"...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..." [Deuteronomy 5:8-10]

Monday, February 11, 2008

Denise O'Leary: ******** For *******

Update: 15 Feb 2008
The sorry tale of this post is told here: DaveScot humiliates Denyse O'Leary

Update: 22 Aug 2008
PLEASE READ: Juvenilia. An Apology.


Denyse O'Leary is like a goldfish, constantly surprised to to find herself stuck in a bowl.

At Mindless Hack, one her several dozen absurd blogs, she is staggered and amazed to learn that not all white born-again Christians are Republicans. She quotes a Zogby Poll:
"In both Missouri and Tennessee, white evangelicals who ranked jobs and economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote far outnumbered those who considered abortion and same-sex marriage most important."
***** Freakin' ******. She would have known that if she'd checked Wikipedia:
The Christian right, while being a fairly large movement, does not represent all evangelicals.... The Christian Left includes some theological conservatives. Many evangelicals in both the United States and abroad are more or less politically neutral.
Hilariously, Denyse blames "media commentators" for creating a "myth of a dangerous Christian Right, poised to take over".

Huh!? If Denyse was able to find her ass with both hands, she'd know that it's the self-declared "Religious Right" itself which has created this myth, for political ends. In the 80s it cynically used the Moral Majority movement to help conservative politicians get elected. More recently, it has used the creation/evolution debacle to try and force Evangelical Christians to choose between "secular" science and religious dogma.

Here's Wikipedia again, or what happened next:
A recent study by the Barna Research Group concluded that most Americans under the age of 40 have a negative view of evangelical Christians as a result of the activities of the Christian Right.
But the well has been poisoned. Many Evangelicals in the USA still think that "evolution" is incompatible with their faith, despite what a great many Christians say to the contrary.

Way to go Denyse.

And oh yeah. I would have gently pointed this all out at her "blog". But she doesn't allow public comments.

She really is a *********.

PTET

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

Samuel Skinner
No! Not my puppy!

JanieBelle said...

"If Denyse was able to find her ass with both hands,..."

And therein lies the crux of the matter...

Anonymous said...

I found your post through the "douchbag for Christ" blog and was just curious are you a seven year old? I ask simply because name calling and graffitti is something you might expect from a child that has begun to be able to write and use a computer but has yet to discover that in order to win an argument you actually have to engage the other persons POINT. I have read other scientific blogs on this controversy and in their defence they at least try and give evidence for their point of view.

You seem satisfied that your opponent is wrong because a> she is a douchbag and b> she has blogs. You meet at least one of these criteria so maybe you better either make a point or quit filling the blogsphere with character assaults on people you do not even know.

Gary said...

You know, I never noticed it before you posted her picture, but Denyse, lo0oks an AWEFUL LOT LIKE SAL CORDOVA!

There is something going on here...
Could they be twin douche-bags separated at birth?

Could this be one of The Designer's Front-Loaded jokes, and all people that look like Denyse and Sal are douche-bags?

ps: Anonymous - You are so hurtful. This means that you also are a douche-bag. Please go take a shower to clean yourself. Use plenty of vinegar.

HTH

J-Dog, not Gary

PTET said...

Hi anonymous

Thanks for visiting.

If you read my post, you'll see that I did engage the other persons POINT.

But because you just looked at the pretty pictures and you didn't read my post, you didn't engage my POINT. Which was that the other persons POINT was ridiculous.

O'Leary was overwhelmed by "new" information she could have found almost anywhere, including the hated-of-the-whacky-right Wikipedia; and that her analysis of that information was wrong-headed.

And her posts are all like this.

If you'd like to discuss my POINT please do post again.

Anonymous said...

I am willing to engage the point that you thought you made but let me just clarify mine. I was not addressing your particlular blog entry so much as the name calling and defacing of O'Leary which is tasteless and unnesicary if you actually have something of substance to say. Please take me at my word, I am not suggesting that you do not have something to say just that from what you have posted I have found nothing approaching substance. So to addressing your point: you missed O'Leary's point. You claim that she was surprized that not all white male evangelicals were not part of the religious right. In fact, what she was saying was that it is exceedingly rare that this gets mentioned in the media. What surprized her is that some poll actually revealed the fact and then in some way made it into the media machine.

You quote Barna as saying that a large number of under 40's are turned off Christianity because of the the activities of the religious right. O'Leary's response to that would probably be that it is not what they did but how the media has portrayed them that has been at least part of the problem. I do not know the woman, I am just following her line of reasoning, which is valid. There is a bias against Evangelical (and Catholic for that matter) Christians and their thought in the media and just because you can find a fact on Wikipedia does not mean that is the slant presented in the media. If you want to counter her point show it in the media, specifically reporting on Intelligent Design which is the area of concern she is talking about in her blog.

PTET said...

Anonymous

Thanks for popping back... I appreciate your comments & criticism.

My gripe was that O'Leary is amazed to learn something about the Evangelical Christianity she could have found anywhere. Even on Wikipedia. Sheesh. Do you think maybe she should have known that already?

Since she is a bloomin' part of part of the Christian Right, and hold herself out as some sort of media "expert", I think this makes her look ridiculous. My opinion.

And where is this supposed bias against Christians in the media? Is the media biased against other groups too do you think? Do Christians have it worse than anyone else? Really?

And O'Leary is as clueless about Intelligent Design and Science as she is about the Religious Right. Which, given her position in the ID movement, is quite breathtaking.

KK - my posting is childish and silly. But then so is O'Leary.

But thanks for coming by and keeping me in line.

Happy Darwin Day.

JRF said...

ptet,

You didn't read her blog very carefully. You say, she was "amazed to learn something about the Evangelical Christianity she could have found anywhere."

But this is what she actually wrote about it:

"Not news to me. I've commented on the 'dangerous Christian Right' myth here" (the "here" links to another article she wrote on the subject. Did you read that one?)

You're attacking a strawman (or strawwoman, in this case).

PTET said...

Hi Jrf

Thanks for dropping by. It's good of you to take the time to comment.

Here's what O'Leary wrote in the original article you mention:

"We hear about the Christian Right all the time. Books are written about the danger it supposedly represents. But when I looked into it while researching The Spiritual Brain, I discovered a number of facts..."

What facts did she discover? Facts that the Christian Right doesn't represent all Christians. Which is news to who? Certainly not to anyone who follows American politics, surely. So why is it news to O'Leary?

Her first article quotes her own book: "… there is a widespread belief among academics... that most evangelical Christian Americans... are hard-core members of the Christian Right."

Says who? Is there a reference for that? Or is she just talking out of her ass? It certainly doesn't say that in either of the two sources she notes in her quote.

So why does O'Leary think it's surprising that the media should under-report the number of non hard-Right Christians in America? Just who is it who has been claiming for years and years that they represent some sort of silent, waiting majority, which is waiting to take over America?

Who? Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Erm, could it be the Christian right themselves, as I wrote in my original post?

And why is is that so many Americans think evolution is incompatible with their faith? Who has been claiming just that for years and years? Erm... Who? The hardcore Christian right too, perhaps?

You get the point... I hope...

JanieBelle said...

The media biased against Christianity? Are you kidding me?

What planet do you live on, anonymous person? Not this one, that's for sure.

jrf said...

ptet,

Sorry, but you missed what I was saying altogether. In your original post you accused O'Leary of being surprised that not all evangelicals vote Republican. But that wasn't true, as my actual quote from her blog showed.

But then you've conflated this with the issue of who created this impression in people's minds that evangelicals ARE a united voting bloc, and you claim that it was the religious right themselves. But you really offer no real evidence for this claim. But then you accuse O'Leary of not providing evidence. Her evidence is that liberals keep repeating this mantra, and she did post a link in her article to a book by Rabbi James Rudin about this topic.

In any event she's writing not so much about who created the myth, but who's maintaining it. Since when do liberals just take conservatives's words on anything? And if the information that the so-called "religious right" doesn't really exist is so easy to find, why don't left-wing pundits seem to be able to locate it?

The point is that it's to the advantage of the left to portray Republicans as the "American Taliban" or something like that.

PTET said...

Hi Jrf

In the first article, referred to in the one I linked to, O'Leary "learns" that the Religious Right isn't a monolithic block. Yes I was being facetious. But no, I don't think I was doing her a disservice. Feel free to disagree. I did read both articles before I wrote my post.

You don't think the Religious Right played up its power and influence? Ever heard Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority? How about Ted Haggard? All talked up the influence of the Christian Right.

Where do "liberals" repeat any mantra? Neither you nor O'Leary say.

The "Religious Right" certainly does exist and, frankly, it is idiotic of you to say otherwise. It just doesn't have anything like the influence or power that *it* pretends it does, never mind what the media says.

And there is a hard-Christian-Right element to the Republican party. That's one reason lots of even moderate Christian conservatives have become so wary of the Bush Administration, and attempts to politicalize the teaching of science in American schools.

You say "writing not so much about who created the myth, but who's maintaining it. "

I say it was created by the Religious Right to talk up there power, and it's being maintained by the Religious Right who are trying to poison the well of science by pushing Intelligent Design Creationism, and to poison the well of political debate by trying to pull the Republicans rightwards and Christianwards.

Yes, their influence is overstated. By them. If the mainstream media reports that, that's bad, but they are just doing what the Religious Right have wanted up until now.

O'Leary bought this bullshit. Now she's surprised by it. Some journalist.

And if you say "liberals" one more time, as if "liberals" are some sort of monolithic block, I shall have to mock you one more time...

Thanks again for your input.

jrf said...

ptet,

You said, "Where do 'liberals' repeat any mantra? Neither you nor O'Leary say."

Actually, that's what the link to the Rudin book was for. You might think it's unsatisfactory evidence, but it's more evidence than you've offerred for any of your claims.

You write, "Yes, their influence is overstated. By them. If the mainstream media reports that, that's bad, but they are just doing what the Religious Right have wanted up until now."

That's awfully ironic, since what we have is the mainstream media doing exactly what you have accused O'Leary of doing - of missing the fact that evangelicals don't vote as a single bloc. When she does it (as you falsely claim), she's a douchbag. When the media does it, that's bad, but it's really the fault of the Religious Right. Nice double standard.

By the way, when I said the Religious Right doesn't really exist I meant the same thing that you meant by the fact that evangelicals don't all vote in sync. You're quibbling over terminology (but then you feign offense over my use of "liberal," which I find strange).

You can mock me all you want, but it's pretty obvious you just want to make O'Leary look bad no matter what.

Ric said...

I thought only men could be douchebags. You are dead on about the content, but you need a different name.

PTET said...

Hey Jrf

Let's not fight. Yes, the mainstream media report all sorts of nonsense. But let's not pretend they just screw with one side... And let's be clear... O'Leary, me and you all agree the influence of the mainstream right as been overstated. And Rubin, as far as I can see, is talking only about the Christian Right's plans for America, and not all Christians. And jeez louise, the Christian Right were pretty upfront about wanting to push their agenda on everyone else.

I never said at any time that Evangelicals voted as a block. And of course the mainstream media is full of douchebags. Well, duh...

I think O'Leary is a douche because in every article I read of her she acts amazed to discover something which is blindingly obvious, or she mis-casts science for her own religious ends.

You are quite welcome to say that you think I am a douche instead of O'Leary if you want to.

