Magical Mystery Tour

Through the Looking Glass

("Starry night with Tardis")

by Alice





You know how when you get a flyer through the door selling something, ..and there's bullet points, and you want to see what it is they're actually saying, .. how you have to skip to the bottom line to see what it's all about .. and then you wonder why they made you wade through all the crap to get there and why didn't they just put it right up the top and say it - like, .. "The Earth is getting bigger". Maybe in bold if they want to catch your attention. And just leave it at that. Why do they have to hype it up when there's nothing in it but the obvious? Why don't they just start off with the bottom line then go, blonk - blonk - blonk with the facts and just leave it to you? Why do they have to turn it upside down and make such a meal of it into the bargain?
Well, it's true is it not? And what's more, the difference in the way you read it is exactly that between the S.M. ( sado-masochistic) Scientific (/hypothetical) Method way of doing science and the unscientific (no-probs) Natural Philosophical , observational way of doing it - like here.

In the scientific method (as Feynman says), with a few facts and an apparent correlation you make a guess about what it means, and then see if you can back it up with support. And if there's a 'Hey Presto' in it you think you can sell, then you turn it all around and make it look like a respectable conclusion that follows from those blonks. It's a kind of short-cut way of trying to look at things, one that elevates thinking over looking, and makes you look clever.

For example, you might pick up a grain of sand and say, "Ah-hah, this is a beach," and set about trying to prove it according to rules about beaches. So you see if it is round, and of a certain size, .. at which point you decide you might need a bit more data, so, you go, and you look, and see if you can find another one and you do and so hey, .. now you have *two* grains of sand, .. and they're both just exactly round, .. and so on. (Pretty smart, huh?) Then with a straight face you can say with confidence, "This is a beach", and hope everybody will buy one. Doesn't matter about the water. That's different and can be dealt with later, .. this is about science, sand and beaches, right? (Reductive.) ["Elemental, my dear Watson."]

The No-Probs method is different. In this one you get in your tardis and zoom out and look at everything else *but* the sand, .. and once you've got the framework right and everything in its rightful domino-place then Bob's-your-Uncle. You can zoom in on the sand and check out the boulders and the other flotsam lying around if you like. No guessing needed. In fact you might not even bother that much (about 'beach') because a beach is a beach. Seen one you've seen 'em all. Go a bit further and you might find something quite interesting - like a whale, .. lying on top of a grain of sand. And what do we do about that then, .. (on the beach)? .. Well, we get in the tardis again and ... .. .

See what I mean? No guessing, .. no 'science' (of the guessing /hypothesising /theorising sort) needed, .. Just finding that things just are in their natural rightful order, when you look at them the right way, .. which is in context. And how do you do context right?

Well, ... you just go forth, .. get in the Tardis .. and, ... look through the glass.

Easy. You don't have to molecate everything to be scientific. Alice's No-Probs Tardis is just fine. In fact it's where science begins. Or should begin -with the contemplated life and the considered observation. All sorts of problems arise if the 'molecules' are not in the right order. And that's where the tardis comes in handy, .. it gets you right up there (with Cazaly, a round of leather and a jar of vegemite). Everything just falls into place - right, bright and shiny, .. and speaking for itself.

So, .. all aboard?
=>  *(basketables) rm/genesis.html

(Who said the Earth was flat) (like a plate)  .. ?
=>  *one plate or several nonsense/plate.html =>  *House of collapsing cards nonsense/cards

(next)
[Yeah, .. but so what? ]====================



[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Putting Trolling in Perspective.

( or, .. What do you do when you perceive science to be failing? ..)


The question of trolling has arisen again on Rationalskeptics Discussion Forum.

[  Quoting Theropod:- 

" ... Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, can't you read? What part of "if they haven't published" can't you grasp? Now, having made that really fucking clear, how the hell is anyone supposed to know of these "authorities" unless they have published in reputable journals?

"I know for a fact there are several professional scientists that participate on a regular basis here on ratskep. [ .. I have enough professional qualifications in earth sciences to see through this EE smoke and mirrors.. ] That professional training allows me to adjudicate these citations as sorely lacking in direct support of an EE.

"My opinion is based on the historical facts of this thread. I've been here since day one.  The topic was started to specifically troll this forum.

"In case you haven't noticed I have no desire, or intent, to be helpful in regards to this topic on any level. It's ALL bullshit, and the whole intent of this thread was, and is, to troll this forum. I've already listed my concerns with your "facts". I really don't give a rats ass if the EE folks have their feeling hurt, or if I piss them all off. This EE crap isn't about the science. It's about what folks will believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence telling them they're notion is totally fucking nuts. Exactly like creationism in that regard isn't it? I am not a humanitarian, or even a very nice man. As far as I'm concerned these folks came into my house and shit right in the middle of my living room floor. I'm really supposed to now be helpful to any aspect of this insanity? I don't think so. Even defending this tripe in a passing manner deserves scorn AFAIC." ]

This point, about the forum being assailed by "nuts" obsessing about Earth expansion, has been raised from the beginning.  Under no circumstances could S.Athearn, the subject of the above abusive attack be accused of trolling, and neither could the original poster of the thread.  Below is the original post by 'Brainman',  a cognitive scientist interested in the emotional response of people to views that contradict their own beliefs, and how consensus ('Groupthink') therefore arises - the Groupthink in this case being the monolithic belief of Plate tectonics. :

['Brainman' :-   Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere
#1  Post by Brain man » Jun 14, 2010 12:27 pm

"Most people are familiar with neal adams interesting animations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PQSrsy9xg70
My interest is actually psychological regarding this. I am training in neuropsychology and am interested in the mechanism behind the reaction of disbelief itself. I am presuming there will be not be many here in favour of expanding earth hypothesis.

The point is, can this thread force readers to answer the primary question of the thread first. i.e. Can the poll question itself actually be answered with a yes or no ? EDIT. The question is "Do the continents "look" as if they wind back to a sphere ?"

So this thread is primarily about psychology. You can post on how the video itself made you feel. Conflicted, angry etc.

I would also like to make these following points to introduce that the topic has an educated, reasoning and respectable proponent. The point of this thread is not to debate the geology though. These points are just stated to offset the damage having an artist proposing the subject has done. It should be remembered though that in spite of his background Neal Adams claims that the plates were not shrunk or altered in the 3d modeller. The ins-and-outs of geology is a different subject from this and should be started on the earth sciences section.]

...from which it is quite clear that the intention of the post is exactly as it says -  nothing to do with the for-or-against geological  arguments of Earth expansion but simply to test emotional reaction to that video.  It's difficult to see how it can be read otherwise.

Neverthless apart from the few respondents who did answer within the guidelines but noted that a response would obviously be tempered by initial belief and the scientific merit of the video, by far the majority appeared to consider their intelligence confronted and scientific acumen abused, and Brainman was shortly banned for being a "troll" for exactly the reason Brainman specifically stated, and what Theropod says in somewhat more colourful vernacular :- "This EE crap isn't about the science. It's about what folks will believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence telling them they're notion is totally fucking nuts".

Evidently the fine point of Mr Adam's video (and Brainman's intention in posting the question) escapes the Theropod - that the italicised "nuts" in question are in fact those believing in Plate Tectonics - and how might it feel to be labelled a nut, even just on the basis of a space/time-traveller's cursory glimpse of an enlarging, rotating Earth such as that video illustrates.

Today Plate Tectonics is standard teaching in schools colleges, universites, and even kindergartens. as well as used in top-level media presentations to the public.  And there is even the view that it is deserving of a Nobel prize.

