For Reason and Science?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:12 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.
Off topic but I thought you might be interested. Just been reading up on Gamergate and their problems with ethics in journalism (there isn't any.) It seems you are using facts and research and even providing sources (the horror.) In the current climate these are so last century, In the age of the Internet and instant news then clickbait is all the main stream media(msm) and smaller news sources (lol) care about. So unless to are going to lie, smear whilst following the current narrative your due diligence has been in vain, sorry you had to hear about this kiddo but integrity is for losers. It does seen unbelievable but just look at the anti Dawkins shit that gets published in the Guardian for example. Adam Lee isn't fit to kiss your arse yet he can lie, smear and promote his insane version of anti Dawkin narrative (and atheism in general) to the cows come home (just one example.) So unless you are going to claim Dawkins raped and/or sexually assaulted you and provide no evidence for your claims then you are currently going to be ignored. It is a sad day(s) for civilization as a whole and you are just one more person interested in the truth that will be overlooked. Feelz before realz is the order of the day. :(
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17747
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Jason » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:38 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.
More like you're a hot bit of crumpet and ol' Dickie still hasn't given up hope you'll be his - body and soul - one day.. :tea:

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:31 am

Śiva wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:
This is also likely why I haven't received a Cease and Desist, and am unlikely ever to receive one. It isn't just because Dawkins and RDF are not litigious - it's because I'm telling the truth and have evidence - and in such circumstances litigation can backfire horribly.
More like you're a hot bit of crumpet and ol' Dickie still hasn't given up hope you'll be his - body and soul - one day.. :tea:
I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins as I have been a 'militant atheist' all my life. outspoken atheist I'm more than cool with. Though people torn too quickly from their comfort blanket usually need an ideology to cling to. Hence we get atheism+ and their need tack on something that has nothing to do with the position on whether god/s exist.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
devogue
Posts: 15699
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by devogue » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:45 pm

How did this all end up lp?

PsychoSerenity
"I" Self-Perceive Recursively
Posts: 7807
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:57 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by PsychoSerenity » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:59 pm

Hah! I haven't been back there in years. Just had a look, and it's all very flash these days, but I can't say I'm impressed. From the FAQ:
Q: What happened to Discussions?
A: The Discussions feature is being discontinued on the new website. We are shifting the focus of the website to become a source of information from renowned, credible and popular bloggers and writers in the science and secular community. However, we are keeping an active archive of previous discussions. You can find the Discussion Archive under the ‘Community’ drop-down in the main menu or by clicking here.
They always did want it to be a bit more preachy rather than give people the opportunity to ask awkward questions. Like "What does seamen taste like?" and "What have you done with all the money?" :hehe:
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]

User avatar
devogue
Posts: 15699
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by devogue » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:07 pm

PsychoSerenity wrote:Hah! I haven't been back there in years. Just had a look, and it's all very flash these days, but I can't say I'm impressed. From the FAQ:
Q: What happened to Discussions?
A: The Discussions feature is being discontinued on the new website. We are shifting the focus of the website to become a source of information from renowned, credible and popular bloggers and writers in the science and secular community. However, we are keeping an active archive of previous discussions. You can find the Discussion Archive under the ‘Community’ drop-down in the main menu or by clicking here.
They always did want it to be a bit more preachy rather than give people the opportunity to ask awkward questions. Like "What does seamen taste like?" and "What have you done with all the money?" :hehe:
:potd:

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:54 am

lordpasternack wrote:This is the new and improved version of "RD.net to be re-revamped". :cheer:

I'll post a re-cap of some important substantive issues, and stuff, tomorrow. :tup:

Continued from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... start=1020 - KLR
Who the fuck cares anymore, new atheism has been dead since it allowed the entryism of feminism, SJW and cultural Marxism into its fold. Lefty/liberalism has been a fucking clown shoe ever since it embrace Islam and muslims into it's fold. A religion that is totally antithetical to all the views it once held. Richard Dawkins is nothing but a dribbling wreck since his stroke. Doesn't the fact that media outlets that hate Richard Dawkins with a passion wouldn't touch anything you give them tell you something. I admire your fortitude but is it really healthy to totally focus on all our yesterdays. I admit I'm a total cunt and never claimed otherwise but I would never lie to you or anybody else for that matter. I like you lordpasternack and have enjoyed looking at your nude pictures though in the words of that awful Disney song you really need to 'let it go.'
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
devogue
Posts: 15699
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by devogue » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:02 am

DaveDodo007 wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:This is the new and improved version of "RD.net to be re-revamped". :cheer:

I'll post a re-cap of some important substantive issues, and stuff, tomorrow. :tup:

Continued from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... start=1020 - KLR
Who the fuck cares anymore, new atheism has been dead since it allowed the entryism of feminism, SJW and cultural Marxism into its fold. Lefty/liberalism has been a fucking clown shoe ever since it embrace Islam and muslims into it's fold. A religion that is totally antithetical to all the views it once held. Richard Dawkins is nothing but a dribbling wreck since his stroke. Doesn't the fact that media outlets that hate Richard Dawkins with a passion wouldn't touch anything you give them tell you something. I admire your fortitude but is it really healthy to totally focus on all our yesterdays. I admit I'm a total cunt and never claimed otherwise but I would never lie to you or anybody else for that matter. I like you lordpasternack and have enjoyed looking at your nude pictures though in the words of that awful Disney song you really need to 'let it go.'
To be fair this is a pretty old thread that I have resurrected.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:17 am

Note to self, look at the date of the post you are responding to before posting a reply. :(
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by DaveDodo007 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:19 am

devogue wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:
lordpasternack wrote:This is the new and improved version of "RD.net to be re-revamped". :cheer:

I'll post a re-cap of some important substantive issues, and stuff, tomorrow. :tup:

Continued from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... start=1020 - KLR
Who the fuck cares anymore, new atheism has been dead since it allowed the entryism of feminism, SJW and cultural Marxism into its fold. Lefty/liberalism has been a fucking clown shoe ever since it embrace Islam and muslims into it's fold. A religion that is totally antithetical to all the views it once held. Richard Dawkins is nothing but a dribbling wreck since his stroke. Doesn't the fact that media outlets that hate Richard Dawkins with a passion wouldn't touch anything you give them tell you something. I admire your fortitude but is it really healthy to totally focus on all our yesterdays. I admit I'm a total cunt and never claimed otherwise but I would never lie to you or anybody else for that matter. I like you lordpasternack and have enjoyed looking at your nude pictures though in the words of that awful Disney song you really need to 'let it go.'
To be fair this is a pretty old thread that I have resurrected.
Yes I have just noticed.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25305
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: For Reason and Science?

Post by Brian Peacock » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:21 am

PsychoSerenity wrote:Hah! I haven't been back there in years. Just had a look, and it's all very flash these days, but I can't say I'm impressed. From the FAQ:
Q: What happened to Discussions?
A: The Discussions feature is being discontinued on the new website. We are shifting the focus of the website to become a source of information from renowned, credible and popular bloggers and writers in the science and secular community. However, we are keeping an active archive of previous discussions. You can find the Discussion Archive under the ‘Community’ drop-down in the main menu or by clicking here.
They always did want it to be a bit more preachy rather than give people the opportunity to ask awkward questions. Like "What does seamen taste like?" and "What have you done with all the money?" :hehe:
It wouldn't happen these days. The plug was pulled on the Dawkins forum just before people started to really twig what social media was all about and how powerful it could be. Definitely missed the boat there I think.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests