Comments by wednesdayguevara

51. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89595 by wednesdayguevara on November 21, 2007 at 7:42 am

GSP,

As you know, the American occupation of Iraq started in 2003. Hirsi Ali took a position with AEI in 2006. How exactly has she "played a major role in creating the mess in the Middle East," when she has only been with the conservative think tank for a year?

52. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89566 by wednesdayguevara on November 21, 2007 at 5:51 am

Thank you, Sam!

53. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89279 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 7:00 am

Okay, in the US there's the state authorities and the feds. The feds provide protection for federal witnesses and the like, and of course there's the Secret Service, who protect Presidents and diplomats.

The police officers you saw with Pacino, Rtambree, were NYPD, as you know. It is possible that they were on-duty, and that taxpayers were paying for it. However, this would probably be a state/local thing, and only for a very limited time. As you suggested, an NYC resident familiar with their policies would have to explain how that worked.

I did find that in many cases off-duty police officers who are working side jobs will wear their uniforms and carry their badges.

http://www.offdutyofficers.com/index.html

Hirsi Ali would require permanent protection, no matter where she went in the country. This would mean (if the gov't were going to pony up) federal protection. Again, I could be wrong about this, but I have never heard of the feds protecting a private citizen who was not a witness in an ongoing federal investigation.

54. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89273 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:18 am

166. Comment #89271 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 6:16 am

Good question. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Police officers can work off-duty for private firms, but I don't know about the uniforms.

This may take some looking into.

55. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:10 am

People keep bringing up the issue of the US gov't paying for Hirsi Ali's protection. Never going to happen. As a matter of policy (AFAIK) the US gov't only provides protection to former and current Presidents and their Vices. A private citizen is not entitled to protection in the US unless she is in the witness protection program. What the market will bear, and all that.

56. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89003 by wednesdayguevara on November 19, 2007 at 1:08 pm

96. Comment #88990 by admin on November 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Josh, please don't let this get you down. You do good work. Important work. And, as you can see, the majority of posters here support the fund. So don't fret!

57. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88928 by wednesdayguevara on November 19, 2007 at 7:24 am

85. Comment #88924 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 7:17 am

What kind of example is she to girls like her former self but an unrealistic one?

This is a silly thing to say. What kind of example is Lance Armstrong but an unrealistic one? Or anyone who beat the odds? Well, they're excellent examples of people who beat the odds, that's what kind. We don't look up to the average, but to the exceptional. I don't think I understand your argument here.

58. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88916 by wednesdayguevara on November 19, 2007 at 6:58 am

76. Comment #88903 by keith on November 19, 2007 at 6:40 am

Mmmmm, roasted beer.

59. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #87831 by wednesdayguevara on November 13, 2007 at 9:43 am

61. Comment #87828 by thirdchimpanzee on November 13, 2007 at 9:24 am

Or are we talking Planet of the Zombies here - and what would be the point of judging a Zombie?

Well, that would depend on what type of zombie you're talking about. Is it the flesh-eating kind, and if so, is it the kind of zombie that only eats brains, or only human flesh, or would a poodle do in a pinch? This is very nuanced stuff here, and without a degree in zombology, I don't think either of us is qualified to debate or criticize the subject.

60. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87627 by wednesdayguevara on November 12, 2007 at 4:03 pm

14. Comment #87496 by scottishgeologist on November 12, 2007 at 9:41 am

And if you want a laugh and a half, try the "Gadgets for God"

*Squee!* The Repent! Wristwatch is the most perfect thing ever.

61. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87623 by wednesdayguevara on November 12, 2007 at 3:57 pm

21. Comment #87599 by steveroot on November 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Just my screen name. :-)
Hint:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1821,Jury-Awards-Father-11M-in-Funeral-Case,AP

Fiddlesticks!

Thank you for that link. I had missed that thread, and it's a good one.

Here is a collection of funny church signs:

http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/churchsigns.php

"Jesus: Your get out of hell free card"

62. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87592 by wednesdayguevara on November 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Comment #87511 by steveroot on November 12, 2007 at 10:41 am

"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."
Ouch! That hurts me!
Steve (DDS, limited to endodontics)

Your surname is Root and you're a dentist? That's awesome. :)

On the way home from work:
"God answers knee-mail."

Knee-mail! Ha!

Also on the outskirts of town there's a megachurch called Calvary Christian Center. Right now there's a billboard on the main drag:

"Boycott Calvary Christian Center!
-Satan"

It's nice to live in the Sunshine State.

63. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87547 by wednesdayguevara on November 12, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Diacanu:

The reset button is why.

64. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87466 by wednesdayguevara on November 12, 2007 at 7:45 am

steveroot:

Post your favorites!

Yes! Yay!

"We're all in the gutter but some of us are looking to Jesus."

"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."

"It's hard to stumble when you're on your knees." (That's what she said!)

"Forbidden fruit creates many jams." (Delicious on toast, with a nice cup of Darjeeling.)

And my favorite, which I saw on a Methodist church sign in my neighborhood a few years ago:

"Have you bathed in the blood?"

The Methodists in my hood apparently are proponents of the Bathory school of worship. I'm terrified to walk past that church at night.

65. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77945 by wednesdayguevara on October 11, 2007 at 7:50 am

keith,

You're hilarious! Poor, sad Jesus.

Hey, do you suppose it's wishful thinking to believe that one day these two will quit sniping at each other like a pair of junior high school girls in a cafeteria?

66. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77931 by wednesdayguevara on October 11, 2007 at 6:27 am

Also, didn't PZed and Sam have a fight about something else completely trivial earlier this year or maybe last year?

67. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77929 by wednesdayguevara on October 11, 2007 at 6:21 am

Keith,

??

I'm thick. You've lost me. What did I do this time?

68. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77419 by wednesdayguevara on October 9, 2007 at 8:42 am

Wow, IanG. I was really upset about this, but your gorgeous post has calmed me down quite a bit. It's going to be okay. We're going to get past this. Thank you so much.

69. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77381 by wednesdayguevara on October 9, 2007 at 7:10 am

ARRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!

This is, seriously, the dumbest, most petty disagreement in the recent history of dumb, petty disagreements. What a waste of time and intellect.

Sam, baby, love, sweetie, darling. You pup-eyed silver-tongued smarty-pants juggernaut. What the hell are you trying to accomplish with this? Is this your way of announcing that you are going 'under the radar'? Does this mean you're off the public speaking teat and on to studying brains for the rest of your life? It's my greatest dream to see what you can discover about the human brain when you're not preoccupied with combatting irrationality on the public stage.

(OK, that's kind of a lie. My greatest dream is to wake up one morning thirty pounds lighter, ten or fifteen IQ points smarter, a few million dollars richer, and to suddenly bear a striking resemblence to Grace Kelly. But when I think about the world in which this dream takes place, it's one where you're studying brains instead of explaining to the next two-bit Aquinas how [again] Hitler was totally woo and how [yet again] Stalin thought he was God.)

There I go again rambling on. Sorry. Look, the point is well taken (I think). Labels are ridiculous. And I feel a little icky about having to group up, too, for whatever weird and admittedly unexplored reason. But we need to think about what is going on politically in the United States and elsewhere, and bite the bullet and deal with it together. This doesn't mean we all need to march in lockstep. It just means we need to avoid these ultimately pointless disagreements over semantics and strategy as much as we possibly can.

In short: Now is not the fucking time.

70. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75652 by wednesdayguevara on October 3, 2007 at 8:09 am

Another problem with calling ourselves "atheists" is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We've all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves "atheists".

We're going to keep hearing these tired arguments regardless of what label we assign ourselves, because these tired arguments are all they have. This emphasis on what non-believers call ourselves distracts us from the real issues at hand.

71. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75640 by wednesdayguevara on October 3, 2007 at 7:38 am

phasmagigas:

its almost like cigarettes are a little gremlin, a hand wringing living creature that whispers in the ear that she is utterly slave to.

Did you ever watch "The Flintstones"? Nicotine addiction (and perhaps any addiction) is like the Great Gazoo. It's a little green alien smartass that only the smoker can see and hear, and whose sole pleasure in life is to whisper in the smoker's ear how delicious a cigarette would be right now, how smooth and comforting, how perfectly right. Funny thing is, often like those who abandon religion, even though it did nothing but make me sick all the time, I still miss that little green bugger in times of stress.

72. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75623 by wednesdayguevara on October 3, 2007 at 6:41 am

Comment #75594 by Richard Morgan on October 3, 2007 at 5:31 am

Anybody got any views on cognitive dissonance, the willing suspension of disbelief and cigarette smoking?

