51. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208757 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #208728 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 7:27 am

Could I ask you to focus, for a moment, on the young lad involved?

If he intended offence - good.

If he did not - then he knows precisely how to go about it next time.

This young man's life is now the focus of intense scrutiny. He has received death threats from those whose membership he may once have counted on to be with him through thick and thin. He has no idea where his future is headed. He is small, wounded, probably scared out of his wits about his future. He knows that his case is taken up by a secular avenger called PZ, which leads him, in his hunger for some support, to this website.

And then he reads your and others' posts.

'You must understand the hurt you've caused'.

'You must understand that you have been rude.'

He reads, shrinks back, and cries. Wiping his tears away, he thinks 'But PZ is totally for me. I did just take away a 'goddamned cracker''.

Styrer says: support the little fucker, come what may. A few others do too. Some are in the middle. Others veer towards apology to the congregants of the Church - they can do and say what they like. 'Little fucker was a guest, don't you know, and should have honoured the host-guest relationship.'

Fair summary?

And so I plough ever deeper.

What the FUCK are we lamenting here on almost a daily basis if it is not the wicked control that faith and religion exercise on those that we consider unfortunates? What does this site do if it does not promote the rights of the religiously-victimised?

Is it just about such self-seeking geniuses as Susskind?

I think the priority here was to get this young fella out of trouble, as quickly as possible, buttressed with as much support as possible.

This was never - as Decius mistakenly saw it - about stifling debate. The only idea that was put forth for stifling was actually my own criticism. It was all about us lot being faced with a real-world crisis, which would require a staunch and unrelenting campaign of approbation for the young Cook.

We fucking failed.

Not one fucker stood up and said 'it's religion that's trying to fuck up his life; fuck his motives, fuck his lack of courtesy, fuck his ill-manners; this guy is one of our own and we'll bend the moon to the fucking earth to make sure he comes out ok.'

Not a fucking one.

Except PZ and probably Richard.

I'll draw to a close, lest you fall asleep.

I don't think this has been this site's members' finest hour.

We can all surely do better.

Best,
Styrer

52. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208726 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 7:25 am

Wordsworth. Lines composed above Tintern Abbey.

Even typing out the provenance sends shivers down my spine.

Supernatural?

Pah.

Humans are better than they're often given credit for, I think.

I just love people doing things superbly.

Best,
Styrer

53. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208717 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #208702 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:53 am

It's a point not made often enough.

It exposes us for the beseeching, yearning, trying and utterly fallible beings we really are.

Religion tries to take all these and make of them a virtue, as long as a precise code - encapsulating the very mind of a god - is followed.

Humanity is quite enough, thank you.

I don't often do this, but I'd like to quote here my favourite lines of English poetry, if no-one minds. I think they're apposite.

For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue.

I catch it now and then, I think. It's a great sound.

But sometimes you must simply ignore it and kick ass!

For what it's worth.

Best,
Styrer

54. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208699 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #208693 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:43 am

I return those honest best wishes to you, with sincerity.

But you continue to puzzle me.

I can never quite work out at moments of crisis - like PZ's here - where you truly stand.

Fuck it. Why do I expect e-people to be any more comprehensible than ones standing in front of me.

A mystery all.

Best,
Styrer

55. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208689 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #208681 by Steve Zara on July 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Well, well.

If, Steve, you think that my no-holds-barred approach 'isn't worth engaging with', I suppose you have some evidence to support the efficacy of your own feeble, appeasing, and 'let's not quarrel' approach.

Please present.

As far as I can see - do take a laugh here, at how limited that may be, on me - your pathetic criticisms of PZ have never rendered anything like the level of success that he, in all his wonderfully irreverent and - dare I say? - 'full-on-foul-mouthed view' opinions have dug forcibly into a globally listening attention, ready for discussion.

While you, sir, at the first sign of conflict, simply withdraw, and re-position yourself on a thread where you can, quite rightly and very illuminatingly, move into discussions scientific.

If, sir, you do not think truly that there is a 'cause' here - protecting not only PZ against the shit thrown by irrational wankers everywhere at him, but trying to safeguard - with VIGOUR - those rights, freedoms and enjoyments by which we can all actually be here - then you can fuck the hell off with your snide, glancing, unengaged potshots at someone who simply has a different approach to you.

Styrer

56. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208678 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Comment #208672 by Butler on July 11, 2008 at 6:19 am

No, sir. You misunderstand.

Cook's action was an 'invasive direct action', 'ill-mannered', and it 'caused hurt' to the beneficent hosts who welcomed him into their bosom.

But the lad's receiving treatment was, of course, abominable.

Get with the programme.

Best,
Styrer

57. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208671 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #208658 by clodhopper on July 11, 2008 at 6:02 am

Styrer: Since you seem to have less brain than a donkeys dildo it's pointless talking to you.

Get back to wanking you fucking jerk off twat faced idiot....

Terrific rebuttal.

Eloquent too. Pity you couldn't bring such verbal power to the unstinting protection of a religion-hunted innocent.

Fucking wimp.

Entirely worthy of such a lily-livered, cowardly, propitiating gobshite dickhead as yourself.

Twat.

Styrer

58. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208653 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #208639 by clodhopper on July 11, 2008 at 5:33 am

Comment #208583 by Styrer

......To which, sadly, you have simply retorted 'that's nice'.


...Which was in response to your kind invitation for me to 'clod off', the meaning of which is, ironically, not at all clear.


What do you mean by 'within reason'?


It means that the law circumscribes what actions we can or can't take in the limitations of freedom. Like it or not, it is that which both protects our freedom but also limits it.

I want the law/s linking church and state in this country removed.

I want the avenues by which religion influences public policy formation blocked off.

I want the freedom to insult/ridicule and generally cast scorn on irrationality from whatever source.

I want the quiff of elvis to cure my rampaging eczema but, guess what?

I want to defend peoples rights to believe whatever horseshit they want so long as they leave me the fuck alone.

Hope that helps

best

clod

Oh boy. You again.

All above agreed.

But cast your mind back to where I called you out:

'invasive direct action without thinking through the consequences'

And so you cast this young university lad into a pit - fulminating with Catholic Cunts ready to tear him apart - because of his 'invasive direct action'.

FUCK OFF, CLOD!!!!

IT WAS A FUCKING CRACKER!!!

Reviewing your comment that this poor guy - who is as we speak having his life ripped apart by the very forces that you occasionally take to task here - was engaged, according to your twisted fucked up mind, in 'INVASIVE DIRECT ACTION' makes me wonder why the fuck I ever tried to see eye-to-eye with a propitiatory and ill-thinking appeaser such as you in the first place.

Won't make the same mistake again.

Moron.

Styrer

59. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208643 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 5:38 am

Comment #208635 by Quetzalcoatl on July 11, 2008 at 5:23 am

Quetz

The fucker's one and only previous post gives his game completely away:

As a historian and a thinker, I still have eye for the positive effects in this confrontation of opinions and facts: it is only trough listening to each other, to testimonies of terrible life stories, and through explaining in a clear and human way certain deep Truths, like Richard has done, that science, that thinking can make progress!

Like Jesus sometimes has reasoned, according to the gospels: "This terrible event (like the death of his best friend El Azar/Lazarus) just makes it possible for me to show how great a Man I am - I will deal with this".

Inverse NOMA is as dangerous and intellectually dishonest, says I, as the real fucking thing.

I spent too long on the fucker. Ignore the twat.

Best,
Styrer

60. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208625 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 5:08 am

Comment #208594 by Stefaan C. Hublou on July 11, 2008 at 4:09 am

Well, Richard and you all dear folks, I have done my contribution: here's the letter I wrote.

You will see that I am in a mid-position between biologists and religiously active people,
and putting emphasis on mutual respect!

To R. Bruininks, president of University of Minnesota
Via e-mail

Topic: PZ Meyer and the need of a friendly open culture of debate

Dear Sir,

I hope you and your University are doing fine; I just read some less good news on the Richard Dawkins website.

I am Stefaan Christopher Hublou, historian living in the university town of Leuven, Belgium and I would like to offer my personal support to dr. PZ Meyers, whom I heard is being threatened by certain ideological extremists recently.

I am an amateur biologist myself fond of reading the books of Charles Darwin, and feeling very close to his Mind that was always on the outlook for deeper truths. My formation as a historian has endowed me with respect for the stance made by the philosopher A. N. Whitehead: "Faithfulness to the actual images of God is always service to Idols".

And that is my view while I pray daily, fervently, and while I am in regular contact with church leaders over the debate Science-Religion that is so topical all over the world these days. In my opinion, Evolution theory can and will help to purify the image of the Creator, the Mystery that carries everything, just as the historical-literary approach of Bible texts has done so since the sixteenth-seventeenth century.

Thank you for your attention and for your understanding of the position of PZ Meyer.

Yours truly,

Stefaan Hublou

While you have made clear that you are offering PZ your support, you have failed spectacularly to explain what the fuck the rest of your post means.

How 'amateur' are you as a biologist, in fact?

The answer must be 'very' when you say 'Charles Darwin, and feeling very close to his Mind that was always on the outlook for deeper truths'.

What deeper truths? Do you or do you not accept the staggering amount of evidence which makes of evolution a buttoned-down fact?

You are a truly bizzare individual. You wish to pursue an interest in biology, which will require you, as you should know, to rely very heavily on evidence; yet the following unevidenced, unsupported statement takes you as far away from being a biologist as a magnificently preserved turd in the sea is as far from the anus which squeezed its exit.

Evolution theory can and will help to purify the image of the Creator, the Mystery that carries everything

Would you care to explain what the fuck you are talking about?

If I were PZ, yours would be the kind of approbation from which I would happily, and skippily, part.

At the moment you simply look like a sad little semen-stain, onanistically created.

Care to persuade me that you are not simply a lonesome religious wingnut tool?

Your move, sport.

Styrer

61. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208583 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 3:49 am

Comment #208548 by clodhopper on July 11, 2008 at 3:10 am

All sorts of people in society are telling you what to feel, think & do all of the time; Politicians, Advertisers, Campaign Groups, Environmentalists, Religions.

It's up to you what you do about it, within reason. Within reason.

Er, quite.

It is, I agree, up to me what I do about each of these.

So what?

I have expressed my opinion and explained why I react in this case as I have. To which, sadly, you have simply retorted 'that's nice'.

Would you care to clarify your repeated: 'within reason'? What do you mean by 'within reason'? By whose boundaries will you set its definition? Does the second iteration of it grant its original import - as utterly unclear as it is - more authority?

You are not being at all clear.

Styrer

62. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208524 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #208436 by clearmind on July 11, 2008 at 12:17 am

cLEARmind

FuCK OFf.

Styrer

63. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208495 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 1:43 am

Comment #208459 by clodhopper on July 11, 2008 at 12:48 am

And Clodhopper clodded:

I want to live in a society where I am free to worship the quiff of elvis if I want to. Do you want to deny me that right?

Not at all. Worship away. Until you reach the point where you start telling ME what to think; what to believe; what to do; until it - as every religion does - Elvis-quifftianity included - reaches a critical mass whereby it commands respect and an increasing following demanding that I submit to the collective's will.

As soon as your Elvisly 'dead outgrowth of protein' cult begins to have ideas on when a blastocyst is imbued with 'rock and roll' and thereby causes untold misery to millions by such imposition; when it begins to formulate here-on-earth punishments for those not willing to subscribe and submit to its hirsute doctrines; when it begins to take away my and, oh how ironically, YOUR own right, as a fervent follower of the 'Quiff', to live life in peace, freethinkingly, enjoyably and rationally - then, sir, I will 'deny you that right', and I will do whatever I can to ensure that your voice will never again be heard.

Clod on, if you wish, at the same time that you simply clod off.

Best,
Styrer

64. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208438 by Styrer- on July 11, 2008 at 12:21 am

Comment #208421 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I have worked and lectured at a university. It is possible that correspondence from outside the area served by the university would be ignored. It may even seen like interference.

I cannot help thinking that this is disingenuous. The plea to help PZ was posted by Richard Dawkins on his own worldwide-reaching website. 'Please write in support of PZ Myers' is the title of the thread Richard himself seemingly penned - and for which he most certainly wrote a specifically RD.Net piece, urging ALL members to help, with no stated delimitations on country or area. So why your question?

''On the 'Goddamned Cracker' thread, you were one of the first to express anxiety about the way we all were or were not showing courteous, civilized behaviour towards those very fucking Catholic Cult members who have, because of a fucking biscuit, tried to rip a young man's life to fucking pieces.''