But what do you do when you perceive it to be simply wrong in critical aspects and think it appropriate to say so?  Do you present your hopeful case to what you see as the arbiters of scientific respectability in the expectation they have a duty to listen?  .. maybe even too in the expectation (if reason and logic is applied) that there might possibly be some capitulation to your illuminated insight?  Well, .. if you're naive you might, but you certainly won't get any marks for pointing out to the scientific community at large that the Earth is round and rotating, and that the consequences of this is something everybody's been missing all along.  Theropod has a point.  It *is* something like dumping right in the middle of the living-room.  No matter how much you might try to persuade and say, "No, .. but look, .. seriously, .. it's all good, and it goes so much better with your furniture than the junk you have strewn around."  You could even add that every living room should have a pile of it right up to the ceiling, ... and (getting really bolshie) add further  .. "So what's wrong with *you* then?" 

Even on a sliding scale from wheedling to belligerent, somehow I don't think that cuts it.  Some other strategem is called for.  But what?  What do you do when even  'peaceful proselytising' elicits the antagonistic odium and abuse that has been the history of Rationalskeptic's response since day 1 - and some other forums as well, and (though somewhat better dressed) the scientific literature too.   Everybody likes to arrange their living room the way that suits them - because there are friends that turn up from time to time who like a cozy corner to relax in where they don't have to consider their place in the world.  Living is a social enterprise after all, and it helps if everybody is like me.

Well, there are two things you can do.  The first is simply putting it out there for whoever is inclined to look at it - passive proselytising /gentle persuasion for those who may be persuaded, but in the full knowledge that there will be hecklers at the rear who will take every opportunity they can to shout you down and try to make a fool of you.

And the other thing you can do is recognise therefore what it is you're up against and 'fight fire with fire', .. stir-'em-up and dump some reflective 'troll-shit' in the living room and leave them to the consequences when it hits the fan, and the public, seeing finally that their tax dollars are being consumed on a gravytrain ("in the dining car of free lunch"), insists on a better deal.

(Mirror mirror on the wall..)

"Many people here are home-schooling because our education system has them come out dumber than they went in."  J.T - USA.

"Children have this habit of thinking for themselves, and the point of education is to cure them of this habit." ~ Bertrand Russell.

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Florian Stirs the Pot

(Trackin' the Sackin')

2013-02-13  : Too Funny

Having been banned from the discourse because I was deemed not to be engaged in reasonable and rational debate, but nevertheless tracking the gladiatorial contest between the Greatest Scientific Achievement since Sliced Bread with Jamonit, and poor old unscientific Earth expansion, I couldn't help noticing this funny one today by one of the Pteros -  :-

"I imagine about the same time you realize that posting on a web forum that is dedicated to far far more than your silly version doesn't provide you any protection from having it pointed out that if this insanity held any merit it could be published in a major geology journal. Get it?

... to which the obvious reply (which would get me banned again for sure) (as being a remark offensive to the forum) would be that a lot of insanity *is* published in major geological journals, even insanity that has *no* merit (acknowledging however that some of the greatest expressions of human intellect have been deemed 'insane' until Jo Blog dinosaurs "get it", whereupon it overnight becomes pedestrian,  swamp-squelching, commonplace cud-munching for the tribe).

You can swear to your heart's content, abuse contributions in the vilest invective - provided you use cuss-words and don't attempt anything more literary.  Literary merit would be deemed offensive to the forum these days of mis-spelling and tortured syntax masquerading as acceptable scientific communication.  The above point would be deemed, not to be replying to what's said, but to be being offensive to the forum at large, namely, .. it would be referred to general cogitation and they all would throw a tissy fit, feel diminished and squeal.

 (How 'science' purports to conduct itself ) (giggle and point).  Which of course is why judgement is anonymous.