That's why I leave my blog open for comments. It's so people can come and tell me I'm wrong, and hey, you know what, even if I think they are wrong about most things, I might think they are right about some things. And I learn. And I have learned from you jrf, and I'm glad you're here.

Maybe if O'Leary and her ilk read a few comments they didn't like sometimes, they might be less inclined towards... I won't say the word again if it offends you.

Thanks again for taking the time to drop by.

Hitch said...

PTET:
Your childish attempt at defamation over an issue you seem to have no clue about (judging by content) is appalling.

Anonymous has it right.

You Darwinian fundamentalists cannot argue facts or debate anything logically.

As Sir Fred Hoyle wrote :
"So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the
columns of Nature."
(Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987]

Take the hint, neo-Darwinian pseudo-reasoning cripples the mind (as is so obvious on your blog)
Ex. "written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago" - a statement that shows how little you know of mid-east history and biblical origins.
i.e. Appallingly nanoscopic! Not to mention the blatant self-contradiction of your statement - if they were illiterate how could they have written anything? Sheesh - a grade 2 kid could've seen that!

Such examples riddle this blog.

The Darwinian fundamentalist mental illness noted by Hoyle also leads one to intellectual blindness - such as that displayed in the majority of nonsense written on this blog and the clueless comments of your fans 'janiebelle' and 'gary'.

And, oh yes, one more thing - Grow up. 'Nuff said.

James F. McGrath said...

Actually, Fred Hoyle is the best evidence that there is no atheist conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

PTET:

You totally misconstrued the point of the article, practiced ignorant ad hominem attacks, and then misunderstood the person (JRF) who was trying to correct your misunderstanding.

Simply stated - Denyse's point was that their is a religious left, not that she was ignorant of it. She was pointing out others ignorance of it.

Please read more carefully before you comment and do the blogosphere a favor and remove this whole useless page.

mark said...

seriously....this is a painful blog. you should read what you are commenting about before you comment on it. O'leary's point was actually quite good and she was not at all surprised as you try to suggest. you missed her points and then went about attacking straw men....i think you ought to delete this and try again, unless you just like getting spanked in front of your blogbase.

your use of juvenile (at best) language is also insulting to you and your audience. perhaps you are a high schooler, which would make it a bit more understandable, but just as inane.

Anonymous said...

'So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the
columns of Nature'

Good grief you just described religion- all of them in total. Not science. In science you have to prove your case not bang it into the heads of 3 year olds.

'written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago" - a statement that shows how little you know of mid-east history and biblical origins.'

The vast majority where illiterate, those that wrote it superstious as was the state of the times(even now)

Hermagoras said...

I got here from Uncommon Descent, where I learned that DaveScot is upset that people are using bad language against Denyse? Are you kidding me? DaveScot has called Denyse -- yes, that same Denyse -- a "morphodyke" and a "smarmy Canadian cross dresser." Those words from DaveScot should be at the head of this post, just so the UD readers don't miss DaveScot's hypocrisy.

James F. McGrath said...

I think you need to entertain the possibility that that DaveScot is not the same DaveScot.

Just like FTK isn't really Christopher Hitchens...

Anonymous said...

Davescot also had this to say about Denyse:

"I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it’s back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He’s napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we’ll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!"

See it here

http://udoj.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/mom-please-dont-read-this-one/#comment-732

Anonymous said...

The UD cult members in this thread make me laugh. "Defacing" Denyse's picture? What do you call the farty videos produced by your cult leader, William Dembski, PhD?

JanieBelle said...

"I think you need to entertain the possibility that that DaveScot is not the same DaveScot."

Um, no. The DaveScot. The one and only moderator of UncommonlyDense said both of those things about Denyse. He was a guest at my blog for quite some time after he left UD, and we even exchanged a handful of very pleasant emails.

Ask him.

Ric said...

Bwahahaha! The irony! Davescot links over here, and then he's nailed to the wall. Let me be the first to say it: DaveScot is a douchebag, a bigger douchebag than Denyse.

James F. McGrath said...

I can't. I'm banned from Uncommented Descent. :)

Annyday said...

Hello, UncommonDescent denizens! Wazzaaaap!

If you really do find all of this disturbing, you might be concerned about our archives of DaveScot antics on ze forums. We might be jerks, but we're non-censorious jerks. Free information is good, right?

Anonymous said...

Hi davescot, how are you going to get out of this one? Delete the entire thread at UD which is your typical MO ("Oh i didn't realize anyone had left comments") Yeah right.

You need think before sending the Dembski cult to a site where they will learn more about your hypocritical antics and lies.

And how is your relationship with the "cross dressing morphodyke" nowadays? Are you and Denyse getting along better?

Let's hope by now you two have buried the hatchet so to speak ;-)

Oh, and a big shout and bear hug to the UD citizens!

jrf said...

ptet,

Just in regard to the preface you added to your post - you say this was meant to be "ridiculous?" By "ridiculous" do you mean "making false charges and assertions?" That's for giving me enough reason to never take anything you say seriously and to never come back to your blog. You're a dumbass.

Anonymous said...

This is the just the sort of thing I show my teenagers when I try to explain the effects of "Atheism" on public discourse.

Classy stuff.

Anonymous said...

Yes "atheism" made davescot call Denyse a "morphodyke" and "canadian crossdresser" in a public forum. Classy stuff.

Speaking of davetard, he just weighed in at UD. It seems his time in the Marines is to blame for his nastiness towrds Denyse.

Anonymous said...

Wait, news about actual polling of evangelicals should have been replaced with a quote from wikipedia citing 2 liberal evangelicals?

Also, from wikipedia itself "It [The Moral Majority] dissolved in 1989." Denyse says they "maintain" the myth. These two seem to go hand in glove...

Anonymous said...

Oh, and don't let the in-fighting mess with the myth that everyone at UD conforms to one view.

JanieBelle said...

Good for you, Anonymous! Perhaps they'll not grow up to be Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bags, like Dembski, Behe, O'Leary, Wells, DaveScot, Cordova, Luskin, Farfarman etc.

And perhaps they won't turn into mindless little zombies like the followers of the aforementioned con-men.

I hope you'll keep your word.

Anonymous said...

According to davescot at UD, calling denyse a douchebag is bad, but calling her a morphodyke and crossdressing canadian is ok, especially if you spent 4 years in the Marines like he did. I mean, what else would you expect?

This is all too funny! davescot just digs himself in deeper and deeper.

And this is the best thread ever at UD. I really want to personally extend my thanks to davescot for being such a hypocrite in such an overt manner.

DaveScot said...

Are you and Denyse getting along better?

Nope. She never liked me and the feeling is mutual. Dembski likes both of us so to keep peace in the family we're civil with each other but that's about as far as it goes.

I will however defend her religious beliefs, even though I don't share them, and expose any anti-religious fuckwads of the sort that cluster around blogs like this piece of shit.

Mister DNA said...

Oh, and don't let the in-fighting mess with the myth that everyone at UD conforms to one view.

TEACH TEH CONTROVERSY!!!!!ELEVEN!!

If DaveScot and William Demsbki can't agree on whether or not Denyse O'Leary is a douchebag, ID can't be true!

Seriously... how many "Best Threads Ever" has Uncommon Descent given us this year? We're not even 2 full months into 2008 and already we've had the classic "ID Predictions" thread that Dr. Dr. Dembski abandoned, the amazing disappearing PZ Myers/Geoffrey Simmons debate thread, and now this.

2008 is going to be a banner year for Uncommon Descent. Can I get an "All Science So Far!"?

Rich Hughes said...

It's up there with

http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006/05/davescott-and-new-depths-of-slime.html

What an IDiot! Thanks for the laughs, DaveTard!

Rich Hughes said...

Hey, Dave!

What happened to

"Propriety prohibits me from even quoting the title of this brilliant piece of anti-religious bigotry." You hypocritical twat?

Are you still scared of clowns?

*kisses*

Anonymous said...

I tried to comment at UD, and I was blocked. My comment was respectful, but it pointed out an error by a poster. They don't tolerate even polite dissent. They should rename the blog Uncommon Dissent, since that is their unwritten policy

DaveScot said...

Nah, it wasn't "douchebag" that bothered me. That's perfectly acceptable lexicon depending on who's listening. It was douchebag for Christ that did it.

Rich Hughes said...

Would " douchebag for Mohamed / Allah" get you all worked up too, Dave?

DaveScot said...

Hey Rich,

Do you still suck dicks? That's a real pretty smile you got there, boy...

Rich Hughes said...

Only yours, Dave.

You're not answering because.. you've reached your hypocrisy limit for the day?

JanieBelle said...

DaveTard at UD:

"Whatever I wrote about O’Leary I never bagged on her religious beliefs. Just run of the mill insults with foul language. You don’t think I spent 4 years in the United States Marine Corps without becoming comfortable and expert at cussing up a blue streak do you? If you check out the rest of the JanieBelleDoesDallas website, which is actually a 45 year-old man (a Darwinian chance worshipper from Panda’s Thumb) pretending to be two lesbians as I eventually discovered, you’ll find it was a case of when in Rome, do as the Romans do. It was all to set me up into a compromising position and that’s the best he was able to do - get me to swear. Must’ve thought I fell off the turnip truck yesterday."

Um...

That's not exactly how that went down, is it, Davey?

Anonymous said...

hey davescot did lesbians make you swear on this blog just now too?

Odd how lesbians seem to have this weird power over you.

Do gay guys have any special power over you too?

Anonymous said...

davescot, how is Dembski's newest book selling? How many colleges and high schools are using it as a science text? Do tell since Dembski won't.

Also, maybe you can answer this (since dembski refused to). How many predictions has an ID theorist made that have been confirmed by researchers. Dembski claimed he had an entire list but refused to share a single example. You'd think he'd be proud of such scientific evidence for ID.

Thanks little buddy!

DaveScot said...

Rich,

No, I don't get upset if someone bags on diseased misogynistic suicide bomber religions like Islam whose elimination would make the world a better place. Not all religions are created equal and anyone who thinks they are is one dumbass mofo with an overdeveloped sense of political correctness.

Ric said...

Oh man, I am cracking up over here. DouchebagScott Springer can't seem to open his mouth without making himself look like a complete flaming retard even to the logically challenged folk over at Uncommon Descent.

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before that thread linking to this blog disappears?

Anonymous said...

Dave will you answer the question from the Anonymous post above yours please?

I too have been curious why Dr Dembski never revealed his list of "ID's Predictive Prowess" to us at Uncommondescent. Not a single person in that thread posted one single example of a prediction that was confirmed by researchers. In fact hardly anyone seemed to read what the question was in the first place because everyone was posting their own predictions while ignoring the question.

Dr Dembski claimed he had an entire list of research confirmed predictions. Why did he never publish that list on his blog? Many people asked him in that thread and he ignored us all. I was going to bring it up again but thought I might make him angry and get banned.

Larry.

Rich Hughes said...

But You're an atheist / Agnostic (you interchange depending on the post) - If you're about respecting people's beliefs, be consistent.

You tend to broadbrush Islam, but I think you would take offensive if people braodbrush Christianity (that you don't believe in).

Thanks for the laughs, though bud.

Maybe one day someone will calculate CSI, or use the EF? The world waits for its scientific and cultural renewal.

PS - Whatever happened to the "record month for traffic" posts at UD? I visit a lot..

DaveScot said...

Uh, JanieBelleBoy, if you recall I warned off a certain UD author that you were probably a fake after the first couple of posts you made there. I didn't see any harm in playing along with you at your own site so I did, without of course ever making any of the inappropriate advances that you wanted to elicit from me. We both know that even though you try to raise suspicion with your ambiguous repeated mention of pleasant emails being exchanged. Why don't you describe in detail the contents of those. I don't mind as long as you don't lie about it. I have nothing at all to hide - I never asked to meet either of your personas and in fact in case you were real I offered to put "Corporal Kate" in contact with someone in the Pentagon for post-military employment in the intelligence community. What a bad guy I am, huh?

Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or did anyone else think that Bill D. and D. O'Leary were "an item?" That's the impression I always came away with when looking at the pictures on Dembski's old UD site.

Rich Hughes said...

Ribbing aside.. it's nice to see you out and about, Dave. will this be a regular thing, is the comfort blanket of heavy moderation hard to give up?

Anonymous said...

Davescot, I like how consistant you are. You ignore or rationalize away scientific evidence just as easily as you ignore or rationalize away evidence of your own behaviour.

all one has to do is read YOUR own comments you left on "her" blog to see you were getting all soft with her. Showing her pictures of your boat and all sorts of nonsense.

Do you swoon for all lesbians?

Guys like you are too funny. I really enjoy reading your comments at UD. They always make me laugh!

ps: Has WADerloo been scheduled yet? I see Dembski's book has been out for several months now. So when exactly will darwinism be cancelled and when is WADerloo going to happen? Let me know so I can update my schedule.

Thanks, pal!

DaveScot said...

Rich,

Thanks for your continued interest in Uncommon Descent's traffic stats. The reason they are no longer there is a server migration a couple of months ago where there's no X-Panel with those nifty utilities I was using to track the traffic. I miss them more than you do to be sure.

DaveScot said...

"Do you swoon for all lesbians?"

Just the ones that are easy to look at. Howard Stern and I have a few things in common and that's one of them.

Rich Hughes said...

Fair enough.

We thought maybe the traffic was down a bit:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=intelligent+design

Please tell Denyse to 'write' less and stop plugging her books. More posts from you would be good, Don't limit yourself to ID.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Let's face it: UD is maintained as a safe haven for Christians in denial. They can safely pat one another on the back for defying "Darwinists" and pretend that their Trojan Horse is making headway. Yep (they tell themselves), the theory is looking pretty weak; it will surely fall soon. They are like Charlie Brown's baseball team.

They would allow other opinions if they weren't so insecure. They even link to a strawman site called "The Brites" where they laugh at their own little attempt at satire. Pathetic.

DaveScot said...

I know how much you all love having direct intercourse with me, so to speak, but I'm afraid this is all you're going to get for a while. Treasure it like you treasure all the other bones I throw you and don't forget to thank me for bringing some traffic to your miserable little blog. Hasta la vista, babies.

Rich Hughes said...

*Puts toys back in Davetard's pram*

He's just cranky 'cos he needs a poo.

Anonymous said...

I'll second what Rich said. More Davscot and less Denyse, less gil, less barrya, and no more DLH (whatever).

Pound for pound no one delivers the tard like you, davescot. No one.

Mr Christopher

JanieBelle said...

Dave, I've never once asserted that those emails were anything but pleasant, and I've publicly said that you were nothing but a gentleman.

That said, I have never, not once, not to anyone, released those emails, not because there was anything incriminating, but because you had an expectation of privacy.

Unlike you, I have integrity. A prank is one thing, a public flame fest is one thing, but I would not, unlike you or your master, resort to releasing private information to gain rhetorical points.

They were pleasant emails, and I was actually proud of the chivalry and courtesy you showed when you wrote them. They are nothing like your public persona. I actually held out hope that you were a decent guy, and truth be told, I still do.

They do demonstrate, however, that you were utterly taken in by the gag.

Again, I could easily have used them as ammo and again, I have not.

Integrity Dave. You remember that concept, right? I'm quite sure they used to teach that in the military.

steveh said...

Hi DaveScot,

William Dembski recently blogged that he had made a list of ID predictions that had subsequently been verified by scientists. He indicated that he had his own list of answers but never posted them.

We suspect that he has no such list and was hoping the UD regulars would come up with something for him, but of course they and O'Leary, or if you prefer M*******ke [I can't bring myself to write it :-)] failed.

Any chance of you getting him to post this important information?

Anonymous said...

Dave one final question before you go. I have been banned from UD but I can still enter comments, they just never get published. Does anyone see my comments, like you or Dembski or the other admins?

Tim

Rich Hughes said...

No lollygagging.. move along.

Do you all want more of Davetard's bone? That's all the bone you're getting!

Anonymous said...

Funny thing is the UDers have now been shown what a lying hypocrite davetard is but they'll continue their sheepish ways at UD as if nothing ever happened.

A few people have made a comment or two at UD but they will all forget about it by tomorrow.

Funnier still is the fact that Denyse co-admins a blog where she has been treated that way by a fellow admin. Has she no self respect? I would have Demanded Dembski get rid of him or I would have left. Denyse probably has no where to go...Or no self-respect.

And where is Dembski in all this? Probably in the back room cutting on his arm with a knife, pretending nothing is wrong.

Creepy....

But say a curse word and all the UDers freak out. Talk about twisted morals.

JanieBelle said...

I actually have to retract part of that last comment I made.

I did in fact release part of our email conversation on one occasion...

in order to demonstrate your gentlemanly behavior.

Paul Flocken said...

DaveScot-"not all religions are created equal"

That is because stupid ignorance is large, it contains multitudes.