Yes!! I quit smoking eight months ago. It was during the initial withdrawal period that I became aware of my brain's strange behavior wrt cigarettes. Talk about mutually exclusive goals! My brain several times actually tried to trick me into smoking a cigarette, as if there were two people in there fighting for supremacy (the non-smoker eventually won out, if you care). Now, I'm not remotely educated enough to understand how any of this works, but I think you are on the right track, Richard. Glad I'm not the only person who has noticed this.

73. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74965 by wednesdayguevara on October 1, 2007 at 8:20 am

Comment #74951 by Robert Maynard on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am:

The cruel joke is that theology might not be able provide this level of education, and may be consigned to the ranks of.. er.. chainsaw juggling and Feng Shui classes.

Sir, you do a great disservice to the noble profession of chainsaw juggling by lumping it in with rackets like theology and feng shui. For shame! I think you owe our many chainsaw-juggling allies a most sincere and humble apology. ;)

74. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74542 by wednesdayguevara on September 29, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Every voice should be welcome. We've all been told to shut up for too long. This voice over here says "wanktard" is the hippest portmanteau since "pigstablishment".

Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett have put the idea out there, but they have actual science to do. Wouldn't it be lovely if Sam Harris could go study some brains and advance our understanding of them, instead of having to debate this tedious issue with every third-rate Augustine who steps to his grille? I'll bet you five American dollars that Sam Harris thinks it would be.

Every voice should be welcome! It's self-indulgent to quarrel about trivialities like tee-shirts and what people who don't believe in gods should label ourselves and if the low-born ought to even have a voice or if they just bring down the whole movement with their intolerable plebeness. For goodness sake, my President wants to bomb Iran because God told him it was a brilliant way to secure both of their legacies. We need all the help we can get.

Sorry about the long post. It just kind of irks me that we all can't knock off the quibbling and get it together. The people who hate us have nuclear bombs and rocket-propelled grenades and they are completely out of their minds. We don't have a lot of time to worry about what people are wearing.

75. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74407 by wednesdayguevara on September 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Comment #74349 by Ilovelucy

Comment #74344 by LB on September 28, 2007 at 7:46 am
At the risk of being called a bastard and a wanker, I'm with steve99 on this one."

Far too British! It'll be "fucktard" or "hater"

In the spirit of unity, a compromise: wanktard.

76. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57235 by wednesdayguevara on July 18, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Yes, Ali is maybe waxing a bit overzealous about America, but must I remind some of you that in the country of her birth, they mutilated her vagina? Seriously, perspective, people.

77. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42000 by wednesdayguevara on May 17, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Hi, you guys. I'm currently training in catastrophe modeling. In my business (insurance) it's vital that the models are as accurate as possible, because we rely on them. They aren't perfect, obviously, but we are working on the flaws, and the technology is improving at a rapid pace.

While there may be legitimate concerns with AGW, it's just silly to say that because climate models aren't perfect, they can't be trusted. Maybe nobody is saying that and I'm misreading you. If that's the case, my apologies. However, it's important to note that we do quite well with the models now, gaps and all. We are closing gaps all the time.

As I said, I've just begun training in this area so I'm not yet an expert. I'll soon have a deeper understanding. It's fascinating stuff.

78. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41949 by wednesdayguevara on May 17, 2007 at 10:58 am

Comment #41898 by konquererz on May 17, 2007 at 9:24 am

He has to leave us open for nuclear attack by the terrorists to fulfill prophecy. Or because he is a buffoon, I can't decide which.

Both. He is a buffoon who has to leave us open for nuclear attack to fulfill prophecy. Crazy and incompetent-- a winning combination!

79. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41654 by wednesdayguevara on May 16, 2007 at 1:43 pm

A straw-man argument.

Not really. Falwell was evil because of the things he did, not because he said nasty things that hurt people's feelings. He became obscenely rich from his vitriol. He contributed financially to the cause of apartheid in South Africa, and urged his followers to do the same. He was a vehement segregationist. He actively promoted and financially contributed to politicians who enacted laws that discriminate against gay people. Nothing anyone has said on this board can compare to that. You can say it's just the words you're talking about, but with Falwell and his ilk the words are wrapped up in actions. There is no separating the two.

Look, Dower, death brings out all kinds of conflicting emotions in people. Atheists are human beings, after all. We're not rational all the time, as much as many of us might like to be. I feel badly that I'm glad Falwell is dead, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm glad he is dead. I can't just turn off that particular emotion because you scorn it. What would you suggest people do in that situation?

80. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41538 by wednesdayguevara on May 16, 2007 at 9:06 am

The same methods? Show of hands, who on this board has a teleministry devoted entirely to spewing vitriol about right-wing Christian evangelists? Anyone? How about a college? Who on this board takes the tax-free contributions given to said teleministry and donates them to the campaigns of politicians who systematically discriminate against right-wing Christian evangelists? Anybody? The same methods, indeed.

81. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40058 by wednesdayguevara on May 12, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Comment #39879 by Audley Strange on May 12, 2007 at 7:12 am

Thank you for mentioning Cat modelling. I work in re-insurance and it's our job to anticipate catastrophe using the best technology we have available (and it's improving all the time). Wouldn't it be ridiculous if we had to rely on Biblical prophecy or astrology to determine insurance premiums?

"Sorry, Mr. Beauregard, we can't help you. Next month the Sun will apply by semi-sextile to Uranus at an angle of approximately 30 degrees. You know what that means! Earthquake city! Call us again in two months and we'll see what we can do."

If you understood a word of that, btw, good on you. I didn't.

82. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39628 by wednesdayguevara on May 11, 2007 at 11:11 am

Comment #39540 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 4:54 am

Thank you so much for sharing such a profound spiritual moment with us. Hinn founded his ministry in Orlando, so we love him here in central Florida. By "love" of course I mean "like to point and laugh at". He fled my fair state back in '99 amidst rumors of fraud. Imagine that!

Many Christian organizations look on him as a heretic.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/hinn/general.htm

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h01.html

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bhinn.html

83. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #36268 by wednesdayguevara on April 30, 2007 at 5:35 pm

3legcat wrote:

'"we would bankrupt the entire country and that is a fact"

So your (our) country's wealth is more important than your country's moral responsibility?'

That's a false dichotomy. America's wealth is an essential component of her power- and it is the reason we have a moral responsibility to others. If- like Hitch- one is in favor of using American power to depose tyrants, one must choose one's battles carefully. If America goes bankrupt due to bad choices, there will be no more American power to use for any purpose.

84. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35939 by wednesdayguevara on April 29, 2007 at 11:41 am

bouwe:
"Atheism: I'm not quite dead yet, Alistair!"

Hilarious! Love it.

85. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34468 by wednesdayguevara on April 24, 2007 at 6:53 am

DNAtheist:
Now that I re-read your post, I see that you are correct. It's not at all invective, it's a legitimate criticism of Epstein's position. My point was mainly to call out Weefree's framing of this entire website as "fundamentalist" based on a few ad hominems. Sorry to mix you all up in it.

86. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34255 by wednesdayguevara on April 23, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Comment #34239 by Logicel on April 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm:

I counted three posts in the first 33 posts that contained insulting words. I think that is pretty good for a heated topic in an essentially uncensored setup.

Exactly! Weefree behaves as if the internet is not absolutely teeming with invective. Any messageboard with more than ten or fifteen regular posters is going to have trouble with a few ad homs here and there. Is the Comedy Central board also "fundamentalist"? Thanks for making my point much more succinctly than I could. :)

87. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34225 by wednesdayguevara on April 23, 2007 at 2:49 pm

WeeFree:
I counted four posts with ad homs before yours. Where on earth are you getting thirteen?

88. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34160 by wednesdayguevara on April 23, 2007 at 11:54 am

Corylus wrote:

BTW: The 'aim to misbehave' title is a quote from the film 'Serenity' which is alot of fun and well worth watching. As is the original 'Firefly' series... sorry... geek moment :)

Yes! Thank you. I knew I had heard/seen that phrase somewhere before. A very good time at the movies. Loved the series also. No need to apologise for geeking out. What is it the Bible says? "Blessed are the geeks, for they shall inherit the earth."

89. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34129 by wednesdayguevara on April 23, 2007 at 10:12 am

Weefree:
You picked out three examples of name-calling. Before your post there were 39 other comments that did not call Epstein any names. There are many interesting and civil discussions going on in this thread, but you chose to pick out three name-callers and make them representative of the entire website. Why would you do this? Are you just bored?

90. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33945 by wednesdayguevara on April 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

The link to the Pharyngula entry that Klimpatsu referred to (I think) is:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php

Good stuff.

91. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33277 by wednesdayguevara on April 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Hi, Bremas! I believe the Factor is live at 8 p.m. and then re-run. However, I could be mistaken about this.

