselves.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:14 PM

Because Olbermann was being accurate for once. He apologized to the guy he had been hard on.

"Because Olbermann was being accurate for once."

He was accurate in calling Ailes a fatass? Well Duh... I just don't see why he would call himself Ailes, when clearly he is better shape than fatass.

He was accurate in calling Ailes a fatass? Well Duh... I just don't see why he would call himself Ailes, when clearly he is better shape than fatass.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:29 PM

Well, Olbermann would know. In this matter we can all bow to his greater knowledge that Keith really is THE fatass.

"Well, Olbermann would know. In this matter we can all bow to his greater knowledge that Keith really is THE fatass."

Maybe you are trying to say that keith is as big a scumbag as fatass, by calling keith Ailes. But he is not. Fatass is clearly the bigger scumbag.

Maybe you are trying to say that keith is as big a scumbag as fatass, by calling keith Ailes. But he is not. Fatass is clearly the bigger scumbag.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:42 PM

Yes, he is. However, I think that he is a fatass is all the self-disclosure we'll get from Keith though.

"Yes, he is. However, I think that he is a fatass is all the self-disclosure we'll get from Keith though"

So you think Keith is Ailes as well? That's my point calling someoneAiles is offensive.

You know all this talk about fatass (Ailes) has distracted me from the fact that noted Liar Johnny Dollar has not produced any evidence yet.

I'M SCARED!

I SEE Bush Supporters RANTING.

Oh, wait... it is only the Rush Limpo-wanna be's
the Sean Hannity-wanna be's,
the Billdo's wanna be's,
the Dr. Savage (LOL) wanna be's
the Glenn Beck's wanna be's

ODD... they all call themselves "Real Reagan Conservatives"

GOOD LUCK WITH RUDY THE RINO!!

So you think Keith is Ailes as well? That's my point calling someoneAiles is offensive.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:49 PM

Well, perhaps if Keith reads that between he and Ailes, that you think Ailes "is the bigger scumbag" he'll feel all better...

"Well, perhaps if Keith reads that between he and Ailes, that you think Ailes "is the bigger scumbag" he'll feel all better..."

Nahh, I think he'll feel "All better" When he looks in the mirro and sees how much skinnier he is than Fatass.

Nahh, I think he'll feel "All better" When he looks in the mirro and sees how much skinnier he is than Fatass.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 6:59 PM

When is he NOT looking in a mirror? No, Keith knows whereof he speaks. It's right behind him...

"When is he NOT looking in a mirror? No, Keith knows whereof he speaks. It's right behind him..."

Ailes follows him around? What a weird fat ass.

"When is he NOT looking in a mirror? No, Keith knows whereof he speaks. It's right behind him..."

Ailes follows him around? What a weird fat ass.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:08 PM

Well, Weird Fatass has accused Ailes of worse.

"Well, Weird Fatass has accused Ailes of worse"

What has Ailes accused himself of? being a scumbag in addition to being fatass.

What has Ailes accused himself of? being a scumbag in addition to being fatass.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:20 PM

Nope. So far you and Keith are the only self-accused fatass and slimeball, respectively.

"Nope. So far you and Keith are the only self-accused fatass and slimeball, respectively."

NoAiles is a fatass and your mother is a scumbag and a crack hoe :)

NoAiles is a fatass and your mother is a scumbag and a crack hoe :)

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:28 PM

I think she spells it "ho".

I think she spells it "ho".

Well that's good. She's more careful than I and a bargain if you have a little crack.

But I digress. Let's talk about how fat Ailes is compared to the slim Mr. Olbermann.

> Well Johnny, if you don't offer any evidence to your extraordinary claim, I have no choice but to brand you a liar

How will I sleep at night? Some anonymous Olbypologist (who doesn't read carefully, but that's another story) is going to brand me a liar. I might even get the vapors.

"How will I sleep at night? Some anonymous Olbypologist"

That's a good question. How does a slimebag like you sleep at night?

> I'll be sitting on pins and needles waiting for Johnny's apology to Keith.

Whatever for?

"Whatever for?"

For being a scumbag.

But I digress. Let's talk about how fat Ailes is compared to the slim Mr. Olbermann.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:37 PM

So you're more interested in Olbermann's big crack. Mama isn't surprised.

"So you're more interested in Olbermann's big crack. Mama isn't surprised."

You want to lick my crack? Sorry Cec, you don't get to lick my crack, I don't even let your mom do that.

You want to lick my crack? Sorry Cec, you don't get to lick my crack, I don't even let your mom do that.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:48 PM

Nah, jt, no one wants to deprive you of doing that.

"So here's the scenario:"

nice edit.

"Nah, jt, no one wants to deprive you of doing that"

Quit pretending like you don't want to lick my crack. it's what you live for. The homeless guy with no teeth who smacks you around told me all about you.

"Nah, jt, no one wants to deprive you of doing that"

Quit pretending like you don't want to lick my crack. it's what you live for. The homeless guy with no teeth who smacks you around told me all about you.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:53 PM

Talking to yourself in the third person is what happens when you're off your meds, jt.

"Talking to yourself in the third person is what happens when you're off your meds, jt."

You licking my crack is what happens when you get off yours. Fat ass :)

You licking my crack is what happens when you get off yours. Fat ass :)

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 7:59 PM

No one's that crazy, jt...

"No one's that crazy, jt..."

You were you nast little thing. So was your mother.

Say Johnny,

About that accusation that Keith is lifting stories from the blue blogs do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, and he posts it here in every nightly show recap. You aren't too quick on the uptake there are you Craigs?

"Yes, and he posts it here in every nightly show recap. You aren't too quick on the uptake there are you Craigs"

No he posts evidence that the same or similar story is being run elsewhere. That does not demonstrate proof that the blogs are olbermann's source. You are not very good at logic are you there Brandon?

Cecelia must have gone to lick fatass Ailes crack. Oh well, guess I'll go enjoy the gorgeous day and come back later.

I think Craigs has been here awhile back using a different name. I remember the comments straight from the junior high school playbook. Beavis and Butt Head Unleashed. Hee hee hee hee I said head ...

there's a very good example from Friday night's show posted above in this very thread. I guess reading comprehension isn't your thing huh?

Keith Olbermann has responded to accusations of liberal bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[14]

Posted by: at March 31, 2007 6:19 PM
This would be known as "spin." Or, a lie in olbyland.

Cecelia, why did you give "craigs" the satisfaction of a response? I wonder who he shares an isp with, a certain disgruntled olbyloon.

"there's a very good example from Friday night's show posted above in this very thread. I guess reading comprehension isn't your thing huh?"

Oh that. According to Johnny that is now a hypothetical.

Unless of course Brandon you would be willing to provide proof that the "scenario:" actually happend and is not just a figment ogf Johnny's imagination. Again not too good at hte logic stuff are you?

think Craigs has been here awhile back using a different name. I remember the comments straight from the junior high school playbook. Beavis and Butt Head Unleashed. Hee hee hee hee ...

Well if that is how I am acting I fit right in with you nitwits.

"Cecelia, why did you give 'craigs' the satisfaction of a response?"

Response? She started the conversation. Man, if you can't read it's a sure sign that you are a Fox news nut.

Response? She started the conversation. Man, if you can't read it's a sure sign that you are a Fox news nut.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 11:16 PM
Sure sign of an olbyloon....

> According to Johnny that is now a hypothetical.

You REALLY don't read well. This week alone I've identfied more than half a dozen things Herr Olbermoronn has lifted from blue blogs. Two in this write-up along; three if you count what you call a "hypothetical". I'd say over the past several months, there are probably close to a hundred (or more) cases of Olby lifting from blue blogs. I'd have to go back over the recaps and count them to get the exact number, and I'm not going to do that just because you are a poor reader.

You REALLY don't read well. This week alone I've identfied more than half a dozen things Herr Olbermoronn has lifted from blue blogs.

No you've claimed that Keith's source was the blue blogs because the same or similar stories were on the blue blogs. You have not demonstrated that, that is where Olby is going for his source. And If I'm not reading well I'm sure it has something to do with what a sh-tty writer you are.

"Sure sign of an olbyloon..."

What logic? to you perhaps

Logical lesson #2

Description of Confusing Cause and Effect
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

Now do you have any real evidence?

This site has archives. There is information all over the internets. They've admitted they scour Media Matters etc for stories, especially 'worst person' items, which are often nearly word for word right off the website. I suggest if you want proof of what long-time clear-headed readers of this site already know, you can get it. I have better things to do than be your research slave.

" have better things to do than be your research slave."

Logical rule number #3

Claim X is presented by side A (olbermann is using liberla blogs) and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

I'll just assume you don't have it.

forgot to add was talking about the burden of proof fallacy. Should clear things up.

Cee, come back, at least once in a while so we know you are still around.

Sharon, not only did Mike NOTanswer the question, in spite of being asked multiple times he never even acknowledged the question.

Just in case Mike forgot the question, I'll copy just one of the repetitions:

""Mike, I have to second Cecelia's question.

It cuts through everything and goes to the essence of KO and his claim to be an unbiased newsman.

If you recognize, which you have, that KO has an agenda than you should be able to articulate that agenda to at least some degree.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:37 AM "

Still waiting for an answer.

Mike, I did answer your assertion that I erred (lied) when I said you claimed that I had backed you into a corner when you actually said that I tried to back you into a corner.

This is the answer I gave to your complete post:

"..........Mike, YOU SURE REACTED LIKE SOMEONE WHO WAS BACKED IN A CORNER and not as someone who was the object of a failed attempt to be backed into a corner.

You seem to be taking things so personally these days. I described your behavior and words. I did not categorize you in any terms, pathological or otherwise.

Why are you continually trying to back me into a corner and force me to pseudo analyze you? Think Dana Carvey as President Bush 41: Not going to do it, wouldn't be prudent.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:03 AM "

Let me explain this to you. You claim that you only responded that I lacked humanity because my attempt to back you into a corner left you with no other choice.

You did, in fact, have more than one choice. You could have backed off of your self righteous claim that those who view this War on Terror and its casualities in a different light than you do lack humanity (the same thing as inhuman) and acknowledged that decent and good citizens can have a different opinion from you. For whatever reason, you couldn't do that.

The thrust of my comments was if you insist that anyone who doesn't view this war as wrong and evil was 'inhuman', than you were saying I was inhuman.

That was THE CORNER I BACKED YOU INTO. And the exit you took from that corner was to declare me lacking in humanity, not to admit that decent people can have different views than you have.

And the icing on the cake was your whining defense that I tried to back you in a corner and what else could poor little Mike do but say what he apparently really means. And, besides, Janet takes things too personally.

That was the long answer. Here is the short one. As a KO syncophant you should be the last person in the world to moan and groan because someone left a word out of a qoute.

Grammie

Grammie writes, "Cee, come back, at least once in a while so we know you are still around."

I second that emotion! Cee, we miss your energy, conviction and mischievousness!

I'll just assume you don't have it.

Posted by: craigs at April 1, 2007 5:15 AM
"craigs" or whoever you are, read any nights recap, there are links to the blogs/sites he (Ulbermahn) gets his "info" from, word for word. If you refuse to do that, stop asking for proof. It's plain as day.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.

Do you think Ulbermahn will mention this? Of course not.........

So...we finally know that Johnny Dollar (who in the hell gave you the idea for THAT name) watches this show even LESS that Cox did (trying to get the attention of the slime machines that might need someone like you)?

"Should the Dems be taken over by Moveon.org?"

Notice that no other mention of what the questions were in this Dollar report.

And what are you implying by saying that KO is not talking about the Iran hostage situation? You really trying to say that he's somehow responsible? Oh, wait, you briefly mentioned to the story he DID talk about, that Bush covered up the story behind Pat Tillman's death even after he knew it for a MONTH before revealing it. And when you go tofind out SOMETHING to disprove him, you go to FOX (no surprise), and pick out somethign that the WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN SAID!! Give me a BREAK!! Are you REALLY going to believe ANYTHING that some spokesman said, to FOX? Or are you just that damn desperate? Oh wait, I know, it's because you care more about smearing KO than you do for how our troops in this crap war do, if they live or die and what respect they get for their duty for our country, right? You would rather pick apart Olby before giving a sh-t about our troops, right? Our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, blood relatives are there, fighting for WHATEVER reason it would be, and you'd rather slime some one that you could easily change the channel of (to, say, Bill O"Reilly to see if he'll blame another kidnap kid for his own damn kidnapping or try to blame 9 dead children on the "illegal immigrant sympathiser movement") than what happens to any of them (your disregard for what had went on at Walter Reed, in which the PRESIDENT HIMSELF APOLOGIZED FOR, even if it was somewhat of a snide apology). Before you say "How dare you," think for a second about who over there are you related to, or who is IN that damn hospital. It's a damn disgrace, and here YOU are, as if everything is fine and Bush can do no wrong, trying to instead smear the ONLY person that is actually holding the feet of those responsible to the fire in the media. God, you're worse that Coz was. At least Cox had a sort of concious.

And sorry for the cussing. I just can't see why one person would be so desperate to smear ANYONE that he would actually use dead soilders, just doing their damn JOB, to try to do something like this (JD).

darkpower, have you ever heard of paragraphs and their importance in aiding your readers to follow your, and I am being generous here, thoughts.

All those rules of composition were not intended to torture our young minds. Their purpose was, and still is, to enable us to communicate with each other.

Give it a try sometime. You might find the experience pleasant.

Grammie

Dark Power said:

...trying to hold the feet of.....

I don't feel like wasting my time, One guy (Olby) is talking different than everybody else, so we should listen to him, Dark Power says.

The one guy who has people from Air-America on. How many stations are they down to? Something like 41? And thats with them counting the West Palm station that Randi Rhoades is on. With Rush!

Someone who talks different than everybody else, but has to have the same people on night after night because he can't get many people to come on and agree with him, even from his own side!

Yet somebody like Dark Power, who looks like he either had a rough night or a few rough years in English class says we should blindly listen to him and Olby.

Very Jim Jones and 'Zombie Nation' if you ask me.

Dark Power = Dim Bulb???

We Report! You Decide!

Oh! and by the way, If you would have 'LISTEN' to Bill O'Reilly on Fri. you would have got the real story about Walter Reed. But then again since it looks like you didn't bother to 'LISTEN' in English class, why should I be surprised your just this hours 'Zombie Nation' talking points bloviater.

"If Gore got in we might have continued to have "good" times. We might've lived life like kings.

What does that get you? A little money maybe, but it also makes you a target. If we didn't all try to be freakin millionaires like we did under Bubba maybe we would've been a little more in touch with how life really IS.

Now I work at a factory assembling auto parts. I make a third of what I did in my "heyday". But you know what? I still feed my family and pay my mortgage. I don't know where all my extra income went, but I can guess its in part paying for some of our heroes in Iraq. We ALL need to sacrifice."

Posted by: Bush #1 at April 2, 2007 10:04 AM

Let's see, more simplistic than usual, but all familiar themes touched upon:

Bush backed by gullible religious fanatics-- check.

Bush and corporate cronies engaged in Iraq War for monetary profit-- check.

Iraq War backed by jingoistic simpletons-- check.

Tech bust being the fault of Bush-- idea needs work as does new theme of a Pres. Gore having been capable of averting late 90's tech bust or environmentalist Gore facilatating the expanision of jobs in high tech industry such as aeronautical engineering, let alone the automobile industry.

Grade: C+

J$:

Regarding your post of 5:06 PM, 3/30-----

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Do you really think we don't know your IP address? Do you really believe that you can hide the fact that you and Mrs PHilby have the same IP address?