'No. All I said was that what Cook did was rude.'


Rude, sir? To whom? Because he had 'agreed on entering to play by their rules'? How far do you really want to press this point, Steve? 'Well, if you join the Ku Klux Klan, it's not nice to walk out in the middle of one of their ceremonies. I'm only concerned with being kind to fellow humans here. It would be rude to walk out with the hat of the fella who didn't turn up'.

What, Steve, is the fucking difference when we are talking about a fucking CULT? Which has devastated chances for life and happiness globally over so many years for so many? Whose anti-human doctrines continue to this day to make the present lives of its adherents an utter mockery of what it means to be alive and to appreciate it?

But no. None of this - even adding in the disgusting notions of original sin, vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, and the life-destroying 'lake of fire' - is enough to stop you harbouring that vicious little meme: 'what Cook did was rude'.

In my never so humble opinion - you, and all of your supporters on this, are utterly and flat-out wrong.

How's that for a bit of non-stalking?

Best,
Styrer

65. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208412 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Comment #208402 by Steve Zara on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

If I may, Steve, jump in here, at the risk that you will call 'stalker' again on me.

Here, on this thread, you posed, as a blogger relying on international support for your own blog's existence as does PZ, the incredible question to Richard Dawkins 'Would contributions from those of us who aren't in the USA help?'

I cannot believe that you really needed to ask such a question.

On the 'Goddamned Cracker' thread, you were one of the first to express anxiety about the way we all were or were not showing courteous, civilized behaviour towards those very fucking Catholic Cult members who have, because of a fucking biscuit, tried to rip a young man's life to fucking pieces.

Can you begin to understand why, if you have any proper respect for my own opinion over that of a religious fruitcake's, I think that your stance simultaneously weakens a critical response to this disgusting affair and strengthens my notion that your weak-willed liberal approach - shared by all too many here - simply will not do? That you are thereby granting far too much by way of any respect to superstitious supernaturalists who should not even earn from you the right to ask you the fucking time of day?

Best,
Styrer

66. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208403 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #208399 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Typos, doc, are unfortunately routine here.

But please never permit your aesthetic sense of charity to hold you back from what you think you MUST say.

In such bold and solitary manner will you risk rising above those whom you wish to take to task.

Best,
Styrer

67. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208397 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Comment #208396 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:15 pm

While I don't think you've expressed yourself correctly, I share your sentiment exactly.

Well and precisely intended.

Best,
Styrer

68. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208395 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Comment #208392 by clearmind on July 10, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

www.fuckoff.com

69. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208391 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Comment #208388 by clearmind on July 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

70. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208386 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Comment #208382 by clearmind on July 10, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

71. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #208379 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Comment #208375 by clearmind on July 10, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

72. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208373 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Not to impugn Richard's memory, but certainly to allow for the huge number of posts which may have at least distracted his attention, as they should anyone's, I repeat, just in case:

Could Richard please show us his own letter of endorsement of PZ?

I would like to see the differences of approach between an Oxford Professor and the rest of us, if any.

Would be helpful for future encounters, perhaps.

Many thanks.

Best,
Styrer

73. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208329 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Comment #208310 by Nietzschesbulldog on July 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm

It occurred to me (As I compose my email to President Robert Bruininks) that there must be more that we can do to in support of PZ. At the most I would like to propose a counter campaign, an email barrage sent to the Catholic League from supporters of PZ. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have an email address on their web site . . . they do have a fax number though: Fax: (212) 371-3394

It seems unfair that the forum for this skirmish should be fought in the inbox of a university president and not in the inbox of the Catholic League. We should convince them of our support for PZ

any way,

kick ass, PZ!!!

Yes.

Once again, the defensive position is necessarily taken up by those who - let's be clear about this - hold to ideas which increase the sum of human knowledge AGAINST the prosecutorial dicks who are holding back the whole of fucking humanity's development.

Bringing the whole theistically-created shitwad to the very door of those who shat it in the first place is desirable.

How, sir, do you propose we do this? Any specifics?

Don't forget you have a bunch of people even on this site who will not tolerate 'ill manners' to theists, no matter how disgustingly ill-mannered those theists' own principles and actions are towards the rest of us.