And that's not even mentioning the content of the rest of the forum he's taking about.  This one has now gone to P429, and looks like it might even get to P430, when Florian gets back.  I wouldn't even bother to check what the rest of them have gone to, given the claim of skepticism.  They're certainly a very skeptical bunch on this one, even when it comes to the simplest observation, like the crust collapsing BIGTIME (bigtime) .. mountains resulting from erosion of the dirt, and mountain belts resulting from collapse of the crust.  Evidently they find collapse in the mantle is ok, but not in the crust, even though it's the collapse in the crust we *can* see, and collapse in the mantle that we *can't*.

Nothing like some home 'pseudoscience' truths is there?  (about not offending the forum or the sobriety of science.)


(Bunch of fixers)  ...  Here (trumpeting one of those truths again), .. save you googling :-

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."   

I think some of these guys hold themselves to be Earth scientists  .. 'Hold'  (amongst other things like venerating 'subduction' /"sucking-and-pulling" and oh-yes, mantle wind) being the operative word.

(Oh dear, .. Banned again..)

(Fixers.)

Booing and Jeering

(Answering Stephen Hurrell comment here.)


(Transparent indeed.)  Metaphorical face-pulling and jeering,  ridicule and denigration is a standard tactic in science to reject unpalatable findings, though not usually so blatant.  Google  [Rationalskeptics + "point and laugh"] to see it pervades the whole forum.  'Pointing and laughing'  >> 'booing and jeering'.  Not quite sure what the next stage is.  Fisticuffs probably.

So much for Moderation, eh?  Under such protection it wasn't possible to get even close to having Plate Tectonics recognised as  "Just a Theory" in order to compare with Earth expansion.

Nevertheless,  it is fairly confronting to be faced all at once with evidence for Earth expansion, evidence that the Plate Tectonic paradigm is probably wrong, and evidence that the entire issue is coloured by politics at various levels.  It really is scratching at the underbelly of consensus, and a fine example how the 'scientific method' crudely applied with partisan interest, has led us up the garden path - (Craig Venter :- "I think the way science is conducted around the world, we probably waste over 90% of the money.)

That's quite a threesome to have to deal with, so you can understand the "point-and-laugh" response, because there is nothing else of much substance that can be raised in defence.  It's all it has.  Plate Tectonics *is* only a theory.  It *does* contradict itself whichever way it turns (and is therefore unworkable), there is *ample* evidence for Earth expansion, and Earth expansion *does* explain global geology much better.  (And the literature is replete with the dodgy shenanigans of practicing scientists in general.)

And it's all  substantiated.

Plate Tectonics *is* a big lie.  *That* is the story that can never be written because there are too many ramifications that these days of litigation are too risky to probe too deeply.  As we have just seen institutional  interest can be ferociously brutal (e.g. academic, in the way that young fellow Aaron Schwartz was recently hounded to his death for making available to the public, information that the public had already paid for; political in the way that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is similarly currently being hounded for 'political' transgression. (Who can forget that video of those helicopter killings done in our name?)).

"Oh yeah?  What about the helicopter that killed Osamabinladen then?"

And as I write, that other Bin Laden, ..Obama, ..under fire from the National Rifle Association for having a bodyguard for *his* children and denying their call for all children in American schools to be similarly protected. (And just in case of any autistic interpretation here, let me make it very clear I think Obama compared to the alternative is just fine.  God save us from *rampant* protectionism (Google 'Lenore Skenazy') (or here if you'd rather listen) that appears to afflict America from "knee pads for crawling babies" (google images) to automatic assault weaponry for drivers and home owners.

See?   It's all about scale and sense of proportion.
 
I'm not optimistic about public freedoms in the face of those who see their role in policing them.  One thing seems certain though - in today's world individuals are very much targets for attention if they step out of line.

The whole area (PT / EE) just needs a good clean-up, beginning (I think) in the schools as an object lesson in the way science works (or rather doesn't), ..but I don't know if it can be done.  Only the geological subtext will eventually creep out-from-under as a casualty survivor, but the aegis that buried it will be left untouched as "not the issue". 

