Surprise, surprise: A Groksucker poops on her keyboard

A little over a week ago, I made a number of challenges to Judy Paris, the New Hampshire yammerhead and Granite Grok contributor whose entire sense of well-being seems predicated on convincing the world — through hysterical, barely legible, and systematically misinformed blog posts and letters to the Concord Monitor — that homosexuality is the most dangerous thing to besmirch the world in all of the 6,000 or so years humans have been walking the earth.
I don’t actually care about the answers Judy might give to the questions I asked her, since I know she lacks the cognitive candlepower to respond coherently. I only made my “challenge” in order to highlight the inanity of her claim that I had ducked her by refusing to “debate” her on her co-blogger’s radio spankfest after she’d given me about an hour’s notice not only about her desire to engage me on the air but about the show’s very existence. I gave her a full week to post her answers to my questions, and since she has failed to even try, I’m more than happy to play by Judy’s own rules and declare a nominal victory. Of course, this is akin to bragging about beating a Xanax-popping wallaby at strip chess, but no matter.
But Judy hasn’t been inert, oh no. Just witness her latest bit of screeching, pursuant (by several months, but friggit) to New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch’s signing into law the right for people to enter into civil unions.
Judy, as with all inept but passionate communicators, wastes no time with subtlety:

THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POST I HAVE WRITTEN THUS FAR. WHILE I KNOW IT’S LONG, PLEASE MAKE TIME TO READ THE ENTIRE POST, AND ATTACHED LINKS IF POSSIBLE, SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION ON WHAT REALLY IS “THE NEW HAMPSHIRE WAY” ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY OF ITS CITIZENS, NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT POLITICIANS TELL US.
AND, IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE, WE NEED TO ACT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE, EVEN IF IT’S JUST POSTING YOUR COMMENT HERE. I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

This howl is presided over by a picture of two men taken from behind…well, the men aren’t being taken from behind, mind you, not just yet, but do have their hands in each other’s back pockets, and if that doesn’t show the precise depth of Judy Paris’ antihomo views, I don’t know what does.
Judy then goes on to attempt to marshal support for the claim that homosexuality is not biologically determined and is therefore a choice. The alleged implication, of course, is that people shouldn’t do homosexy things. But Judy, as with every one of her fellow anti-gay Bible-banging harpies, adduces no evidence that homosexuality is inherently wrong. This means that even if one accepts her premise that being a gay homosexer is in fact a conscious choice and amenable to whimsical modification — and the consensus that there is a strong biological component to sexual orientation undeniably exists, Judy’s internal links, emotional turmoil, and shaky citations notwithstanding — there’s no point in worrying about it.
One nevertheless can, however, examine Judy’s claims one by one: that homosexuality is a choice, that if the majority of New Hampshire voters disagree with something than it shouldn’t be legal, and that homosexuality is “wrong” by some absolute, universal measure. With respect to the first, about the best treatise I remember seeing here on Science Blogs is this one (don’t skip the comments), which features a link to this article in American Sexuality Magazine. In a nutshell, sexual preference is no different from virtually all other behavioral traits in that its development rests on an array of interwoven genetic, environmental, and other factors. But level heads all agree on one basic conclusion: While research may tell us more about the various underpinnings of sexual orientation, we have to separate biology from our ethics. If we have to believe we’re all born exactly the same in order to not discriminate unfairly against each other, then we’re screwed no matter what.
In terms of what Judy so possessively calls “the Granite State Way,” no one needs to even to look at the fraction of people who support gay civil unions in New Hampshire (and according to at least one 2004 poll, only 2 in 5 oppose it) to make a conclusive statement here. Majority opinions count in some amorphous — and too often, real-world — sense. But the fact that we elect our leaders through what is, in theory anyway, a democratic process does not imply that what the majority believes can or should be mindlessly legislated into mandate. This is not democracy, and it’s ironic that those most apt to shout themselves hoarse about what the founders of America wanted are exactly the sort of decerebrate thugs the founders had in mind when creating a nation they hoped would include laws allowing for some semblance of sane operation and quality leadership.
It doesn’t take a history scholar to grasp that if we let the mob run the show, then we’d be in a furious sprint toward chaos and darkness, and no matter our beliefs and habits, every one of us would suffer measurably as an individual. “Chaos and darkness” is hardly an exaggeration when you consider the daunting number of creationists and other meddlesome godbotherers, snarling racists, sexist overlords, wealthy nutcases (Stuart Pivar being a fine example), and cretinous activists like Judy Paris who make waggling their dirty asses in everyone’s face their very raison d’etre. Hell, I’m glad that system works well enough to keep some of my own opinions from gaining too much traction.
Judy nicely sums up her argument against the right of homosexuals to legally sanction their partnerships with this:

It debases the culture. It erodes it.

Now that’s compelling, isn’t it? My gut says The Gay is wrong, so it must be kept in the closet. C’mon, Doug and Skip. Don’t stand their shuffling your feet like the embarrassed parents of a little kid who’s just noisily crapped himself while trying to burn ants with a magnifying glass at a crowded church picnic. Step up and rationally defend what your co-hound is barking up here.
More later this afternoon, at, say, 2:31-ish EDT.

  1. #1 by skip on August 23, 2007 - 9:42 am

    Actually Kevin, it is you who is doing the shuffling of a sort. I’ve invited you to be LIVE on Meet The New Press radio. And broadcast over the ‘Net so that all can hear us all debate the issue. All you have to say is “Sure, I’ll come on” and pick a Saturday isn’t already scheduled up (say in a couple of weeks).
    So, willing to put your mouth where your keyboard is?
    -Skip

  2. #2 by J-Dog on August 23, 2007 - 10:20 am

    I think Judy doth protest too much… secret longings for a Rosie O’Donnell perhaps Judy?

  3. #3 by Kevin Beck on August 23, 2007 - 10:30 am

    Skip, apparently you don’t like reading whole sentences. I didn’t ask for another invite (much appreciated!) to appear LIVE on Meet the New Press. I asked you, or Judy, or one of the Spice Girls for all I care, to support Judy’s functionally explicit claim that people shouldn’t be gay. Now, wouldn’t that support be a nice lead-in to a fruitful on-air discussion someday? Thanks.

  4. #4 by hopper3011 on August 23, 2007 - 10:43 am

    @skip;
    As an interested yet uninvolved bystander (I’m English and the last time I looked our civilization hasn’t been destroyed by civil unions) in all this can I ask why you don’t just debate the issue on here?
    Is there any special reason why the radio format is a more apt medium than a blog for this sort of debate?
    You could have started the debate by posting your questions/positions in lieu of the radio program invite.

  5. #5 by carey on August 23, 2007 - 11:11 am

    I really think that rabid homophobes could profit immensely from going straight to Wikipedia, and looking up “reaction formation.” Sometimes a cigar ain’t just a cigar.

  6. #6 by Kevin Beck on August 23, 2007 - 11:32 am

    Also, although none of my arguments rely on trashing the “scientific” sources Judy relies on to deny a genetic component to gaiety, I went to the link she gave to check out this Douglas Abbott guy. NARTH is strictly a “get straight” site — the “TH” stands for “therapy of homosexuality.”
    I clicked on the first Abbott article link I saw and got this result:
    This site has moved to http://www.ChristianNewswire.com
    I guess if someone wants to prove that blacks are dumber than whites, she can just link to something written by a PhD who also happens to belong to the KKK.
    I found the link to the Abbott paper Judy wanted everyone to see (and here’s a hint, Judy: Next time you want someone to read something, don’t link to the front page of a site whose content changes regularly and tell people to look for “the sixth article from the top.” Just post a direct link, for Chrissakes). It’s a mess. No one interesting in writing at all seriously, much less in a scholarly or scientific way, about this topic would put “gay” in quotes, WND-style, or use the word “gayness.” (Yeah, I know…but the Chimp Refuge is a blog.) Abbott’s methodology sucks — he quote-mines, tries to hand-wave away extant twin and familiar studies, and engages in all the usual tricks — but I don’t need to waste time explaining why, since anyone can see his conclusion was settled well before he sat down to “work.”
    None of this was a surprise, of course. These people are piss-ignorant and, as J-Dog suggests, appear in many cases to be very much afraid of what lurks inside them.

  7. #7 by Skeptic8 on August 23, 2007 - 1:13 pm

    The Evangelical wingnuts exhausted “communist” dangers and they can’t use “race mixing” any more. They tried “secular humanism (or Progressive)” but their followers don’t understand. Now they have “homosexuality” as a big bad wolf and it seems to work for keeping their flock shorn.
    The big scare arguments are directed to the maintenance of the “Shepherds’s” position and income. Inane claims about “dangers” don’t convince rational people who simply regard homosexuality as part of human sexuality.
    Such activity is to convince the flock that the Shepherd is doin’ his job of protection.

  8. #8 by Skip on August 23, 2007 - 1:42 pm

    For Kevin and Hopper3011 – An on air debate is a much faster bandwidth mechanism….and I’m not a speedy typist. Much more can be discussed in the time it takes to merely type this. Plus, other can join in the debate via phone as well.
    The question could also be turned around the other way “why not debate where thousands could hear your dulcet tones and arguments”? All it requires is a good knowledge of the subject matter and a quick wit….
    -Skip

  9. #9 by PZ Myers on August 23, 2007 - 2:32 pm

    No one sees how fast you type, Skip. And text gets around the noise and chatter and talking over people and trying to outshout someone that I’ve heard so often on your kind of show. Writing tends to focus the mind well, something I suspect you’d also rather discourage.
    You, Kevin, and one other on the phone doesn’t sound like much of a gain in bandwidth, Skip. If you want to try and debate right here I could easily send a thousand readers over to join in.

  10. #10 by hopper3011 on August 23, 2007 - 3:09 pm

    @Skip; Surely this issue is better debated when time and numbers of participants are not an issue? Surely, given Judy’s argument that the people of New Hampshire are being dictated to by politicians who are not taking the will of the people into account, can be best and most properly explored in the blogging medium, where every concerned citizen can voice his/her opinion?
    At best a time-constrained radio show can hope to only barely scrape the surface of this complex issue, and, unlike your show, will permit any of those people who believe that their will is being ignored to have their say.
    I’m not entirely certain that your belief that any appearance by Kevin on your show will bring the debate to a wider audience than could be achieved through a blog debate is well-founded. Perhaps you might bring some statistics to support the assertion?

