'Splain this one Atheists...

[Animavore]

Looking at people pathetically fighting to place themselves outside of the norm in an attempt to be "different" and "unique" is pretty amusing.

[rainbow]

Looking at people pathetically fighting to place themselves outside of the norm in an attempt to be "different" and "unique" is pretty amusing.

[Animavore]

Check my sig.

[rainbow]

Check my sig.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

The implicit assumption with this line of apologetics is that, by the non-trivial nature of the claim, normal rational standards do not apply. Thus, where one might reasonably and rationally dismiss a claim as unsupportable/unjustifiable under normal circumstances, claims for God must be treated as a separate case - and therefore cannot be dismissed on the same grounds as every an any other unsupported/unjustified claim.

This is often referred to as special pleading, and in order to counter a simple dismissal on the grounds of a reliance on this logical fallacy the purveyant must make some effort to justify an exemption from normal rational standards on some further, substantive grounds - that is, grounds aside from an implicit assumption or explicit declaration of exemption by fiat.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?

[Seth]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

I neither asked about nor care what quadrant you feel you belong to.

I don't care that you neither asked nor care.

As for the two agnostic quadrants, both of them are rather heavily populated, and for a good reason too. Regardless of what you are convinced of will happen in the future, we don't possess the means to either prove or disprove the existence of god today. Should such come to light I will move to either the gnostic theism or the gnostic atheism quadrant.

What I did say is that you seem intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion, and that one of your measures to argue your case is rather desperate and emotional, namely you claim that people who describe themselves as agnostic atheists are liars.

That's because I've never met an actual agnostic atheist. Every atheist, and especially every Atheist I've ever known only resorts to the "agnostic atheist" description when challenged about their very obvious and habitual demonstration of their absolute and unshakable belief that God does not exist, as evidenced in part by their constant, relentless, vicious, uncaring, cruel and downright evil attacks on theists of any stripe. Yes, all the claimants I've ever encountered are liars, and I'll say it quite plainly. I'm sure there are agnostic atheists out there, but they don't hang out in places like this because, I suspect, they are revolted by the bad manners and arrogant, narcissistic behavior of the Atheists who infest such fora.

I'd love to meet an agnostic atheist who actually lives and speaks in a principled and rational manner, which means his response to the question of God's existence is "I really don't know" rather than an instant ad hom attack on anyone who doesn't hew to the Atheist dogma.

So far, no go here or anywhere else on the web. I do know two people in person who act ethically and morally (and socially appropriately) as agnostic atheists.

[Animavore]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

[Seth]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

The implicit assumption with this line of apologetics is that, by the non-trivial nature of the claim, normal rational standards do not apply. Thus, where one might reasonably and rationally dismiss a claim as unsupportable/unjustifiable under normal circumstances, claims for God must be treated as a separate case - and therefore cannot be dismissed on the same grounds as every an any other unsupported/unjustified claim.

Not true. This is not about someone else's (a theist's) claims about God, it's about the Atheist's own internal logic and reason. It's not theists demanding special treatment for their claims, it's about examining the rational and logical strength of the claims made by Atheists about theistic claims. All I'm doing is holding those Atheists making claims about theistic claims to their own standards of logic and reason by showing where their logic goes awry when attempting to rebut theistic claims. If atheists simply said "I dunno" with respect to such claims, that would be a logical and rational rebuttal. But Atheists are never satisfied to say "I dunno," they have to turn off their brains and start spewing emotive rhetoric and unreason as they attack theists and theism with all the fury and vengeance of an apostolic Christian zealot attacking Jews for "murdering Jesus."

If you're going to claim you are a rational "atheist" with "no belief in God" then you (the collective "you") really ought to act like a rational person instead of acting like a bunch of foaming-at-the mouth intolerant asses who give atheism a bad name.

This is often referred to as special pleading, and in order to counter a simple dismissal on the grounds of a reliance on this logical fallacy the purveyant must make some effort to justify an exemption from normal rational standards on some further, substantive grounds - that is, grounds aside from an implicit assumption or explicit declaration of exemption by fiat.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?[/quote]

[Seth]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it lest this place become the same sort of mindless echo-chamber that RatSkep has become.

[Hermit]

I've never met an actual agnostic atheist. Every atheist, and especially every Atheist I've ever known only resorts to the "agnostic atheist" description when challenged about their very obvious and habitual demonstration of their absolute and unshakable belief that God does not exist, as evidenced in part by their constant, relentless, vicious, uncaring, cruel and downright evil attacks on theists of any stripe.

I have noticed your most peculiar interpretation of circumstances, events and what people say on more than one occasion. Particularly, that time you called Apoplexia an atheist on the grounds that she posts in this forum. I could not help but laugh for two reasons: 1: She had told us about her beliefs. They were not of the sort an atheist would entertain. 2. Your average daily posting rate on this forum is higher than that of the majority of other members. Does that make you an atheist of a higher order? When the first point was drawn to your attention you dismissed it with a handwave. So no, I generally don't give your evaluations much credence.

Yes, all the claimants I've ever encountered are liars, and I'll say it quite plainly. I'm sure there are agnostic atheists out there, but they don't hang out in places like this

So you're calling me a liar?

[Brian Peacock]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

The implicit assumption with this line of apologetics is that, by the non-trivial nature of the claim, normal rational standards do not apply. Thus, where one might reasonably and rationally dismiss a claim as unsupportable/unjustifiable under normal circumstances, claims for God must be treated as a separate case - and therefore cannot be dismissed on the same grounds as every an any other unsupported/unjustified claim.

Not true. This is not about someone else's (a theist's) claims about God, it's about the Atheist's own internal logic and reason.

My comments were addressed to what you posted, specifically when you said that, "I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists." This was and is the context of my comment.

My point was that one can rationally and reasonably dismiss a claim that does not support itself, but you appear to feel it necessary to treat God-claims as a special type or kind - to wit, a claim that cannot be easily dismissed. This point has no bearing on what atheism is or isn't, by your lights or by anyone else's. It is about you seeking to apply special conditions to discourse, conditions which appear to--and I feel I must be frank here--to bait people to whom you have taken moral exception.

It's not theists demanding special treatment for their claims, it's about examining the rational and logical strength of the claims made by Atheists about theistic claims.

What are those atheist claims exactly(?) What I've previously categorised, somewhat broadly I accept, as the atheists, "I don't believe you" position is a response to a particular kind of claim and/or assertion. It is not a claim itself. It cannot stand as a claims in itself. It is a statement of a position, a position that can only follow a claim for some particular thing or other. Consider this...

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

Many times you have been told, as I have told you myself, that atheists generally make no claims for God one way or the other. However, I will openly and honestly declare that I find the claims and assertions of theism and its chum unsupported and unsupportable, unjustified and unjustifiable, unreasoned and unreasonable, or, more succinctly, unbelievable. Again (because I feel this point must be stressed in light of your ongoing commentary) this position of disbelief with regards to the claims of theism et al can only in exist light of the claims of theism et al. First comes the claim, then follows an assessment, then follows a conclusion. Look at it this way...

I don't know if Zeus exists or not, but claims for Zeus are unsupportable, and as it is wholly reasonable and rational to dismiss objective claim that fail to justify themselves I have no reason to believe that Zeus exists - I disbelieve claims for Zeus.

Now my disbelief in Zeus is not a contentious matter because the Olympian religion is long dead and has little to no cultural relevance or power. Nobody is affronted by my disbelief of claims made on behalf of Zeus, Dionysus, Hestia or Poseiden. Nobody is holding the door open for Hades, Hephaestus, and Hermes. And no special conditions are being applied to my, or anyone's, disbelief in the deities of the Greek pantheon, conditions which in your case, it seems, would be crafted to de-legitimise any and all expressions of disbelief in Olympian-claims.

Your point, such that it is, that atheist need to be educated as to the logical error in disbelieving God-claims, has been stated many times, but the question of what distinguishes God-claims from other claims, for example, from Zeus-claims, or Shiva-claims, or Urcuchillay-claims is only that you require special conditions of dismissal to be applied to God-claims.

It has to be said that restating that you are applying these conditions to demonstrate the logical and/or rational failings of atheists does not address, nor justify, their application. As noted previous, your approach can be legitimately categorised as special pleading and burden shifting - in short, your are relying of fallacies to provide an argument supporting the propositions regarding atheism's supposed logical failings.

Now what would motivate you to take such a wayward and rationally bankrupt course when you are so earnest and insistent on logical rigour in others?

Perhaps now you are ready to explain why unsupported God-claims invoke a special case so that they cannot be rationally dismissed by normal rational standard?

All I'm doing is holding those Atheists making claims about theistic claims to their own standards of logic and reason by showing where their logic goes awry when attempting to rebut theistic claims. If atheists simply said "I dunno" with respect to such claims, that would be a logical and rational rebuttal. But Atheists are never satisfied to say "I dunno," they have to turn off their brains and start spewing emotive rhetoric and unreason as they attack theists and theism with all the fury and vengeance of an apostolic Christian zealot attacking Jews for "murdering Jesus."

A forlorn and short-lived hope. Oh well..

Let's look at it this way: being as you are obviously taking moral exception to those who honestly and openly state their disbelief in theisms etc, what do you think are good, or goodish, reasons why atheists should not dismiss unsupported God-claims? What is particular to God-claims which is not relevant to, say, Zeus-claims, or Odin-cliams, or claims for that-guy-with-a-dog's-head-whatever-he's-called? I know you're agnostic on the question of God's existence, but does that agnosticism extend to the existence of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Herne the Hunter, and dog head guy? Do you think that deity-claims are a class of claim which require special consideration? What about claims for objects or phenomena which also lie unsupported by rational means?

If you're going to claim you are a rational "atheist" with "no belief in God" then you (the collective "you") really ought to act like a rational person instead of acting like a bunch of foaming-at-the mouth intolerant asses who give atheism a bad name.

The ad-homs, typifying a nominal group as being all of a certain type or kind, and disparaging that group on that basis, is just bigotry, and your justification for it relies on yet another fallacy - the strawman. I do wish you put aside these petty attempts at flaming your interlocutors - whether qualified by the second person singular or plural pronoun, or not. It's not an argument for anything but the ignore button.

This is often referred to as special pleading, and in order to counter a simple dismissal on the grounds of a reliance on this logical fallacy the purveyant must make some effort to justify an exemption from normal rational standards on some further, substantive grounds - that is, grounds aside from an implicit assumption or explicit declaration of exemption by fiat.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?

The question is still valid.

[surreptitious57]

Seth is just plain wrong since I am an agnostic atheist and am also an apatheist as well
Which means that I have no absolute position on the existence or non existence of God
And also I do not care whether he actually exists or not as I have previously mentioned
Though he appears to be ignoring it since it does not conform to his view of all atheists

[Seth]

My point was that one can rationally and reasonably dismiss a claim that does not support itself, but you appear to feel it necessary to treat God-claims as a special type or kind - to wit, a claim that cannot be easily dismissed. This point has no bearing on what atheism is or isn't, by your lights or by anyone else's. It is about you seeking to apply special conditions to discourse, conditions which appear to--and I feel I must be frank here--to bait people to whom you have taken moral exception.

But I'm not talking about "dismissing" a claim because it lacks support, I'm talking about ATTACKING a claim, or attempting to REFUTE a claim using fallacious logic as the basis for the argument. Dismissing a claim is "I see no evidence supporting this claim so I'm dismissing it.? But the typical Atheist reaction to a theistic claim is to go to the Bible, find something nasty that can be attributed to God and then vilify both the theist, the theist's claim, and the biblical passage by assuming a priori that the biblical claim is true (ie: God really did turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt), and saying "God is a prick for turning Lot's wife into salt just for looking back, and therefore God doesn't exist and even if he does he's still a prick") as if God's existence depends on God actually being as theists describe him. This is a tautology that creates the Atheist's Fallacy.

There's also a tendency to point to some wrongdoing by some theist, usually a thousand or two years ago, and attempt to use such examples to impeach and malign present-day followers. This I call the "Wayback Machine Fallacy" because in order to find something to be critical about when it comes to religion, because the practice of Christianity has changed substantially, Atheists attacking Christianity have to go back to the Inquisition to find a causus belli. Modern-day Christians come in all stripes, but by and large they are peaceful, kindly people who follow their deity's commandments to help others and be humble about it. But this defies the Atheist stereotype of a Christian, which is usually built around the Wayback Machine fallacy by selecting some particularly objectionable or heinous misdeed by someone in the past who was putatively a Christian but didn't act like one.

