Literotica is not the Associated Press

[Dixon Carter Lee]

To Todd, WriterDom, and everyone else who has made a habit of clipping article after article after article after article that forward your political agendas and shitting them as new "Threads" at Literotica --- what the fuck is wrong with you?

That is all.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I agree Dix.....

Yes, I try to read the paper. Hopefully we all attempt that.

Yes, it's often interesting to find news here that I may have missed.

Yes, I can get involved in politically driven conversation here on the board - on occasion.

But, as is clear, it is not my only agenda - as it seems to be for those you have mentioned.

I wish people would read the name of the board and take it for it's meaning and philosophy.

Lit..... er..... otica.

Literature.

Erotic.

Erotic Literature.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - MORE FUCKING SEX!!!!!

You political nuts and religious nuts and twinkie nuts and game playing nuts.......

Get the fuck down of yer soap box - pull yer pants down - bend over that soap box and - FUCK!!!!!!

And maybe some of you ladies might like one in yer mouth too.

 

[sexy-girl]

i have to agree its intresting to post some news storys and to discuss them ... but cant you try some broader subjects ... it seems every story you post is pro to your political beliefs ... but how many times is it possible to have that same discussion ... ive started opening your threads reading one line and closing them ... i enjoyed some of the discussions we've had so just try broader subjects that arent always to do with your political agenda


this isnt directed to anybody specific just everybody


sparky i doubt your charming anybody with that post


also if you've posted one thread thats political and you start to post another one that same day why dont you stop yourself ... if you posting 4 or 5 political threads that are simalier all at the same time it doesnt give much chance for discussion ... or maybe you dont want discussion ?

 

[WriterDom]

Physicians Consortium Says NIH Report Proves That Abstinence, Not Condoms, Must Be the Focus of Federal Health Efforts


WASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Condoms, long the mainstay of the "safe-sex" public health model, do not protect against the spread of nearly all sexually transmitted diseases. This is the major finding of a benchmark report released on Friday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

"Clinical research and experience has long caused us to seriously doubt the effectiveness of condoms to provide 'safe sex,' " said Dr. Hal Wallis, a spokesman for the Physicians Consortium, a group of more than 2,000 doctors who advocate for sound public health policy. "I am shocked to see the conclusions of the paper so candidly confirm this suspicion to the degree that it does. The clinical evidence is now clear: condoms do not offer 'safe sex.' The entire public health model developed by the CDC, and based on the idea that condoms offer protection, is a lie. The skeleton is now out of the closet," Wallis added.

Wallis, an OB/GYN from Texas, said that his practice is increasingly devoted to HPV-infected women, many of whom have developed cervical cancer. HPV is the cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer and is also linked to oral, anal and prostate cancer. But, according to Wallis, "The CDC has placed all of its eggs in the AIDS basket, which truly is a major health threat, but has done so at the expense of all other STDs." Nearly 5,000 women die from the disease every year. Cervical cancer has claimed the lives of more women in the U.S. than has AIDS.

The study did not find proof that condoms protect against the three most prevalent STDs, chlamydia, genital herpes and HPV. "These three STDs infect 9 million people per year," said Dr. John Diggs, another spokesman for the physicians group. "More than 60 million Americans suffer from these three diseases, and the CDC won't even tell them the truth about condoms," Diggs added.

During the past year, a panel comprised of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and non-governmental consultants studied all the available clinical and peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs.

The panel examined eight STDs: HIV/AIDS, chancroid, genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis and chlamydia. The panel found that the correct and consistent use of condoms reduced the risk of HIV by 85 percent and could reduce the risk of gonorrhea, but only among men. (Yet, numerous research studies indicate that the vast majority of sexually active people, especially teenagers, are either unable or unwilling to use condoms correctly and consistently.) The panel found no clinical evidence that condoms were effective at all against any of the other STDs studied.

The Physicians Consortium is concerned that the public health service might not be willing to set the record straight. "Condom packaging and most educational materials and Web sites promoting 'safe sex' continue to make the claim that condoms are 98 percent effective against HIV/AIDS and other STDs. It is now clear that all of this material must be revised to reflect the facts," Wallis said.

Diggs concluded, "The safe-sex message is a billion dollar business. Many federal agencies and contractors will face financial hardship if they start acknowledging the truth. It will be interesting to see if money will outweigh the chance to be honest."

