I take offence. Whoever said Harvest time was good for the brain was a fuckwit – eh phool. Goodbye ducks need blasting.

since d4j retired into occaisonal burps/farts..muzza and redbaiter have been the biggest..personal level or not..throwers of crap..

so..if he can hand it out…he can also take it..

..and i think i am also reacting to his many repeats of ‘poor poor dyslexic me’..if anyone dare take the piss out of his strangled language..

..this usually after he has abused/accused all and sundry of everything dating back to that adam/eve/apple/snake thing..

..the boy has cried wolf too often..

were it any other dyslexic..?..probably not..

..but muzza is a ‘special case’..in more ways than just that..

eh..?

(and i still think it’s pretty funny he lies in bed at night..wonderig if there s a dog..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Morgan said the book was designed to get past emotion and misinformation, such as views expressed by Hide. Hide last year told Parliament climate change data and hypothesis “do not hold together”. He called emission trading schemes “a worldwide scam and swindle”. Morgan said: “When I get a non-scientist belching emotion like that, I just think that’s gutter of politics. I was trying to clear the room of the Rodneys of this world, and whoever his equivalent is on the other [environmental alarmist] side.”

Would be interesting to know who he reckons the latter are – surely he has some idea.

And now a book by Gareth Morgan “Poles Apart” but coming down on the other side of the debate it seems. Should be another good book to read on the subject.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=99646&fm=psp,nwl

“Outrage over brothel at National MP’s house

A brothel that horrified neighbours in a leafy Mt Eden street was operating from a house co-owned by a National MP.

Kanwal Bakshi, a first-term list MP who stood in Manukau East, said he gave notice to the tenants to move out last month after angry neighbours complained. His property manager investigated and issued a warning notice to tenants ……..

But Auckland Mayor John Banks, whose office received complaints from neighbours and from Labour’s Phil Goff, said such brothels had become a “growth industry” that was expensive to monitor and police.”

Obviously Phil Goff has got nothing better to do with his time.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=99646&fm=psp,nwl

I am fine with there not having been any.

You show me the fossil record of what rabbits evolved from and all the missing links in between.

“……We’ve been absolutely overwhelmed with demand for the new book Air Con which launched this week, and it has been all hands to the pumps in the book publishing unit.

More than half of the initial print run has disappeared in five days……”

GO, “Air Con”…….

(1) You cannot, I say cannot, follow up the claim “show[] me a credentialed scientist who supports evolutionary theory. I will show you someone who badly, badly, wants to believe there is no creator God” with the claim “I get great enjoyment from occaisionally watching and reading debates between atheist evolutionists and God-believing scientists.” You’ve simply foreclosed the possibility of any meaningful “debate” by discounting in advance the arguments of those explaining evolution as being purely psychologically derived – which is why I say you are like a child going “ISNOTISNOTISNOT”. Now, before you accuse me of doing the same thing – rabbits in the permian. Show me that, or its equivalent, and then we have grounds for a debate about whether or not evolution is the best scientific theory to explain the ongoing development of life. Otherwise we have no grounds for a “debate” on evolution in any interesting sense (I acknowledge I’m not particularly interested in how religious believers choose to doublethink around observable facts within their own churches or mosques … it just doesn’t have anything to do with science or truth).

(2) I use the word “rational” in the sense of permitting inter-subjective communication between persons of differing viewpoints. You’re the one who wants to reduce everything to quasi-psychological speculation about a speaker’s motives. I say it doesn’t matter why a person is proposing a position (such as “evolution is the best fit theory for observable data”) … what matters is whether their claim is true or not. Now, if you have a theory of truth that (a) depends entirely on the psychological motivations of the speaker, and (b) allows different speakers to evaluate a claim in a way that permits a resolution based on the truth of that claim, then lets have it. But I’ll bet you don’t. Which is why you aren’t speaking rationally.

Classic, classic smear tactics that says it all about the kinship between all totalitarian systems, and the anti-Christian, evolutionist establishment of today.

And AG; I get great enjoyment from occaisionally watching and reading debates between atheist evolutionists and God-believing scientists. Do you? Is it me or you that does “not progress beyond the childhood state of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying “ISNOTISNOTISNOTISNOT” very loudly whenever confronted with people saying things to him he didn’t like hearing.”….?

“And it is the same as showing me a credentialed scientist who supports evolutionary theory. I will show you someone who badly, badly, wants to believe there is no creator God.”

At which point, PB takes himself beyond the possibility of rational communication. All he’s left with are allegations about the psychological states of those whom he is “conversing”, with no possible inter-personal means of resolving disputes between them. So, to use his own language, PB clearly is so in want of a father figure that he did not progress beyond the childhood state of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying “ISNOTISNOTISNOTISNOT” very loudly whenever confronted with people saying things to him he didn’t like hearing.

You show me a credentialed scientist who pushes “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, and I will show you someone who despises global capitalism and consumerism.

Lovelock? Your use of the word “catastrophic” weeds out many AGW scientists too, I’d imagine.

“And if not, please address which part of the pretty simple argument you disagree with:

1. That it is possible that McKibben sees Wishart as a fringe nut.
2. That you see David Irving as a fringe nut.
3. That you would conceivably decline a televised debate with Irving to refuse giving him that perceived validity.
4. That McKibben would therefore act similarly with regards to Wishart if he saw him as a fringe nut.
5. That therefore McKibben’s refusal to engage Wishart could well not be fear of Wishart’s mighty facts……”

Reid repeats the very good point I made earlier, that this debate has simply never been had. It is “over”, in Al Gore’s words, before it has even started.

But yes, I will be glad to go further in response to your questions.

I do not believe that any of these people, Al Gore, McKibben, Hansen, Bolin, Strong, etc, who are close to the centre of the AGW scam, truly believe that their opponents are fringe nuts. I believe that they know their opponents have truth on their side, and that is why they have disallowed debate at any time. I believe that they know that what they are putting across is a scam and a power grab, and they know that the tactics they are using are akin to those of totalitarian power grabbers of the past.

I do believe that a certain proportion of credentialed people are honest dupes. But most credentialed people who are also honest people, are sceptics on this.

It is like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. The people who best knew them to be untrue, are the people who wrote them in the first place. But having sown the seeds in the minds of people who badly, badly wanted them to be true, their work, based as it was on the same motives as the people who wanted to believe them, was done. You show me a credentialed scientist who pushes “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, and I will show you someone who despises global capitalism and consumerism. It is the same as showing me someone who believes the “protocols” and me showing you someone who hates Jews.

in your wildest dreams greenfly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU&feature=player_embedded

Maybe we should just let every deranged, self-indulgent, drug atrophied parasite rob community pharmacies at will ?

You asked:

why don’t you just post a list of subjects about which jokes shall not be made..eh..?

Well, let’s see, this comment of yours could go on the list:

philu (4143)
August 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am

listen arse-wipe..

could you please crawl back into your cess-pit..

..and just leave my/(anyones’) family..

..out of this..?

..maybe a small mark of some sort of ‘civilisation’..?

..a concept alien to a slimeball like you..i know..

..but..y’know..!

So, according to you, personal attacks on family are out (and for the record, I think Chuck Bird went too far on that thread).

Taking your ‘civilisation’ concept a step further, I’d say personal attacks focusing on someone’s disability should also be out. Russell Brown has an autistic child but, to my knowledge, no one’s ever descended into gutter humour about it. They’re pretty supportive, actually. Mocking someone with dyslexia solely to get a rise out of him (as you have) is pretty low.

As for right-wing control freaks wanting to ban everything, no, that’d be the Greens!