Best,
Styrer

74. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208306 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Comment #208291 by Ed-words on July 10, 2008 at 8:02 pm

(but I'm stayin')

Great.

I await your unequivocal statement of support for our man under unfair pressure, PZ Myers, with breathless anticipation.

Don't be shy, sport.

Best,
Styrer

75. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208300 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm

I wonder if it would be impertinent to say to Richard that 'we've shown you ours; would you now care to show us yours?'

Without any ensuing 'oor er matrons', I would genuinely like to see what Richard wrote, by which to measure our own submitted responses.

Thanks to Richard if he provides; none, of course, if he doesn't!

In anticipation,
Styrer

76. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208288 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Comment #208275 by Ed-words on July 10, 2008 at 7:35 pm

No tolerance for your criticism of PZ here, mate.

Take your reservations to the appropriate thread, if you haven't shoved them up your arse in the meantime.

Smelly thereafter or not, elsewhere's the place to get them out for inspection.

Not here.

Git.

Styrer

77. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208265 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Comment #208245 by Ed-words on July 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Oy, Ed-Words.

Not precisely, but along those lines. So what?

Got a problem with that, do you?

You're on the wrong fucking thread, man.

Take a look at the title of this thread again, before you fuck the hell off.

Moron.

Styrer

78. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208243 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Comment #208226 by NeverarGreat on July 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Superb! Laughed my fucking socks off.

How better, in fact, to combat anti-PZ tactics than with PZ tactics themselves.

Worthy of the master himself, sir!

Best,
Styrer

79. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208230 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm

"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said.

Comment #208220 by JeremyH on July 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Replace 'gay rights' with 'religious beliefs' and replace 'religious beliefs' with sexual preferences.

Well said. I will indeed, for all to see, replace as invited:

Religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to bully and harrass people over their gay rights.

Now we are all clear.

What a most contemptible fucking shame of humanity both this woman and the court's decision truly are.

Best,
Styrer

80. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208161 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Comment #208155 by Cartomancer on July 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Or:

'As the President of a respected academic institution, you are, I have no doubt, above the...'

It's a twat of a grammatical 'rule', of course, utterly ignored in speech all the time, but in writing...well, I now see its merits, particularly after having the piss taken out of me by one particular teacher long, long ago...!

Sorry if I seemed as mean-spirited in mentioning this as that particularly vile old sadist...:)

Best,
Styrer

81. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208149 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Mr. Poffley!

What!

'As the President of a respected academic institution I have...'

Arrrgh!

Never mind, the points you make are as excellent as ever...:)

Best,
Styrer

82. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208143 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Now sent the following: (Fuck me, it was hard not to include even one of my beloved expletives. I feel a withdrawal-symptom-induced rant of extraordinary proportions coming on...)

'Dear President Bruininks

It is with pleasure that I kindly ask you to consider my full endorsement of Dr. Myers' exemplary and commendable treatment of the recent contemptible 'Catholic Cracker' affair.

That a call for Dr. Myers' dismissal from your institution by your hand is being 'demanded' in this case by those who set their face against reason and rationality, and whom of course Dr. Myers takes to formidable and magnificent task as often as he can along with his colleague Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford, is an outrage of breathtaking arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy which can only earn our collective disgust and condemnation.

Trusting that you concur that Dr. Myers deserves nothing short of wholehearted and unflinching support and encouragement in this matter, and that your handling of this matter as President will reflect this, I thank you sincerely for your time in adding my own unqualified message of support for Dr. Myers to those others which you are no doubt fast accumulating.

Yours sincerely,

(Full name, address and contact details)'

Hope it does some fucking good. (Ahh, feeling a bit better already...)

Best,
Styrer

83. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207584 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 3:11 am

The short answer is that Stephen was wrong and I was right. But that is a tremendous oversimplification and I would not like history to see it that way.

Is this not rather like saying 'I would not like you to think of a pink elephant'? :)

Fascinating stuff, in any case.

Best,
Styrer

84. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207068 by Styrer- on July 9, 2008 at 6:23 am

I am frankly amazed at some of the lily-livered, handwringingly pathetic comments here, fretting or at least expressing concerns about 'ill manners', and about 'causing hurt' to this innocent fellow's so-called 'hosts'.