The Physicians Consortium represents more than 2,000 medical doctors and healthcare professionals dedicated to bringing evidence-based science into public health policy.

MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

sparky i doubt your charming anybody with that post

Sparky only "charms" in private.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

LOL I think for a month I'm not going to actually write anything either, I'll just post articles from The Skeptical Inquirer web site.

 

[WriterDom]

I'll go along with your anti-freespeech rule if it applies to Laurel and Lavender and the rest of the evil left.

Next you can put a stop the the something new, something different shit

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

See? Isn't this fun?

Skeptical Inquirer Magazine March/April 2001

Darwin in Mind

‘Intelligent Design’ Meets Artificial Intelligence
What’s Wrong with the Information Argument Against Evolution?

Proponents of "Intelligent Design" claim information theory refutes Darwinian evolution. Modern physics and artificial intelligence research turns their arguments on their head.

by Taner Edis

Science no longer treats nature, particularly life, as a supernatural design. Today, the very mention conjures up images of young-Earth creationists with their bizarre scriptural literalism. Even the interesting questions creationists raise (Edis 1998a) are overshadowed by the weirdness produced by leaders such as Henry M. Morris, who can-with a straight face-go on about Satan using psychic powers to deceive Eve (1993).

There are, of course, more liberal views. Theologians interpret evolution as a progressive spiritual development, the creative influence of an infinite God pouring out onto a finite world (Haught 1999). Others speculate about whether the accidents of evolution were supernaturally tweaked to ensure we turn up (Peacocke 1986), or if evolution was set in motion by a creative purpose (Wright 2000). Meanwhile, biologists work with blind mechanisms, and any "progress" in evolution is an artifact of the fact that life started out simple (Nitecki 1988). Liberal notions of design are relatively harmless, mainly because they are only loosely connected to modern biology.
Lately, an "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement has been emerging, trying to steer a course between the inconsequential handwaving of the liberals and the lunatic literalism of the creationists. It too promises more than it has delivered. Phillip Johnson, perhaps their most prominent spokesman, forcefully condemns evolutionary naturalism (1991, 1995) but presents no serious alternative. Michael Behe (1996) claims instances of "irreducible complexity" in biology, which adds up to little more than an old-fashioned incredulity about achieving complex interdependent structures incrementally. The effect of ID on mainstream science has been negligible.

Even so, ID has scored a few philosophical points. Defenders of evolution often hope a tame science and a defanged religion can peacefully occupy separate spheres. Science, we declare, is "methodologically naturalistic," considering only naturalistic explanations while saying nothing about any deeper supernatural reality (Pennock 1996). But intelligent design is a straightforward fact claim, one which is true about those objects we make ourselves. That an intelligent agent designed some aspects of nature is also a legitimate hypothesis. If science can say nothing about the probable truth or falsity of such a claim, there must be something wrong with our understanding of science. So ID advocates correctly argue that science cannot be restricted to a predefined set of naturalistic possibilities (Moreland 1994). A theoretically sophisticated, empirically well-anchored ID hypothesis can be a serious scientific proposal.

But then the problem is finding such a proposal. Ineffectual complaints about evolution in the Johnson and Behe style are not enough, so skeptics easily dismiss ID as thinly disguised creationism.
Intelligent Design and William Dembski
Enter William Dembski. Already known as one of the better ID proponents, he has recently gathered his arguments in a book that claims to put ID on a solid footing (Dembski 1999). Surprisingly, he is often correct. Though dead wrong in his overall conclusions, he makes interesting mistakes, and his errors highlight how powerful an idea Darwinian evolution is, in biology and beyond.
Dembski sets out to fashion a workable notion of supernatural intervention. One difficulty is that a miracle sounds like an all-purpose excuse rather than a genuine explanation. And even if we allow a design hypothesis in analogy to human creativity, this is easily abandoned at the first hint of a naturalistic alternative. Dembski therefore proposes to detect intelligent action in a way that avoids becoming an excuse or a weak analogy. We distinguish design from accident, he says, by seeing if our data exhibit contingency, complexity, and specification.

Contingency means an information-conveying system must allow many possible arrangements. Not all order is evidence of purpose. Objects we drop fall rather than drift off in random directions, but this only manifests a simple physical law. In contrast, it is as easy to type "urqgkwffferj . . ." as to type a real argument; an isolated string of nonsense-DNA is no different in chemical stability from one that codes for a useful protein.

To rule out pure chance taking over in the absence of simple constraints, Dembski demands complexity. A world of physical laws and random events will occasionally produce something that makes sense, like a monkey at a typewriter banging out "hello world." But the longer and more complex the message, the more unlikely this is.

Specification is crucial for telling what sort of data is meaningful. Finding (pi) encoded in a radio signal from space would suggest an intelligent source, while any particular random string, though just as improbable, is merely noise. We must be able to specify meaningful patterns before the fact; otherwise, given thousands of crank-hours at work, we can find messages in anything, such as a plan of history in the Great Pyramid.

Dembski argues that such criteria can be made rigorous (1998). Inferring design-or distinguishing messages from noise-is an important problem, from everyday interpretation of ambiguous data in a social context to SETI research. For example, astronomers first wondered if periodic signals from pulsars indicated alien life, but the signals were too simple and soon a physical explanation was found. Dembski formalizes requirements like complexity, defining a procedure to detect design.

Dembski’s information-theoretic work is fairly respectable.(1) The controversy begins when he applies his criteria to biology, finding that life exhibits just the sort of specified complexity that is supposed to signify intelligent design. ID proponents claim to improve on the classical design argument by providing a rigorous procedure to identify a particular sort of order indicating intelligent origin. When tested on objects we know the origins of, they say, this procedure reliably sorts out artifacts from the haphazardly cobbled together, even when we know little about the functions of the artifacts. So it looks like organisms are also, at some level, products of design.

ID needs more, since its criteria might fail to distinguish between explicit design and evolution-both may generate specified complexity (Elsberry 1999). ID proponents attack this in two ways. One is to produce the usual litany of alleged failures of Darwinian "macroevolution": the origins of life, the Cambrian explosion, Behe’s "irreducibly complex molecular machines," and so forth. This is the tedious, disreputable side of ID. The second way, however, extends the information-theoretic argument, promising to show why a Darwinian mechanism cannot create specified information.

Darwinism must fail, Dembski says, because information is conserved. Unintelligent processes that transform and transmit information can never add new content. Consider a message string, "3:45 p.m." This might be translated into "15:45"; no information is gained or lost thereby. Or it might be degraded by a process that rounds times to the nearest hour, leaving "4:00 p.m." If the message was input to a computer program that e-mailed meeting times to a department staff, it might be converted to "Next department meeting: 3:45 p.m.," but the additional comment, though useful, is not really new. Such a program could only be used to transmit meeting times; this information is built into its initial design.

Random processes do no better. A noisy channel might, with a lot of luck, produce "Christmas party: 3:45 p.m.," but there is no reason to trust it. Variation-and-selection can add no meaningful novelty to a message because all it does is reveal information in pre-programmed selection criteria. According to ID, the creativity producing information-rich structures like living beings cannot be captured by blind naturalistic processes.

Physics and Intelligent Design

To see what is wrong here, we can cast ID as a physical claim. First, take a universe with dynamical laws like those of Newtonian physics. These conserve information at a microscopic level; a complete description of particle positions and velocities at any time also determines all past and future states. Following Dembski, we might suspect that if complex structures appear at some point, this is not a genuine novelty, since these were implicit in previous states.

However, such a scenario does not preclude evolution. It suggests a clockwork deism, where the information provided through the initial design unfolds in time, manifesting in complex macroscopic structures. This still leaves the question of how these local pockets of specified complexity are assembled. Variation-and-selection may still do the job.

This issue is related to one of the classic problems of physics: understanding an irreversible macroscopic world, which does not appear to conserve information, when our basic microscopic dynamics are reversible. Part of the answer comes from realizing we never have a complete description of any system. What approximate knowledge we have rapidly becomes obsolete due to dynamical chaos, as even the smallest error grows exponentially. We can only keep track of statistical properties of systems, through macroscopic variables like temperature, which behave irreversibly (Gaspard 1992). For example, if we bring objects at different temperatures into contact and let them reach equilibrium, they will end up the same temperature. No measurement can recover their original temperatures, and they will not spontaneously acquire different temperatures again.

Such loss of information does not challenge ID; it even plays into creationist suspicions that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution. But the same physics also underlies the emergence of order from chaos. If a system behaves such that its maximum possible entropy increases faster than its actual entropy, it will be driven away from equilibrium. This creates space for order to form. In particular, Darwinian processes can take hold: simple replicating structures can mutate and diversify, exploring more complex configurations along the way. All this takes place under ordinary physics, without outside intervention (Brooks and Wiley 1988, Edis 1998a).

The information-based arguments of ID, then, allow design to be confined to setting up initial conditions. Hence they are too broad to support a critique of evolution. In fact, the situation is worse, as the deistic view is itself highly dubious.

Focusing on microscopic information and deterministic dynamics can give the impression the physics of complexity is a nuisance foisted on us because of our imperfect knowledge. Actually, much of what we have learned about complexity is valid under a wide range of dynamical laws and initial conditions: concepts like irreversibility, self-organization, and Darwinian variation-and-selection are not very sensitive to the underlying microscopic physics. So studying complexity requires more than traditional physics, calling on fields such as biology and computer science (see Badii and Politi 1997). What exact history is realized in a universe does, of course, depend on microscopic details. But just obtaining local pockets of specified complexity is not too difficult. When a variety of dynamical laws can generate complexity from random initial conditions, it is quite a leap to conclude there must be an intelligence behind it all.

Modern physics provides even less of a peg to hang ID upon. With general relativity, random boundary conditions are no longer tucked away in the distant past; a black hole is as much a source of true randomness as the Big Bang (Hawking, in Hawking and Penrose 1996). And quantum mechanics is notorious for its pervasive dynamic randomness. Randomness also makes physical systems haphazardly explore their possible states, leading to irreversibility. And now, it makes no sense to speak of predetermined order. Random data is patternless (Chaitin 1987), so no cause behind it can be inferred; certainly not intelligent design.

Enter Artificial Intelligence

Our physical world is a realm of accidents, of seething, mindless dynamism-the unpredictable twists and turns of history. Yet expecting a combination of laws and chance, however elaborate, to be genuinely creative may be too much. ID, after all, is not just an exercise in information theory; it also draws upon deep-seated intuitions that machines cannot display creative intelligence. Without some account of the place of intelligence within nature, it is still possible to suspect naturalistic explanations of complexity overreach.

Many a science fiction tale tells how a hero defeats a computer by posing a problem it was not programmed to deal with. It then starts saying "does not compute!" in a synthetic yet anxious voice, and finally goes up in smoke. Unlike the rule-bound machine, however, we think human intelligence at its best is flexible, innovative. We confront situations beyond what we have prepared for, and if we do not always succeed, we still often come up with novel approaches to the problem.

As Dembski’s argument that information is conserved makes clear, it is difficult to see how new content can be generated mechanically. Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers ask us to imagine machines that perform a variety of complicated tasks, learning about and responding to their environment in sophisticated ways. But if these machines remain within the bounds of their programming, it is natural to attribute intelligence not to them but to their designers. ID voices this suspicion: that no pre-programmed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes.

Such intuitions underlie not only ID but some respectable criticisms of AI, including those based on Gšdel’s incompleteness theorem. This has recently been championed by Roger Penrose, the eminent physicist (1989, 1994); Gšdel’s theorem is attractive because it reveals how any rule-bound system has blind spots because it is unable to step outside of a pre-defined framework. And though Dembski considers Penrose to be insufficiently anti-naturalistic, ID requires at least some such critique of AI to be sound.
It turns out, however, that all that is needed to add the required flexibility to a machine is to let it make use of randomness. A random function, because it is patternless, can be used to break out of any pre-defined framework. It serves as a novelty-generator. Plus we can prove a "completeness theorem" showing all functions can be expressed as a combination of rules and randomness. So if all we claim is that humans are flexible in a way not captured by rules, randomness alone does the trick. There is no other option (Edis 1998b).

Now we need to use randomness for actual creativity. And we already know an excellent mechanism for putting bare novelty to work: natural selection. Dembski’s claim that randomness does not help create content is incorrect; a Darwinian process is different from altering a message through fixed selection criteria. Everything is subject to random modification-there are no predetermined criteria; nothing but mindless replication and retention of successful variants.

A fuller understanding of something as convoluted as human creativity is a long way off. But fundamental objections like those ID raises have largely been overcome. It is almost certain that randomness and Darwinian processes are vital in the workings of our brains. So our current sciences of the mind are full of ideas like neural Darwinism, Darwin machines, memes, and multiple levels of Darwinian mechanisms depending on competing processes to assemble our stream of consciousness (Dennett 1995). Variation-and-selection, today, is beginning to be vital for theories of mind as well as biology.

A Darwin Detector

What, then, are we to make of ID? It now seems like a bad argument, concocted of pointless complaints against evolution on one hand, and flawed intuitions about information and intelligence on the other. Discarding ID, however, would be hasty. Important theories about the world convince us by ruling out serious alternatives. Historically, evolution took shape against then-compelling notions of design. ID may be wrong, but it is also a decent update of Paley with a real intellectual appeal. Its errors provide a useful contrast, highlighting what is correct in evolution.

Confronting the information-based arguments of ID is especially helpful in revealing how profound an idea evolution is. As ID proponents suspect, Darwinian thinking is not confined to biology; it anchors a naturalistic understanding of all complex order, even including our own intelligence. Hence today, Darwinism is central to a thoroughly naturalistic picture of our world.
So in defending their religious views, ID proponents pick the correct target. They are also right to emphasize how designed artifacts and living things are similar. And Dembski’s criteria of contingency, complexity, and specification do reveal a special kind of order they share. The irony is, what these criteria actually detect is that there were Darwinian processes at work. The complexity of life is directly produced through evolution, but an artifact also is an indirect product of the variation-and-selection processes that must be a part of creative intelligence.
Defenders of evolution can now allow themselves a wry smile. Intelligent Design is as close to respectable as anti-evolution intuitions are likely to get, and Dembski has made a good stab at making ID rigorous. And what we end up with is a Darwin detector.

Note

1.Dembski’s work has been criticized (Fitelson et al. 1999), but these objections do not seem fatal. In any case, Dembski’s criteria are not signs of design as he understands it, even if we were to ignore all such criticism.
References
Badii, Remo, and Antonio Politi. 1997. Complexity: Hierarchical Structures and Scaling in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press.
Brooks, Daniel R., and E.O. Wiley. 1988. Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology. (Second Edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chaitin, G.J. 1987. Algorithmic Information Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
---. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dennett, Daniel C. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Edis, Taner. 1998a. Taking creationism seriously. Skeptic 6:2 56. ---. 1998b. How Gšdel’s theorem supports the possibility of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines 8 251.
Elsberry, Wesley R. 1999. Review of The Design Inference by William A.
Dembski, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 19:2 32. Fitelson, Brandon, Christopher Stephens, Elliott Sober. 1999. How not to detect design-critical notice: William A. Dembski, the design inference. Philosophy of Science 66:3 472.
Gaspard, Pierre. 1992. Diffusion, effusion, and chaotic scattering: An exactly solvable Liouvillian dynamics. Journal of Statistical Physics 68 673.
Haught, John F. 1999. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder:
Westview.
Hawking, Stephen, and Roger Penrose. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, Phillip. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington: Regnery Gateway. ---. 1995. Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Moreland, J.P., ed. 1994. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Morris, Henry M. 1993. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker. Nitecki, Matthew H., ed. 1988. Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Peacocke, Arthur R. 1986. God and the New Biology. London: Dent. Pennock, Robert T. 1996. Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy 11:4 543-559. Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
---. 1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Robert. 2000. Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. New York:
Pantheon.


About the Author
Taner Edis is an assistant professor of physics at Truman State University, Kirksville, MO 63501. He also maintains the Skeptic Annotated Bibliography at www.csicop.org/bibliography/.

 

[Savage Kitten]

Literotica is not the Associated Press

you know what i THOUGHT you were gonna say DCL? That Lit is not the AP and you can't take every news article thread you read here as the gospel truth.

I've read some of those threads... and later.. it always seems like "The Rest of The Story" comes out and it was nothing like it was made out to be here on the BB

 

[*Lazer*]

I KNEW IT, You are Felix aren't you DCL?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Hey Righty Dom......

Try and get "just a little" creative.

Isn't that what they all say about you righties anyway - no creativity?

Yeah sure.......

It takes a lot of brains to cut and paste.

But that's probably what they trained you to do down there at Republican headquarters.

I can see you runnin' those Mimiogrphs off now - hell - I can smell the ink.

Keep the machine churnin' boy - keep it comming.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I'll go along with your anti-freespeech rule if it applies to Laurel and Lavender and the rest of the evil left.

Who's talking about free speech? I'm talking about boring the fuck out of everybody and taking up menu space on the BB first page. Start a web site dude.

 

[WriterDom]

Who's talking about free speech? I'm talking about boring the fuck out of everybody and taking up menu space on the BB first page. Start a web site dude.

Damn, don't you just hate when people take up menu space on the BB first page?

 

[Markov Cain]

to quote Tony Flaggs (Antonio Banderas) from assasins

FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!

Have a nice day!






Besides which, because of the flamers, I have to hide behind people who say what I think, especially when it somes to race.

If I start a topic about the balck community, i get the usual hate shit. When I post black people saying the same thing I get little Tocan Sam bits from DCL and his ever present wit.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I KNEW IT, You are Felix aren't you DCL?

LOL No. That boy could overthink his way out of a sure thing blowjob from a crack whore working for Egg McMuffin money.

 

[Weevil]

to quote Tony Flaggs (Antonio Banderas) from assasins








Besides which, because of the flamers, I have to hide behind people who say what I think, especially when it somes to race.

If I start a topic about the balck community, i get the usual hate shit. When I post black people saying the same thing I get little Tocan Sam bits from DCL and his ever present wit.

You're getting a little obnoxious AJ

Check out my friendly political discussion. I'm interested in the fringe right view.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Boys, boys, boys,

You can "Fuck you" all you like, but you ARE boring. And it's not the articles. It's the dozens of articles weekly, and the way you disappear from the threads, unable to (adequately) engage in the ocassional interesting dialogues you create. You're "Hit and Runnners", and you're boring, and that's that.

 

[Pyper]

I'd just like to say that I lived near Henry M. Morris and I visited his museum and yes, he is crazy.

 

[Markov Cain]

What part of ignore don't you understand?

Should I stick to lil Brandie's thread from two years ago that won't go away, or maybe start a thread to flame all of those whom have obviosly enjoyed it over all these past months?

Maybe that's a better use of my time and LAUREL's resources,

unless of course you are really Manu and have the right to piss and moan about what A_J, Lavy, WD, and EBW do when they are here.

Jeeze DCL. To think I used to think you were the greatest person on this board. But you are getting, antiquado...

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Markov Cain]

See! The old geezer couldn't stay awake to the end of the thread.

Nighty-nite old venerable one...

 

[Always]

*blinks* doesn't anyone find it odd that DCL only pulls his head out of his ass to bitch at people?

doesn't anyone realize that this is a place to put whatever, and those people are digesting and thinking about these articles, and running it through the Lit-ringer to see what other people think? some of these article-threads get really great ideas and debates going. if you don't like it don't read it, isn't that what you tell the others who bitch about certain types of threads? fuckin' hypocrite...

 

[rambling man]

i dont care who puts what on here, doesn't bother me...it's not my bulletin board....if i ever put money up to invest in it, maybe i could bitch then......but i probably wouldn't

If you don't like their threads, don't look at them.

Besides, if you disagree with their conservatism or what have you, you play into accusations that liberals (generally) just want to shut off opinions they disagree with.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

*blinks* doesn't anyone find it odd that DCL only pulls his head out of his ass to bitch at people?

Oh blow it up yor skirt I'm plenty nice. But I do call fools when I see them. You're one. Markov's one. WD's not, but he's been the mad little cut and paster lately, and I found that interesting.

I found Todd a hell of a lot more intersting when he posted his articles and then stuck around to debate them and ask questions. Todd actually got me to put my money where my mouth was, and do some research to support my positions. I enjoyed that, even though I still think he's got a propeller loose.

But now it's like he's scouring the Internet for anti-Democrat pap, posting it, and running off to the search engines again. There's no dialogue here. It's just pamphletering.

And, Rambling Man, when people start posting bills on the street you can't really "ignore" it, can you? It's an eyesore. I'll defend to the death their right to paste up their fliers, but I can also SAY they're ugly...Can't I?

The constant barrage of copied and pasted articles from a few people hoping to blanket us into submission with their agendas is getting dull. I'm not asking them to stop. This isn't my mission in life. I'm a big boy, I can look further down the page.

It's kind of like a booger on someone's lip, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Guest]

I'll go along with your anti-freespeech rule if it applies to Laurel and Lavender and the rest of the evil left.

Next you can put a stop the the something new, something different shit

from the same user who started a thread recently all pissed off because lavender was monopolizing the boards. hypocrite