Calilasseia wrote:DBD as Statler. Now we need a Waldorf side kick.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Calilasseia wrote:

Byers Polar Bear Post Preserved.jpg

It still shocks me that someone as rock stupid as byers can survive in today's world. Maybe his unshakable ignorance will lead to his accidental end sooner or later.

There's more bears in Churchill, Manitoba than you could shake your keys at. Never mind the zoo.

I've missed all 40 pages of this thread.

Can someone point me to the debunking, please?

Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.

Byers was a force of nature. His posts exuded stupidity in galactic proportions. I don't think he ever met a dumb idea he couldn't support if he could make it support the Babble in some way.

Of course, he's still technically a member here (though he's been absent for over 4 years) so I won't extend my remarks ...

KeenIdiot wrote:Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.

Then you'll miss Robert's essay on how various placental mammals migrated from the Ark's landfall in North Africa to Australia, by way of the Americas (where they dropped off the Opossum)--this was after the Flood had separated the continents, mind you--where on arrival they all became marsupials in order to breed faster.

Greyman wrote:

KeenIdiot wrote:Calilasseia got forced out of his bunk one morning.

That Byes person... wow, I feel dumber having read that. Being already pretty dumb, I think I'll avoid googling him.

Then you'll miss Robert's essay on how various placental mammals migrated from the Ark's landfall in North Africa to Australia, by way of the Americas (where they dropped off the Opossum)--this was after the Flood had separated the continents, mind you--where on arrival they all became marsupials in order to breed faster.

Seen that "document". In fact it should still be available online, for those who want to see something truly bizarre.

No... no, I think just that bit alone caused a few braincells to implode. Upshot is I may find Family Guy entertaining again.

Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835

There's a 'nitty-gritty' to metaphysics? Wow. Always comes across as kinda grit-free to me.

only one person here is demonstrating their lack of a clue.

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835

My, how vigorous of you.

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology. Neither do most of you. But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself. I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly. Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835

It's amusing that you link to such an asinine post to advertise your competence. I'll post the response there.

Dunning-Kruger at its finest

jamest wrote:Cali doesn't have a fucking clue when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of metaphysics/ontology/epistemology.

Oh really? This is hilarious coming from someone whose posts manifestly display rampant incompetence in the very fields I'm being accused of "having no fucking clue" about. Got anything to bring here, apart from yet another blind assertion packaged as an ad hominem ... ???

So much for your "rebuttal" thus far.

jamest wrote:Neither do most of you.

Another assertion and ad hominem. Lovely. Some ""rebuttal" this is turning out to be.

jamest wrote:But most of you aren't pretending that you do have a clue, unlike himself.

Actually, what most of us here are doing, is asking YOU to provide something other than the usual asserionist cant, to demonstrate that YOU know what you're talking about. Thus far YOU are the one who has manifestly failed to meet this challenge.

jamest wrote:I've chatted to him a fair bit, so I don't make that judgement lightly.

Bollocks. You tossed these ad hominems into your posts as casually as he rest of us toss litter into the bin. Which is an apt analogy on the basis of the evidence you've provided thus far,with respect to your failure to meet even elementary challenges.

jamest wrote:Indeed, a present conversation between us suffices to expose the level of his expertise:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2070835

You rang?

Looks like you're the one exhibiting the fail here.

Still waiting on some debunking of the Blue Butterfly.

Sciwoman wrote:Still waiting on some debunking of the Blue Butterfly.

Me too.

And why is this only Part 1. Where's Part 2?

It's part I - you missed parts A-H.

Though Cali was unusually verbose in those, and Hack got uncharacteristically aggressive.
Suffice to say that several servers burst into flames as a result.
We tend not to talk about it. It was rather distressing.

tolman wrote:It's part I - you missed parts A-H.

Though Cali was unusually verbose in those, and Hack got uncharacteristically aggressive.
Suffice to say that several servers burst into flames as a result.
We tend not to talk about it. It was rather distressing.

Fuck! I missed all that debunking?