BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST, Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:42 PM

Well Steve, maybe you might want to quibble as to whether these were considered " proofs " but I was thinking things like the forgeries of piltdown man , and hackyls recapitulation ontogeny drawings , various missing links that were put in the evolutionary dustbin, and the more recent fizz in the pan re background microwave radiation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:28 PM

Well, pete, Piltdown Man has long been discredited. By scientists. Would you like me to repeat that? Oh yes, there have been fraudsters masquerading as scientists. As an impressionable young botany graduate I was taken in, like lots of others, by the claims of John Heslop-Harrison that he'd found some incredible rarities on Rhum. He'd planted them there himself as it turned out. Have a google. But here's the thing, pete. He was exposed by his fellow scientists, you see. We hate dishonesty and cheating. Science will not knowingly allow falsehood to set the agenda, because it knows that an agenda set that way can lead only to blind endings. As for those drawings you refer to, do tell us what your take on them is. Naturally, I shall be expecting your account to contain some science.   Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:28 AM

"It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that."

pete, keep repeating to yourself: "Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system ..."

And once that concept is lodged firmly in your thick, fanatical, fundamentalist little head (It's not yet, is it? Despite our best efforts!)then contemplate the truism that science IS an open-minded, open-ended system for investigating reality. IF soft tissue has been found preserved in dinosaur bones, then the scientists concerned have made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery. If it turns out that they are mistaken about having found soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones then they HAVEN'T made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery (although the discovery may mean something else entirely). Nevertheless, the discovery (whatever it means) almost certainly does NOT allow anyone to dismiss the the whole of modern science and conclude that the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of some bronze-age, middle-eastern goat herders, recorded in an old book, must be right!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:41 AM

You might as well just have a wank. In a debating sense, you are anyway.

Religion fucks you up. pete demonstrates that continually, but at least he is consistent which is fair play given the intelligence level displayed. Keith on the other hand seems ashamed of the absurdity he defends at times and seems to be going through an "I am not religious" phase. To date, his "I am religious" posts outnumber them by a wide margin.

Two people who, strictly speaking, it is self indulgent to try to engage in debate with.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:58 AM

Just what I've said multiple times about you Three Musketeers, eh? - with the invaluable assistance of Miss Austen's Elinor Dashwood: ""Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." No apology for repetition -- always germane when it comes to the Popguns.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:08 AM

MGM, if you check back through this and other threads I think you find you come a far distant second in the repeating stakes. I think you will find it is the Professor(KAOH) who repeats things most often.

Sometimes his contributions are repeated like a mantra. Things like "my three points" or "you lose" The "you lose" comment was repeated on one thread in excess of 45 occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:55 AM

Musket,
I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever

The Census and every poll and survey say that is not true.
You are proved wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM

A quote of yours from an earlier post, pete (I can't always seem to be able to access Mudcat):

" And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand ..."

Can I remind you that REAL scientists don't start from the premise that they are in possession of absolute truth and 'work backwards' from there? In addition, REAL scientists don't spend all of their time, and expend all of their efforts, trying to discredit the conclusions of other scientists, mainly because those conclusions cast doubt on their prior assumption of absolute truth!

I recently watched an episode of the TV programme 'Mock the Week'. During the programme the comedian, Andy Parsons remarked: "There are five major religions in the world. That means that four of them must be wrong!" Leaving aside the possibilty that all of them might be wrong, how do you know that YOU'VE picked the right one and that you, and your beloved "creationist scientists" (LOL!), are really in possession of absolute truth?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

Raggytash, it seems to me that one of Keith's main purposes here is not to defend points which are patently true in any case, but to point out the deliberate lies and distortions propagated by "Team Musket". In doing so Keith is in fact doing a service to the whole forum, for if this behaviour is allowed to continue unopposed, we shall have no forum at all.

I commend Keith for his doggedness in this matter, as myself and others are continually lied about by "TM" and I have neither the time nor the inclination at present, to point them out over and over again.