  11. #11 by mg on August 23, 2007 - 3:26 pm

    It’s odd that Skip has such trouble with the keyboard considering his past:
    http://granitegrok.com/blog/2006/07/skip_murphy.html
    It may be my youth but I don’t know too many coders who moonlight as political bloggers that have trouble typing.
    As for any meaningful debate, a podcast hosted by Skip and two of his like-minded bloggers is only going to turn into a competition of who can scream at Kevin the loudest — and that’s if Judy doesn’t show. Nothing would be accomplished. But I don’t think that the exchange of ideas is really what you are hoping for, is it Stan.
    If you are truly concerned about the coming homosexual horde that will destroy America then this is the perfect opportunity to preach to the unenlightened. Besides, the gauntlet was laid down here quite some time ago so either put up or shut.

  12. #12 by mg on August 23, 2007 - 3:26 pm

    It’s odd that Skip has such trouble with the keyboard considering his past:
    http://granitegrok.com/blog/2006/07/skip_murphy.html
    It may be my youth but I don’t know too many coders who moonlight as political bloggers that have trouble typing.
    As for any meaningful debate, a podcast hosted by Skip and two of his like-minded bloggers is only going to turn into a competition of who can scream at Kevin the loudest — and that’s if Judy doesn’t show. Nothing would be accomplished. But I don’t think that the exchange of ideas is really what you are hoping for, is it Stan.
    If you are truly concerned about the coming homosexual horde that will destroy America then this is the perfect opportunity to preach to the unenlightened. Besides, the gauntlet was laid down here quite some time ago so either put up or shut.

  13. #13 by Judy Paris on August 23, 2007 - 3:36 pm

    Kevin, Doug emailed me this morning with your post. I just got back from some appointments and read it.
    Interesting that you flatter yourself by saying that “I know that Judy reads this blog.” No, I don’t.
    I did click on the “challenges” to me. First time I’ve seen it. It’s also interesting that I never did get an email from you even though you state on 8/14 “I will email her to let her know this post exists.” Your email must have gotten lost in cyberspace.
    On MTNP, we don’t prohibit people from using any source of reference, only that they keep their language family friendly even when discussing adult topics, so your groundrules are unacceptable to me.
    When I challenged you to come on the show, perhaps I didn’t make it clear that you could have called in from your home, or we could have called you. It did not necessitate coming to the studio although obviously, Skip, has invited you to come to the studio.
    You may be interested in listening to the podcast when Ron Tunning was on…no one shouted at him and he was treated with respect, as are all of our guests, and Ron was allowed to say whatever he wanted. We, apparently, aren’t as controlling as you and your groundrules.
    Have a nice day!
    And, please, Rosie O’Donnell? I much prefer Ellen Degenerous (sp?)…now she’s funny!