Take a moment to consider just how very much more than 'ill-mannered' the disgusting Catholic Cult's doctrines preached daily in the above Church are towards us 'original sinners'; reflect on their foul and inhuman revelling in the torturous death of a fellow human being, carried out that the members of this cult can enjoy eternal joy while the rest of us shriek in barbecued agony forever.

Who, as I describe it, is truly showing the true fucking 'ill manners' here? Who is the 'tasteless' party here? Who is the real 'cause' of 'hurt'?

This horribly vilified young man has committed no crime, yet has received the most disproportionately venomous shite imaginable, together with threats to his life, for simply walking off with, indeed, 'a goddamned cracker'. Anyone offering even a nod of apology or understanding of the Catholic Cult's position here immediately buys into granting a level of respect to its inhuman and grotesque 'symbolism', together with buying into the horrendous notion that whatever the irrational fucks say behind closed doors is in some way off-limits from criticism, that is flat-out perverse.

I thought that this young lad would have been able to find unflinching support HERE, of all places.

Best,
Styrer

85. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204541 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 6:57 am

Rachel

I enjoyed this. Thanks!

(Of course, as a gay woman, you're going to have your work cut out for you in justifying just why you should not be put first to the Islamic sword. Having their way, you will, of course, be required to leave this life in violent and horrendous fashion, just as many other 'sinners' will under Sharia law. Give me a call if you're in trouble, and I'll do my best impression of a faith-hating Rambo!)

Take care,
Styrer

86. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204535 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #204525 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

Just British, living in Ireland.

When you read the Koran, did you treat it as a piece of fiction? Did you marvel at the quaintness of it all? Did you at even one point think 'Oh surely that's just bluster, it's not real?'

Or did you read it as a Muslim reads it? Did you set yourself in the House of War? Or without that venerable metaphorical institution?

Did you read the Hadith in conjunction?

Tell me where in the Koran or in the Hadith there is any fucking get-out clause which will prevail life upon us kafirs instead of death. Clue: there is none.

I appreciate your laudible support for freedom. But you are missing the fact that any propitiation towards Islam via acceptance of even a tiny part of its doctrinal base - Sharia - will begin to erode that very freedom which you are here championing.

And which we all hold dear. Freedom, indeed.

Please be more careful on this one than your propositions on this thread have thus far suggested you're being. This is a biggie.

Best,
Styrer

87. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204521 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #204515 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 5:07 am

Styrer,

Sharia cannot be permitted to gain even the slightest foothold on the formal legal system of the UK. Should you persist in your assertion that 'you can settle disputes however you like', then you immediately relinquish the most important protection afforded to Muslim, apostate and infidel alike in the British Isles.

You keep missing the bit where I say that people can resolve disputes however they like within the framework of English law. That's kind of fundamental. It also happens to be true. Furthermore, it cuts out most of the sanctions prescribed by Sharia.

Incidentally, when do you sleep?

So - again - why must any allowance be granted to any alternative, if there is precisely no need whatsover for an alternative of any kind?

Please answer.

And I sleep when I'm tired. Your utterly indefensible position - which you yourself seem never to tire of promulgating - is keeping me awake. I should thank you for permitting me access to threads I don't normally see at this hour.

Best,
Styrer

88. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204512 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 5:04 am

Comment #204500 by clearmind on July 5, 2008 at 4:40 am

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

89. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204508 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 4:58 am

Comment #204478 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 3:46 am

My position is that Muslims should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. And that includes freedom to settle their disputes in ways that are consistent with English law.

In which case, Rachel, why do you not simply revolve precisely around that circle and proclaim - proudly - that Muslims will only be subject to every and all UK laws as they stand? Why do you step back from uttering that they - especially the women - can be assured that their cases will not be handed back for adjudication by filthy, verminous males subscribing to the doctrines of a faith which is itself reliant for its authority on 7th century fiction as metered out by even more filthy, verminous male shitheads?

Sharia cannot be permitted to gain even the slightest foothold on the formal legal system of the UK. Should you persist in your assertion that 'you can settle disputes however you like', then you immediately relinquish the most important protection afforded to Muslim, apostate and infidel alike in the British Isles.