But it is entirely the issue, and it was what allowed the lie to develop and flourish. In this case it doesn't much matter, because it is only geology. There are no real pecuniary interests such as there are in pharmaceuticals or biotech.  The closest we get is questioning the lengths institutions will go to to secure their kudos.  So there are no serious ramifications (if we count our children's education as of no consequence). However it is precisely because of this that it has thrived, and is therefore a prime example of  'science gone wrong'.  It's a corruption.  There's a lot to say about it.  (Society going wrong is another (but similar) story :: Scale, cause-and-effect, and sense of proportion.  There's one for quantification: how do you model that lot?

I see the thread is still locked. With four hundred and twenty pages of Booing-and-Jeering I think it has proved itself to be too adversarial. There are other ways.



[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Banned ! (The day the music died?)

(..The marching band that refused to yield.. )


[Click on images below for bigger ones.]

[I'm posting this to refute the charge on Rationalskeptics that I was "a disruptive influence incapable of reasoned and rational debate".  If you read my collection of "offensive behaviours" see if you find them justified given the context.  You might even wonder (as I do) if the targets to whom they are directed might not enjoy a degree of moderator protection.]




CERTIFICATE OF BANISHMENT
P418 Post #8350

..authenticating my credentials. (You can make that red-card image bigger by the way if you just click on it but here's the link down the bottom (save you typing it.)

Judgement
handed down

by Kiore
For what?  "..An intention to be not here to engage in reasoned and rational debate".
Why banned ?   Because hanging around will only prolong the disruptive posting(s)


Kiore  is a moderator on Rationalskepticism.org.  If you click the link at the bottom of the red card it will take you to an admirable project to use the latent power of computers connected to the web as a supercomputer to aid scientific research - a very laudable enterprise indeed - with which Kiore is closely associated, if not steering.  If he/she is steering, then that's not bad (for a mouse) (a hundred and one years old) (from South Sudan), eh?

Not that we're being ...  or animalist, .. or ageist, .. or nationalist you understand, .. just drawing attention to the anonymity that scientists prefer when they're indulging themselves in the company of news-and-views and people they would otherwise prefer not to be seen with - like Earth expansion for example. And/or the cabal who would like to sink it.  In such situations it does seem advisable not to let your real identity show.  You just never know who might be looking, .. or when you might be called upon to change hats, .. reverse your position, .. and it wouldn't do to be seen sporting a skunks bum. Might be ok when out hunting, .. but not when the scientific fashion (and needs for justifying grants submissions) requires something a bit more sophisticated.

So why banned?  Because, says Moderator Kiore,  I'm not there to "engage in reasoned and rational debate".

Now, .. I would dispute that entirely, as I think my postings in response to any 'reasoned and rational' points raised show.  In fact I might be credited with making a few (but that's easy for anybody to check). It's just that there's so little that would qualify as reasoned and rational to respond to.  When so much of the so-called 'reason and rationality' is pejorative and puerile comment, exchanges are rarely constructive.  But I do (/did) my best.

(Disruptive /stirring 'em up)   Mm-Mmm?  Now, .. I would agree with that wholeheartedly!, and would say that if anything,  congratulations would have been in order, .. *anything* (!) to disturb the so-called 'rationalism' that supports the turgidity that Plate Tectonics wallows in would have been welcome surely, but no, .. rather it seems to mean that anything that detracts from that stagnation is considered 'disruptive'. Quirky world.  I had already received my fourth red card by the time this blue note (below) showed up, which marks the beginning of 'the troubles'.  I didn't experience it.   I wasn't there.  I was already banned. But neverthless I got blamed for it.  My fourth warning (/month's suspension) was withdrawn and converted to a ban.

This was the start of  "The Troubles".

P418, post #8342



(A bit further down the same page is my banned notice, shown here at the top of the page.)