Also, those who think he should boycott the show, the Prof has already agreed to do it. Do you realize what O'Reilly will say about him in absentia if he backs out? Nothing very flattering, I'll tell you that for free. Best to go on, remain calm, and represent his point of view.

I know he'll do well. Papa Bear scares me, but I'm undereducated and ineffectual and easily frightened by loud men with bulbous heads. Professor Dawkins is a lion. A very calm, extremely articulate lion. He is going to rock it.

92. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33255 by wednesdayguevara on April 19, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Papa Bear scares me. Sock it to him, Prof!

93. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #22080 by wednesdayguevara on February 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Thank you, Mrs. Trellis. You are awesome.

94. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21583 by wednesdayguevara on February 10, 2007 at 2:33 am

Why is not believing that black people are less than human called being "politically correct"? Is it because that's the phrase bigots hurl about when they are called on their racism?

I'm not a scientist. I'm not even all that smart. I do know that people are throwing around a lot of rather nasty ideas and not providing any evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Are the African people (and those descended from) not quite as evolved as others? If you claim so, the onus is on you to prove it. And, "I was there, man," doesn't cut it. This is a very serious scientific claim, and you're going to have to gather a lot of data. I suggest you get started right away. Chop, chop.

95. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21441 by wednesdayguevara on February 9, 2007 at 7:40 am

David JMH:
Personal responsibility is, of course, an issue. If you had said something like, "Hey, it's not only the church's fault. There comes a time when people need to stand up and take responsibility for their own actions," then you would have made a very good point. But you didn't say anything like that, did you? Instead, you played the "Darkies are dumb" card, and tried to legitimize your position by invoking evolution.

So now we must choose. Is an entire continent of people (and apparently those descended from people of said continent) as you say, "for the most part ignorant, lazy, selfish, and dumb," and "incapable of controlling their base instincts"? Or are you just a raging bigot?

96. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21273 by wednesdayguevara on February 8, 2007 at 11:22 am

Re: 21270

Blaine,
Me, too, but look on the bright side. CNN is responding to thousands of emails. Thousands! Likely many of these were from our theist friends, too. They'll be having a proper debate, as they should have in the first place. The big thing is that it's working. What the Prof. and Sam Harris and Dan Dennett have begun, we continue, and it's working. Aren't you excited?

97. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21246 by wednesdayguevara on February 8, 2007 at 8:21 am

Scooternyc wrote:

"Actually, perhaps this is evolution's way of natural selection. If these idiots believe as they do and they continue to die off as a result of AIDS and other health problems that are not being addressed because of god and faith, then it really does look like natural selection to me.

Even ignorance is nature's way of eliminating those unfit for society."

You should know that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is due to the (to use Sam Harris's phrase) genocidally stupid behavior of the Catholic church, and not to natural selection. In many areas of Africa, the only information the people have access to is that disseminated by the church. They are kept ignorant by the religious whack jobs, not killed off by natural selection because they are "unfit for society."

Please think before you post. Ordinarily you seem like a smart fellow, but that statement was about as ridiculous as statements come.

98. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21003 by wednesdayguevara on February 7, 2007 at 8:42 am

I wrote this to CNN:
"I'm writing to comment about your recent panel discussion on "discrimination against atheists". Not only did your panelists know absolutely nothing about atheism, but clearly they were also ignorant of American history. America is no more a Christian nation than it is a Muslim nation or a Jain nation. It is a secular nation. Separation of church and state is written right there in the Constitution.

Another point is, when a Pulitzer prizewinner resorts to "They all just need to shut up," it becomes glaringly obvious that she hasn't an intellectual leg to stand on. Imagine the reaction if she were talking about black people or homosexuals.

Where was the atheist representative for this panel? This so-called "debate" was one-sided and hateful, and it absolutely proves the point that it is trying to discredit. It's all right to spew hatred and bigotry if it's against those pesky non-believers. Disgusting."

Hopefully enough people will write in about this that CNN will do another discussion, this time including an atheist, so that a real debate can be held, and not yet another game of "Let's Bash The Infidels".

99. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3248 by wednesdayguevara on October 26, 2006 at 9:50 pm

Penn vs. Dawkins! Is the crowd here okay with fangirl squeeing? Because I'm totally squeeing right now. It's wonderful that Dr. Dawkins is all over American media these days. We need you more than ever, Professor. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

More Pages: Previous | 1 2