This leads us to 3 possibilities, with each growing ever more disturbing:

1. Rudy Rodriguez and Mrs. Philby share the same ip address, suggesting the distinct possibility of a hostage situation. Mrs. Philby (an obvious republican with Miss Hathaway-like prissiness---you know the type), has been forced to sit at her computer terminal day after day writing Olbermann-inspired crap at gunpoint. For the love of god, Rudy, put the weapon down!!!
2. Neither R. Rodriguez nor Mrs. Philby has posted since the common ip address was cited, suggested that when the punctuation-phobic Rudy met face to face with the grammar-loving linguistic prof Mrs. Philby, there was a cataclysmic event (like some kind of matter/anti-matter thingy).
3. Despite posts by both Rudy Rodriguez and Mrs. Philby about their high moral character (and the low, low, low moral character of Rudolph Guliani -----I matched the number of lows to the number of marriages), they have met and developed a something quite precious together. (They?re human beings, damnit.) This suggests the possibility that their magical tour of the Continent together (during Mrs. Philby?s ?sabbatical?), featuring an exhaustive whirlwind of delicious meatpies and amusing wines, will be recounted in excruciating detail through the literary stylings of Rudy. This will undoubtedly be a dizzying post of no less than 500 lines incorporating only 3 commas (2 of which will be typos) and at least 725 &s.

Great post, Jack, but Mrs. Philby was not a Republican, prissy or otherwise.

Our Mrs. Philby was that elite-egalitarian liberal sort of whom we're all familiar.

Our high-minded Mrs Philby's progressive heart bled for all the underdogs of our society, the poor, the uneducated, the abased.

That she routinely endeavored to insult conservatives in general, by characterizing them all as being members of these groups, in no way detracts from her generosity of spirit and her altruism towards those people so very far...far... beneath her own elite status.

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...

philby was about as republican as miss piggy o'donnel. I think philby's isp addy should be turned over to homeland security...

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Ain't that just a heaping dose of hypocrisy...

Cecelia, you have about a much room in your worldview for opposing points of view as Countdown does...

WATERGATE! NIXON!! NIXON! WATERGATE!!

Hi Grammie and Cecelia....thank you for thinking of me....

With the exception of a couple of posts, there has not been the previous level of provocation that once hit me over the head here at OW.

Please don't misunderstand me....Johnny continues to write great rebuttals to Olbermann's continuing leftist propaganda, but the lack of the true leftist believers' over-reactions was always the entertaining stimulus that got my creative juices flowing. Then one issue would lead to another and I would tranform into everyone's ultra-conservative provocateur!

I will post more often if only to hear from you two sweet ladies!

Interesting little site here with even more interesting "clear thinking" personalities.

1) First there's Grammie, or maybe it's Janet, I don't know: Out of the blue, Grammie will accuse you of saying something you DIDN'T actually say. When you point out that you did NOT actually say what she said you said, she'll go back to the archives and dredge out something that sounds somewhat SIMILAR to what she said you said. The fact that her own repost PROVES you didn't say what she said you said means nothing to Janet. When you point out that her own repost proves her wrong, she'll just explain that she is still right because it SOUNDED like you MEANT what she had accused you of saying, even though you didn't.

2) - Then there's Cecelia...what can you say about Cecelia? When you don't give Cecelia the answer she wants from you, she will badger the hell out of you until you do. But if you refuse to play her little game the way SHE wants you to play it, then she will get mad, call you a 'liar', and even make wierd little threats about how tough she is going to make it on you in the future....LOL

3) - Then we have Jeff, who has been calling himself RoyalKing lately: Jeff is pretty dim little character, but he can taunt with the best of them. He's kind of like the neighborhood dog that barks and barks and barks, and then barks even louder when you tell him to shut up. To Jeff, the game is all about who makes the most noise the most often....facts and truth are unimportant...it's all about 'team' play and 'winning' for Jeff. Jeff will make a hundred false and stupid accusations or assertions, be proven wrong each time...but that doesn't stop him from coming right back and doing it for the 101th time.

And then, of course, all of these characters just love to play "tag team" with each other, each playing to their own little idiosyncrasy.

And in checking in briefly today for the first time in three days, I see they are still obsessing over another poster who allegedly dared to use more than one identity to mock the Olbermann haters.

Yet THESE three are examples of the so called "clear thinkers"!

Olny in Olby - hater loon obsessionland would you find people like this!

Bye now!

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Ain't that just a heaping dose of hypocrisy...

Cecelia, you have about a much room in your worldview for opposing points of view as Countdown does...

Posted by: at April 2, 2007 2:34 PM

I have a television show where I don't allow opposing views to be expressed?

Frankly, you don't know my "worldview".

Jack, your post is priceless.

My nomination for Mrs Philby's role model would be Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced bouquet) from Keeping Up Appearances on BBCAmerica and lately PBS. If you ever see any of it, let me know what you think.

Grammie

PS Do you have a child who attended Kehoe France School?

Olny in Olby - hater loon obsessionland would you find people like this!

Bye now!

Posted by: Mike at April 2, 2007 3:05 PM

Still whining because the logic of your statements was challenged and your idea of further elucidation... was to accuse others of trying to make you "denounce" Olbermann, after you had just accused us of trying to force you to "defend" him.

Well, you do have my sympathy, Mike. No doubt it is very hard being you.

Great post Mike! I laughed often and found it highly accurate.

Cecelia, I've got the tag and covering your back.:)

Mike, I gave you the rationale of what corner I backed you into and pointed out it was a generous corner with two exits, one through the sewer and the other through the window. Your not liking an answer is not the same as not having an answer.

And three days later I am still waiting for an answer from you to this question:

"Sharon, not only did Mike NOTanswer the question, in spite of being asked multiple times he never even acknowledged the question.

Just in case Mike forgot the question, I'll copy just one of the repetitions:

""Mike, I have to second Cecelia's question.

It cuts through everything and goes to the essence of KO and his claim to be an unbiased newsman.

If you recognize, which you have, that KO has an agenda than you should be able to articulate that agenda to at least some degree.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:37 AM "

Still waiting for an answer.
Posted by: Grammie at April 1, 2007 12:11 PM"

I am waiting, and waiting, and waiting........

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I didn't dream that dropping my legal name and just using my user name would upset you so much, Woogy, arh Woozy, arh Mutt, arh Mike. Whoever in the hell you are, I just didn't realise that that would upset you.

I will always and forever add Janet Hawkins to any replies to you. On second thought, when you put your real and complete name out there, then so will I.

So lets start over. Hi Woozy, I'm Janet. Umm, hi woogy, I'm Janet. Umm, hi Mutt, I'm Janet. I've got it. HI MIKE, I'M JANET.

Looks like more ratings for O'Reilly. Rosie has just attacked Mr. O today calling him some character in 1984 and Rupert Murdock as Big Brother. If O'Reilly and Murdock are big brother, why is ABC, NBC, MSDNC, and CBS allowed to spew their anti-American socialist propaganda? Big Bother is the mainstream letter people and the left wing rags they get their stories from. Gets some guts Rosie and go on O'Reilly's show and spout you bible babble. O'Reilly went on your show.

By the way. Mrs. Philby AKA Rudy Rodriguez is a socialist coward. Rudy Rodriguez is her lame attempt to show a "stupid God loving conservative". This shows that she is a hate monger.

Mikey had a little troll,
Its heart was black as coal;
And everywhere that Mikey went,
The troll was sure to go.

Grammie

On an Olbermann related matter......

I predict [based on J$'s post about Keith's lack of journalistic ability but great internet surfing (and story-lifting) acumen], O'Reilly attack #174 tonight.....

The blue blogs are all over O'Reilly for cutting off an anti-war guest in midsentence on his show Friday.....after she questioned O'Reilly on his "service".....

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/default.asp

Boy, does that liberal fall-back attack about whether one served in the military sound familiar?

Will Keith reference the multiple sites that have posted about this over the weekend?......I have my prediction.

He just can't help himself!

Cee, I hope I catch you still here. I, and others, have missed you.

Just don't mention it to Mike, or I'll be accused of being a multiple GROUPIE.

Grammie

grammie still has a few teeth,
hanging loosley from her gums.
which although black and broken,
and puss filled everyone,
are used to bite the heads of mice,
quite slowly killing some.
She does this in the morning,
Grammie does this 'till she she's done.

Posted by: cee at April 2, 2007 4:22 PM

Olbermann will definitely use this to attack
O'Reilly since it is the most cowardice attack. O'Reilly cut off that America hater because she would not answer his simple question on weather or not she believed Iran over the British and US military. She repeatedly defended Iran and said the US tortures innocent people.
We have an all-volunteer army. O'Reilly is a 50 plus year old man. O'Reilly donates millions of dollars to wounded warrior, he has visited Iraq ( unlike Olbermann), and gives free signed copies of his book to the troops. What does Olbermann do? Cue the crickets.

craigs (what a cutesy little name you've chosen), I am at a loss for what prompted this rare treat.. I have not addressed you for several days now.

I've never tried that particular delicacy. You, however, seem to have a broad knowledge of the subject and possible gastronomical joys.

I assume it is an acquired taste because it is so rarely, if ever, recommended. I want all the details that you are so obviously an expert on.

Did your mother serve them often, or only as a rare treat when you were very good, such as not wetting the bed.

Are they only available in the sewers where you live, or can one purchase them elsewhere?

What advice can you give to help others select only prime rats. Size, color, age or tail length?

As a connoisseur I am certain you will love the opporitunity to display your superior tastes, a la Mrs. Philby, to the rest of us.

Bon appetit!

Grammie

I would think people would get tired of Olbermann attacking O'Reilly....O'Reilly ignoring Keith....Olbermann attacking O'Reilly....O'reilly ignoring Keith.....etc, etc, etc.....

But then again I don't know what makes someone who would actually likes Keith Olbermann "tick" so....oh well......

"I've never tried that particular delicacy. You, however, seem to have a broad knowledge of the subject and possible gastronomical joy"

I made no mention of the gastronimical joys. I reported the condition of your teeth and your propensity for eating mice.

Grammie....

craigs was Sheridan Bucket's ("that's bouquet!") roomate at University, don't you know....

Many who attack you on such a debased level seem to have a problem with that nasty defense mechanism called projection.

Cee, I always knew we were kindred spirits.

As always, you have nailed it. What would craigs do at one of Hyacinth's Indoor Outdoor Bar-B-Ques? Do you think he might cock his leg on one of those plants poor dear Richard drove home?

Oh well, better than wetting one of Hyacinth's beds!

Grammie

PS Sorry Cee, I can't help myself.

Cee,

I have to differ with you. I think Craigs is more Onslo (sp?)

Whammo! Looks like we've got an Olby-Tur sighting in this dudes Obscure Yankee's spring training compendium. My first act of true cyber-journalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrJW4_BuKc

"craigs was Sheridan Bucket's ("that's bouquet!") roomate at University, don't you know..."

Well I did go. You should enroll, God knows you need an education.

"Many who attack you on such a debased level seem to have a problem with that nasty defense mechanism called projection."

Yes poor grammie would never do a thing like that.

"Mikey had a little troll,
Its heart was black as coal;
And everywhere that Mikey went,
The troll was sure to go.

Grammie"

Although, I suppose I should applaud Cee mentioning a BBC TV show is the closest I think he has ever come to a literary reference.

Cecelia, on this one I have to agree with Cee. Anslo (?) is much too honest and straigtforward to be a craigs (note he uses a lower case c) :).

With Sheridan's room mate at University we can let our imaginations run wild and still be on the mark. Sheridan has been raised by Hyacinth (now thats a scary thought). His live in love, urh room mate, must be a jewel beyond value.

I have no doubt that our cutesy itty bitty craigs could convince Hyacinth that the QUEEN serves rats.

"the QUEEN serves rats. "

Well if that were the case, you and your bleeding gums would shortly follow. :)

Huh? Cyber-journalists dude, narrow it down to the time code number, unless she's the one with the big giant baseball head, then I can see why Olby's into her.

Perhaps, Grammie....but craigs' last little ditty was too mean-spirited, even for Onslow.

No, Sheridan was definetly letting his hair down at University...being away from Mummy....and I am sure he would be hanging out with the riff-raff like craigs...no respect for his elders and all.....

However, I do like the APPEARANCES analogy applied to Keith Olbermann......Edward R. Murrow indeed!....The pretentiousness of Hyacinth Bucket (BOUQUET!) reminds me of our dear Keith.....likening himself to great journalists and play acting in those dramas he calls, "Special Comment."

The examples seem endless!

Whammo! Looks like we've got an Olby-Tur sighting in this dudes Obscure Yankee's spring training compendium. My first act of true cyber-journalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrJW4_BuKc
Posted by: Capitalist pigdog at April 2, 2007 5:24 PM

Huh? Cyber-journalists dude, narrow it down to the time code number, unless she's the one with the big giant baseball head, then I can see why Olby's into her.

"Perhaps, Grammie....but craigs' last little ditty was too mean-spirited, even for Onslow"

Gosh, I sure hope I didn't offend anyone that would make me feel really bad.

Grammie,

Good point. Anslo is too endearing. Perhaps Craigs would be better cast as "daddy".

"Good point. Anslo is too endearing. Perhaps Craigs would be better cast as "daddy"."

Well, I am your daddy, now go make some money cec.

Well, I am your daddy, now go make some money cec.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 5:49 PM

That's it! He's The Major!

3) - Then we have Jeff, who has been calling himself RoyalKing lately: Jeff is pretty dim little character, but he can taunt with the best of them. He's kind of like the neighborhood dog that barks and barks and barks, and then barks even louder when you tell him to shut up. To Jeff, the game is all about who makes the most noise the most often....facts and truth are unimportant...it's all about 'team' play and 'winning' for Jeff. Jeff will make a hundred false and stupid accusations or assertions, be proven wrong each time...but that doesn't stop him from coming right back and doing it for the 101th time.

And then, of course, all of these characters just love to play "tag team" with each other, each playing to their own little idiosyncrasy.

And in checking in briefly today for the first time in three days, I see they are still obsessing over another poster who allegedly dared to use more than one identity to mock the Olbermann haters.

Yet THESE three are examples of the so called "clear thinkers"!

Olny in Olby - hater loon obsessionland would you find people like this!

Bye now!

Posted by: Mike at April 2, 2007 3:05 PM
A very disgruntled olbyloon as well as a sore loser resorting to making crap up to make himself feel better. How's philby doing, lil mikey?

"it makes for humorous entertainment but lacks the challenge I look for in discussing the issues at hand.....a la my lack of posting here as of late."

This is the funniest post here today. Cee acting like he has actually won an argument.

"That's it! He's The Major!"

You can call me major, as long as you keep the money flowing, you dried little peice of fruit you.

lil mikey, when I switch to my normal blog id of royal king, I let it be known. You, on the other hand, when It became obvious you had changed names denied, denied, denied then changed again, denied, deined. See the difference, liar? cecil/beverly/woogy/mutt/mike/notpro olbermann just anti hypocrisy and the many "anon" posts you made?

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Ain't that just a heaping dose of hypocrisy...

Cecelia, you have about a much room in your worldview for opposing points of view as Countdown does...

Posted by: at April 2, 2007 2:34 PM

I have a television show where I don't allow opposing views to be expressed?

Frankly, you don't know my "worldview".
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 3:09 PM

Now, Cecelia, Open up your mind and let a little sunlight in. I know you may find this hard to believe...your respose tells me such...you actually don't need to have your own television show to be bigoted and narrow minded.

You can be just like Countdown, but fortunately only influencing those pathetic people who might actually believe what you say. You know, your cat, your dog, your mom perhaps.

I know as much about your Worldview as you've shown on this message board, which is quite enough to give any clear thinker nausea.

Cheers!

Poor ittle craigs! I told him a few days ago that he was a bigger ass then I originally thought.

My asessment of his assiness (is that a word) has just gone up exponentially.

Daddy and the Major and he is trying to twist that into a CW thing.

This is stupidity. When one is out of the loop, most half way intelligent people retire with as much dignity as they can muster and come back to fight another day.

Not our itty bitty craigs. He just blunders on.

You know, I think I may have hit his sore spot when I asked if his mommie served live rats as a special treat when he didn't wet the bed.