  14. #14 by Kevin Beck on August 23, 2007 - 4:42 pm

    First, let’s get one thing out of the way, Judy: Just like Skip (Christ, you Grok Stars all have such…such pure, such See Jane Run names!), you wrote not one word about the issues you yourself raised and I addressed. All you can do is spit up sidebar bullshit. Do you really think people don’t notice that? I think you need to spend more time outside of conservative babbletraps and thoughtproof cyberbunkers. But anyway, you wrote:
    “Interesting that you flatter yourself by saying that ‘I know that Judy reads this blog.’ No, I don’t.”
    Well, considering you’ve commented here at least four times before today, and that events like “Doug emailed me this morning with your post” are obviously not unheard of, and that on your own blog you commented “Let me guess…you guys are both tied into the Dr. Joan Bushwell’s chimpanzee site?” it seems likely that you know this site exists. Whether you regularly read it isn’t the issue.
    “It’s also interesting that I never did get an email from you even though you state on 8/14 ‘I will email her to let her know this post exists.’ Your email must have gotten lost in cyberspace.”
    No, I never sent it because it was clear from my Sitemeter reports and other circumstantial evidence that you had read, or at least had been told about, the post.
    But forget all of that. Given that you certainly know about those questions now, I’ll happily retract my accusation that you’re a coward if you decide to answer them sometime before, say, the next time a stright couple’s marriage is demonstrably ruined by the legality of civil unions, in New Hampshire or anywhere. In case you’re not following, this basically gives you an infinite amount of time. But because you continue to rail mindlessly about the damage gay unions can do and are even suggesting that N.H. residents overthrow the government if the state doesn’t repeal its new law, the need for you to start adducing facts to your screeds is greater than ever, and I wouldn’t wait much longer or else people might think you’re full of shit are just the everyday bigot so many have suggested.
    “On MTNP, we don’t prohibit people from using any source of reference, only that they keep their language family friendly even when discussing adult topics, so your groundrules are unacceptable to me.”
    I’m confused. Did I claim that one of my “ground rules” is that I get to swear on the radio? Not only did I expressly state that I wouldn’t, but I never agreed to go on the radio in the first place. My only “ground rule” is that you not take recourse to the Bible when defending your homobigotry, since the Bible is only one of many mythical collections from which nutters like you pick and choose what they want to see and that a lot of Americans aren’t even Christians. This “ground rule” should not stymie you since you have written about civil unions that “It debases the culture. It erodes it,” meaning that there are clearly consequences that both godders and heathens should be able to spot. What are they, Judy?
    “When I challenged you to come on the show, perhaps I didn’t make it clear that you could have called in from your home, or we could have called you. It did not necessitate coming to the studio although obviously, Skip, has invited you to come to the studio.”
    No shit. Logistical problems are not the reason I declined, as I made clear.
    Judy, is it in your view necessary that gays be absolutely free of any choice in the matter of their own sexual orientation in order to not justify trying to cheat them out of the same rights everyone else enjoys?
    “You may be interested in listening to the podcast when Ron Tunning was on…no one shouted at him and he was treated with respect, as are all of our guests, and Ron was allowed to say whatever he wanted. We, apparently, aren’t as controlling as you and your groundrules.”
    I have no idea what this even means, but anyway, be assured that you can write whatever you want here. My restriction on using the Bible to justify the implementation of or opposition to laws concerning things like civil unions (or anything else) was intended solely to decrease the frigtard factor of the discussion. But I’ll scrap that one too. If you want to keep claiming civil unions should cease to exist thanks to the ideas in a book that also suggests that women be avoided while they’re menstruating and in general keep their mouths shut, go ahead. You can expect to get something in the way of resistance to this, especially if PZ does in fact link to this post and serve up an influx of people who are far more adroit at spitting up both human biology knowledge and scripture off the tops of their heads than either of us.
    Judy, let’s assume contrary to everything in the literature and in common-sense observations that gays do choose every last bit of their inclination toward the consensual sexual behaviors they enjoy. What, then, is your basis for opposing civil unions?

  15. #15 by Rhapsody on August 23, 2007 - 6:24 pm

    @Skip: I am sorry, but everytime you start to talk about radio broadcast saving bandwith online … as a former ict research specialist: that makes my toe curl. Loading an html page like this page takes up less bandwith than a podcast or an radio broadcast in a player. Its simply an excuse for that you want Kevin (who has given Ms Judy (I think?) enough time to reply and think about her answers to his very reasonable and clear cut questions. I completely agree with MG here, nobody wants to listen to a mumble jumble ramble that achieves nothing where a reasonable well thought out written response shows dignity and wit. Screaming or debating is not answering legitimate questions of Kevin and he was very courteous to offer Judy a fair hearsay.
    @Judy: have you ever heard of trias politica? Look it up and keep religion out politics or science. Governing a country is serious business and should not be disturbed by religious preference if you are out there to serve every citizen in your state. Secondly please do cite well founded science that is top notch and of high quality and based on RCCT’s. You cannot get purer science than that EBM (evidence based medicine).

  16. #16 by judy paris on August 23, 2007 - 6:43 pm

    Kevin,
    You obviously twist most of everything I say and also add alot that I haven’t said and warp it into something else through your own perception.
    The Bible’s been around for 2,000 years and obviously you don’t have a very good understanding of it’s meaning by the scriptures you quote and take out of context. But, that’s okay.
    I really don’t have to defend myself and apparently we’ll have to agree to disagree.
    God Bless You.
    Judy

  17. #17 by judy paris on August 23, 2007 - 6:43 pm

    Kevin,
    You obviously twist most of everything I say and also add alot that I haven’t said and warp it into something else through your own perception.
    The Bible’s been around for 2,000 years and obviously you don’t have a very good understanding of it’s meaning by the scriptures you quote and take out of context. But, that’s okay.
    I really don’t have to defend myself and apparently we’ll have to agree to disagree.
    God Bless You.
    Judy

  18. #18 by Kevin Beck on August 23, 2007 - 7:02 pm

    Let the record show that Judy once again has refused to answer simple questions, this time simply because she “really [doesn’t] have to defend [herself].” Her co-bloggers have also been of no help. When you guys find yourself sputtering in frustration — and I know this is scary and unsetling — doesn’t that offer the glimmer of an idea that what you’re saying might actually have no merit, and that some socialist commie pinko vulgar liberal lefty Democrat atheist peacenik chimpanzee lover might really be correct?
    Of course you’re under no obligation to support your assertions with evidence. I would think, though, that as someone advacning very strongly worded ideas aimed at changing public policy that it would be in your best interest to do so. Yelling “because that’s they way it is!” and “because I said so!” is a tactic most ten-year-olds have outgrown.
    I didn’t twist anything you wrote, Judy. I copied and pasted words from your blog and expressed my intrpretation of those words. If you feel I have erred, please point out why and how.
    See, it’s very, very clear why you guys keep inviting me to call into that show: not because you really want me to, but so you can have an excuse to keep your ass from being any more severely burned in this here frying pan called the Internet.
    I didn’t quote any scripture, so your accusation that I have done so “out of context” (and I realize this is the canned response you bilious Bible-humpers reflexively offer every time someone criticizes it) is senseless on its face.
    Judy, how did I twist your words or impart meaning to them you did not intend for them to have? And what Bible scripture have I quoted out of context? Surely you can spend five minutes answering those two questions, even if the homo/biology/civil-unions issue is suddenly not important to you anymore.