Your thinking about this is flat out unacceptable.

Best,
Styrer

90. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204456 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #204436 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 1:29 am

Oh joy. Just had my first experience of losing a massive post.

Stryer

Your position seemed to have been that he was quite right to say what he has. That you now - in the face of my rebuttal of your stance - should rather delimit your assertion to a 'well, he did say it to Muslims' seems an extraordinary climb-down from your initial position.

My position was that what Lord Phillips said was a matter of fact. Your rebuttal consisted of asking me why he singled out the Muslim community, if this was so. I replied that he was talking to the Muslim community at the time. I've already said that I think his comments were ill-advised, so how is this is a climb-down?

Was it not your goodself who iterated: 'Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?', offering the obvious message that Muslims can claim a right to their own juridical and mediative measures, quite separate from those measures afforded to the rest of the UK's population?

I must be expressing myself badly.

Imagine a Venn diagram. The universal set = all legal systems. Within that set is "English Law". Overlapping with "English Law" is "Sharia Law". Also overlapping is "Halacha". Inside it are "flipping a coin", "scissors paper stone" and "the polka dance-off".

Any system that falls within the English Law set can be used to settle disputes in England. Insofar as they intersect with English Law, so can systems such as Sharia.

This means that saying "I divorce you" three times is not going to have a legal effect, whatever your imam says. And that, in my view, is right.

Rachel (it's Styrer, by the way; not Stryer)

No.

What Phillips has proposed here is certainly not a matter of fact. He has singled out Islam - and its concomitant judicial authority, Sharia - as worthy of particular (and thankfully only possible) inclusion into UK law as a matter of bias, howsoever it might be motivated. He has, in support of Williams, simply offered his own opinion.

Your reaction to this opinion was 'People can choose whatever means of settling disputes they like'. You must surely see that this, together with your following defence of Phillip's comments - answering the charge of 'presenting a message of weakness' from another poster here with the words 'what Lord Phillips said was not a message of our weakness' - is a straightforward re-iteration of your support for his message. You even capped it off with the words 'you can settle disputes however you like'.

And thence to your climb-down, which you deny. On being challenged about your apparently propitiatory stance towards Islam, Muslims and Sharia, you offered the following:

'let's not forget that he said this (it seems - the article is a little unclear) in a speech at a Muslim centre in east London.'

Why did you even need to mention this? Does your point acquire more authority because of it? Cannot your point stand alone without re-shaping it to a 'well, this was all addressed to Muslims, you know'? I suspect you knew full well that it could not. Hence my accusation of 'climb-down'.

As for your Venn Diagram - you can simply toddle off to the margin with that. As soon as I read even your theoretical 'Overlapping with English Law is Sharia Law', I realised that you are, most probably, a multiculturalist liberal with a great and compassionate heart but who does not understand the first thing about the problem that Islam and its contemptible adherents are handing to us, with individuals like yourself holding out to them an open palm.

Most disappointing.

Styrer

91. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204426 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

Comment #204413 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:04 am

Nicely said.

NOMA is a crock of appeasing, intellectually dishonest shite.

No more fucking room and time for it, says I.

Best,
Styrer

92. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204417 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 12:20 am

Comment #204410 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Fanusi is iterating the fears that should already - by our own investigations - be crowding out the place in our heart where compassion, respect and understanding lie for 'those of other faiths'.

Would even HALF of us have been here lamenting the effects of 'faith', of anti-reason, of superstitious supernaturalism if it had not been for the huge impetus the Four Horsemen gave us post 9/11? The first book, let us please not forget, was by Harris, the quickest, sharpest and boldest to put 9/11 into perspective of the lot of them.

And Harris pinpointed the problem with unerring accuracy. Faith and Islam.

We will forget the despicable cult of Islam's pugnacious, indefatigable nature at our peril.

Thanks to Al, Fanusi, Vin and others for keeping this issue from sliding into the back of otherwise very clever heads far too liberal and compassionate for their own fucking good.

Best,
Styrer

93. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204400 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Lastly, it takes two to tango and that would also apply to cultures at the brink of violent confrontation as I feel the situation is heading now. It is up to some of us to ameliorate heightened tensions to ensure that we dont' lose focus of what makes US different from THEM.

Hold on there a sec, Vin.