"Highly emotive today," says blue note.  So  what was happening?  Well, .. what was happening was that Spearthrower was feigning a tissy-fit over me having called him a nig-nog on my blog (note: not on the forum).  A what?  Yup. He'd read my blog you see, where I was commenting on the Kangaroo Court that had just awarded me my fourth red card (below) banning me for a month for "abusing" Gingko, and I had said he (Spearthrower.) was a bit of a dill.   I think it possible he was the one drawing my "insult-to Gingko" to the attention of moderators, since he said I had been reported so quickly after the fact (how would he know otherwise?)  He's forever creating diversions and lighting fires. Seems it's the only way he can contribute to discussion - "throwing spears around". Read any of his posts.   And note that it *was* on my blog and not on the forum.)  I called him a nig-nog specifically because of his propensity to use ridicule ("pointing and laughing") and it being the apparent limit of his repertoire in debate.  Not ridicule on account of illogic that can be discussed but simply just making faces and jeering (metaphorically speaking).  Others' responses typically add swearing to their accoutrements.  Gets a bit jading - hence the 'nig-nog'.  But apparently swearing and jeering is ok under the rules of the forum, and goes under the aegis of 'robust debate'.  It seems to be a case of the management having these attack dogs on the front line to do the savaging - the "willing idiots".  I wouldn't be surprised if half the time they don't understand their role in this 'Rationalskepticism'.)  Or maybe they just feel a natural predisposition to fulfil a role that is happily symbiotic..

So there he is, .. feigning umbrage and creating a stir and distorting the word - claiming copyright on it because he lives in England.  (Crikey, it might even be Scotland ! except no true Scot would do such a thing).  Well if that's the case he should know nig-nog has got nothing to do with Deep-Tan, and goodness only knows where the eggnog connection comes from.. Anyway, .. I had to post an explanation on the origin of the term as best I understand it, though some modern meanings appear to have arisen on the urban dictionary as people bandy it around.  Saves them inventing new ones and why bother when there are plenty already (clown, nig-nog, dill, dope, idiot..etc etc), and why get picky over which one applies to you, unless you want to wear it like a badge (for some reason - like, .. to show people "what-he-just-did").


So there we are.  I called him a nig-nog on my blog.

And he feigned a tissy fit on the forum, dragging in others.

And so my month's suspension for insulting Ginko was withdrawn and I was banned instead (for "being disruptive and having no intention to engage in reasoned and rational debate."

Here's my fourth red card, a bit further down the same page as that blue note above banning me for a month (for "insulting" Gingko). The othersr follow in reverse order, so you can see how I got my black belt in 'insulting behaviour'.

 FOURTH ACTIVE WARNING (P416 post#8320)
 The offence cited goes to Post #8259 on P413.

(In which Gingko escapes with a caution) (the blue note just above the red one) Why shouldn't there be a first time penalty for truly abusive invective.  One might ask, but Moderator View appears to be, "It's not what's said that matters, if you want to be offended by it that's your business."  Exactly this point is the substance of the first and fourth warnings - and those in between as well.


 THIRD ACTIVE WARNING (P391, post #7802)
The offence cited goes to post #7760 on  P388.

(Paul changed his avatar since the mention.  Here's Paul, suffering from homeopathy)

SECOND ACTIVE WARNING, (P379, post #7566)
Offences cited are  1.  post #7425 on P372, and 2. post #7419 on P371

(Note that the enquiry regarding infection was a reference to a virus alert on the frontpage of the forum at the time, in conjunction with the gobbledegook posting to which it referred.) ("Please be aware this is a witless zone.  Any posts that can in anyway be construed as a joke will be deemed offensive due to the cognitive incapacity of the resident cabal to understand this form of communication.")