  19. #19 by Roger on August 23, 2007 - 9:43 pm

    @PZ:
    “You, Kevin, and one other on the phone doesn’t sound like much of a gain in bandwidth, Skip. If you want to try and debate right here I could easily send a thousand readers over to join in.”
    999.
    I’m already here. :P
    @Skip
    It sounds like you’re betting that you’re quicker with a hearty riposte than Kevin is. Text on the other hand, completely eliminates the need for quick wit. Further, web-based text allows an argument participant to cite sources right in the argument itself. Lastly, text is far, far more information dense than speech is. People can read many, many more words per unit time than they can speak or hear. Your argument re: bandwidth is true in one sense, voice is certainly more bandwidth intensive than text.
    The second thing you’re trying to accomplish is to get Kevin in front of your audience. Have you considered inviting Kevin to post on your blog?
    And finally,
    @Kevin
    Wow, awesome post bro. I haven’t read such fabulous denigration of a couple of blockheads in a LONG time. “Bible-banging harpies,” is classic. I’m stealing it.

  20. #20 by Leni on August 23, 2007 - 10:54 pm

    Wow. Kevin. You used way to many big words and not enough of them were “Jesus”. I don’t think she’ll hear it.
    I clicked on her link. What a nightmare. It would take days of non-stop parsing by a crack team of die hard masochists to sift through that stinking pile of garbage.
    And boy, for as much fucking around as she does here, she wasted absolutely no time banging down the stupid with that post.
    Her good Dr. Abbott says:

    There is clear evidence that many men and women are at the helm controlling their sexual behavior and making choices regarding sexual preference.

    Aside from the obvious problems with statement and the lack of context, he said many, Judy. Not all.
    Just like many cancers are caused by environmental factors that we have a choice over. Not all of them though. (And no, I do not wish to compare homosexuality to disease, except to point out that the same characteristic can have both genetic and environmental causes, or be largely genetic or be largely environmental.)
    The problem is that sexuality is not the binary situation she supposes it to be, and it never was. Some people are born with both sets of genitals. Some people like both genders but only have one set of genitals. Some people don’t like anyone. Some people like the same gender. Some people prefer different gender lovers at different times for different reasons.
    Sexuality is a spectrum, and what people like Judy fundamentally fail to understand is that it always has been that way. Since the dawn of (our) time. We exhibit a range of behaviors and our species (and this culture in particular) has thrived despite and maybe even because of it. What she’s saying, besides being asinine and bigoted, is profoundly and obviously without merit.
    The mere fact that we are here and that humanity has survived the onslaught of homosexuality for (*snicker*) at least 6000 years ought to tell us something.

  21. #21 by Bill from Dover on August 24, 2007 - 1:01 am

    One question Judy; if sexual preference is a choice, please explain to us why so many priests choose to fuck little boys?

  22. #22 by Wobert on August 25, 2007 - 5:22 am

    Because god is a depraved prick and he loves to watch that kind of stuff.

  23. #23 by Wobert on August 25, 2007 - 5:22 am

    Because god is a depraved prick and he loves to watch that kind of stuff.

  24. #24 by Susan on August 29, 2007 - 9:42 pm

    In Canada they legalized gay marrage. (Yes, we’re allowed to call it marrage here) In spite of one really lame attempt by our current Prime Minister to overturn this right (Stephen Harper doesn’t like gays, the law was passed by our previous administration, they tried to legalize pot too, not so successful. Can’t win em’ all I guess) I’m pretty certain gay marrage is here to stay. You know what? Straight marrages haven’t been affected one iota. We haven’t been visited by plagues or disasters. In fact, things have been great. The economy has improved, unemployment is way down, we’re all rolling in oil money, the Canadian dollar is stronger then it’s been in the international market in 30 years, even the weather’s been good. (Although the summer here in Vancouver has been a bit chillier the usual) Obviously this is God telling us Canadians that gay marrage is a good thing and to keep up the good work.

  25. #25 by Wobert on August 30, 2007 - 7:03 am

    Being a bit cooler Susan,it would be all the better to snuggle up and have a cuddle.”She” does work in mysterious ways.

  26. #26 by Kevin Beck on August 30, 2007 - 8:55 am

    Judy’s better half makes her look like a Rhodes scholar and bastion of critical thinking.
    As titillating as editors and much of the public find such harried horseshit, it’s really too bad so much of it is printed, because this eats into space better reserved for thoughtful opinions, be they liberal or conservative, pro or con. We all become agitated enough to delicately poop on our keyboards or spray them with fine ass-mist from time to time, but Rex’s “letter” is the verbal equivalent of someone leaning fifteen painful degrees to one side, squeezing his eyes shut, clenching his fists and his teeth, and shitting in his drawerless pants as messily and forcefully as possible, then complaining about the stink and mess.

