BS: Dwindling BS section

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 10:22 AM

Oh, Musket is just pissed that the dogs are trying to lick their own balls and not his, but alas ans alack, the dogs find that Musket doesn't have any either....that's why he will not engage in any real discussions and only nags those who do....then he avoids any real exchanges....just fantasy drivel....which, if you go back and read his posts, proves the very point!..He is quick to slur anyone who doesn't go along with his delusions, but refuses to answer their questions back to him...somewhat a cross between the annoyance of a mosquito and a gnat!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 10:05 AM

""I have noted before that my dog has no balls, thanks to the vet.""

Thats why I added he note, recognizing your sensitivity about such a personal loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

I have noted before that my dog has no balls, thanks to the vet.

That doesn't stop him from licking them.

Everything you ever needed to know about religion in a sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:46 AM

Note the quote was "and lick their wounds" , not "their balls".

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:39 AM

""Dogs are wise. They crawl away into a quiet corner and lick their wounds and do not rejoin the world until they are whole once more."" Agatha Christie

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw prick pricker
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:37 AM

Oh what a
bore
You are to be
Shaw

Heheh. Nothing so amusing as the pompous pricked...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:36 AM

Yeah but if you don't understand through poor mental capacity, ignoring is a good option Brendan.

Your post does indeed enhance the perceived credibility of the likes of Akenaton.

Your family must be very proud of you.




Its the "up your arse" stupidity and sanctimony of those with nothing to be sanctimonious about that makes posting irresistible. There may be one in every village but we appear to have a commune in the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:25 AM

"" Despite his meandering maneuverability, his strategical susceptibility, his infantile indefatigability, and his tendency towards tactical trability, he still remains."" Quote, The Worlds End

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:20 AM

Sorry, that last guest was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:18 AM

It is interesting to note the self-righteous tone of those posters who disapprove of the bearpit atmosphere that sometimes prevails on some of these threads (such as this one). Yes, people say things on the internet that they would not say to people's faces but that does not mean they are not thinking those things. Forums like this may be no more than social interaction with the gloves off.
A number of posters have criticised the Muskets for mistaking obscene abuse for argument. Such protesters have a point, but the impact on me (and, I suspect, others) of Muskets' posts is simply to ignore them because, while they may have a brain, evidence of any form of critical thinking is in short supply in what they post. This has the effect of undermining the credibility of what they say and, in turn, could enhance the credibility of those they attack. It may be possible that such self defeating behaviour will die out because of this. This thought leads me to wonder whether this process could be analogous to evolution...now then Steve Shaw......

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:01 AM

Whilst we are at it, who are the decent people Keith?

You mention my foul abuse. What about your support of terrorism in Palestine by Israeli militants? When have you ever criticised Akhenaton for homophobic hatred? Did you choose not to read what Goofus just put? What about Michael's broad brush attack on Muslims?

Yeah, we decent people put up with a lot really...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 08:58 AM

You can fuck off too.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 08:27 AM

I think and believe that foul abuse in place of argument as practised by the likes of Musket dissuade decent people from joining n debate.
Hence the dwindling BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 07:45 AM

The word is spelled "animadversion", Michael.

.,,.,.

Oh what a
bore
You are to be
Shaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 07:17 AM

Yet again we are left speechless by the precision of Steve's scientific analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,The true Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 07:06 AM

Maybe Popper falsified himself, Snail.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 06:47 AM

Jack Campin (I presume.)
Feyerabend had more time for Popper than I ever did, but then he knew him personally and I didn't.

Love it. These are old arguments. I'm still not sure why you claim that falsifiability is "is rapidly headed for oblivion".

Also a bit confused by your reference to [Popper's] earlier positivist doctrines. Popper was an opponent of positivism.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw winging it
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 06:29 AM

What has Prince Charles got to do with this, Ed?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 06:14 AM

"In Wingnut land, a lib-rul is defined as anyone who disagrees with 'em!"

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, spelling cop
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 05:53 AM

The word is spelled "animadversion", Michael. Those who choose to use longer words when shorter ones would do, take care. Please don't take this as censure or criticism, by the way, Michael. Oh, look - I seem to have used two much nicer words for it than your one!

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 04:57 AM

About as nauseating as akenaton and full of the same dangerous lies and shit.

Had a bad experience some time in your life Goofus? Want to talk about it?

Well no fucker's listening.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 03:19 AM

Heard it??? 'Mr. Anonymous Guest'???...Not from me! You heard it from a made up story, embellished from several posts, that I posted, which NEVER claimed that I could cure homosexuality...however, I do KNOW, that homosexuality is not genetic, is behavioral, and does NOT have to be permanent...or take it from an EX-homosexual Not having any choice is the kind of bullshit that propaganda is made of!....and how the 'so-called liberals' LOVE fraudulent propaganda!...They make it up, and delude themselves that it is indeed true!
Delusions can certainly be, by their very nature, intoxicating!
Whether you favor homosexual 'rights' or not, is really not the issue..being lied to, about it IS...and far more dangerous!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 03:16 AM

For him to be busted infers he had credibility to begin with.