Two to tango? Are you implying that somehow we in the UK and in the US have done something to deserve and to require our participation in the deadly Muslim jig?

I cannot accept this.

I trust you are not a Chris Hedges supporter - utterly confused self-loathing westerner that he is - but are you even nudging slightly towards the despicable notion of 'blame the fucking victim' here?

I trust not.

Best,
Styrer

94. Does the Pope wear Prada?

Comment #204399 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Cunt.

No article required to confirm.

'twas always thus, and always thus t'will be.

Next.

Best,
Styrer

95. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204387 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Comment #204386 by clearmind on July 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Clearmind

Fuck off.

Styrer

96. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204384 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #204367 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm

In part for the reason you give, no doubt. However, let's not forget that he said this (it seems - the article is a little unclear) in a speech at a Muslim centre in east London. Why he was giving a speech in a Muslim centre is a relevant question, but without seeing his diary, we have no way of knowing the significance of this.

Your position seemed to have been that he was quite right to say what he has. That you now - in the face of my rebuttal of your stance - should rather delimit your assertion to a 'well, he did say it to Muslims' seems an extraordinary climb-down from your initial position.

In fact, I think you have not answered my question of you whatsoever, in so far as it is true to what you have earlier said.

Absolutely not. Muslims are - and should be - subject to the same laws as everyone else.

And here you have totally lost me. Was it not your goodself who iterated: 'Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?', offering the obvious message that Muslims can claim a right to their own juridical and mediative measures, quite separate from those measures afforded to the rest of the UK's population? That, in some way, this was desirable or at least acceptable?

Sorry. I do not follow your argument.

Best,
Styrer

97. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204327 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Comment #204323 by lastgreekstanding on July 4, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I recall your contemptible presence now.

You're the fucker who said Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fraud.

Are you not that self-same cunt?

You'll understand when I take all of your current utterances in the same vein, and consider you an utterly ignorant fuck.

You may also wish to re-visit your method of commenting on posts. The above is an absolute disgrace. Do you think one-word epithets above blocks of comment, for which you provide neither rebuttal, insight, nor agreement, make of you any more than a twattingly intellectually vacuous irrelevance to the discussions involved?

Trusting you'll agree with me that you have shown yourself the cunt you've always secretly known you are. I refer you, if doubt remains, to your hilarious comments about Al-rawandi's magnificent corpus of knowledge, which you deride and simultaneously, I suspect, viciously envy.

Shithead.

Styrer

P.S. Don't forget to shove those perverse comments about 'fish' right up your fucking arse to reside stinkingly there till your next blasting fart takes the form of text on these boards. Agreed? Nice.

98. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204318 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Comment #204314 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Answer appreciated - thanks.

But wrong thread, mate.

Let's take it back to the 'Muslim puppy' one, lest we be castigated for trespassing on everyone's patience here. See you there.

Best,
Styrer

99. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204312 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Comment #204300 by eno on July 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Agreed.

I think that, as soon as the pernicious notion of a 'multicultural' society tried, by its proponents, to steal thunder from the wholly desirable idea of a 'cosmopolitan' society, then there were not enough wise voices to shout 'no, fuck the hell off'.

To such fuckwits as Phillips and Williams are we hence horribly reduced.

Best,
Styrer

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204304 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #204293 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Oh balls

When I wrote it i thought I had added enough exclamation marks to ensure I wasn't trying to chew Txpipers head off, looking back at it, I went over the top and I feel somewhat stupid.

Though it is precisely your nice, easy-going nature that is occasionally the groundswell of contrast for the more vehemently-languaged here to tear apart a fucking know-nothing theist laying out his/her bare table of wares, I suspect you wish sometimes to throw your tea-leaves to the wind and join in with us 'foulmouthed rednecks' and join the fuck in!

As one of the nicest blokes around here, do - even if only occasionally - and worry not what the fuck the hell anyone might think of you. Do not apologise. Don't feel stupid. Just remember that these fuckers - and we can certainly group them - just KNOW that you are going to burn for ever in the absence of the tea and deity of their choosing.

Diacanu will show you, sir, the way...and Irate... and the Reverend... and maybe... me (in small fashion...)

But never apologise for being horrid to a fucking theist!

:)

Best,
Styrer