  27. #27 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 9:28 am

    ass-mist

    coffee-nose-mist

  28. #28 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 9:28 am

    ass-mist

    coffee-nose-mist

  29. #29 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 12:39 pm

    PROOF GOD EXISTS! MSP BRIDGE COLLAPSES AND 13 ARE DEAD. WANT ANY MORE PROOF? ASK THE SEMI-DRIVER THAT TOOK THE HIT FOR THE SCHOOL BUS. BEFORE BEING BURNED ALIVE HE COULD BE HEARD SINGING……….I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.
    IF GOD DIDN’T EXIST WOULD MORE PEOPLE HAVE PERISHED IN THIS DISASTER OR DID SCIENCE SAVE THE DAY?

  30. #30 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 2:00 pm

    I’m going to go ahead and assume that you aren’t a parody Brian although you increasingly insane rants are making me want to think that you are.
    I hate to do it Brian but that begs the questions. Why did god let 13 people die? Why not 12. Or 5. Or the best scenario, none.
    That argument you just made ranks up there on the worst “my proof of god” arguments ever. And having it all in caps makes it no less ridiculous.

  31. #31 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 2:01 pm

    IF GOD DIDN’T EXIST WOULD MORE PEOPLE HAVE PERISHED IN THIS DISASTER OR DID SCIENCE SAVE THE DAY?
    I think we have a winner. I give that one 4.5 gribbits.

  32. #32 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 2:41 pm

    I’m going to go ahead and assume that you aren’t a parody Brian although you increasingly insane rants are making me want to think that you are.
    I hate to do it Brian but that begs the questions. Why did god let 13 people die? Why not 12. Or 5. Or the best scenario, none.
    That argument you just made ranks up there on the worst “my proof of god” arguments ever. And having it all in caps makes it no less ridiculous.
    My God my man, my god. Hmmm why did god let 13 people die? I don’t know that answer but was there any science involved with that bridge? Maybe that’s what failed us….just a thought…and having to take the time to put on his supercape maybe that’s why 13 went….oh wait where did they go…..watery grave I suppose.
    Proof of god arguments???? Time to wake up, you being born is proof enough that god is almighty and all forgiving.
    My rants are insane and yours, backed by science. Hey take the time and rework some science that went into the engineering of that bridge. Then we’ll call you god. Free will, free will.

  33. #33 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 2:41 pm

    I’m going to go ahead and assume that you aren’t a parody Brian although you increasingly insane rants are making me want to think that you are.
    I hate to do it Brian but that begs the questions. Why did god let 13 people die? Why not 12. Or 5. Or the best scenario, none.
    That argument you just made ranks up there on the worst “my proof of god” arguments ever. And having it all in caps makes it no less ridiculous.
    My God my man, my god. Hmmm why did god let 13 people die? I don’t know that answer but was there any science involved with that bridge? Maybe that’s what failed us….just a thought…and having to take the time to put on his supercape maybe that’s why 13 went….oh wait where did they go…..watery grave I suppose.
    Proof of god arguments???? Time to wake up, you being born is proof enough that god is almighty and all forgiving.
    My rants are insane and yours, backed by science. Hey take the time and rework some science that went into the engineering of that bridge. Then we’ll call you god. Free will, free will.

  34. #34 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 3:12 pm

    Yes the bridges failed because of poor engineering.
    But your argument is frankly a little unhinged. Are you saying that because the bridge failed science doesn’t exist? Or are you saying that science mailed in some aspect there?
    Well yes of course the engineering failed. Science sometimes fails because of human error. It happens. But particular failure of a bridge bears little to no weight (no pun intended) on science as a whole. Are you that daft to try and make that claim? Seriously?
    If science is so bad, take that keyboard you are using and go plug it into the altar at your local church. Say a few prayers. Ask to be connected here. Once you do that start posting comments again. See how that goes. Also please stop taking any medicine (although I have a feeling you may have already missed a few scheduled doses)..

    Proof of god arguments???? Time to wake up, you being born is proof enough that god is almighty and all forgiving.

    No it’s not. It’s proof that my parents knocked boots in the back of the chevy one night when they were in college at N.C.State. It’s also proof that biology works. It is in no way proof that god exists or that he is almighty or let alone forgiving.

  35. #35 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 3:32 pm

    Biology, is that where 2 atoms go bump in the night and out comes a working living breathing human being?
    No that would be something else now wouldn’t it.
    My argument did not come unhinged (although you missed a no pun intended moment there). I just responded to you in the manner you responded to me in question why god would let 13 die not 5 or better yet none. Human error. I’ve asked this here before but does science ever error? Ever? No mistakes by golly unless we say….that was a mistake then and only then would it count. Science was only a part of that.
    Now let’s rap about that biology comment.
    Biology (from Greek: βίος, bio, “life”; and λόγος, logos, “knowledge”), more specifically referred to as the biological sciences, is the branch of science that studies life.
    Life. Interesting word. So without life one cannot study and or examine life.
    Who put together this thing called “biology”?
    Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history reaching back to Galen and Aristotle in ancient Greece.
    What else came from history reaching back to….? I would think having studied biology one would become closer with the creator (OH WAIT IT CREATED ITSELF)not emphatically deny his existence. JMHO and when does the bell ring for the 500th!

  36. #36 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 3:37 pm

    There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists
    Now this I can’t believe. A challenge for scientists. Can’t be. Jim, Kev help’em out will ya. You guys certaintly don’t struggle with anything. So I expect now….a very good reply. You all have a GREAT holiday weekend and I will go play with my science lab and take in some grombits whatever they are.

  37. #37 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 3:37 pm

    There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists
    Now this I can’t believe. A challenge for scientists. Can’t be. Jim, Kev help’em out will ya. You guys certaintly don’t struggle with anything. So I expect now….a very good reply. You all have a GREAT holiday weekend and I will go play with my science lab and take in some grombits whatever they are.

  38. #38 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 3:43 pm

    I don’t know what you’re on, Brian, but apparently it’s both quite powerful and intoxicating, enough so to completely dull your sense of reality. Oh wait, that’s right, your reality is a delusion.
    I mean, heck, what does this even mean?

    I’ve asked this here before but does science ever error? Ever? No mistakes by golly unless we say….that was a mistake then and only then would it count. Science was only a part of that.

    It sounds like the ravings of a homeless man on the street corner, half blind from drinking shoe polish.

  39. #39 by JimFiore on August 30, 2007 - 3:43 pm

    I don’t know what you’re on, Brian, but apparently it’s both quite powerful and intoxicating, enough so to completely dull your sense of reality. Oh wait, that’s right, your reality is a delusion.
    I mean, heck, what does this even mean?

    I’ve asked this here before but does science ever error? Ever? No mistakes by golly unless we say….that was a mistake then and only then would it count. Science was only a part of that.

    It sounds like the ravings of a homeless man on the street corner, half blind from drinking shoe polish.

  40. #40 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 3:57 pm

    It sounds like the ravings of a homeless man on the street corner, half blind from drinking shoe polish.
    You’ve found me out I’ll go away now. At least I’m not a SOCK PUPPET!

  41. #41 by Bill form Dover on August 30, 2007 - 4:17 pm

    Yo Brian,
    Got any idea why 1 in 5 Americans can’t find America on a world map?

  42. #42 by Kevin Beck on August 30, 2007 - 4:55 pm

    I remember what it is now that was bouncing around my mind when I first saw the name “Granite Grok.” It was the 1982 smash rap hit “Planet Rock” by Afrika Bambaataa, one of the pioneers of the genre.
    Listen to this clip and tell me what you hear in the refrain. It’s awesome. I’m going to have to come up an entire parody based on these lyrics now.
    Brian, I know you’re not really a godbotherer, because if you were you’d be a lot angrier at seeing a bunch of unsaved sacks o’ douche trash the Bible. You are indeed unhinged, but although many Jesus-defenders are as well, it’s a distinctly different, more benign variety of YOOP! YOOP YOOP!

  43. #43 by Kevin Beck on August 30, 2007 - 4:55 pm

    I remember what it is now that was bouncing around my mind when I first saw the name “Granite Grok.” It was the 1982 smash rap hit “Planet Rock” by Afrika Bambaataa, one of the pioneers of the genre.
    Listen to this clip and tell me what you hear in the refrain. It’s awesome. I’m going to have to come up an entire parody based on these lyrics now.
    Brian, I know you’re not really a godbotherer, because if you were you’d be a lot angrier at seeing a bunch of unsaved sacks o’ douche trash the Bible. You are indeed unhinged, but although many Jesus-defenders are as well, it’s a distinctly different, more benign variety of YOOP! YOOP YOOP!

  44. #44 by mg on August 30, 2007 - 5:56 pm

    Damn, you’re old school.
    You can listen to the entire song here:
    http://www.deezer.com/
    Regarding Brian. I wonder if there will be an influx of those types when the comments near 500,000?

  45. #45 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 6:38 pm

    No Bill, no idea, probably too much blogging.
    Now Kevin that’s hillarious! I would much prefer “Atomic Doog” as in “why I gotta chase the cat?” And your SPOT ON about me. Good read there. Of course this IS chasing the cat so to speak so color me guilty there.
    What I’m really wondering is..if everybody got it and we became a faithless nation, where father’s hold up their babies and exclaim “What a miricale/gift of biology!” . That would be some scary shit because the faithless will always get ran over at some point by those with a greater faith.
    Damn, you’re old school.
    Thank-you, Thank you very much. A compliment in the highest!
    500,000….what’s taking so long?

  46. #46 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 7:31 pm

    What I’m really wondering is..if everybody got it and we became a faithless nation, where father’s hold up their babies and exclaim “What a miricale/gift of biology!” . That would be some scary shit…

    Ugh. Pathetic. Why don’t you find yourself an atheist father, I suguest PZ maybe, and ask him how he feels about his children? I can guarantee that he feels just as in awe and privledged to be a father as any man with faith.

    because the faithless will always get ran over at some point by those with a greater faith

    Well that sure speaks fathoms about how you with faith act.