FIRST ACTIVE WARNING,  (P367, post #7324)
(The link refers to a couple of posts just higher up the same page, ..post #7321 )

So you can see how I went from bad to worse, and how the forum was seriously endangered by my "insults", culminating in my fourth red card being "awarded", then summarily withdrawn in my absence and replaced with a ban : I was being abusive, they were engaging in reasoned and rational debate.  Though I repudiate entirely calling any of them "scum" and "vermin".  That again was Shakespeare wrestling with his flea-infested straw, and using poetic licence to represent my reference to a 'kangaroo court' as vermin, a term I do believe has respectable currency and which refers exactly to this situation, .. and that is not _ of _ my _ making.  (Though I carried the can.)


Well, it was an experience in the world of reasoned and rational debate.  The best bit I thought was where they all jumped out and detonated themselves, when I said I had just learned that the Earth was oblate ( post #7541 and following few responses).  That was really quite funny.  What was not funny however was what it revealed - an astonishing inability to see through a leg-pull given that most of their 'degredation-posts' are themselves mostly leg-pulls (to the best of my reading), not really meant to apply personally.  One misguided jihadist I could understand, .. but several, .. and all pushing each other out of the way to detonate first.  (Holey Moley!!).  It was virtually an exact copy of the nig-nog furore - except I think the nig-nog response was so surely feigned, the oblate Earth one most certainly was not.  All of a sudden I understand the Koran jihadists's response to cartoons - and why I was banned..   Is Salman Rushdie still in hiding?  Are women in the west treated any better than in Pakistan?  (Going by some women's experiences this side of the dark, it's debateable.)

Judgement :-

(Kangaroo) :- "No madam, simply because he punched the wall, kicked the cat, .. broke all the plates and stuck a knife through the bread fixing it to the table whilst informing the neighbours at large of his great good fortune in having married you, does not mean he was being abusive towards you in any way. He was merely expressing a robust domestic view, just as you were exemplifying domestic bliss by sipping your wine and reading your book whilst he did so. To this court's way of thinking both of you are the epitome of domestic harmony.  I am of the opinion that you are being abusive of your spouse by expecting to lodge a complaint.  I therefore issue you with a blue card and suggest you return home and put the dinner on so you do not, if you so object, have to witness a repeat of what we can only regard (as indeed your husband declared to the neighbours), as a somewhat excited affirmation of your virtuous qualities.  But in no way threatening to your person as you suggest.  No true Scotsman would ever contemplate abuse.."

"Award" :-   (I must say, I was really struck by the "being awarded" my fourth red card.)

"Now, .. Do the right thing and stand still please, while I award you this bullet as a reward for your contribution to making this forum a better place by your absence."

The really strange thing (about the oblate Earth) was the way it went right over their heads.  If a leg-pull like that is too subtle, what chance for them seeing the flaws in Plate Tectonics?  Would they have the wit to question it?  Or see the questions if put to them?   And if, as I think, most of the 'abusive banter' is not really meant to be abusive, but simply obstructive and disruptive (to which I was to an extent mirrorring), then all things considered it seems highly possible that *THAT* was the charge of being disruptive - not just for joshing them out of their literalist comfort zone, but in being too close to the bone in mirroring their reflection back to them.  (Or was what was revealed in the mirror for real?)  (Oh, Gee..) (Australia's future, .. hairdressers and make-up artists, late-stirrers and sunny-sellers.)

Some swamp that rational place.

(Think I'll go down the sea-side for a paddle and contemplate where all that sand and water came from, and why the Earth isn't just a big beach.)


[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Banned ("The day the Music died")

( Holding page for what was revealed.)


Hmm, ... Looks like the Black Spot's turned up today.  This doesn't look good.  The Thwoth is an apologist for rough language.   It will be interesting to see what he makes of this in the context of the few following posts addressing 'rough language'.

[Addendum, 14th January, 10am.  I see the Thwoth has changed his avatar today.]

MOD. THWOTH YESTERDAY
(click the images for bigger ones)

MOD THWOTH TODAY

Make of it what you like, .. but I think he's trying to put a different complexion on things. ( Oi moight be wrong, but T'aats what oi t'ink.  An' Oim nat two broight.)