Cecelia, I bow to superior wisdom. He, craigs, is definitely the Major.

Grammie

You can call me major, as long as you keep the money flowing, you dried little peice of fruit you.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 5:53 PM

Definitely, The Major. Too small white suit and Stay'n Alive playing on the ole victrola!

craigs....the mental picture your poem created was dark and scary......rats and teeth...ech....

Grammie's was cutsy, with rainbows, streams and then a little evil troll comes along and bismirches it all.....

Oh yes....I do love PBS and many other things claimed to be for the liberal ruling class only.....although I feel my local PBS station should be totally supported by donation and not by my tax dollar.......Have you contributed recently Sheridan....oops I mean.....craigs?

Tah.

BTW....Sorry for responding to Grammie in the previous post and not to you, Cecelia.....it's been too long and I'm slowly regaining my posting skills.

Hey Grammie-

How's the weather up on the 'High Ground?'

Have you had to shush anyone for saying buttf--- there today?

You can think that kind of stuff on the High Ground (after all, who'd know?) but you'd better not utter those kinds of words.

Or you might find your High Ground is just a little mole hill in the valley...

you actually don't need to have your own television show to be bigoted and narrow minded.

Posted by: at April 2, 2007 6:02 PM

No, you just need to pretend you know what people think. You're certainly THAT example.

I'd tell you to open your mind but the dust bunnies would fall out.

Grammie is so funny!

"My asessment of his assiness (is that a word) has just gone up exponentially."

No Grammie it's not a word. My assment of your stupidity has gone up exponetially though.

"Daddy and the Major and he is trying to twist that into a CW thing."

Aww, are you sad I'm not playing along with your little joke grammie?

"You know, I think I may have hit his sore spot when I asked if his mommie served live rats as a special treat when he didn't wet the bed."

Haha, poor grammie so dumb, so un-original. I post a little ryme about her and the best she can come up with is "I know you are but what am I" Your children must be so proud.

"Cecelia, I bow to superior wisdom. He, craigs, is definitely the Major."

Yes I am her major and she's my little rotton fruit.

"BTW....Sorry for responding to Grammie in the previous post and not to you, Cecelia.....it's been too long and I'm slowly regaining my posting skills."

Yes Cee, this is like rocket science posting is. Take it reaaaaal slow. It will come back to you.

Cecelia, I bow to superior wisdom. He, craigs, is definitely the Major.

Grammie

Grammie, what would blog boards be without liberal males calling women hos', bitches, and biddies?

Can anyone please confirm this sighting? This would be major feathers in my cap. It comes in near the end and they are just sitting there in the third row background.

>>>Whammo! Looks like we've got an Olby-Tur sighting in this dudes Obscure Yankee's spring training compendium. My first act of true cyber-journalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhrJW4_BuKc

"Grammie, what would blog boards be without liberal males calling women hos', bitches, and biddies?"

Aww, I'm sorry If I offended you Cec. maybe you if you didn't name call people wouldn't call you a bitch, a biddie, or a ho.

"craigs....the mental picture your poem created was dark and scary......rats and teeth...ech...."

Hers was an insult mine was a better written insult.

"Grammie's was cutsy, with rainbows, streams"

They were? She should have written that then don't you think?

"Oh yes....I do love PBS and many other things claimed to be for the liberal ruling class only.....although I feel my local PBS station should be totally supported by donation and not by my tax"

Well I suppose for TV it is fairly highbrow. not quite reading, but don't strain yourself.

" dollar.......Have you contributed recently Sheridan....oops I mean.....craigs?"

Haven't you heard? I am cecelia's major.

"Grammie, what would blog boards be without liberal males calling women hos', bitches, and biddies?"

They would be blog boards where tightly-strung spinster women call themselves hos', bitches, and biddies. Er, ah, of course I mean "ladies of the evening", "shewish fishwives" and "shrivelled old trailer prunes." (Sorry, there is just no euphemism for that last one.) Need I document?

Aww, I'm sorry If I offended you Cec. maybe you if you didn't name call people wouldn't call you a bitch, a biddie, or a ho.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:16 PM

Just do what comes naturally for you and your ilk Craigs. By all means...

"Just do what comes naturally for you and your ilk Craigs. By all means..."

And you go ahead and do what people of your ilk do Cec... That way I won't feel like I'm picking on you.

Cecelia is the fat young spinster in training who waits hand and foot on her idol, the dried and crackly old prune "grannie." Gee granny, can I really be as old and crabbed as you someday if I promise never to use dirty words? Sure, lille fatty! Now get to work and chase those ratty potty-mouthed kids off of my lawn!

What's "reading," Sheridan?

They would be blog boards where tightly-strung spinster women call themselves hos', bitches, and biddies. Er, ah, of course I mean "ladies of the evening", "shewish fishwives" and "shrivelled old trailer prunes." (Sorry, there is just no euphemism for that last one.) Need I document?

Posted by: Dave at April 2, 2007 6:21 PM

Dave that's no way to talk about Craigs. Besides, he's hasn't called us "fishwives" yet.

craigs.....

To Cecelia you're The Major.......to me you will always be Mummy's little Sheridan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_Appearances

"What's "reading," Sheridan?"

Well it's this really scary liberal plot, to try and and make conservatives think. Luckily (unless it the king James version of the bible) conservatives are too strong to fall for this ploy.

And you go ahead and do what people of your ilk do Cec... That way I won't feel like I'm picking on you.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:26 PM

You'd have to gain some IQ points for me to begin feeling picked on, Major.

"Dave that's no way to talk about Craigs. Besides, he's hasn't called us "fishwives" yet."

No need to state the obvious.

"To Cecelia you're The Major.......to me you will always be Mummy's little Sheridan"

Well I certainly was your mommies little Sheridan.

Well, Cecelia, we have to give our bed wetting (Cee, what is the medical term that starts with aneur?) craigs a little bit of credit.

After all he might just sweep the awards for: repulsive originality; grossness; the most mentions of pus (not puss, einstein) ; dental and peridontal references; rats as food; age discrimination.

Poor baby. I bet every time his poor Momma had to wash and hang those sheets on the line she was overwhelmed with love and compassion for her poor little misfit.

No wonder he grew up to be so nasty. His Momma shielded him from the big mean nasty world and he just can't take what he loves to dish out with a shovel.

Grammie

Cecelia is the fat young spinster in training who waits hand and foot on her idol, the dried and crackly old prune "grannie." Gee granny, can I really be as old and crabbed as you someday if I promise never to use dirty words? Sure, lille fatty! Now get to work and chase those ratty potty-mouthed kids off of my lawn!

Posted by: Dave at April 2, 2007 6:27 PM

Uh...Dave, ole Olbermann critic....that you are....

Why are you angry with Grammie?...

"You'd have to gain some IQ points for me to begin feeling picked on, Major."

Don't need need them when playing with big dummies such as yourself.

Craigs, Dave, Cecelia, Grammie, can we go back to arguing about Olbermann or something else beside this ugly name calling?

No wonder he grew up to be so nasty. His Momma shielded him from the big mean nasty world and he just can't take what he loves to dish out with a shovel.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 6:34 PM

Like he said, Craigs is every mummy's little Sheridan. And he's every blogboard's Major.

"After all he might just sweep the awards for: repulsive originality; grossness; the most mentions of pus (not puss, einstein) ;"

Quit with the assiness grammie!

"dental and peridontal references; rats as food; age discrimination."

Well written and colorful don't you think? It flowed better than your limmerick as well.

"Poor baby. I bet every time his poor Momma had to wash and hang those sheets on the line she was overwhelmed with love and compassion for her poor little misfit."

She actually did feel sorry, until she found out that that the site of your black, rotting teeth caused many a child to wet themselves in fear.

No wonder he grew up to be so nasty. His Momma shielded him from the big mean nasty world and he just can't take what he loves to dish out with a shovel.

Grammie

"Well it's this really scary liberal plot, to try and and make conservatives think. Luckily (unless it the king James version of the bible) conservatives are too strong to fall for this ploy."

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:31 PM

Don't you know that thinking is dangerous, Sheridan! Bob Jones III (or his ordained representative) TELLS me what God's word says......Books are only good for kindlin'....

Burn 'em!

Kik-kik-kyah!!

You'd have to gain some IQ points for me to begin feeling picked on, Major."

Don't need need them when playing with big dummies such as yourself.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:35 PM

Oh, you need them. If only to help you know that you need them...

"Like he said, Craigs is every mummy's little Sheridan. And he's every blogboard's Major"

Well I certainly was Cee's moms little sheridan. It was one of many games we played, and may have been the source of Cee's dislike against me. You know the ole Oedipal conflict.

I don't know if I can be your major anymore though Cec. You're far too fat for me.

"Oh, you need them. If only to help you know that you need them..."

I'll worry about it when you catch up... Meaning i won't worry.

Craigs, Dave, Cecelia, Grammie, can we go back to arguing about Olbermann or something else beside this ugly name calling?

Posted by: at April 2, 2007 6:38 PM

Hell no! Come sit by me, sweety and reload the buckshot.

"No wonder he grew up to be so nasty. His Momma shielded him from the big mean nasty world and he just can't take what he loves to dish out with a shovel."

Your the one complaing that i singled you out. Makes you look like of foolish doesn't it?

Just to set the record straight this is the entire post that sent craigs into such deliriums of invective:

"Mikey had a little troll,
Its heart was black as coal;
And everywhere that Mikey went,
The troll was sure to go.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at April 2, 2007 4:02 PM "

Now for the response from our dear craigs who was not mentioned, or does he know something we don't know.

"grammie still has a few teeth,
hanging loosley from her gums.
which although black and broken,
and puss filled everyone,
are used to bite the heads of mice,
quite slowly killing some.
She does this in the morning,
Grammie does this 'till she she's done.
Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 4:32 PM "

I predict that our dear itty bitty craigs will post without sleep, food or water as long as he has to to have the last word and again prove to us what an ABSOLUTE ASS he is.

Grammie

Grammie....that would be nocturnal enureis....a common problem for children who tend to have problems with intimacy and other interpersonal relationship issues as adults.

I won't go over the line here with regards to craigs.....it is my first day back and all....I'll just stick to the childish name-calling. Getting my feet wet....you know.

Kik-kik-kyah

I'll worry about it when you catch up... Meaning i won't worry.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:47 PM

No doubt. You don't have the cerebrum for it.

"Craigs, Dave, Cecelia, Grammie, can we go back to arguing about Olbermann or something else beside this ugly name calling?"

The only thing ugly around these parts is cecelia. Well ok, grammie's teeth are pretty unattractive as well.

I don't know if I can be your major anymore though Cec. You're far too fat for me.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:44 PM

Craigs, you're every girl's The Major.

hiccup.....enuresis.....

"No doubt. You don't have the cerebrum for it."

For you to catch up? Know sorry i haven't figured out how to help you with that.

again prove to us what an ABSOLUTE ASS he is.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 6:50 PM

Like we need more proof....

I" predict that our dear itty bitty craigs will post without sleep, food or water as long as he has to to have the last word and again prove to us what an ABSOLUTE ASS he is."

And I predict Grammie will walk away without the last word. HAHAHAHA ok, seriously poor grammie can't let some little troll get the best of her and her black teeth. She'll hang in to the bitter end.

" won't go over the line here with regards to craigs.....it is my first day back and all....I'll just stick to the childish name-calling. Getting my feet wet....you know."

That's a real good strategy. Ease into it. Posting takes a lot of thinking.

"Like we need more proof...."

Well if you demonstrated one thing on this blog, it's that proof means nothing to you.

"No doubt. You don't have the cerebrum for it."

For you to catch up? Know sorry i haven't figured out how to help you with that.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:54 PM

I'd tell you to help yourself, but you got stumped on that long ago.

"I'd tell you to help yourself, but you got stumped on that long ago."

That's true. I concluded that there was no help for you.

"Like we need more proof...."

Well if you demonstrated one thing on this blog, it's that proof means nothing to you.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 6:59 PM

That's what your proofs generally amount to.

"That's what your proofs generally amount to"

That's what all proof amounts to with you Cec. if only you could consume reason like you do donuts.

"Don't you understand how [Muslim extremists] see the world? I do, which is why most of them listen to the show and love me." He then began to speak from the point of view of a Muslim extremist. Savage said, "The enemy himself probably listens to this show and says, 'My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me.' " Savage added: "And yet the liberal sees me as the enemy. The liberal, who wants to further homosexualize, further feminize, further prostitute, further pornographic [sic] the nation, hates Michael Savage. Don't you understand what's at stake? Well, I think I've laid out pretty clearly what I'm trying to say today, and what's going on in my mind. And I hope you understand what I'm saying to you."

...And all this time I thought the Left and the Terrorists were one and the same...

...Apparently The Savage Nation and Radical Islam are one and the same...

It all makes sense now...

That's what all proof amounts to with you Cec. if only you could consume reason like you do donuts.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:04 PM

Unlike your proofs donuts have only one hole.

Well I need to go (dry your chubby little cheeks Cec.) Your major shall return at a later date for more play.

Oh dear, with all the back and forth I completely lost track that craigs never did answer my first response to his charming little ditty, poem or whatever.

Come on craigs, such a cute little name, I am still waiting for your expert culinary advice. No doubt you have forgotten the questions I asked you a while back, so I will repeat them for your memory challenged brain (I heard that condition can be the side effect of too many live rat heads):

"craigs (what a cutesy little name you've chosen), I am at a loss for what prompted this rare treat.. I have not addressed you for several days now.

I've never tried that particular delicacy. You, however, seem to have a broad knowledge of the subject and possible gastronomical joys.

I assume it is an acquired taste because it is so rarely, if ever, recommended. I want all the details that you are so obviously an expert on.

Did your mother serve them often, or only as a rare treat when you were very good, such as not wetting the bed.

Are they only available in the sewers where you live, or can one purchase them elsewhere?

What advice can you give to help others select only prime rats. Size, color, age or tail length?

As a connoisseur I am certain you will love the opporitunity to display your superior tastes, a la Mrs. Philby, to the rest of us.

Bon appetit!

Grammie
Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 5:01 PM

Grammie

"I'd tell you to help yourself, but you got stumped on that long ago."

That's true. I concluded that there was no help for you.

Posted by: at April 2, 2007 7:01 PM

So we're back to your needing IQ points. Square One. Like your head.

"Unlike your proofs donuts have only one hole."

and my have none. Is that why you won't consume it?

"So we're back to your needing IQ points. Square One. Like your head."

You'll never stop needing IQ points Cec. and the only square is your figure.

"Unlike your proofs donuts have only one hole."

and my have none. Is that why you won't consume it?

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:13 PM

No one can swallow your proofs, Major

High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could encourage faster action in Congress on climate change and lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.

"No one can swallow your proofs, Major"

Too many calories for you? That's a first.

Oh, he is soooooo clever.

Question: who else besides me can see Mrs. Philby as Hyacinth in Miss Hathaway's body and with Miss Hathaway's voice.

"Oh, he is soooooo clever."

That's the first accurate thing you've said today.

Well I need to go (dry your chubby little cheeks Cec.) Your major shall return at a later date for more play.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:11 PM

You better, Major. I just burnt soup because of you.

"You better, Major. I just burnt soup because of you."

Well the last thing I want to do is deprive you of food. We all know how nasty Cec can get when she doesn't get second lunch.

You'll never stop needing IQ points Cec. and the only square is your figure.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:14 PM

You can't figure, Major. You've no cerebrum!

Well the last thing I want to do is deprive you of food. We all know how nasty Cec can get when she doesn't get second lunch.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:28 PM

You've depraved me of food.

A quote inlikely to appear on Olbermann's farce tonight.....

"If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker 'wants to play chicken with our troops,'"
Sen. Barack Obama - 4/1/07

Was this an April's Fool joke?

What? Cutting the funds is THE constitutional way Congress can affect our nations' foreign policy! That's it......What Constitution is The Senator working from.....

Oh yes.....my same mantra.....where oh where has the anti-war left gone?......why are there STILL INCREASING numbers of United States troops in Iraq?

Hello....perhaps Sheridan will enlighten me?

"You can't figure, Major. You've no cerebrum!"

I figured you're a dimwit. But I don't get points for the obvious.

Grammie,

Why is Dave insulting you?

"You've depraved me of food."

Said while eating a bag of cookies.

"You can't figure, Major. You've no cerebrum!"

I figured you're a dimwit. But I don't get points for the obvious.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:31 PM

Too bad. You have a talent for the obvious.

"Too bad. You have a talent for the obvious."

Hence figuring you're a dimwit.

Major Sheridan?

"You've depraved me of food."

Said while eating a bag of cookies.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:33 PM

No wonder your typing is bad.

Cecelia, I will lay ten to one odds that your remark went so far over his head that it is in the stratosphere.

Hence figuring you're a dimwit.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:34 PM

Hence the quality of your figuring.

I rather talk about this miss Cee"

"Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Grammie,

That was me asking about Dave. Sorry. I had a minestrone accident... :D

"Hence the quality of your figuring."

I know I figure the obvious. You're a dimwit.

"That was me asking about Dave. Sorry. I had a minestrone accident... :D"

Chew Cecelia! Chew! Don't just breath it in.

Don't know, Cecelia. Mikey's little troll?

Chew Cecelia! Chew! Don't just breath it in.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:41 PM

No, that's your gas. Or your proofs?

Don't know, Cecelia. Mikey's little troll?

Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 7:43 PM

Yes. I knew from the other letter he was pretending to be otherwise.

Now come on Sheridan......

You know that the atheist litmus tests have yet to come to frutition...although I know your radical segment of society cannot wait for the day that instead of self-proclaimed Christians like Obama, Clinton and Bush (BTW, a Christian expresses belief that Jesus Christ is God.....a bit more than just believing in a supreme being), we will only see smart, logical and loving scientists aspire to higher office.....

So Sheridan.....who are you voting for in the Democratic Primary.....Christian number 1, 2 or 3?....

Nice subject to bring up this week....oh yeah you may not realize that this Sunday is Resurrection Sunday......I wonder where Bill and Hill will be at, say about, 11:00AM?

Yep, Cecelia, I was dead on right. As far as craigs knows your comment went so far over his head that it is in the statosphere.

These poll results come just a few months after an international study was conducted to measure which countries were the most accepting on evolutionary biology. Of the 34 countries involved, the United States ranked 33rd. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:39 PM

We'd like be the superpower and technological giant of the world if more people believed in evolution.

Yep, Cecelia, I was dead on right. As far as craigs knows your comment went so far over his head that it is in the statosphere.

Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 7:50 PM

Major's head IS the stratosphere.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that there had been nothing that could have logically set Dave off against you and that he was what I suspected.

"Nice subject to bring up this week....oh yeah you may not realize that this Sunday is Resurrection Sunday......I wonder where Bill and Hill will be at, say about, 11:00AM?"

That's the sunday a guy rose from the dead right? wow that is quite an occurance, a sceptic might ask if there is any proof that ever happend. Luckily you are not a sceptic.

Well, I suppose that explains the Ottoman Empire.

"Major's head IS the stratosphere. "

I know it may seem that way to you, since I'm so much smarter than you. But I assure you I am simply of above average intelligence. although to you it might seem like the stratosphere.

Grammie, remember thurs or fri night when "craigs" was defending lil mikey's every post? A week or so before that "cw" was defending lil mikey's every post? Who was it that said they "believed" lil mikey wasn't posting under other names? Cecelia?

That's the sunday a guy rose from the dead right? wow that is quite an occurance, a sceptic might ask if there is any proof that ever happend. Luckily you are not a sceptic.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 7:59 PM

No, Cee concurs with Bill, Hill, and Obama.

"We'd like be the superpower and technological giant of the world if more people believed in evolution."

We might even stay there if people like you can ever move beyod mystical thinking. Anyway I'm gonna go to the store and see if i can magic myself up a loaf of bread.

I know it may seem that way to you, since I'm so much smarter than you. But I assure you I am simply of above average intelligence. although to you it might seem like the stratosphere.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 8:01 PM

No. It's the air between your ears.

If only we had pols who didn't believe in resurrection. We could have as great a leaders as China!

Cee,

I wonder where China and North Korea stand on the evolutionary biology poll? Dare we aspire to their heights?

We might even stay there if people like you can ever move beyod mystical thinking. Anyway I'm gonna go to the store and see if i can magic myself up a loaf of bread.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 8:03 PM

Stay there. We got here with fewer people believing it.

I

"Grammie, remember thurs or fri night when "craigs" was defending lil mikey's every post? A week or so before that "cw" was defending lil mikey's every post? Who was it that said they "believed" lil mikey wasn't posting under other names? Cecelia?
Posted by: royalking at April 2, 2007 8:02 PM "

And as Sharon pointed out, a lot of anons take Mikey's back.

That was why I made my little ditty about Mikey's little troll. I didn't mention names. Just the generic term troll.

And lo and behold, who jumped out of the sewer but craigs.

And a bit earlier craigs had a tinge of CW in his post to Cecelia.

What a putz.

Grammie

Anyway I'm gonna go to the store and see if i can magic myself up a loaf of bread.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 8:03 PM

Why waste your time there? See if you can magic yourself up an atheist presidential candidate.

I truly did believe that Mike wouldn't post under aliases, until he admitted it.

Sharon and perhaps Grammie were way ahead of me on that.

I made a post the other day alluding to the question of "what new name will he be using next?" A week ago I would make reference to "a certain poster" and that would always bring him out of the wood work. I know that's not the subject of this blog,but, it sure makes a a little more entertaining, in between Johhny's recaps.

I really am not that concerned about people posting under aliases unless they're stealing other people's names.

The reason I asked about Dave isn't because I think he's somebody else, but because I knew he was an Olbermann fan.

You know, Cecelia, I really don't think Sheridan is going to the store. I am convinced he is on a quick trip to the hospital for a feeding tube, a colostomy bag and a cathether (Cee, please correct any spelling mistakes).

That way he can go on indefinitely and always have the last word, no matter how stupid or silly they are.

Grammie

Is dave a past poster?

Grammie,

Don't judge us too harshly. There's nothing I like better than a good bar fight with these scalliwags too.

Just throw a couple of bottles over some of their heads and mosey off. We'll be lying on the floor unconscious when you get back.

I really am not that concerned about people posting under aliases unless they're stealing other people's names.

The reason I asked about Dave isn't because I think he's somebody else, but because I knew he was an Olbermann fan.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:17 PM
I was never concerned, either, I just thought it was weird he denied doing it when it was so obvious.

Cee,

Be sure to order me TPN... :D

Sounds good to me. I will return if my back calms down.

Tell me, was that McArturesque? :)

Grammie

Major Sheridan didn't answer my simple question......

Major, do yourself a favor and look up a passage....I Corinthians 1:18-31

This Sunday, when the top candidates exercise their right to indulge in worshiping "the god-man," the guy who never proved he even existed, let alone came back from the dead.....I hope Major Sheridan is researching the candidate who reflects his non-mystical, logical and compassionate world-view.....I also hope he tells me who he or she is on Monday.....

What about that war funding, Sheridan,

.....anyone,

.....Onslow?

Kik-kik-kyah!!

Tell me, was that McArturesque? :)

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at April 2, 2007 8:27 PM

As long as you outrank The Major.

See you later, all.

I went to the store and behold! a man was giving a crowd large quantaties of Fish and bread. I asked if he was jesus but he said his name was Doug? The he charged $19.75 for the order.

"See you later, all."

Aww, Fatty's leaving.

"Major Sheridan didn't answer my simple question......"

Take it easy lenny, I've been posting messages to fattie and grammie (Who really really wants the last word) You'll get your turn.

"Major, do yourself a favor and look up a passage....I Corinthians 1:18-31"

Does it say abracadabra hocus pocus santa claus exists?

"This Sunday, when the top candidates exercise their right to indulge in worshiping "the god-man," the guy who never proved he even existed, let alone came back from the dead.....I hope Major Sheridan is researching the candidate who reflects his non-mystical, logical and compassionate world-view.....I also hope he tells me who he or she is on Monday....."

Alas, if only such a man or women existed. No in this country a politician must pretend he beleives in the easter bunny to be elected. Too many fools such as yourself Lenny. Now go get yourself nice bunny for the holiday. You can call him George.

"What about that war funding, Sheridan,"

What about it? Georgie porgie wants to veto it, I believe.

Aw, come now.....pretend?

Major Sheridan writes....

"a politician must pretend he beleives in the easter bunny to be elected."

Funny......Senators Obama and Clinton were just in Selma, Alabama......in a church.....the minister prayed to the sky-fairy and ended the prayer....."In Jesus name".....and what did these two nice people say......."Amen."

Does the intellectual know what "amen" means?.....you can use wiki if you have to enlighten yourself.....hint: it's not abra-kadabra.

So, they are pretending......I see....well I guess voting for liars seems to be the way now-a-days.

I just have to get into one of those lovely townhall meetings with your lovely candidates and ask them about your theory, Sheridan! Their public professions of belief in the sky-god and his son was just acting! Wow....stop the presses.....

Um, and BTW The House will have to vote to over-ride Bush's veto.....they will not succeed, And then another appropriations (likely an emergency one) will be presented and your lovely pretenders will have to decide whether to vote YES or NO for war funding.....NO could end the war......we'll see if they decide to FINALLY act like real leaders and do what they say they believe.

(I forgot how easy yet fun this was)

"Does the intellectual know what "amen" means?.....you can use wiki if you have to enlighten yourself.....hint: it's not abra-kadabra."

Why would i care Lenny? I don't pray to the sky god.

"So, they are pretending......I see....well I guess voting for liars seems to be the way now-a-days."

That's who you've certainly voted for in the past isn't it?

"just have to get into one of those lovely townhall meetings with your lovely candidates and ask them about your theory, Sheridan! Their public professions of belief in the sky-god and his son was just acting! Wow....stop the presses....."

Oh no Lenny, you misunderstand me. I meant people like Dubya are faking it. I am sure Obama is sincere.

"Um, and BTW The House will have to vote to over-ride Bush's veto.....they will not succeed, And then another appropriations (likely an emergency one) will be presented and your lovely pretenders will have to decide whether to vote YES or NO for war funding.....NO could end the war......we'll see if they decide to FINALLY act like real leaders and do what they say they believe."

Well they want to end this disaster in a responsiable with a drawdown and a timetable. Little george wants to keep his top gun fantasy going as long as he can, so of course he vetoed it.

(I forgot how easy yet fun this was)

Ok class. Little Lenny (who thinks he is very clever) is here to demonstrate logical fallacies for us. He decided to start with the fallacy known as False Dilemma.

This fallacy takes the following form:
False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning:

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.

Now this fallacy is sometimes called 'Black White thinking" and is among the more common fallacies from right wingers like Lenny.

Here is his example.

".....they will not succeed, And then another appropriations (likely an emergency one) will be presented and your lovely pretenders will have to decide whether to vote YES or NO for war funding.....NO could end the war......we'll see if they decide to FINALLY act like real leaders and do what they say they believe."

Notice how this line of logic indicates that if democrats don't cut spending they must be for the war.

Thank you Lenny for your wonderful demonstration. And might I ask how is the bunny hunting going?

Craig, Just a previous comment from Cee to demonstrate you are not dealing with a moron, as you seem to believe:

"Oh My God...A supposedly educated man believing God created the world."

Yes, and glad to discuss it with you.

I am assuming you are holding the fossil in your hand to argue the earth is older than the scriptures would have one believe?

How did you obtain the age of the fossil?

I'll answer my own question...because there is only one (flawed) way...C14 dating.

I have a question for you....Is C14 dating ever done without THEORIZED strata dating influencing the objective reading....meaning telling the C14 scientist where the fossil was obtained?

See this article about the truth concerning "the science" of C14 dating:

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

Do you simply accept C14 dating because you were taught it is an accurate way of dating matter, or have you actually seen it done and performed without influence from geological theory on strata dating?

I have, and it is not objective.

You see, I was a Biology Major as an undergraduate and saw the science behind the textbooks....like I was always taught...don't always believe what you read in textbooks. They will change it 6 months later.

Please let me know. Primary sources would be nice.

Also, please provide one example of a macro-evolutionary interspecies fossil to back up your claim of complete, unaided, naturalistic Darwinian Evolution from single cell to Homo sapien.

Please explain to me the evolutionary process by which DNA has, in both plants and animals, the ability to repair itself back to its original code after frequent (conservatively estimated to be 1 million replication errors per second), replication errors. How could a chemical resposible for carrying the genetic information responsible for evolution evolve its own repair chemical when it has so frequently occurring replication errors?

Also, when DNA makes proteins, there are transcription errors of the same magnitude as DNA replication and there are chemicals that repair these errors. How did the "repairer" chemicals evolve from the repairee if there were errors in the first place that would halt the production of proteins?

The above is also true of RNA and there are different repair chemicals when gamates are formed through miosis...Again, how can a chemical structure that relies on a strict code repair itself?

What about mitochondrial DNA? How could it evolve a totally different replication and transcrption repair system and still survive the original replicating errors?

What are the odds that every part of the human eye, which has over 10,000 independently functioning parts, evolved independently of one another to result in the combined stucture we have today?

How long in years would those odds need for the one correct "original eye" to finally evolve?

(Hint....longer than the currently scientifically accepted age of the entire universe)

How do replicating animal and plant cells in the zygote and early embryo correctly align spatially in three dimensions? How did this important basic embryological process evolve under only the influence of Natural Selection if the rudimentary process had to be evolved first?

Please answer these scientific questions.

I've got a lot more if you want them.
Posted by: cee at January 16, 2007 7:49 PM

Excuse me, Craigs (forgot your "s")

Thanks Sharon....I was getting a little tired of dealing with Sheridan......

He won't answer....they never do......in 1991, when I asked the same question:

"What are the odds that every part of the human eye, which has over 10,000 independently functioning parts, evolved independently of one another to result in the combined stucture we have today?

"How long in years would those odds need for the one correct "original eye" to finally evolve?"

My college advisor (also a bigoted atheist) sat silent......then he babbled something about string theory, multiple universes and the space/time rift allowing for a theorized "infinite time line" for life to spontaneously form somewhere in the universe and then go on to develop a complicated ecosystem.....wow.....it seems that garbage has yet to be "proven," yet they still believe!

Genetic evolutionary theory guided by Natural Selection alone, that results in the multicellular organism called Sheridan, requires more than the estimated age of THE UNIVERSE let alone that of the earth.....a dirty little secret no one likes to discuss.....

Keep increasing the age of the universe, guys....it won't help....

Sheridan?

RoyalKing/Jeff:

Just a quick correction, lil pal. I NEVER denied being Mutt or Woogy, as you said at 5:56 - not even once. I admitted it immediately. In fact, I made an intentional comment that I knew you would recognize regarding your childish fascination with big bombs.

Now you lying moron, once again, I was NEVER 'Cecil', and I was NEVER 'Beverly'. And oh yeah, I'm sure as hell not 'Craigs'. What is this now Jeff? At least your 101th lie?...but that won't stop you from continuing to lie in the future.

"see the difference?" I sure do you liar, because I am not a liar, never have been, but you clearly are.

Now ya'll have a good night now, you hear!

Sharon I'd be happy to reply to this. First off you must know that Cee is using information passed off by so called "creation scientist." These arguments have been debuncked several times and I will do so again with a little help from a friendly neighborhood scientist.

From Cee:

"I am assuming you are holding the fossil in your hand to argue the earth is older than the scriptures would have one believe?

How did you obtain the age of the fossil?

I'll answer my own question...because there is only one (flawed) way...C14 dating.

I have a question for you....Is C14 dating ever done without THEORIZED strata dating influencing the objective reading....meaning telling the C14 scientist where the fossil was obtained?

See this article about the truth concerning "the science" of C14 dating:"

From here Cee argues that C14 is inaccurate the standard argument presented by creationsist is that

"Uranium minerals always exist in open systems, not closed. . . Unless the system is known to have been a closed system through all the ages since its formation, its age readings are meaningless." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp 140-141) "

Now going to a frinedly neighborhood scientist I come up with this in reply:

"the amount of "primordial" lead that was present before radio-decay started is indeed a limiting factor in the uranium-lead dating method. However, the use of lead-204 as a measuring stick allows us to make a reasonably precise estimate of the amount of original non-radiogenic lead, since the various isotopes are chemically identical and always are moved at the same proportion. It is indeed possible that enough lead may have entered or left the sample to throw off the accuracy of the date by a few percent, and this is one of the reasons why the uranium-lead method is no longer used. But even such an error would not be enough to allow for the possibility of a 6,000 year old earth. (Keep in mind that Morris is here arguing that enough lead entered the system to change the apparent date from 6,000 years to around 5 billion years, an error factor of almost a million percent.) "
source here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

I apppreciate your point but Cee is wrong on most of these points or exagerating their importance. Let me know if you more info on this.

"What are the odds that every part of the human eye, which has over 10,000 independently functioning parts, evolved independently of one another to result in the combined stucture we have today?"

Here Sharon Cee continues with another favorite of Creation scientist what some have come to call the "argument from personal incredulity" -- "I can't see how this could have happened, therefore it could not have happened".

So, how can an eye evolve step by step?

Here is my friendly neighborhood scientist on the matter.

"Well, we start with an eyespot, a small spot on the skin of a small invertebrate that contains pigments (and nearly ALL organisms have pigments in their skin). Some pigments (such as rhodopsin) are light-sensitive and produce chemical changes in the presence of light. Hence, an organism with a crude "eyespot" like this would have the selective advantage of telling light from dark -- all with nothing but a patch of pigmented skin. This is the sort of eye that many unicellular organisms and some very simple multicellular organisms like worms have.

Let's make a small improvement, and add a mutation which allows a layer of transparent skin to cover the eyespot (two or three genes at most -- largely a change in the growth pattern of the skin). This will protect it from damage and give a selective advantage to the worms that have it.

Now let's make a minor change in how the pigmented spot grows, and change one regulatory gene to make the central portion of the spot grow faster than the outer portions. This has the effect of pulling the center of the spot in to make a shallow dish or bowl shaped area, lined with light-sensitive pigment. A simple change, but a very large advantage -- it allows differing areas of pigment to react according to the way in which light is falling on it -- allowing the organism to detect the direction of the light. It is the type of eye found in some worms and in some mollusks (clams and scallops).

Another small change in regulatory genes deepens the cup, making it more and more direction-sensitive (and thus gives more and more selective advantage). The result is a hollow ball, lined with light-sensitive cells, with a small pinhole in front, and a fiber at the back that is connected to the nervous system. This is nothing but a pinhole camera. It gives maximum direction sensitivity, and also allows a crude image to be focused on the back of the eyeball, where each individual light-sensitive cell is impinged upon by differing intensities of light, thus providing the nervous system with the information necessary to form an image. This is the type of eyeball found in the nautilus.

Next, another minor change in regulatory genes causes the transparent skin covering the front of the eye to thicken. This changes the refraction of the light entering the eyeball. Mutations which allow the center of this transparent layer to grow more quickly than the edges, form a semi-spherical transparent layer in the front of the eyeball -- a lens. This is the type of eye that many fish have.

Now, a mutation which doubles the transparent layer, allowing the inner one to grow and form the spherical lens, while the outer layer remains thin. Now we have a cornea. Just as in many fish today.

Now, we add a change in regulatory genes which alters the growth pattern of some of the muscles and connective tissue just inside the cornea, one which allows them to form a flat circular sheet in front of the lens, which can be pulled in or out against the sides of the eyeball. Now we have an iris. The same sort of eye found in many fish today.

Now, mutations which change the rate at which different portions of the lends grow will change its focusing length and thus the sharpness of the image it is able to form. Since sharper images will be selected for, these will tend to transform the spherical lens into a lenticular one, fastened to the side of the eyeball by the same connective tissue and muscles which held the original transparent layer in place (and from which the iris developed). As yet, these muscles are incapable of changing the focal length of the eye by pulling the lens into different shapes. At best, they can pull the lens a short distance to and fro to change the focal length. This is the same sort of eye that modern snakes and frogs have.

Mutations which produce stronger and more controlled muscles will allow the eye to be focused by pulling on the lens to alter its shape, rather than by moving the whole lens back and forth. And this is the type of eye found in birds and mammals.

And there we have an eye, produced step by step, each with just small changes, each change being fully functional and a selective advantage for the organism that has it.

And how do we know that each of these steps is not only possible, but actually works? Because all of them still exist today in various organisms."

Shall I continue on Lenny? I don't want to rob you of all your convictions.

My point was, Craigs, that you insulted the intelligence of Cee. He didn't cut and paste but spoke with direct knowledge. You may disagree with his analysis. It is pointless to debate religion here. That was not my purpose.

"Keep in mind that Morris is here arguing that enough lead entered the system to change the apparent date from 6,000 years to around 5 billion years"

Not if the isotope was present in a particular quantity on "day one."

Nice non-response Sheridan.....ASSUMING that the original sample had a determined amount of ANY isotope when it became a fossil is still ASSUMING....any scientist will admit that....dating requires ASSUMING a starting point and (again knowing the strata level), dating is accomplished ASSUMING a particular starting point for decay for the particular object. This can apply to using any isotope decay method.

Has there ever been blind, random controlled testing of these dating methods, Sheridan? Is there an object on this earth dated to the point when the crust of the earth was "formed" from the big bang to compared all the samples dated previously?......I would like to know where this "rock" is so that I can see it...I would assume it is in a museum.

Craigs,

The fanatical Islamists are persecuting my Catholic brothers and sisters in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. I am a simple woman with faith. They are willing to die for their faith while I can practice it safely here (only get ridiculed on message boards and probably not be able to hold any office if I don't hide my beliefs.) If a radical Muslim were holding a knife/gun while you were on your knees, would you embrace Allah or stick to your atheism? The Chaldeons in Iraq are dying for their faith. A 14 year old boy was recently crucified. Don't make light of people who believe something that you won't.

"My point was, Craigs, that you insulted the intelligence of Cee. He didn't cut and paste but spoke with direct knowledge. You may disagree with his analysis. It is pointless to debate religion here. That was not my purpose."

Well to be fair, yes I insulted his intelligence. He has also insulted mine many times. But you are wrong in saying he spoke with direct knowledge, Yes I 'll grant he has read creation science literature (as have I) than doesn't make his arguments any less wrong. he is acting as though the science is on is side (it is not!)

If he wants to beleive in religion that is his business. but I will not let him get away with pretending scientific evidence is on his side.

I apppreciate your point but Cee is wrong on most of these points or exagerating their importance. Let me know if you more info on this.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 10:06 PM

The Major is back from going to the store for his mama.

You're absolutely right for once. The whole argument is of exaggerated importance, Craigs. Especially to you of all people.

You've already established that you're perfectly content to vote on a sincere or con-artist pretend believer in Easter Bunny Creators of the Universe. As long as they have (D) after their name.

"The fanatical Islamists are persecuting my Catholic brothers and sisters in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. I am a simple woman with faith. They are willing to die for their faith while I can practice it safely here (only get ridiculed on message boards and probably not be able to hold any office if I don't hide my beliefs.) If a radical Muslim were holding a knife/gun while you were on your knees, would you embrace Allah or stick to your atheism? The Chaldeons in Iraq are dying for their faith. A 14 year old boy was recently crucified. Don't make light of people who believe something that you won't."

You know what you seem nice. I won't mock your beleifs anymore my purpose was to mock Cee. My fiance is actually religious and I beleive in the hands of good people it is a good thing.

"You've already established that you're perfectly content to vote on a sincere or con-artist pretend believer in Easter Bunny Creators of the Universe. As long as they have (D) after their name."

Oh good! fatass is back!

You know what you seem nice. I won't mock your beleifs anymore my purpose was to mock Cee. My fiance is actually religious and I beleive in the hands of good people it is a good thing.

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 10:31 PM

Yes, believing (or pretending to believe) in an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus God is certainly tolerable... As long as you vote like Major.... Otherwise, that garbage is something with which you try to bludgeon your opponent.

Oh good! fatass is back!

Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 10:33 PM

Pot-belly calling kettle black....hey, Major.

Thank you. I hope your fiance can get through to you. I still think you are wrong most of the time. I am not an attack dog. Mike knows that too.

Grammie is no slouch either in the intelligence department. I don't comment very often because I'm pretty boring. Grammy, Cecelia and the others make it a heck of a lot more interesting.

"The Chaldeons in Iraq are dying for their faith. A 14 year old boy was recently crucified. Don't make light of people who believe something that you won't."

Actually, I think Major has more respect for the pols who pretend in order to fool that dumb ole U.S. majority.

Mmmm....You never answered my original question......what are the ODDS (so then THE TIME REQUIRED) of a random change in DNA sequence occurring for every step you mention, it then being successfully passed to the offspring of your organism (which you did not name) and the next mutation leading to the next step occurring in that same line of offspring....all in "logical" concert....forming not only the iris, lense and retina, but ALSO the extraocular muscles, the tear ducts, the eye lashes, and don't forget those wonderful lids that can be colored blue!

A million years?
A billion years?
A trillion years?

What does your scientist say......TIME is never mentioned in natural selection explanations....it is assumed the mutations are successful in an UNSPECIFIED period of time.....Oh no......that word again......ASSUMED!

Also.....your organism (which you did not name) is of another species......where is the offspring of that organism (which you did not name) that did NOT have a advantage passed onto it and then evolved?.....What about an interspecies transition fossil of your THEORY......Where is it?

And this is just the eye.....What about repair mechanisms of DNA, RNA?.....Did the molecules "evolve" under the influence of natural selection alone as well?.....How could they if MUTATION is required and these very structures repair mutations?

In fact, a skin cell on my head was damaged from UV radiation today and.....WOW......the DNA sequence was repaired by a moleule residing in the vey same nucelus of that cell.....How, if mutation is REQUIRED for evolution to take place, could even a bacterium develop a repair molecule for its own genetic sequence? It would be thwarting the very foundation of natural selection.

This also applies to the process of miosis.....gamate formation.....reperative molecules in the nucleus of cells trying to keep the DNA sequence the same as it is copied or distributed to gamates......

Ask your scientist, please.

I'm pretty boring.

Posted by: Sharon at April 2, 2007 10:41 PM

But look who tamed that beast in one post.

"Nice non-response Sheridan....."

There's a whole post there lenny just have to read a few times and even you can get it.

"ASSUMING that the original sample had a determined amount of ANY isotope when it became a fossil is still ASSUMING....any scientist will admit that....dating requires ASSUMING a starting point and (again knowing the strata level), dating is accomplished ASSUMING a particular starting point for decay for the particular object. This can apply to using any isotope decay method."

Not true Lenny! the calculations are based on determining the half life of an element which is precisly known. For example: U-235 has a half life of 713 million years. If we start with a known quanitiy of u-235. in say a half half U-235 and half Pb-207. In another 713 million years, half of the remaining uranium will decay, and the material will now consist of three-fourths lead and one-fourth uranium.

This is what makes carbon dating possible.

in addition to this there are other methods of carbon dating such as: isochron dating, which depends on the beta decay of the isotope rubidium-87 (Rb-87) to strontium-87 (Sr-87),

with a half-life of 4.8 billion years. The rubidium-strontium method takes advantage of the fact that three other nonradiogenic isotopes of strontium are usually found with strontium-87; these are Sr-84, Sr-86 and Sr-88. As with the isotopes of lead, all of the isotopes of strontium are chemically identical, and NO MEANS exists in nature to move one isotope without also moving the others, in the same ratios.

Why don't you guys move to April 2? $ has the new recap. Otherwise, everyone keeps posting here and the Olbyloons think no one is posting. That happened the other day. No one moved over and on the new re-cap, Olbyloons were joyful that it appeared interest was lost.

Who cares what Olbyloons think. Let's go read Johnny!

"Who cares what Olbyloons think. Let's go read Johnny!"

Aww Cec, don't be foxnews nut. Stay here nad learn a little.

"Well to be fair, yes I insulted his intelligence. He has also insulted mine many times."

So says craigs @ Posted by: craigs at April 2, 2007 10:28 PM

Would you care to document that statement? Cee, to my knowledge, has not been a poster here for many weeks, long before the gourmet possum stew served by R Cox.

And as far as I can tell, you, as craigs at least haven't been posting here for more then a week or two, at most.

Sharon, you are the star at detecting this little subterfuges. Who could little craigs be?

Grammie

Sharon wwrites "Thank you. I hope your fiance can get through to you."

Oh, we've seen the Majors like Craigs before. Don't worry about her. He knows if his fiance knew he was saying half of what he says here, she'd bust him down to Private.

"Oh, we've seen the Majors like Craigs before. Don't worry about her. He knows if his fiance knew he was saying half of what he says here, she'd bust him down to Private."

Back for flames, ignore the science ehh Cec? Typical Fox news nut

lol

FYI You have to click on Permalink to get the new recap

Let me work on it Grammie : )

"see the difference?" I sure do you liar, because I am not a liar, never have been, but you clearly are.

Now ya'll have a good night now, you hear!

Posted by: Mike at April 2, 2007 10:04 PM
I knew I could bring lil mikey out of the bar! FYI, you've never proven me to be a liar, opposite is true, though.....

Grammie,

I was leaning a little toward Bob (Honeydew) but he was never that nice to me.

"And as far as I can tell, you, as craigs at least haven't been posting here for more then a week or two, at most."

You may not be real good at research, so I'll help you out Grammie. Scroll through the page you are on and read all the posts by Cee that should documenting the proof. You don't even have to hit refresh.

This reminds me a little of a Masquerade in Venice. You can be anyone you like until midnight- then you're unmasked.

"I was leaning a little toward Bob (Honeydew) but he was never that nice to me."

Sharon might I ask you a question? You may have noticed that while I have certainly insulted the hell out of Cec, and Cee and Janet, that they have not exacly taken the 'turn the other cheek" route in their responses.

I'm not attacking you, but do you think there behavior has been good?

Actually, Craigs probably is new here because he would have sparred with Cee about that evolution issue when he brought that up before. With Honeydew ruled out, I'll have to pronounce that Craigs has not been here before. I pointed out the Beavis and Butt Head routine the other day suspecting one of the Anons, but then I came to realize that Olbyoons in general use vulgarity. Of course, when fired upon, you Grammie and Cecelia fire back!

In addressing Grammie, I think I answered you, Craigs. Turn the other cheek is Biblical; if you are promoting it, I'm all for it! If not, well, Grammie is not a shrinking violet. Cecelia either.

Maybe we can sweet talk J$ out of the answer, Sharon.

I gave it (Bob) a thought , too. But I'm leaning towards SLOB a bit. But maybe not.

This charmer has about a fifty to one ratio of slimey insults to half way reasonable comments. SLOB never gets out of the gutter.

Grammie

("their" not there behavior- sorry- grammar is my thang)

"Mmmm....You never answered my original question......what are the ODDS (so then THE TIME REQUIRED) of a random change in DNA sequence occurring for every step you mention, it then being successfully passed to the offspring of your organism (which you did not name) and the next mutation leading to the next step occurring in that same line of offspring....all in "logical" concert....forming not only the iris, lense and retina, but ALSO the extraocular muscles, the tear ducts, the eye lashes, and don't forget those wonderful lids that can be colored blue!

A million years?
A billion years?
A trillion years?

What does your scientist say......TIME is never mentioned in natural selection explanations....it is assumed the mutations are successful in an UNSPECIFIED period of time.....Oh no......that word again......ASSUMED!"

Wrong again! :)

"There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species in nature. 3,500 years ago, a small lake was separated from Lake Victoria by a sandbar. There are now five species endemic to the new lake; they have evolved from the original species in a geological instant (McGowan 1984:29). A population of Nereis acuminata that was isolated in 1964 was no longer able to interbreed with its ancestors by 1992 (Weinberg et al. 1992). New species certainly can emerge quickly."

"[R]ates [of evolution] on the order of 400 d probably characterize speciation and radiation in new adaptive zones...Microevolutionary rates measured on the scale of tens or hundreds of years are much higher than phyletic rates derived from fossils. A microevolutionary rate of 400 d is sufficient to change a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years...Evolution on a mircoevolutionary scale is invisible in the fossil record, but this does not preclude microevolutionary processes operating over geological time from producing macroevolutionary change on the longer time scale. Microevolution and macroevolution are different manifestations of a common underlying process. (Gingerich 1983:161)"

This is too fun!

"In addressing Grammie, I think I answered you, Craigs. Turn the other cheek is Biblical; if you are promoting it, I'm all for it! If not, well, Grammie is not a shrinking violet. Cecelia either."

Nor I. Apologies if this gets ugly (well uglier than cec anyway)

SLOB was one time somewhat nice to me. I told him that I was probably idealistic in my views and he said more like naive, without piling on the sewage. Besides, do you really think SLOB had a fiance?

Man, Lenny hightailed it out of here didn't he?

Grammie,

Go check out the recap for today. Curious for your reaction to the Tron story.

You have a point there, Sharon. But that same point applies to craigs, I just can't see any woman, even a bimbo, tying up with this creep.

Codas, aka Donora, aka Cymbaline and any other number of late night aliases (I know you remember) could very well fit the bill. Just like Codas, craigs struggles with spelling and punctuation more than most.

What do you think of that idea?

Grammie

Sheridan, the use of decay to date an object, no matter what isotope you use, requires those fundemental assumtions I mentioned.....What were the quantities of the measured isotopes on "day one." The assumption of a regular rate of decay never even entered my argument today....even though there are logical reasons to be skeptical of a dating system that requires a closed environment. Also, the use of strata to "reference" isotope dating was never addressed by you or your scientist, Sheridan.....Are there trials that have "blinded" daters with reference to a control to verify the finding?

I will bold the other more important part of your sentence, Sheridan......

"and no mean exists IN NATURE to move one isotope without also moving the others, in the same ratios."

Keep trying, my faith is still strong.....it withstood 4 years as an undergrad and 4 years postgrad with more closed minds than yours.

What about that eye.....I didn't even mention the proximal structures like the optic nerve, the optic chiasm and the occipital lobe.....all creations from natural selection according to you......BILLIONS of mutations needed here as well to form the axons and dendrites SPECIFICALLY engineered to produce VISION from electrical signals produced in that very complicated eye natural selection and BILLIONS of mutations tossed out.....WOW!
In fact, the electrical information is changed to chemical signal (neurotransmitters) that also had to evolve! Again....please tell me how long it would take DNA sequence mutations to design such an elaborate system.....

Millions, billions, trillions of years?

Sheridan? Onslow?

I'll stop now, time for sleep....I'll look forward to more anti-religious bigotry from our tolerant left in the morning.

No, Codas (Donora) is an Eastern Rite Catholic. He likes the Pens (Donora is near my hometown in the Pittsburgh area). He is already married. Have to go for awhile. Back later.

Oh Sheridan.....I couldn't got to bed without addressing your latest half answer.....

Discussing new species of the same phyllum that can no longer mate on the microevolutionary timeline still does not address my challenge to you regarding more complicated adaptations based soley on DNA mutation....the structures of mutlicellular orgamisms and transitional species.....Once again, the scientist....even in your quote, is ASSUMING macroevolutionary progress will only need a period of time based on his/her observations of microevolutionary changes.....faith/assumption without PROOF.....The theory of natural selection continues to NOT impress me.

Good night and good luck.

No, Codas (Donora) is an Eastern Rite Catholic. He likes the Pens (Donora is near my hometown in the Pittsburgh area). He is already married. Have to go for awhile. Back later.

Posted by: Sharon at April 2, 2007 11:42 PM

Thanks for remembering all that Sharon and it is all correct. Janet, I do have spelling issues although much of it is typing to fast without looking. Sharon, the playoffs are starting soon and never did I imagine the Pens having such a great season. I hope they make some waves in the playoffs but whatever happens, I haven't enjoyed a season like this in a long time. Go Pens! Oh, and by the way Jasnet, half the reason I used other names for a while is to get you and cecelia to talk to me. You got codas all figured out, "you think" so I threw another name in there and it works for a while. Then of course you figure them out also.

Codas,

I've enjoyed your alter-egos but I missed "Codas" when he was gone.

cecelia, i cant remember exactly but you called me, or was it Donora, or maybe Cymbaline a doplesomething? Meaning a ghost of some sort? What was it?

cecelia, i cant remember exactly but you called me, or was it Donora, or maybe Cymbaline a doplesomething? Meaning a ghost of some sort? What was it?

Posted by: codas at April 3, 2007 12:32 AM

Doppleganger, sweety.

"darkpower, have you ever heard of paragraphs and their importance in aiding your readers to follow your, and I am being generous here, thoughts.

All those rules of composition were not intended to torture our young minds. Their purpose was, and still is, to enable us to communicate with each other.

Give it a try sometime. You might find the experience pleasant.

Grammie"

Ahem...if this is the ONLY attack you got to combat me on what I said, then you MUST think I was right SOMEWHERE!

I guess "Puck" (god knows where THAT name comes from, although I'm thinking of The Real World) got me there...wait...dissecting his post little by little:

"Dark Power said:

...trying to hold the feet of....."

Not even TRYING to take that out of context...ARE YOU?!

"I don't feel like wasting my time,"

Then why the hell are you POSTING? Must be important enough TO waste your time.

"One guy (Olby) is talking different than everybody else, so we should listen to him, Dark Power says."

Never said that. Maybe I SHOULD'VE put this in baby talk, so you people would understand what I was trying to say. I said that because one person has a different opinion in the media than everyone else (O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Malkin, Nancy Grace) that gets airtime over at FOX Noise and CNN, it's becoming so much of an obsession of you to slime someone that you don't care WHAT the facts actually are, or who you throw under the bus in order to get to said result.

"The one guy who has people from Air-America on. How many stations are they down to? Something like 41? And thats with them counting the West Palm station that Randi Rhoades is on. With Rush!"

He has ONE Air America guest on. And by the way, in case you didn't notice, we has SATALLITE RADIO, in which Sirius CLEARLY lists Air America as one of the stations it carries, so I don't think anyone there will fret if they don't have that many stations (Clear Channel owns half the WORLD'S radio now, anyway, and you KNOW what that will do to Air America, right?).

"Someone who talks different than everybody else, but has to have the same people on night after night because he can't get many people to come on and agree with him, even from his own side!"

MSNBC people who are on OTHER SHOWS ON THE NETWORK? Do you WATCH any other shows on the network other than this? And I would rather be on a show in which my opinion would not be interrupted rather than be on O'Really's show, in which I get told to shut up and have my mic cut off if I don't agree with him.

"Yet somebody like Dark Power, who looks like he either had a rough night or a few rough years in English class"

Like YOU have room to talk!

"says we should blindly listen to him and Olby."

Once again, a case of putting words in my mouth. Never once said that we had to agree with anyone. No one should have to agree with anything anyone says. That's NOT the issue. The issue is that you care more about smearing the damn guy than worrying about our men and women dying in Iraq. Dissent and disagreement is fine, but do it without dragging our dead soilders through the dirt WITH you're bellowing.

Of course, knowing people like you, you will find SOMETHING to spin, as long as you think you can get away with screwing around with another "Olbyloon", as you call them.

"Very Jim Jones and 'Zombie Nation' if you ask me."

Call me dumb, but who the hell is Jim Jones? And Zombie Nation? You're damn right "Zombie Nation". If that means I am wanting to get our troops home safe and sound so another child won't have to be without a mother and a father, I would rather be a zombie on the other side.

"Dark Power = Dim Bulb???"

Pot, meet kettle.

"We Report! You Decide!"

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?!

"Oh! and by the way, If you would have 'LISTEN' to Bill O'Reilly on Fri. you would have got the real story about Walter Reed."

Which is...?

Seriously, this, once again, isn't even trying. HOW many news organizations reported on the deplorable conditions there. And WHY the hell do you go to Orally for ANY facts? You're calling us zombies for "believing" Olbermann, but then take ANYTHING thrown at you by a guy who has been criticized for YEARS to be a pathalogical liar (or whatever kind of liar you want to call him instead) as FACT?!! C'MON!!!

"But then again since it looks like you didn't bother to 'LISTEN' in English class,"

Look above. It should've been "if you listenED to O'Reilly".

"why should I be surprised your just this hours 'Zombie Nation' talking points bloviater."

And why should I be surprised that half of the people posting here are just J$ and R.C. trying to make it seem like so many people post here that actually agree with the stuff posted here.

And by the way, argument not valid when talking about the people that "blovate" Hannity, Neil Bootz, O'Reilly, Malkin, Bozell, Glenn Beck, Rush, Murdoch, or any other of the right wing water carriers.

For those who don't want to have to wade through long posts in order to get to the wit and wisdom of the board's undisputed heavyweight champion, Teh Celilia, here is the summary for this particular thread:

So what is Olbermann's agenda?
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 12:25 AM

Mike just makes assertions and then whines that he's being put into an unfair position or makes specious claims of "bias"?... when asked questions about those asserrtions.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 10:27 AM

It should be delightful to you to be automatically labeled a Fox News junkie/groupie by someone who characterizes themselves as being independent-minded while making half-baked stereotypical assumptions and using Olbermann's lingo of "Fox Noise".... :D
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 10:34 AM

Johnny,

That progression whereby the Countdown folks laundered the origin of the assertions against the Fox News poll is fascinating!
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 11:29 AM

What? No reference to "neo-cons" in that string of mindless buzzwords?

You're slipping...
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 11:35 AM

Olbermann and Rachael Maddow were tsk-tsking over some sort of graphic that Fox put up while pundit Hannity doing one of his screeds.

Now we've all seen Countdown juxtapose Pres, Bush's head with a groundhog. We've seen Countdown, during stories about terrorism, show pictures of the administration with the words to the effect of "terrorists playing on our fears" at the bottom the screen.... or the logo to The Sopranos labeled with "Bush family values"...

Yes, it goes without saying that Olbermann and his "news show", as he called it, "nearly" always exempts himself from criticism when he does or has done the same thing he's condemning other media types and that other media outlet for doing... but did anyone notice last night during Oddball that VP Cheney's head was placed onto a cartoon body wearing prison garb?
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 12:02 PM

Wow!.... Disney has certainly invested a lot of power in Sean Hannity... :D
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 3:42 PM

Moving confession, craigs. Perhaps you could stop being one by not calling folks slimeball.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 5:07 PM

True enough. If Johnny called Olbermann "Ailes" or "Wallace", I'm sure both Roger and Chris would be HIGHLY offended.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 5:26 PM

In Keith's case the shoe fits.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 5:34 PM

Tell it to Keith. He admitted to being a fatass when he apologized to Ailes the other night.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 5:55 PM

If Keith says he's a fatass who is Johnny to differ....
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 6:09 PM

Because Olbermann was being accurate for once. He apologized to the guy he had been hard on.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 6:25 PM

Well, Olbermann would know. In this matter we can all bow to his greater knowledge that Keith really is THE fatass.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 6:39 PM

Yes, he is. However, I think that he is a fatass is all the self-disclosure we'll get from Keith though.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 6:47 PM

Well, perhaps if Keith reads that between he and Ailes, that you think Ailes "is the bigger scumbag" he'll feel all better...
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 6:58 PM

When is he NOT looking in a mirror? No, Keith knows whereof he speaks. It's right behind him...
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:05 PM

Well, Weird Fatass has accused Ailes of worse.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:17 PM

Nope. So far you and Keith are the only self-accused fatass and slimeball, respectively.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:25 PM

I think she spells it "ho".
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:32 PM

So you're more interested in Olbermann's big crack. Mama isn't surprised.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:46 PM

Nah, jt, no one wants to deprive you of doing that.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:51 PM

Talking to yourself in the third person is what happens when you're off your meds, jt.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 7:57 PM

No one's that crazy, jt...
Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 8:00 PM

"Cecelia, why did you give 'craigs' the satisfaction of a response?"

I second that emotion! Cee, we miss your energy, conviction and mischievousness!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 1, 2007 1:00 PM

Grade: C+
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:28 AM
Just as long as they see things her way, that is...

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Frankly, you don't know my "worldview".
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 3:09 PM

Still whining because the logic of your statements was challenged and your idea of further elucidation... was to accuse others of trying to make you "denounce" Olbermann, after you had just accused us of trying to force you to "defend" him.

Well, you do have my sympathy, Mike. No doubt it is very hard being you.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 3:19 PM

I have to differ with you. I think Craigs is more Onslo (sp?)
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 5:23 PM

Good point. Anslo is too endearing. Perhaps Craigs would be better cast as "daddy".
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 5:47 PM

That's it! He's The Major!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 5:50 PM

Just as long as they see things her way, that is...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 12:34 PM

I have a television show where I don't allow opposing views to be expressed?

Frankly, you don't know my "worldview".
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 3:09 PM

Definitely, The Major. Too small white suit and Stay'n Alive playing on the ole victrola!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:05 PM

No, you just need to pretend you know what people think. You're certainly THAT example.

I'd tell you to open your mind but the dust bunnies would fall out.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:09 PM

Grammie, what would blog boards be without liberal males calling women hos', bitches, and biddies?
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:12 PM

Just do what comes naturally for you and your ilk Craigs. By all means...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:23 PM

Dave that's no way to talk about Craigs. Besides, he's hasn't called us "fishwives" yet.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:28 PM

Uh...Dave, ole Olbermann critic....that you are....

Why are you angry with Grammie?...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:34 PM

Like he said, Craigs is every mummy's little Sheridan. And he's every blogboard's Major.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:39 PM

Oh, you need them. If only to help you know that you need them...
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:42 PM

Hell no! Come sit by me, sweety and reload the buckshot.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:47 PM

No doubt. You don't have the cerebrum for it.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:51 PM

Craigs, you're every girl's The Major.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:53 PM

Like we need more proof....
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:56 PM
I
'd tell you to help yourself, but you got stumped on that long ago.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 6:59 PM

That's what your proofs generally amount to.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:02 PM

Unlike your proofs donuts have only one hole.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:11 PM

So we're back to your needing IQ points. Square One. Like your head.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:12 PM

No one can swallow your proofs, Major
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:20 PM

You better, Major. I just burnt soup because of you.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:27 PM

You can't figure, Major. You've no cerebrum!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:28 PM

You've depraved me of food.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:31 PM

No wonder your typing is bad.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:36 PM

Hence the quality of your figuring.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:38 PM

That was me asking about Dave. Sorry. I had a minestrone accident... :D
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:39 PM

No, that's your gas. Or your proofs?
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:44 PM

Yes. I knew from the other letter he was pretending to be otherwise.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:46 PM

We'd like be the superpower and technological giant of the world if more people believed in evolution.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:54 PM

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that there had been nothing that could have logically set Dave off against you and that he was what I suspected.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 7:57 PM

Well, I suppose that explains the Ottoman Empire.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:00 PM

No, Cee concurs with Bill, Hill, and Obama.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:02 PM

No. It's the air between your ears.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:05 PM

I wonder where China and North Korea stand on the evolutionary biology poll? Dare we aspire to their heights?
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:08 PM

Stay there. We got here with fewer people believing it.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:10 PM

Why waste your time there? See if you can magic yourself up an atheist presidential candidate.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:12 PM

I truly did believe that Mike wouldn't post under aliases, until he admitted it.
Sharon and perhaps Grammie were way ahead of me on that.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:14 PM

The reason I asked about Dave isn't because I think he's somebody else, but because I knew he was an Olbermann fan.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:17 PM

Don't judge us too harshly. There's nothing I like better than a good bar fight with these scalliwags too.

Just throw a couple of bottles over some of their heads and mosey off. We'll be lying on the floor unconscious when you get back.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:24 PM

Cee,

Be sure to order me TPN... :D
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:27 PM

As long as you outrank The Major.

See you later, all.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 8:32 PM

The Major is back from going to the store for his mama.

You're absolutely right for once. The whole argument is of exaggerated importance, Craigs. Especially to you of all people.

You've already established that you're perfectly content to vote on a sincere or con-artist pretend believer in Easter Bunny Creators of the Universe. As long as they have (D) after their name.

Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:30 PM

Yes, believing (or pretending to believe) in an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus God is certainly tolerable... As long as you vote like Major.... Otherwise, that garbage is something with which you try to bludgeon your opponent.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:36 PM

Pot-belly calling kettle black....hey, Major.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:38 PM

But look who tamed that beast in one post.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:45 PM

Who cares what Olbyloons think. Let's go read Johnny!
Posted by: Cecelia at April 2, 2007 10:50 PM

Codas,

I've enjoyed your alter-egos but I missed "Codas" when he was gone.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 3, 2007 12:23 AM

Doppleganger, sweety.
Posted by: Cecelia at April 3, 2007 12:45 AM

Wow. That's quite a body of work. You can really tell when she leaves (like those two lonely hours from 8:30 - 10:30 when she stepped away for a quick refreshment) the board just can't pull it's own weight and the whole thing drifts dangerously.

Suck it up Cecilia, and quit goofing off. Your country needs you Goddammit! Post! Post! The Mullahs are at the door!!! AHHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGGG!!!!

"You have a point there, Sharon. But that same point applies to craigs, I just can't see any woman, even a bimbo, tying up with this creep."

Grammie My girlfirned not a dried piece of fruit like you.

Grammie, I've come to the conclusion that you must subtllt abuse your children and grandchildren, you have all the signs.

Cecelia Highlights-

That was hilarious!

But Cecelia will take you to task for all the time you wasted doing that.

Not quite as much time as she wasted posting all that nonsense to be sure!

Lenny, I'm sorry, I can't yet you get away with these lies. I am going to go back and start with your first post and debunk this so that any reasonable person (ok I know there are none here) Will see that you are a fraud.

How did you obtain the age of the fossil?

"I'll answer my own question...because there is only one (flawed) way...C14 dating."

First off this is wrong on so many levels and I'll start with the easier to grasp reasons why this is horsesh-t.

1)you say that c14 dating is the only method of determining the age of a fossil which is false. You are ignoring isochron dating techniques which are more accurate because it removes the assumption of fixed isotope ratios in the daughter element

2) you are aslo ignoring the fact that other methods completly unrelated to carbon are used to test the accuracy of the dating.

a) for example: Astronomers can measure the rate at which Earth's rotation is slowing. Assuming the rate of slowing has remained constant, a day-count of 400 days per year indicates an age of roughly 400 million years. And when Early Devonian rocks are dated radiometrically, we get dates of roughly 400 million years.

b) Yet another cross-check on radiometric dating is provided by plate tectonics. The plates that form the Earth's surface are moving at a measurable rate. There are several ways of measuring this movement that themselves have nothing to do with radiometric dating. The plate that forms the Pacific Ocean basin is moving northwest at at a known rate. Geologists generally accept that the Hawaiian Islands have been formed by upwelling of magma from a 'hot spot' in the Earth's mantle, below the seafloor. The Pacific Plate is moving; the hot spot remains fixed; and the result is a series of volcanic islands growing upward over the hot spot. Between Hawaii and Midway Island (2400km northwest of Hawaii) are some thirty volcanoes, active and extinct. Many of these volcanoes have had lava flows dated by the potassium-argon method. In all these cases, the radiometric date agrees substantially with the date derived from extrapolation of plate motion. Particularly striking is the correlation for Midway Island itself. By drift rate it should be about 27 million years old. By K-Ar dating, the volcanic rock that forms Midway's core is 27.7 million years old.

c) I won't get into but tree rings, coral reefs etc.. which also verify the accuracy of c14 dating

3) Your whole premise is flawed.

The main criticism of the method is in the ration of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12. In order to accurately date an item, one must know the ratio at the time of the organism's death. (THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL) scientists have accounted for this.

Libby (the man who invented c14 dating) initially assumed that the ratio was in equilibrium...an equal amount of C-14 was entering the earth's system as were being eliminated. When Libby looked for evidence of this, he discovered that C-14 was being added at a rate that was 12-20 percent faster than it was being eliminated. Others put the value at over 30 percent. Wieland (the guy who started all this horsesh-t you are sputtering) uses this as a criticism,

The industrial revolution, which continues today, is pumping much more C-12 into the atmosphere. Since C-12 is converted to C-14 by cosmic radiation, and there is a lot more C-12 in the atmosphere, then there is a lot more C-12 to be hit by cosmic radiation, and thus, converted to C-14. Prior to the industrial revolution, we have every reason to believe that the ratio was at a state of equilibrium.

So there we are to sum

1) other dating methods exist which eliminate the need for the daughter element to have been fixed to begin with.

2) other means of checking the reliability exist (besides the geological lair which, while not always accurate in no way is inaccurate enough to account for the difference between 6000 years and 5 billion)

3) radio carbon dating accounts for c14 prior to the industrial revolution was fixed destryoing the whole premise of your argument.

Now that I have completly debunked your "age of the fossil" arguemtn I will move on to the other horsesh-t.

Once again Lenny, I'm not going to let you get away with this.

"What about that eye.....I didn't even mention the proximal structures like the optic nerve, the optic chiasm and the occipital lobe.....all creations from natural selection according to you......BILLIONS of mutations needed here as well to form the axons and dendrites SPECIFICALLY engineered to produce VISION from electrical signals produced in that very complicated eye natural selection and BILLIONS of mutations tossed out.....WOW!
In fact, the electrical information is changed to chemical signal (neurotransmitters) that also had to evolve! Again....please tell me how long it would take DNA sequence mutations to design such an elaborate system....."

I'll start with a quote which is quite funny and gets us going on this issue.

"The human eye is actually quite flawed. The photoreceptors in the eye are upside down, with their blood vessels and neurons in front, effectively causing deficiencies in human vision, including a "blind spot" caused by the hole where the neurons exit the eye. The squid's eye, on the other hand, has none of these problems. Are we to believe that a designer whose "crowning creation" was man made such an incredible error in the construction of the human eye, and not in that of the squid? (Diamond 1985)"

Anyway onward to the point of your post.
which is in a nutshell that they eye is such a grand development that there is no way it could have occured in 4 billion years.

here read this:

"Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger has bolstered the case for the natural evolution of the eye by small steps:

[Nilsson and Pelger's 1994 computer analysis] starts with a mathematical model of a flat region of cells, and permits various types of "mutation." Some cells may become more sensitive to light, for example, and the shape of cells may bend. The mathematical model is set up as a computer program that makes tiny random changes of this kind, calculates how good the resulting structure is at detecting light and resolving the patterns it "sees," and selects any change that improves these abilities. During a simulation that corresponds to a period of about four hundred years - the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms - the region of cells folds itself up into a deep, spherical cavity with a tiny irislike opening, and, most dramatically, a lens. Moreover, like the lenses of our own eyes, it is a lens whose refractive index - the amount by which it bends light - varies from place to place. In fact, the pattern of variation of refractive index that is produced in the computer simulation is very like our own. So here mathematics shows that eyes definitely can evolve gradually and naturally, offering increased survival value at every stage. More than that: Nilsson and Pelger's work demonstrates that given certain key biological faculties (such as cellular receptivity to light, and cellular mobility), structures remarkable similar to eyes will form - all in line with Darwin's principle of natural selection (Stewart 1995:22)"

in 400 years, using a model that causes just random mutations and accepts them when benificial. (just like in natural selection) a freaking iris and lens were formed!

All mathmatical all debunking your argument that this is mathmaticall not possible.

Good Luck Lenny!

Posted by: Cecilia Highlights at April 3, 2007 11:51 AM

Ah...a public servant...

Not quite as much time as she wasted posting all that nonsense to be sure!

Posted by: at April 3, 2007 1:23 PM

Yer welcome...

Suck it up Cecilia, and quit goofing off. Your country needs you Goddammit! Post! Post! The Mullahs are at the door!!! AHHHHHHHRRRRRRGGGGG!!!!

Posted by: Dave at April 3, 2007 12:04 PM

No, that's just your friends with the big nets. Don't move. Your little blue pills are waiting for you beside your regular cot.

Lenny? Lenny?

Sheridan, Sheridan.....

Neither of your last two posts addresses my cynicism of 1) the assumptions made by naturalists in their theory of natural selection "creating" complex systems or 2) dating.

Your computer model is nice....I can make a computer do anything I want it to also.....Please show me real, reliable and replicatable data of MUTATED DNA transcribing proteins that actually leads to changes in anatomy and biochemistry that leads to an actual organ that then gives evolutionary advantage to an organism in real time......Your silly post means nothing practical. Again....the time required for random mutations in a system that HAS MOLECULES FIXING MUTATIONS to form logically functioning systems is huge and unlikely. Also, you NEVER answered my question to how a mutating molecule could mutate and form its own molecule that fixes mutations.....Which came first?

Next, using the decay of any physical structure ASSUMES that the decay started at a particular time and changed by a particular constant.....an orbit, deposition of sediment, radioactive decay, movement of plates, etc....Is there a point in the past verifying that the particular object was at its point of decay predicted by the present observation? No....appearance of maturity is also possible and the "day one" observed as billions of years old by man may not rightly be assumed to be correct.

The scientific method REQUIRES falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. IMHO evolution under the influence of natural selection alone as an explaination
for the ABUNDANCE, COMPLEXITY and ADAPTABILITY of living beings I observe in my office everyday has not met the threshold.....

Nevermind that as a believer in the supernatural, I have the advantage of KNOWING more than what science says there is.....faith....But since you curse such belief out of hand....I don't know what else to tell you, Sheridan.....

Lenny, what mail order univeristy did you get your degree from? You are lying about being having any advance degree in science that is for certain.

"Next, using the decay of any physical structure ASSUMES that the decay started at a particular time and changed by a particular constant..... an orbit, deposition of sediment, radioactive decay, movement of plates, etc

Lenny, plate tetonics has nothing to do with Carbon 14, dating you are making yourself look like a fool by suggesting it does. it is a cross check. You see it works like this: the plate that forms the northwest is moving forward at a KNOWN rate. hawawii was formed by magma rising from a 'KNOWN SPOT' (this is the point of origin you are looking for) in the Earth's mantle. Now the plate continues to move, meaning hawaii moves at a fized rate (it's on the northwest plate). The "Hot spot" stays where it was. if you can measure the distance apart you can tell how long look it took the island to move. Using this method WHICH IS NOT CARBON DATING. If you look at midway island (which formed from the same spot) By drift rate it should be about 27 million years old. By K-Ar dating it is 27.7 million years old. they verify each other.

My point that you completly missed is that there are ways of infering how old something is. there are numerous ways of doing this in fact. ALL verify the accuracy of carbon 14 dating!!

Secondly lets look at your arguement which is basically this although you have been unable to say it.

* The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for). Your arguemtn is how can we assume this?
* No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation.

These are things that you say carbon 14 dating is ignoring or having to compensate for. What you have completly IGNOREED and COMPLETLY DEBUNKS YOUR ARGUMENT. is that there is a form of dating ISOCHRON dating that eliminates these problems. Meaning you whole argument about how we don't know how many isotopes are present in the beginning no longer works!

Sorry Lenny the earth just ain't 6000 years old and nothing you say can change that.

.

The scientific method REQUIRES falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. IMHO evolution under the influence of natural selection alone as an explaination
for the ABUNDANCE, COMPLEXITY and ADAPTABILITY of living beings I observe in my office everyday has not met the threshold.....

Sure it has.

Nevermind that as a believer in the supernatural, I have the advantage of KNOWING more than what science says there is.....faith....But since you curse such belief out of hand....I don't know what else to tell you, Sheridan

Lenny I wanted to devote a second post to the computer model to demonstrate what an idiot you are.

"Your computer model is nice....I can make a computer do anything I want it to also....."

I seriously doubt you can. You certainly missed the whole point (Again) which that setting up a simulation in which random mutations occur over a period of time. and only good mutations are accepted it took only 400 years to create an eye.

The reason this is significant and completly debunks you, is that you are trying to make the argument that the eye is so complex nature could never have made it.

Can you come up with any computer models that can account for god? You spoke of the scientifc method, how well does that one stand up to scrutiniy?

"Nevermind that as a believer in the supernatural, I have the advantage of KNOWING more than what science says there is.....faith....But since you curse such belief out of hand....I"

I also reject the easter bunny out of hand. know why? No one has demonstrated he exists. If you want to beleive in god that is your business. but I am sorry the science does not back him up. Perhaps if you could come up with some archival footage where he created man, or if he came to down and did a dinner date or something? until then the only thing to go on is FAITH (Meaning belief in the absence of proof!)

"Also, you NEVER answered my question to how a mutating molecule could mutate and form its own molecule that fixes mutations.....Which came first?"

Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

There you go I addressed yours. Now lets see if you can give a scientific argument for creation.

by the way, I wrote the first few posts the last I just copied since you you were quoting directly from the creationsim playbook, I went to the counter playbunk which debunks that crap.

You know, Craigs sounds suspiciously like an unhinged Olbermann fan we've profiled here at Olbermannwatch.

"You know, Craigs sounds suspiciously like an unhinged Olbermann fan we've profiled here at Olbermannwatch."

I could certainly see how anyone posting about anything scientific might seem unhinged to you Brandon. Now run a long and see if you can find us a unicorn.

"by the way, I wrote the first few posts the last I just copied since you you were quoting directly from the creationsim playbook, I went to the counter playbunk which debunks that crap."

Posted by: craigs at April 3, 2007 6:48 PM

Oh I know you cut and pasted, Seridan.....I have seen it all from two other true-believers/bigots on this site previously.....And to proudly claim that anything you copied from the religious fundamentalists worshiping at the alter of man conclusively debunked anything is simply self delusion....You and those demanding people take oaths to the wisdom of science suffer from the same disease that you diagnose in your critics.....

Fanaticism.....

Continue with your closed mind dear Sheridan....unlike you, I and many other scientists question the conclusions science has arrived at.....Saying "there is no God" is no different than saying "there is no process called natural selection." I never said natural selection does not exist....I said science has not proved it is the sole force responsible for life. It is a nice theory that seems logical, yet assumptions remain and poor scientific methods are used as the foundation.

You conclusively say there is no God.....good luck with that if you are not going to even seek out the possibility that there is a God.

I have to round on my lovely patients now that pray and rely on a Father greater than anyone found on this earth.....and yes they are benefiting from the treatments science providesas well....I am confident in my FAITH in BOTH.

More later specifically about your poor responses to the simple arguments I put forth that remain unanswered.....your science has more assumptions than does my religion!

Oh yeah, that's Keth's biggest fan alright. That's for confirming. The syntax of your posts gives you away. By the way, unicorns are mythical creatures. You know, sort of like the Iranian story and the British soldiers that Keith seems to think doesn't exist. You, however, are real, although quite unbelievable.

"More later specifically about your poor responses to the simple arguments I put forth that remain unanswered.....your science has more assumptions than does my religion.

Untrue. Hence the term faith.

"Oh yeah, that's Keth's biggest fan alright. That's for confirming."

With logic like that, you might just find that unicorn.

I will now demonstrate the assumptions of his priests my dear Sherian, like the sheep he is, accepts as dogma (*)...

Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and (selection is the very opposite of chance.)* Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, (natural selection sorts out certain variations.)* (Those variations which give greater reproductive success)* to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable are retained,)* and (less successful variations are weeded out.)* When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, (different variations are selected,)* leading eventually to different species. (Harmful mutations usually die out quickly,)* so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

WOW! So the presence, persistance and abundance of genetic disease is explained.....how now? Did the natural selection fairy decide to take a vacation those days?

What about those nasty DNA/RNA/mitochondrial DNA repair mechanisms? How could the, "the raw material that natural selection has to work with," (your words are poetic btw Sheridan....the natural selection fairy "works." Did she rest on the seventh day?) have the ability to actually THWART the only known mechanism of the creation of life.....IT IS ILLOGICAL and contradictory!

No answer yet......

More assumptions......

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. (In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are SURE (show me please) to form spontaneously,)* and (these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules.)* Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating (WOW....has someone shown this?), (natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.)* (The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA.)* Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

The entire paragraph is a fairy tale......Once again Sheridan, a "human" term is used by you to describe how natural selection GUIDES!!!! Really now.....this fairy is powerful!

guides, works....my college test book also says natural selection "requests," "summons," "judges," and "looks for." What wonderful, poetic and BIBLICAL terms are used by atheists who claim no intelligence behind a very complex chain of events over the last couple of billion years!

Assumptions none the less.....show me the primordial ooze of that self replicating chemical structure someone came up with in the lab, Sheridan.....OH YES, THAT'S RIGHT.....even though DNA and it's behavior has been known for over FIFTY years now, "scientists" are no closer to "producing life" as they thought they would be by now......they have yet to prove they can be "god."

You see Sheridan.....your religion of man is boring....no good songs, no Sunday night praise service and BORING costumes!

More to come....

(I forgot how easy yet fun this was)

Kik-kik-kyah!

More assumptions...

Lenny, plate tetonics has nothing to do with Carbon 14, dating you are making yourself look like a fool by suggesting it does. (Did you ever pass reading comprehension in school, Sheridan?....go back to my post and READ that I said both C-14 and use of plates ASSUMES rates of change and that these rates have been constant...duh!) it is a cross check. You see it works like this: the plate that forms the northwest is moving forward at a (KNOWN rate.)*ASSUMPTION hawawii was formed by magma rising from a 'KNOWN SPOT' (this is the point of origin you are looking for) in the Earth's mantle. Now the plate continues to move, meaning hawaii moves at a fized rate*ASSUMPTION (it's on the northwest plate). The "Hot spot" stays where it was. if you can measure the distance apart you can tell how long look it took the island to move. Using this method WHICH IS NOT CARBON DATING (I never said it was, Sheridan....your ability to comprehend was fading). If you look at midway island (which formed from the same spot) By drift rate it should be about 27 million years old. By K-Ar dating it is 27.7 million years old. they verify each other. (CLASSIC.....both ways of dating ASSUME a rate of change that was never verfied, witnessed or documented!)

Faith in those RATES of decay/movement/whatever is my point, Sheridan.....Please keep up.

" drift rate it should be about 27 million years old. By K-Ar dating it is 27.7 million years old. they verify each other. (CLASSIC.....both ways of dating ASSUME a rate of change that was never verfied, witnessed or documented!)"

HAHAHAHHA I had to start with this one because it is too funny! Lenny for the island to have moved as far as it did from it's spot of origin in six thousand years, the Pacific plate would have had to increase in speed Four hundred and fifty thousand percent. HAHAH maybe you can go help brandon find the Unicorn if you beleive it did that!

Also, I notice you still refuse to discuss isochronic dating which eliminates all the problems you mentions and provides a Third cross check on the relative accuracy of Carbon 14.

Oh and I did go back and look at what you wrote:

"Next, using the decay of any physical structure ASSUMES that the decay started at a particular time and changed by a particular constant.....an orbit, deposition of sediment, radioactive decay, movement of plates, etc."

You said I ASSUME the DECAY started at a particular time. Sorry Lenny Plates I'm not sure Plates Decay and we certainly don't try to measure the time rate of anyhting by that rate of Decay.

Well there you go stil Debunked and still claiming yo have not been.

.

On the age of the earth:

Again you completly ignore isochronic dating techniques which don't have the problem you say is a problem for carbon 14 (which it is not) and serve as a THIRD cross check and finally unless the rate that plate techniques sped up
Faith in those RATES of decay/movement/whatever is my point, Sheridan.....Please keep up

"WOW! So the presence, persistance and abundance of genetic disease is explained.....how now? Did the natural selection fairy decide to take a vacation those days?"

No stupid the flaws were not enough to kill the species off. It survived and reproduced.
Flaws intact.

by the way if natural selection does not occur perhaps you could explain the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms? Is the magic fairy that lives in the sky responsible for that?

"The entire paragraph is a fairy tale......Once again Sheridan, a "human" term is used by you to describe how natural selection GUIDES!!!! Really now.....this fairy is powerful!"

Well because you say so it must be. No logic no evidence just "hey that's a fairtale
The magic 3 in 1 dude in the sky did that!"

"What about those nasty DNA/RNA/mitochondrial DNA repair mechanisms? How could the, "the raw material that natural selection has to work with," (your words are poetic btw Sheridan....the natural selection fairy "works." Did she rest on the seventh day?) have the ability to actually THWART the only known mechanism of the creation of life.....IT IS ILLOGICAL and contradictory!"

How it illogical and contradictory lenny? You are not making any sense at all.

"Assumptions none the less.....show me the primordial ooze of that self replicating chemical structure someone came up with in the lab, Sheridan.....OH YES, THAT'S RIGHT.....even though DNA and it's behavior has been known for over FIFTY years now, "scientists" are no closer to "producing life" as they thought they would be by now......they have yet to prove they can be "god.""

Which invalidates evolution how? They have shown it itheoritcally possible has anyone done this with God yet? Still waiting Lenny...

Well Lenny as always making a fool out of you is easy and gratifying.

This thread Rocks! Science (or lackthereof) is so much more interesting than politics.

Keep it Up!

Hey, Cee, post your address, I'd like to offer you a free subscription to Skeptic magazine...

Oh by the way lenny on the claim that I am making an "assumption" in saying that the radioactive decay rate is remaining constant. I would like to point out that if the decay rates were large enough to produce 4.5 billion years' of apparent aging in only 6000 years, the decay rates would have had to have been millions to billions of times as large when Adam and Eve were around as now.

The heat generated would have melted the earth, which would still be molten. Furthermore, the earth would have been too radioactive to support life then. Adam and Eve would have glowed for other reasons than their nearness to God.
were many orders of magnitude larger.

Poor Sheridan....I can feel your anger....That's okay, because I know assumptions are not usual in science. Keep missing my point about evolutionary scientists assuming things in the past, ignoring the "apperaance of maturity," or assuming rates of change in a substance's composition measured by radioactivity today assumes a particular day one, assumes a constant rate of change and on top of it all scientists use circular reasoning to "cross check" the same substances....relying on the same assumptions no matter what they are observing.....Keep spinning the mantra, Sheridan...it is still THEORY and quesswork....not fact.

When I used the term "decay" with "plates" in the same sentence as atoms or isotopes you could assume decay = change....I was simply stating that your verfication argument is flawed because all of the changes in the past are assumed on constant rates and a "day one" composition of starting point. Sheridan....Again, attacking my off the cuff writing (I do not use cut and paste as you do), shows your anger and frustration...not good ol' boy.

I will repeat, how could natural selection "select" mutations that provide the means to stop those same mutations from occuring? If you know anything, (which it is becoming increasingly clear you don't....you are simply cutting/pasting time old defenses from your religion that I have seen before), you would know that DNA and RNA is so fragile that this is why no one has been able to observe a man-made "chemical" replicate itself and form "life".....The fragility of the millions of DNA and RNA strands required for even a single celled organism to flourish would require the SEVERAL repair molecules to allow transcription to even occur......It is so illogical that IF mutation is required for DNA or RNA to evolve that there also needs to be repair molecules to STOP MUTATIONS so that reproduction can even take place.....It is staring you in the face, Sheridan, yet you have NO response....because scientists refuse to accept this one of many illogical claims of evolution of life through natural selection only.

Still, I will repeat, if it was simply combinations of atoms changing their arrangements, your priests would have given us "life" 30 years ago at Stanford or MIT, Sheridan.....When your priests create a prokaryotic cell in the lab from only the base components of DNA or RNA - hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, phosphorus atoms, and of course the wonderful and "easily self organising" (according to you) carbon atom....then this cell spontaneously makes a match of itself....Please give me a call.

Duh, Sheridan.....Antibiotic resistance is an example of microevolution.....To ASSUME this observation supports (as you do and your priests do) the process of REMOTE AND NEVER OBSERVED macroevolution that produced mutli-cellular creatures (BOTH PLANT AND ANIMAL!)complex organs, chemical/hormonal cascades and even phylic changes (never observed!) is NOT SCIENCE....it is faith.

Until then, LIKE SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE....natural selection is theory, skepticism SHOULD be welcomed and stating that the process we have discussed are facts is wrong and shows a silly subconcious agenda so common to men.....self-serving fanaticism that only is present to feed ego, pride and self-worship.

How you respond to people who believe in God and/or are skeptical of evolution via natural selection alone as the explanation of life says more about you Sheridan than you are willing to admit....Again, some soul searching would be of benefit....perhaps a conversation with your girlfriend?

You have a religion, Sheridan....and you are defending your faith.....keep up the good work....I have to once again help my patients HEAL.

"Poor Sheridan....I can feel your anger....That's okay, because I know assumptions are not usual in science."

HAHAHAHAHA And I know you are lying about being in the field of science. Although you are right they use logic and reaon to come to their conclusions something you don't believe in. Poor Lenny Too stupid to understand his own argument.

"Keep missing my point about evolutionary scientists assuming things in the past, ignoring the "apperaance of maturity," or assuming rates of change in a substance's composition measured by radioactivity today assumes a particular day one, assumes a constant rate of chang"

You are in this case Dead Wrong. Dating of ancient rocks by radiometric methods (e.g., Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium- Strontium) does NOT, repeat NOT depend upon our having available a sample of known age to calibrate the method. Indeed, this is PRECISELY WHY these methods are so useful. The only calibration required is the measurement of decay rates, which can be done IN THE LABORATORY. Furthermore, these methods can be used in ways that do NOT, repeat NOT depend on any assumptions about the initial amounts of the various isotopes involved. Please read the section in Chapter 17 of Strahler's book, Science and Earth History.

There you go Lenny debunked again!!!

"e and on top of it all scientists use circular reasoning to "cross check" the same substances....relying on the same assumptions no matter what they are observing....."

Yes circulur reasoning, for example If a tree gets a ring ever year of it's life and their are three rings at the time of death, the tree is three years old. that is circular reasoning.... er, wait no that's logic. It's like kryptonite to Lenny.

"Keep spinning the mantra, Sheridan...it is still THEORY and quesswork....not fact."

THis right here is how I know you are not a scientist. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.

Damn Lenny! Kinda knocked your argument right to sh-t!

Well Lenny, I know you beleive in a world where Adam and Eve coexisted in tempertares that would have melted each of them and that hawaii moves so fast it might get a speeding ticket anyday now, but I have once again made a fool of you.

It's easy and oh, SOOO, fun. let me know if you and Brandon find the Easter Bunny, you can call him george (Dubya) of course!

"I will repeat, how could natural selection "select" mutations that provide the means to stop those same mutations from occuring?"

It doesn't stop mutations. bad mutations are weeded out. And certainly not all mutations are stopped by DNA.

I'm going to give an extreme sort of example so that even you will understand this. If evolution gives you eyes you have an advantage over any species that doesn't. You are likely to live and to reproduce. (not sure how you made it this far with your lack of brains, but oh well)

The species without eyes, is at a disadvantage or the species that developed a spinning toenail based on mutation is also at a disadvantage (compared to this new, eye creature) and likely to be weeded out (become food). The toenail species does not continue on. There is no GREAT SELECTOR in the sky. YOU use religion to explain things not me. That is natural selection in a nutshell.

Oh and talking to my friendly neighborhood scientist I came up with this medical example:

"Yet another recent example, pertaining to humans:

Population geneticist Stephen O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute, his NCI colleagues Michael Dean and Mary Carrington, and their collaborators provide strong confirmatory evidence that people who have two mutant copies of the gene for CCRS (also known as CKRS), the chemokine receptor that HIV uses when it initially infects infects white cells, are highly resistant to HIV infection. Another, entirely new, finding is that people who get infected with HIV, but have one mutant copy of the CCRS gene, progress to AIDS more slowly than do people without the mutation. (Cohen 1996:1797)"

Debunked again Lenny. Too Easy!

"You have a religion, Sheridan....and you are defending your faith.....keep up the good work....I have to once again help my patients HEAL."

Ok, Let me know how the medicine dance you do works with their cancer.

Poor Sheridan, cutting and pasting once again....even from a dictionary....

By definition, as a physician, I am a scientist. I apply strict scientific prinicples of randomly controlled and BLIND studies to test hypothesis....something missing from the science you keep posting. Theory must always be regarded with severe skeptism....the best and most ethical scientists realize this....I know you have a different value system and this is the entire foundation of your religion. This has been the slippery slope of the scientific community for over 200 years now and I shudder to think it expanding into the field of medicine.

You, well, again, a religious fanatic who cannot not stand questions regarding techniques and conclusions sacred to you.

Assuming macroevolution exists simply because one observes microevolution is not science. You still have yet to address the illogical reasoning of natural selection "creating" mechanisms that seek to end the very necessary process by which natural selection relies. And of course, no mention of the inability of your priests not being able to replicate molecules that leads to "life." Oh well Sheridan, keep repeating yourself....it looks foolish but I understand from where you're coming from....a fanatic cannot stand questioning of core beliefs of faith.

Hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, phosphorus atoms, nitrogen atoms, carbon atoms..........trillions of years.........life so abundant that no one knows how many species of virus, bacteria, fungi, plant life and animal life there is on this good earth! By natural selection alone.....Where is your proof?

Assumptions?.......thousands.......definitive proof.......none.

Where is your proof? Assumptions?...... .thousands.... ...definitive proof.......none.
Posted by: cee at April 5, 2007 2:56 PM

For both your arguments...

Lenny Lenny, Still claiming to have more than a mail order degree. Taking a correspondence course does not make you a scientist.

"Assuming macroevolution exists simply because one observes microevolution is not science. "

*sigh* First off, Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution!!

Secondly Science attempt to find the best possible solution to a problem. We can't disprove something (for example I can't disprove aliens gentically engineered mankind) i can make predicitons about if a theory were true what should happen.

The fossil record clearly inidcates the macro evolution occurs. Meaning things are going as they should so until something occurs that causes science to beleive a better solution exists they stay with it. Equally hawaii forming from a hotspot also seems to fit the facts as they now stand. A big sky god (Which has never been recorded coming down and creating the islands in six days or anyhting that indicates something like that happened does not exist)

So much for your silly argument on assumptions because all of science works this way. Unless you arguing that the principles of pysics, chemistry, biology, geology, atronomy, etc... are all wrong becuase NONE of them have Conclusivly been proven. They just fir the facts everytime we test!

Lenny not thinking will get you nowhere.

"You still have yet to address the illogical reasoning of natural selection "creating" mechanisms that seek to end the very necessary process by which natural selection relies."

Natural selection doesn't create anyhting. Mutations create changes. Natural selection is the process of weeding out changes that don't work. You are not a doctor if you don't understand something taught in High School Biology.