It's not the god-claims that are being subjected to scrutiny. I make no god claims. It's the failures in emotional control, reason and logic demonstrated by so-called "atheists" who blat out at every turn how they have "no belief" about God (and therefore should by logic have nothing to say about god-claims) when it's blatantly obvious that they do in fact have very deep and strongly defended beliefs about the existence of God. I address the hypocrisy and unreason of people who claim to be "atheists" but who show every sign of being religiously-zealous Atheists on a crusade to crush, in particular, Christianity and expunge it from the face of the earth...to one degree or another.

It's not theists demanding special treatment for their claims, it's about examining the rational and logical strength of the claims made by Atheists about theistic claims.

What are those atheist claims exactly(?) What I've previously categorised, somewhat broadly I accept, as the atheists, "I don't believe you" position is a response to a particular kind of claim and/or assertion. It is not a claim itself. It cannot stand as a claims in itself. It is a statement of a position, a position that can only follow a claim for some particular thing or other. Consider this...

What can be claimed about a thing for which there is no reliable evidence or rational support?

Many times you have been told, as I have told you myself, that atheists generally make no claims for God one way or the other. However, I will openly and honestly declare that I find the claims and assertions of theism and its chum unsupported and unsupportable, unjustified and unjustifiable, unreasoned and unreasonable, or, more succinctly, unbelievable. Again (because I feel this point must be stressed in light of your ongoing commentary) this position of disbelief with regards to the claims of theism et al can only in exist light of the claims of theism et al. First comes the claim, then follows an assessment, then follows a conclusion. Look at it this way...

I don't know if Zeus exists or not, but claims for Zeus are unsupportable, and as it is wholly reasonable and rational to dismiss objective claim that fail to justify themselves I have no reason to believe that Zeus exists - I disbelieve claims for Zeus.

Now my disbelief in Zeus is not a contentious matter because the Olympian religion is long dead and has little to no cultural relevance or power. Nobody is affronted by my disbelief of claims made on behalf of Zeus, Dionysus, Hestia or Poseiden. Nobody is holding the door open for Hades, Hephaestus, and Hermes. And no special conditions are being applied to my, or anyone's, disbelief in the deities of the Greek pantheon, conditions which in your case, it seems, would be crafted to de-legitimise any and all expressions of disbelief in Olympian-claims.

Your point, such that it is, that atheist need to be educated as to the logical error in disbelieving God-claims, has been stated many times, but the question of what distinguishes God-claims from other claims, for example, from Zeus-claims, or Shiva-claims, or Urcuchillay-claims is only that you require special conditions of dismissal to be applied to God-claims.

It has to be said that restating that you are applying these conditions to demonstrate the logical and/or rational failings of atheists does not address, nor justify, their application. As noted previous, your approach can be legitimately categorised as special pleading and burden shifting - in short, your are relying of fallacies to provide an argument supporting the propositions regarding atheism's supposed logical failings.

I must disagree. Your incredulity with respect to Olympian gods is entirely justifiable, as is the classic atheistic dismissal of theistic god claims. That's not the problem at all. Where it becomes justifiable to, as you incorrectly put it, impose "special conditions" is not upon the god-claims of theists, but on the god-claims of Atheists. I predicate this on the premise that "god-claims" can be either positive or negative, ie: "God exists" or "God does not exist." Any positive god-claim, according to atheistic orthodoxy, requires evidence meeting some hardly-ever stated "scientific" metric for truth of the claim, else the claim is summarily rejected and the claimant vilified and insulted, along with his religion. My argument is that it is also required, by atheism's own demands for "scientific" support of god-claims, that the same burden of proof be placed on an Atheist's negative god-claims.

Whenever an Atheist says "God does not exist" in any form at all, including indirectly by simply attacking the person of the theist making a positive claim, then atheism morally requires, and Atheists are obliged to ethically acknowledge that their claim that God does NOT exist is subject to the same burden of proof that they demand of the theist's claim that God does exist.

That Atheists cannot seem to understand this "sauce, goose, gander" application of fundamental fairness, simple logic, and clear reason is really quite astonishing.

What happens when I make such a challenge is that the Atheist under examination immediately (usually) resorts to ad hom attacks on me and everything theistic as a diversion from the examination of the Atheist's unreason and illogic. It's all but impossible to get an Atheist to acknowledge that their claims are subject to exactly the same rules and burdens of proof that they apply to theistic claims.

That's what I've been trying to get at for two decades now. There is absolutely no "special circumstances" for theistic claims being made, I'm simply applying the exact same circumstances that Atheists apply to theistic claims to their own atheistic claims. Nothing more.

Now what would motivate you to take such a wayward and rationally bankrupt course when you are so earnest and insistent on logical rigour in others?

Perhaps now you are ready to explain why unsupported God-claims invoke a special case so that they cannot be rationally dismissed by normal rational standard?

As I said, it's not about dismissal, it's about refutation or rebuttal made in response to a theistic claim that engages in tautological argumentation based in logical fallacies and unsupported anti-theistic claims by the Atheist involved. They must be held to the same standard they attempt to impose on theists, and that's what i do.

Let's look at it this way: being as you are obviously taking moral exception to those who honestly and openly state their disbelief in theisms etc, what do you think are good, or goodish, reasons why atheists should not dismiss unsupported God-claims? What is particular to God-claims which is not relevant to, say, Zeus-claims, or Odin-cliams, or claims for that-guy-with-a-dog's-head-whatever-he's-called? I know you're agnostic on the question of God's existence, but does that agnosticism extend to the existence of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Herne the Hunter, and dog head guy? Do you think that deity-claims are a class of claim which require special consideration? What about claims for objects or phenomena which also lie unsupported by rational means?

Once again, it's not about dismissal, it's about attack.

If you're going to claim you are a rational "atheist" with "no belief in God" then you (the collective "you") really ought to act like a rational person instead of acting like a bunch of foaming-at-the mouth intolerant asses who give atheism a bad name.

The ad-homs, typifying a nominal group as being all of a certain type or kind, and disparaging that group on that basis, is just bigotry, and your justification for it relies on yet another fallacy - the strawman. I do wish you put aside these petty attempts at flaming your interlocutors - whether qualified by the second person singular or plural pronoun, or not. It's not an argument for anything but the ignore button.

Hm, you're right. How's it feel to be the butt of the attack? Perhaps you might want to reflect on the fact that what you just said to me is what I've been saying to those Atheists who do nothing but malign, attack, disparage and insult their theistic (or, in my case, non-theistic) intellectual opponents.

What you just experienced is turnabout. I was emulating exactly the sort of vacuous rhetoric and petty insults that the vast majority of people here (some more than others) fling at anyone who shows up here with an earnest desire to have a rational discussion on the subject of theism.

Have I made my point clear to you yet?

Just because you (atheists) have a moral certainty that you are absolutely correct in your judgment that God does not exist does not excuse the perfectly awful and inhumane, and completely anti-intellectual way in which anyone, particularly visitors who show up here to argue from the theistic position, are subjected on a routine basis.

I persevere here and I choose to defend the unpopular theistic side of the argument precisely because I am a veteran of the RDF wars and I've learned the craft of sparring with atheists and Atheists alike without allowing it to either drive me away, as is the case with most theists who come here, because of the vicious nature of a very large contingent of the membership of this site, not to mention others like RatSkep, or allowing the pathological unreason and illogic I see here every day to frustrate me into abandoning the forum, which would be the sensible thing to do. I choose to do battle with "you" because somebody needs to do it and I have the skill and the fortitude to do so, and I do it for the benefit of those who visit here and who lurk.

This is often referred to as special pleading, and in order to counter a simple dismissal on the grounds of a reliance on this logical fallacy the purveyant must make some effort to justify an exemption from normal rational standards on some further, substantive grounds - that is, grounds aside from an implicit assumption or explicit declaration of exemption by fiat.

Basically, why is God such a special case that - by your lights - we are not allowed to simply dismiss God-claims on the grounds of their failure to support themselves?
The question is still valid.

Sauce, goose, gander.

[Animavore]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

Seth knows perfectly well he's winding you up. Stop allowing yourselves be trolled and move on.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it lest this place become the same sort of mindless echo-chamber that RatSkep has become.

Says the corporate shill.

[rainbow]

You guys do realise there is a very long thread of this shite on RatSkep?

No. What is Ratskep?