Do keep up.

A pity pete isn't engaging more in this thread, (other than thinking questioning the logic of rational people somehow makes him look good.) As an alleged biblical scholar, he could write the book on falsifiability.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 12:30 AM

"Remind us of how you claim to be able to "cure" being gay Goofus."

I heard it too.

You are busted.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 11:44 PM

The term "bollocks" would be quite brief, Bill. I should not decry it, but should take your point instantly on board!

OTH & Alternatively, I could urge that your putative animadeversions would be likely to contain no little and more than somewhat of petitio principii!


〠 right back 2U

Best regards

≈M·the·Incorrigible≈

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 08:48 PM

"...inflated solipsistic statements of the obvious... "

I could debate that, but the argument takes awhile, and would no doubt include some of the very terms you decry... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 07:46 PM

"This thread is becoming the perfect illustration of why many people don't bother to....etc...etc..."

or....


"This thread is becoming the perfect illustration
of why a minority of lively robust creative intelligent transgressive adult minds
should be [grudgingly] tolerated and left to their own devices within the boundaries of BS playpens;
subjected to minimum interference from over-sensitive judgementa souls
who still drop in despite being fully aware of the potentially aggressive atmosphere,
for no other reason than to post petty chiding complaints ...???"

well.... it's just another way of looking at it...😉



Personally, I don't come here simply to talk and listen to folk I'm already entirely in agreement with..
That can just become stultifyingly dull.
Disagreeable, obnoxious personalities, can provide far more positive and challenging mental stimulation...💥🔥🎆💡💭✔

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 04:55 PM

mythical 'War on Woman' bit of nonsense,

There is a pronounced anti-woman bias in a great deal of proposed government policy and legislation lately, and you're blind if you can't see it. The legislation dancing around women's health care and birth control access and control over one's body in the advent of unwanted pregnancy is an abomination.

This thread is becoming the perfect illustration of why many people don't bother to posit non-music questions at Mudcat.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 03:59 PM

Doubt is not a pleasant state of mind, but certainty is absurd. (Voltaire)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 02:45 PM

Late teen/early 20s years, we had to read up on all that philosophy bollocks
just to impress the knickers off smart college girls...

That and playing electric guitar usually clinched it....

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 02:25 PM

Good old Ludwig! I have always considered that pretty well all the maunderings and lucubrations subsumed under "Philosophy" are just inflated solipsistic statements of the obvious delivered in increasingly portentous tones...

Is that not so, Socrates?

≈Micrates≈

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 02:12 PM

"But are there philosophical problems? The present position of English philosophy - my point of departure - originates, I believe, in the late Professor Ludwig Wittgenstein's doctrine that there are none; that all genuine problems are scientific problems; that the alleged propositions or theories of philosophy are pseudo-propositions or pseudo-theories; that they are not false (if they were false, their negations would be true propositions or theories) but strictly meaningless combinations of words, no more meaningful than the incoherent babbling of a child who has not yet learned to speak properly." 
― Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 01:30 PM

That was me a couple of posts back, using a new computer and a browser I'm not familiar with.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 01:18 PM

I must confess that when "popper" was first mentioned, I thought it was a lighthearted putdown of muskets lack of substantial firepower !.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 01:06 PM

I've dropped the 'team punkfolkrocker gag' - I got bored with it.. it's just me now...

This thread is far from 'dwindling' as far as I'm concerned,
it's reawakening memories for me..

Bloody hell.. "History of Ideas"
- I was accepted for a social psychology / hist of ideas degree at Bradford Uni back in 1980ish,
but decided to go somewhere else because of girlfriend problems...

That was one single most drastic life changing decision.....

I've probably still got the text books she lent me to get through the interview
before we split up...

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Falsifiability is not a scientific concept,
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 12:30 PM

Falsifiability is [...] a buzzword from Popper's philosophical system, which has never been taken very seriously outside Anglo-American academia and journalism, and is rapidly headed for oblivion even there.
That's very interesting Jack. Could you give me some pointers to the new thinking?

There is no definite label for it all, but a lot of philosophy of science has been influenced by postmodernism, or ideas related to it. Thomas Kuhn more or less started the movement; I studied briefly with Paul Feyerabend, who was perhaps the most influential of that lot. Feyerabend knew more about the history of ideas than anybody I've ever met, and he had a colossal store of examples of science operating in total disregard of Popper's ideal - instead, scientific systems try to maintain themselves by finding ways to coexist with conflicting evidence. Imre Lakatos (in "Proofs and Refutations") has a nice case study of how this works in mathematics; he called the process of sidelining inconveniences "monster-barring".

Feyerabend had more time for Popper than I ever did, but then he knew him personally and I didn't. Popper got into weird new-agey-religious bollocks with John Eccles towards the end of his life, about how the soul and brain communicate via quantum gobbledygook. I suppose he had some way of persuading himself that that was compatible with his earlier positivist doctrines. I heard Eccles talking about it once and he just sounded senile.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 10:52 AM

Musket: "Remind us of how you claim to be able to "cure" being gay Goofus."

Well, being as YOU made that up...and have been harping on me about something YOU made up, perhaps YOU should substantiate that I ever made that claim!
Typical 'SO-CALLED LIBERAL' gibberish!

GfS

P.S. Maybe while you're at it, you could substantiate the 'so-called liberal' accusations of the mythical 'War on Woman' bit of nonsense, along with most other accusations of 'bigotry' and 'racism'....that your ilk makes up, to accuse others of, trying to get political traction!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

If this Musket slips in a typo, I assure it will be Freudian.

A bit like yours.

Nice to read an abusive little shit like Akenaton reckoning others are abusive. Also nice to see he likes to blame governments for criminals. Who made you what you are worm? Was it when your saviour Salmond came out in favour of extending equality for all in marriage?

By the way, I doubt even Jim "I can start an argument in an empty room" Carroll could ever be accused of making disingenuous statements regarding your views. It needs a forensic psychiatrist to work out how your seedy little mind operates.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 09:23 AM

Jim.... You are becoming so abusive that I'm sure you would qualify for "Team Musket"
"Your support for Breivik can be taken as read"

Jim that is a brilliant piece of misrepresentation

Firstly, it gives the impression that I support Breivik...which of course I don't, then goes on to imply that I do not disagree with your statement.
I am sure Bill has a word for it..:0)

What I Actually said was that Breivik was obviously a madman and the policies pursued by various governments motivate madmen to carry out despicable acts.....I do not and never have supported the slaughter of innocent young people......but I suppose you already knew that.

Set you alarm clock a little earlier if to wish to make disingenuous statements regarding my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 09:00 AM

By logical deduction we now know that at least one of the Muskets never makes typing errors.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

Impreassed? Should I be impressed or arsed?

(See thread on buzz words. Assed would have been better but perish the thought of speaking like a mule.)

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 07:50 AM

I hope everyone is suitably impreassed by the scientific precision of Steve's last two posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 07:42 AM

Jack Campin

Falsifiability is not a scientific concept, for any science. It's a buzzword from Popper's philosophical system, which has never been taken very seriously outside Anglo-American academia and journalism, and is rapidly headed for oblivion even there.

That's very interesting Jack. Could you give me some pointers to the new thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Musket
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 03:11 AM

Remind us of how you claim to be able to "cure" being gay Goofus. The worm is struggling in the face of logic (and Bridge) so could do with some moral support from another moron.

Funny thing, all this talk about certificates. I had to find my certificates the other week. Never had to show them anywhere before. Eventually, the former Mrs Musket found some of them in her drawer with hers and passed them on, whilst reminding me that one important one I got after we split up was shredded as part of a leaving present from a girlfriend. I wonder if certificates are falsifiable? According to that Internet thingy they are... The real one will take ages. It is in two parts from two different places, one here and one in sausage, hairy dead pig and rotten cabbage land, although Heidelberg sounds much nicer.

It's this wonderful knack I have of winning friends and influencing people.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 01:27 AM

Musket: "Musket can't ascend. Already at the top."

Suicidal, and proud of it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 09:10 PM

""What a horrible thread.
It answers its own question.""

Not for the faint-hearted, best to pass it by, Sol.
BTW, it dic garner a fair amount of posts, hardly a "dwindling sign" at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 08:48 PM

Wannabee - catch 22. If those you vilify are Romanies (or gypsies), they possess the protected characteristic of "race" under the Equality Act. If they are not, then they do not possess it, so are not protected by that legislation. You really don't get it, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Sol.
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 08:28 PM

What a horrible thread.
It answers its own question.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,The unfalsifiable Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 08:05 PM

Haven't seen my certificate since 1972. It's probably in my mum's attic covered in batshit. And I can't show it to you anyway. Last time I accidentally left a sheet of A4 in my garden a bloody snail ate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dwindling BS section
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, with sword of truth
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 07:56 PM

"You can only falsify that which is falsifiable, such as scientific theory. You can't falsify truth which is beyond science, for example, the truth that evolution happens. You can't even falsify almost certain untruths that are beyond science, such as the existence of God. You'll be fine once you get your realms sorted out." [Barney Rubble, 4005 BC].

Has the Gastropod breeding season finished yet? Is it true that you both have to do everything to each other both ways?