For one thing, and I think you may be able to agree with me here, three or four people should not be allowed to post under the one handle, as it confuses debate and wrecks serious discussion of important issues.

"TM" have admitted that it is a vehicle for "piss taking".
I think it is pretty obvious to most members why these people are here and what the wrecking tactics are all about......do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?....I don't really think so, put small personal slights aside and see the bigger picture....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM

I have this dream whereby I wake up one day, click on a Mudcat thread and read a post from Akenaton that is neither generalised and incoherent rubbish, devoid of thought, concerning his strange take on political matters, nor a whinge about the people here with whom he disagrees and about whom he is complaining either directly or indirectly to the powers that be. My good man, we do have a forum, and by far the best use of it is to make your points, preferably well-considered (read that phrase again, please), innocent of your usual prejudices, about the matter under discussion. Think you can manage that? Just for once? Give it a little try, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM

do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?

It is very easy. Don't post obscenities about and abuse of minority groups thinly disguised as reasoned debate and people will not react in kind. Think you can manage that? I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:57 AM

To Both.....I actually love discussing things with people I disagree with, I don't think I post obscenities, and do you really think that people who have admitted to reporting Mudcat to the authorities over content, who continuously attempt to wreck discussions and who share one member name to "piss take" and confuse the issue, should be allowed to participate here?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think you will find the Professors main purpose is to forward ignorance, ill considered racism and bigotry which he then continues to propound again and again and again. Ad Nauseam.

He is not really worth the effort of a response, however it can be amusing on a rainy day, as it in this morning in Yorkshire.

As you your remark regarding "membership" I should point out to you that I do not know any of the Muskets, Steve and others. Dave the Gnome I have met and have even shared a pint with him on the odd occasion.

Some might say it would possibly be best to ignore his racist, ignorance and bigotry. I do not.

I can normally get on with most people and should our paths ever cross I would hope that you and I could sit down over a pint together. I doubt if I would piss on the Professor even if he was on fire.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM

I don't think I post obscenities

Gay people are perverts
They should be on a register
They are promiscuous
They should not be allowed to be married

Need I go on? You do not think these statements are obscene and abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:30 AM

I haven't met anyone who posts here to my knowledge (I had a natter once with Brian Peters but he won't remember). I rarely communicate by private message except to respond to someone who's contacted me first. I'm not in anyone's team and if someone I generally agree with goes off on one I usually just shut up and cringe. But I'd be ashamed of myself if I saw bigotry and ignorant prejudice left unremarked on any forum I was posting on. I didn't permit it in my classroom in 25 years and I'm damned if I'm going to see racism, prejudice against gay people, gay marriage and Muslims, fuelled by hatred and ignorance, pass on this board without comment. As for complaining about multiple identities, well I don't know your identity either, and I don't see you whingeing about the multitude of nameless Guests who post there, often in numbers that make discussion nonsensical. Be honest with yourself for once. You have it in for a particular individual who is very good at ruffling your feathers. And you deserve it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 11:23 AM

Dave is almost impossible to engage with, as he has obviously been brainwashed by his heros in "TM".

While statements like that help to promote open, friendly discussion I suppose?

Ake, I don't know haw many more times I need to tell you. I have never met Musket. I have only ever mailed him once or twice and that had nothing to do with any of this crap. I disagree with Musket about many things and we have had heated debates but we can have open, friendly discussions because he does not make absurd sweeping statements about whole sections of society. Nor does he tar everyone who disagrees with him with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:02 PM

It's not a "him".....it's a "them"......but others think that they are three figments of one deranged mind. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM

Whilst your diagnosis is easier to state. The only bit not sure is whether it is judge or psychiatrist territory.




Keep going Keith. Your vicar will be proud of you.

Assuming they haven't found someone else to do the sound in church. (One of the things you told me about when we met, or didn't meet as you insist.)

I haven't met Dave although we have a few mutual friends I assume, judging by geography and folk clubs. Disagreement? The three Muskets disagree on many things between ourselves, but are on safe consensus territory when pointing and laughing at bigots..