Anonymous said...

DaveTard said,

"No, I don't get upset if someone bags on diseased misogynistic suicide bomber religions like Islam whose elimination would make the world a better place. Not all religions are created equal and anyone who thinks they are is one dumbass mofo with an overdeveloped sense of political correctness."

Yet he thinks it's wrong for someone to say anything critical (bad mmmkay?) about Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I think Christianity AND Islam are both stupid. But Davetard's hypocrisy it rich!

Where did Demsbki find this guy? Back alley? Prison? Bath house?

Mister DNA said...

Where did Demsbki find this guy? Back alley? Prison? Bath house?

It's amazing, the stuff you find when cleaning out your Explanatory Filter... even when it's never been used.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Well now that it appears that most of you have decided to do a one-uppance on Dave Scot and convince your parole officers that you really can't handle normal society, just a reminder that YES, VIRGINIA, there is no such beast as the Religious Right except in some imaginations. The term, like many others in the PC world, is meaningless but used as smear brush painted broadly to anyone with a belief in some deity.

The contradictory statements, including the media's own mythmaking obsession with thinking that Mike Huckabee is only doing well in some states because of the RR, is laughable. Perhaps the most laughable (seeing that an agnostic radio announcer Neal Boortz is the real brains behind Huck's stance on the Fair Tax--the real motive for the votes) is the current political climate.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

ON the other hand PTET

(and good to see you back in action)


on the safer side, it seems every time I log on to your nifty site I hear....



Banjo music.

Now if you're a Brit you might not get that...

I'll let Rich help you out.
I'm quite sure he knows about Deliverance.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Oh---and another thing:

You got a problem with 'The Odd'
Debbie Schlussel?


One of the few gals beyond Ann Coulter and a few brave radio hosts here in the USA who DARE to combat REAL fundamentalist TERROR--and you don't like her?

Or dismiss her findings of contradictions in the media as "odd"?

Hmmm

JanieBelle said...

"The contradictory statements, including the media's own mythmaking obsession with thinking that Mike Huckabee is only doing well in some states because of the RR, is laughable. Perhaps the most laughable (seeing that an agnostic radio announcer Neal Boortz is the real brains behind Huck's stance on the Fair Tax--the real motive for the votes) is the current political climate."

Odd, how only the wing nut fundy psychos are interested in the fair tax.

JanieBelle said...

Oh wait. I forgot.

They don't exist.

mibad.

Sally C said...

I think you guys need to lay off Dave. He explained himself quite clearly when he said

"...about O’Leary I... bagged ... her... with foul language.

What more do you nasty Darwinists want from him?

Hermagoras said...

DaveTard needs to take advice from Tina Fey:

Maybe an attempt at a less vulgar life. Less cursing, less bile. I sort of got into trouble last year — I went on Howard Stern and ran my mouth a little bit about Paris Hilton. [Fey called Hilton a “piece of s—-” and said she “looks like a tranny,” among other things.] Not only was that not the right way for a 37-year-old woman to behave, but I went to my gynecologist for my yearly checkup shortly thereafter and she was like, “I read that thing [you said about Paris Hilton] in the paper. That was very hostile. Are you all right?” And I was like, You know what? You’re right. That was very hostile. What business is it of mine? So, starting there: being less vulgar and more . . . kind isn’t the right word for it. Perhaps more “Christian” in my dealings with people. Yeah, less vulgar. More Christian.

Mister DNA said...

It takes a special kind of Tard to think that Debbie Schlussel is anything other than a racist moron. She's Fox News' go-to-gal when they need a bottle blond to say something stupid and Anne Coulter is unavailable.

She is to political commentary what Denyse O'Leary is to science reporting.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Odd, how only the wing nut fundy psychos are interested in the fair tax.

I never got the hint that Neal Boortz was among those. But then, if a tax code that IS more fair than the labryinthic code used to control people's behaviors--the one designed to punish productivity on behalf of politics--appeals to YOU, so be it.

I prefer the fair version of even getting tax from mobsters. For that matter, it would bring 16 trillion in assets to the US.

Unless that too is now a baddy bad thing only the religionists like.


Dave Scot was right--You're one of the Panda's Bums decked out in dominatrix gear. One supposes also you think Capt. Audacity and the Hildebeast have a better plan by raiding pension funds via the oil companies (after all, even plain people have stock in oil, you dingbats..) or for that matter socialized medicine.

Is this what you've gleaned from Pandamonia?

I think I'll go stand over here.

WOW.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

Debbie calls the bomb makers as she sees them. And yes, Virginia, most of them are Muslim.

Strike that. They all are.

This is called in the security business "common sense searching and appraisal"

Racism would be to claim its in the genes--not the philosophy.

You people really are stupid.

Hermagoras said...

"Strike that, they all are."

Well, if you don't count the Irish before the peace process. Or the Basque separatists. Just off the top of my head.

Why not include state-made bombs of civilian targets? Israeli helicopters in Gaza and the West Bank. American carpet-bombers over Vietnam. American bombing of Iraq between the two wars. Etc.

Oh, wait.

Mister DNA said...

So, Wakefield. Was Timothy McVeigh a Shi'ite or Sunni Muslim? How did Eric Rudolph ever get into this country, seeing that he's one of those bomb-making Muslims. Theodore Kaczynski... the name doesn't sound Muslim, but he had a beard, so he was probably in the Taliban.

Schussel made the claim that the Virginia Tech shooter was a "Paki" that's a racist term. It has nothing to do with a person's philosophy.

Don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry, Wakefield.

It's amazing to see how far some people will go to defend the indefensible.

JanieBelle said...

You really are dense, Wakefield. The point was that only fundy whack jobs are voting for Huckleberry.

...and it has nothing whatever to do with his tax plans, fucktard.

And Davey's just mad because he got embarrassed. If you're just discovering that I'm fictional, well I don't know what to tell you.

Learn to read, maybe?

Oh, that's right. How would you know about it? He never mentioned the incident at Fort Dumbass, did he?

Wonder why that is...

Rich Hughes said...

"I'll let Rich help you out.
I'm quite sure he knows about Deliverance.

1:08 AM "


I'm a Brit as well.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

TWO BIRDBRAINS WITH ONE STONE:


Well, if you don't count the Irish before the peace process. Or the Basque separatists. Just off the top of my head.

Why not include state-made bombs of civilian targets? Israeli helicopters in Gaza and the West Bank. American carpet-bombers over Vietnam. American bombing of Iraq between the two wars. Etc.


Why not just bring up Ghengis Khan and the Knight Templar?

You could pull that off the top o' yer noggin too!

I'm talking about the latest Bruha in the Middle East and caused by Muslim hatred of all infidels for being infidels--and I do believe she was also. And yes, the Palestinian bomb player need to give it up. They have never been interested in peace and when their kids go to school they wear arm bands and read maps that show what WE think looks like Israel, but they call it Unliberated Palestine. Sorry. They lost. The UN tried to partition. They rolled the dice on throwing the Jews into the sea and now get to stew about it. Time for them to move on. And Israli gunships are just what the doctor ordered. Retaliation against terror is not the same as fomenting it yourself. Else all cops and armies would be illegitimate users of force. Having said that, people like the IRA and other with no legitimacy other than media stardom (more likely the Palestinians) should all be destroyed when they play with bombs. And it is interesting that to this date some knuckleheads can't distinguish legitimate targets in true warfare for firing for effect (like the war on Hitler, unless maybe you wanted him to own London someday) and the defensive action of the Isralis in keeping the Palestinians out of range. As for the war in Iraq, Michael Fumento among other true researchers backengineering the Lancet study's BS stats have figured out that the vast majority of claims about civilians death are bogus, and to boot most of the horror comes from the media darlings called The Insurgents, heros to Michael Moore. Danger to everyone else in the region.



2:15 AM
Mister DNA said...
So, Wakefield. Was Timothy McVeigh a Shi'ite or Sunni Muslim? How did Eric Rudolph ever get into this country, seeing that he's one of those bomb-making Muslims. Theodore Kaczynski... the name doesn't sound Muslim, but he had a beard, so he was probably in the Taliban.

Schussel made the claim that the Virginia Tech shooter was a "Paki" that's a racist term. It has nothing to do with a person's philosophy.

Don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry, Wakefield.

You don't know enough to make such assessments about my feelings on such matters. Those are just quips you pulled out from under your pint mug at the local pub, Captain Nemo. Tim McVeigh is an exception to the general rule, and even at that he did't nip heads off of living humans while they were yet screaming in agony and fear and scream Allah o Akbar while blood spurted on the wall from a severed neck stump. He was a harbrain who acted with one other person on a scheme that went nowhere and has no ideology behind it but maybe the Turner Diaries, at most.

As for Schlussel: Was the perp of Pakistani origin? Or not??? Dozens of attacks have indeed occured here and the major media never even tell you about the generally Muslim origin. Why NOT? PC sensitivity.....I give credit where due in raising awareness of who did what. Or is that not important anymore?

WE are to be on the lookout for............whom????????

Was he Pakistan derivation or not? Thus for example some Asians hate the appellation "oriental" because it is not specific enough. Other don't give a damn. I don't know, but it seems to me what might be offensive to you Brits does not always carry the same PC weight over here. DIG? Now seeing that here in America we don't yet ha the law force us to teach the kiddies to count in Punjabi, the issue is not as weighty. And yes, Pakistan and the little "dishtowns" in Britain and the Netherlands, where Muslims have entire regions tuned into Al Jazeera 24/7 is not on this side of the pond yet. But yes, they can and will cause trouble when teh Imans get to their heads.


As to the others: It is the exception to the rules that demonstrates the general rule. And the general rule, even allowing for the rage of the Irish IRA dingdongs, is that most recent troublemaking since the 1970s and the most carnage is from the Allah Knows Best Crowd. Where is Edward Lonshanks when we need him. There would have been no IRA.


Eric Rudolph is brought to justice. Other antiabortion radicals have killed--at most--about 10 people since abortion was legalized in 1973 here. TEN. Not tens of thousands in every conceivable way, as the Islamists have. That is over 30 years, hombre. Ted Kazinski was a natural granola nature boy nut from the radical Left who made manifestos against industrial Western society. Bad example--whoopsi! He is like a Berkely Professor on steroids and honey oat gram that went sour.


It's amazing to see how far some people will go to defend the indefensible.

What's amazing is that the word "context" in this forum has no meaning. I'll save you the agony: I'll go ahead and place a petition to have it removed from His Majesty's Dictionary





PS--Hi Rich--congratulations on being let back in to BeastRabban's website. We missed you.


Condolences, however, on your choice of friends



Oh wait----awww.

I almost forgot the dominatrix boy:

And Davey's just mad because he got embarrassed. If you're just discovering that I'm fictional, well I don't know what to tell you.

Please don't try, then. After all, I don't run in these, ahem, circles.


But then JanieBelle said: "The point was that only fundy whack jobs are voting for Huckleberry."


Which is not true in the least, since the vote tally indicates that Huck got votes from numerous groups, cornhole. You can read on that also.

But Geez...that's not EVEN what you said BEFORE:

"Odd, how only the wing nut fundy psychos are interested in the fair tax."

The sentence structure implying that the Fair Tax is their "thing" or their mantra or creation. When in fact the idea was hatched by an agnostic. This lie has been put out before, so you'll forgive me for getting pumchy on this.

Last good word you'll here from me.

Now then, piss off.

RICH: Get the movie Deliverance.

It will clue you in on your pals here.

Wakefield Tolbert said...

If you're just discovering that I'm fictional, well I don't know what to tell you.

Learn to read.....


Well hell, son. I don't usually have time to run in these circles.
read WHAT, then?

Who cares.

I just thought it was funny.

--

Rich Hughes said...

Hi Wake:

"PS--Hi Rich--congratulations on being let back in to BeastRabban's website. We missed you."

'Preciate the sentiments, but last 2 posts didn't go through, so I think I'm done. I'll probably see you around, though!

I've seen deliverance - bet that bajo kid was home schooled! (teasing)

JanieBelle said...

Buh bye, fluff fluff.

Take a course in reading comprehension sometime.

You're the one who said they were voting for Huckleberry because of the tax issue.

I pointed out that the states he's winning (the ones you claim are all up on his tax policy) happen to coincide with FundyLand, USA.

I simply find it astonishing that the tax issue was so popular among only the states that happen to be overrun with fundagelicals (that don't exist).

Now run away, Brave Sir Robin. Run away.

JanieBelle said...

"Well hell, son. I don't usually have time to run in these circles."

Obviously. If you'd put down your Bible for a minute and pull Rev. Haggard off your peepee (or vice versa) long enough to step away from Uncommonly Dense, you might learn something.

"read WHAT, then?"

Oddly, that was exactly my point.

October Mermaid said...

DaveScot is adorable. He seems to think he's King Shit because he's mastered the fine art of kindgergarten level "arguing."

I can't imagine the kind of Herculean effort it takes for him to keep from just posting "I know you are, but what am I?"

It's always good for a laugh when he "exposes" himself like this.

Ric said...

Seems like DaveScot has sneakily broken the link that leads here from UD. Hypocritical douchebag.

Anonymous said...

"As for Schlussel: Was the perp of Pakistani origin? Or not???"

He was Korean American, you shit for brains.

PhilD said...

He also appears to have pushed the post further down UD. Interesting how he attacks people on this thread, but bans folks for doing the same things on UD. And, of course, he also just bans them for making good points!

Davetard and the rest of his cronies at UD really are amongst the most cowardly bunch of hypocrites I've had the misfortune to read. Here's hoping that blog dies soon... although I really will miss the comedy it provides.

Doppelganger said...

But, Dave Springer - the former Marine latrine cleaner, extreme mesomorph built like a middle linebacker (for what - Pee Wee football???), the guy who impersonated me at Panda's Thumb then tried to claim that he was really impersonating a guy he works with who just happens to have the same name as me, ultra super tough guy who pussied out of meeting with a clown for crying out loud..

Now I can't remember what I was going to write...

Langdon ALger said...

"ultra super tough guy who pussied out of meeting with a clown for crying out loud.."

You know, if Dave HAD met with Blipey, the chance-worshipping Ebola Boys would have said "well, whatever else we say about Dave, at least he had the guts to have an honest sit-down with a guy on the other side".

Instead, he threatened Blipey with a chain saw. Whoops.

PTET said...

Thanks so much to everyone who commented, especially Hermagoras who gave me the tip to change my front page. I love you all, though, equally.


I'll answer these comments as a block:

Hitch: The Darwinian fundamentalist mental illness noted by Hoyle also leads one to intellectual blindness - such as that displayed in the majority of nonsense written on this blog and the clueless comments of your fans

Anonymous: Simply stated - Denyse's point was that their is a religious left, not that she was ignorant of it. She was pointing out others ignorance of it... Please read more carefully before you comment and do the blogosphere a favor and remove this whole useless page.

Mark: i think you ought to delete this and try again, unless you just like getting spanked in front of your blogbase... your use of juvenile (at best) language is also insulting to you and your audience. perhaps you are a high schooler, which would make it a bit more understandable, but just as inane.

Wakefield Tolbert: ...there is no such beast as the Religious Right except in some imaginations...

jrf: Just in regard to the preface you added to your post - you say this was meant to be "ridiculous?" By "ridiculous" do you mean "making false charges and assertions?" That's for giving me enough reason to never take anything you say seriously and to never come back to your blog. You're a dumbass.


Of course there is a "religious right", just as there is a "religious left". It is the religious right which has talked up its power and influence of the religious right. Look at Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard, as ridiculous as they are. Denyse O'Leary's voyage of discovery about the religious right and the religious left is what makes her ridiculous.

If I could have commented on one of Denyse O'Leary's "blogs" I would have done, and this thread would not have happened.

If Uncommon Descent had not been "juvenile" I would not have been so "juvenile" about them.

My post was "ridiculous" jrf, in that I don't really think O'Leary is a genuine, actual "douchebag", and I don't think it's normally right to deface people's pictures. But I do think she's staggeringly clueless.

I notice none of you have had anything to say about Uncommon Descent's and DaveScot's role in all of this... Hypocrites, much?



Anonymous: Funny thing is the UDers have now been shown what a lying hypocrite davetard is but they'll continue their sheepish ways at UD as if nothing ever happened... A few people have made a comment or two at UD but they will all forget about it by tomorrow... Funnier still is the fact that Denyse co-admins a blog where she has been treated that way by a fellow admin. Has she no self respect? I would have Demanded Dembski get rid of him or I would have left. Denyse probably has no where to go...Or no self-respect.

Indeed.

For an update and more background on all this, see: DaveScot humiliates Denyse O'Leary

Ric said...

And lo and behold, super-coward and hypocrit extraordinaire DaveScot has disappeared the entire thread!

He literally could not be lamer if he tried.