  47. #47 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 30, 2007 - 7:33 pm

    Oh and his “old school” comment was directed at kevin and Afrika Bomabaataa, not you.

  48. #48 by Brian on August 30, 2007 - 7:59 pm

    You guys are such an ez chain pull, I feel like I’m in London. Maybe that’s what the link was for Rev Big Dumb Chump.
    Woof! Woof! not YOOP! YOOP YOOP!

  49. #49 by Wobert on August 30, 2007 - 11:02 pm

    Aaaahhhh but Bwian, the important question is,can you shear a sheep?

  50. #50 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 31, 2007 - 2:45 pm

    You guys are such an ez chain pull, I feel like I’m in London. Maybe that’s what the link was for Rev Big Dumb Chump.
    Woof! Woof! not YOOP! YOOP YOOP!

    Time for your meds

  51. #51 by Doc Bushwell on August 31, 2007 - 2:54 pm

    Re: Jim – I give that one 4.5 gribbits.
    *Snort* A new and quite brilliant unit of measure has been introduced to the Chimp Refuge.
    Rev. Big Dumb Chimp – Why don’t you find yourself an atheist father, I suguest PZ maybe, and ask him how he feels about his children? I can guarantee that he feels just as in awe and privledged to be a father as any man with faith.
    But really, it’s us atheist mothers who should be stoned to death or at the very least pilloried for our egregious crimes against godidioted humanity.
    Among my way-too-ambitious stack of reading material at the moment is Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. I was reading a rather touching chapter while I waited for my godless atheistic Spawn o’ Hell? (16 year old daughter). Dawkins beautifully describes why each one of us is a miracle, and he didn’t need to invoke a supernatural being to do so.

  52. #52 by Doc Bushwell on August 31, 2007 - 2:54 pm

    Re: Jim – I give that one 4.5 gribbits.
    *Snort* A new and quite brilliant unit of measure has been introduced to the Chimp Refuge.
    Rev. Big Dumb Chimp – Why don’t you find yourself an atheist father, I suguest PZ maybe, and ask him how he feels about his children? I can guarantee that he feels just as in awe and privledged to be a father as any man with faith.
    But really, it’s us atheist mothers who should be stoned to death or at the very least pilloried for our egregious crimes against godidioted humanity.
    Among my way-too-ambitious stack of reading material at the moment is Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. I was reading a rather touching chapter while I waited for my godless atheistic Spawn o’ Hell? (16 year old daughter). Dawkins beautifully describes why each one of us is a miracle, and he didn’t need to invoke a supernatural being to do so.

  53. #53 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 31, 2007 - 3:04 pm

    But really, it’s us atheist mothers who should be stoned to death or at the very least pilloried for our egregious crimes against godidioted humanity.

    Yes all you mothers, atheist or super-fundy are evil. EVIL I TELL YOU!
    I have a mind numbing stack of reading material littered with the corpses of half read books. Stain with the blood of my massive ADD.
    These days with my work schedule and my need to read Technical books and white papers for my job the only books I get to go cover to cover on these days are Cook Books.

    Dawkins beautifully describes why each one of us is a miracle, and he didn’t need to invoke a supernatural being to do so.

    Something those like seen above will never be able to understand because EVERYTHING must be seen through the filter of faith.

  54. #54 by Brian on August 31, 2007 - 4:15 pm

    Something those like seen above will never be able to understand because EVERYTHING must be seen through the filter of faith,
    Please describe what you have faith in.
    Dawkins beautifully describes why each one of us is a miracle, and he didn’t need to invoke a supernatural being to do so.
    miracle?
    Please describe who’s to perform this miracle.

  55. #55 by JimFiore on August 31, 2007 - 9:03 pm

    miracle?
    Please describe who’s to perform this miracle.

    The same entity who creates the individual snowflakes in a blizzard.
    I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are just a troll because few people can honestly be that stupid. No more cookies for you!

  56. #56 by Rev. BigDumbChimp on August 31, 2007 - 9:10 pm

    I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are just a troll because few people can honestly be that stupid. No more cookies for you!

    There’s no question.

  57. #57 by Brian on August 31, 2007 - 9:39 pm

    EVERYTHING must be seen through the filter of faith.
    Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
    There exists a wide spectrum of opinion with respect to the epistemological validity of faith. On one extreme is logical positivism, which denies the validity of any beliefs held by faith; on the other extreme is fideism, which holds that true belief can only arise from faith, because reason and evidence cannot lead to truth. Some foundationalists, such as St. Augustine of Hippo and Alvin Plantinga, hold that all of our beliefs rest ultimately on beliefs accepted by faith. Others, such as C.S. Lewis, hold that faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary.
    You keep this up Chumpy and we will give you back your “Chimp” status!

  58. #58 by Kevin Beck on September 1, 2007 - 1:50 pm

    Brian, please call into “Meet The New Press” next Saturday at about this time. The number is 603-527-1490. Say whatever you want. In fact, tell them you’re a fan of the Chimp Refuge, which you are.

  1. Granite Grok dude loses show, column thanks to anti-gay comments « Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: