I PUT HIM ON IGNORE AGAIN

Good for who? The individual or the collective.

I've seen A2K referred to as a "prestigious American debate site." Nobody is going to say that about it when it has an Ignore function.

It is impossible to knock down any position if the person espousing it has opposing views on Ignore. He's fireproof. In which case there is no debate and we have agreed to be guided by his staff pointing at the Kremlin door.

And his every post is but a slight variation on the standard message. How can it not be? And the message is, of course, that he knows best.

And he can't explain lingerie shops which are, according to his own principles, a natural occurence in evolution's purposelessness. He has eliminated a Divine intelligence. And lingerie shops are spreading round the world. Christian lingerie shops. And bringing in their wake civilised patterns of behaviour. As football and cricket also do. All the top sports.

I would take a shade off odds that when Mr Spitzer was engaged in converstation with that lady friend of his that she was wearing lingerie. Hence the astronomical sums of money involved.

Ignoring that approach to matters as if it isn't there is not like ignoring insulting and offensive posts at all and they should not be confused with each other in sophistical argument because it's cheapskate sophisticality and hence not prestigious.

He is scared of admitting that there is a psychosomatic realm so he has to ignore such considerations, except possibly in moments of need, because the explanation for lingerie shops falls within that mysterious realm. Dances similar to the Can-Can can probably be seen in most cultures but only in Christendom do we see the white-frilly knickers, suspender-belts with a red rose stuck in one garter, black stockings and high heel shoes and the splits performed with such grace. Paris has made a killing off that.

Andbody can explain how a fin became a leg or a wing. You just do some drawings showing the obvious stages and flip them through fast. Then you go look for old bones which look similar to the stages depicted and then you put them in a display in glass cases with little labels on in a brown tinted room and the viewer is impressed with his own intelligence at being able to see how a fin turned into a wing. Or a leg.

At some point a dispute is bound to arise over an old bone which could be a missing link in both the wing chain or the leg chain. Other issues then arise which have nothing to do with the subject matter which now is transformed into a ping-pong ball.

I dispute the integrity of the Ignore function in cases like this.

I dispute the integrity of the Ignore function in cases like this. - quote

Look at what's being ignored, as evidenced by your post. Nothing, except many lines of irrelevance.

But Ed--it is you who are defining " irrelevance".

What evidence have you that it has no relevance to somebody? One thing that is irrelevant, for sure, is your response to it. It isn't a surprise, it takes nobody anywhere they weren't already there and it's witless. That's big time irrelevance. Pub bore level.

I over-estimate the viewer's intelligence. And I leave them to decide what is relevant and what isn't.

Obviously there is no need for you to respond to the post now you have declared it irrelevant. Bit convenient innit? Easy too. Almost as easy as putting me on Ignore. But equally tiresome.

I don't see anybody defending your posts on those threads, of late, anyhow. You write from conviction, but offer no arguments that buttress your statements. I mean, total zero.

You can't stop can you Ed?

Saying I offer zero argument is out of the same bag as saying I'm irrelevant. Changing the wording changes nothing. The fact that my post meant nothing to you doesn't disqualify it from being on the thread. If it did you are in charge of it. Ignore is ignore.

When a lady ignores someone she ignores them. If she ignores them pointedly she is not ignoring them at all.

I don't need people to defend my posts. I get hints of approval from time to time.

1. That's what I am saying. Plain English.
2. Hints of approval are not substantive to the topic.
3. To merely state that evolution is wrong without giving a reason why, backed by no more than rhetorical flourishes, is to be irrelevant.

Nothing plain about it to me Ed. You declaring something irrelevant and having zero meaning means **** all to me.



You raised that matter old chap.



The problem there my dear is that I've never said evolution is wrong. All I have ever said is that we need to mitigate its exigencies. (Excluding bankers and media denizens of course).

And we do on a grand scale. Thank goodness.

Genesis might well be bullshit but it's the best bullshit. Man does not live by bread alone. Nor women for that matter.

(turns out the light, tiptoes from thread)

Or scutters off into the bushes.

Thanks Edgar, youre posts were appreciated by me anyway. I too shall leave this thread to the wee troll .

Fancy that!!

I like that the "ignore" function exists although I can't imagine I would ever use it myself.

I don't like the idea of communal shunning though, not even the veiled public discussion of the ostracized. Just feels like, I dunno ... schoolyard bastardization or something.

On a2k, THERE ARE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS WHO, BY THEIR RUDENESS OR "TROLLING" OR IRRELEVANT POSTINGS, HAVE ANNOYED SEVERAL MEMEBRS . tHESE MEMBERS WERE ALL USING THE IGNORE FEATURE independently. i DONT THINK THAT A "communal shunning" occurs here. Its just a fact that one or two individuals can piss off many people at once. However, rather than these individuals realizing that they have a problem, they blame the readers for being "dimwitted" or "left wing 'tards" . In my case, the ame guy is being ignored by others mostly because he gets in the way of good discussion and hes irrelevant in his posts. He is unable to see his own problems and , rather than dealing with him, we, independent of ach other, have chosen to ignore him (with or without the use of the feature).
There is a big difference between being irrelevant and passionately involved. I can disagree with someone who argues from the subject POV, but I wont deal with someone whose only goal in life is to try to appear "clever" at the expense of the discussion.

What a load of fanny.

effemm and those of his ilk have been fond of asserting repetitively that religion has been the cause of wars and mayhem and on that assertion is based their policy of getting rid of religion which they think Marx recommended. Which he didn't.

Only the other day I put up a post quoting a Founding Father saying that "ALL" wars were caused by trade disputes as I always maintained. This FF had been 8 years as Sec. of State and 8 years a President as well. And effemm and those of his ilk have been quoting Founding Fathers at us from the beginning.

In view of their claim about religion, made often and strongly, such a post as mine was is on topic, is not trolling and is not irrelevant. It is simply asserted that it is those things in order to justify putting me on Ignore so that the post then needn't be addressed.

It is the same with posts relating to the stupidity of bringing things like gravity and 2+2 =4 and other scientific matters into the debate. They are irrelevant.

There are no threads debating those things and how they should be taught. There is no argument about them. The very presence of these threads on the subject of evolution, and the reality of the argument that has raged since Darwin published Origins, proves that evolution is a matter which is profoundly different from them. A matter of special interest because we are ourselves organisms. To remind others of that glaringly obvious fact, or of the Texas senator referring to "controversial issues" in this special field, is not irrelevant. To declare it so is simply an evasion and saves effemm from dealing with it.

All the pejoritive terms effemm uses are mere props to his justification and if they take anybody in they shouldn't be on a science thread with grown-ups.

And disparaging me for trying to be clever is un American and a recipe for dumbing down because it leaves us in the hands of somebody who makes no effort to be clever. Such as effemm and those of his ilk.

They ran out of the kitchen. That's all there is to it.

I'm sorry for feeling the need to emphasise "ALL" in the above. I think the word "all" easily slips by the attention of those who habitually stick their head in a bag near anything they can't counter.

And as effemm has me on Ignore, and proudly trumpeted the fact, he won't see these arguments against using such a cheapskate trick and will be able to sit there confident that his arguments have not been effectively opposed and thus being justified in stubbornly holding fast to his principles.

Wonderful. A form of Vallium.

I'm not against the idea of doing it, I just think starting a thread about it is something else entirely.

Don't blame me. I didn't start it. I would never start a thread with a title like this one has. It would be silly of me.

EORL, the thread started as kind of a joke . ANYWAY, you are certainly free to start a thread anyway you wish, so spare me any of the avunculars Im aware of what I do.

I should hope so. effemm must believe that most people are unaware of what they do to think of pointing out that he is aware of what he does as if it is some special gift he has.

Admit it, spendi. You love playing the victim here. Too bad you are so bad at it.