151. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193484 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Steve

I now have gone back to preferring my version.

Don't blame you - we all prefer our own versions!
---
Mphil You are a bad man for mentioning Plantinga.

Especially when, like Phil, I need to go to bed. I hope I don't have nightmares.
---

You know, maybe when I wake up I will find a philosophically vigorous statement will be all thrashed out. (I'm an optimist)

Quine should be waking up soon. He's smarter than me - maybe he will be able to fix it. No pressure Quine :-)

152. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193476 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Yes, Fizhburn, rejected is simple and clear.

. Seconded! "Rejected" it is.
--
Mphil

I was just saying that we might get theists to agree that there's a difference between methodological and ontological naturalism.

Yes, there is a difference:-) That can't be denied.

They might then claim: "Okay, methodological naturalism is fine with me - for the sciences, but there are other ways of investigation", which of course they would have to prove - and prove that they are productive, reliable and non-arbitrary.

Absolutely. Yes, they would have to prove this.

However, I would save my energy and my "jumping up and down annoyance" for when they claim that these methods are in some way superior just because they are so nebulous.

153. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193462 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Phil

Should we not (however falsely) assume that all parties are well intentioned? So perhaps "ignored and demeaned" might perhaps be more neutrally rendered as say "set aside"?

You are right. My irritation was showing. We need a middle way between "ignored and demeaned" and "set aside".

Maybe "bracket"? No - that is too technical.

I know - "disregarded"??

154. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193454 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Fishburn

I would quibble you should delete the word 'literally'

I kept that in for the moderates :-) I agree it should go, but baby steps...

MPhil, ontological is a scary word. Lets stick to what we can know rather than what is.

---
Dammit - I'm one of those moderates that everyone doesn't like!

155. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193444 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Hmm, I see that no-one wants to spend an evening in the company of the deeply, deeply unpleasant individual that is David Robertson.

There's a shocker. Maybe an appeal to "masochistsdotnet" would have met with more success :-)

PhilRimmer

May I suggest, however, that whilst not engaging in such debates, a very short statement may be formulated stating simply the reasons for the impossibility of any rational dialogue.

Brilliant idea Phil. I agree with both you and Steve's statements.

I think it might be a good idea to have a statement that both we and the religious moderates could use against this drivel. (E.g. the validity of the distinction between methodological and epistemological naturalism could be assumed).

It also has to be something that can change the atmosphere of an entire debate if read at the beginning.

My humble effort:

We humans are imperfect creatures. We seek to learn about the world by testing what we believe to be true against what might instead be. We use this scientific method to gain knowledge. We seek this knowledge in order to both understand our world and to improve the lives of all of us.

This is done in all humility. We do not assume that we know the answers in advance. We do not seek to make our results fit our expectations.

Creationism assumes that scientific knowledge can be ignored and demeaned if it does not literally tally with ancient texts. This is both a denial of what we know to be true and a betrayal of those that seek the truth.

There is no meaningful way to debate this issue because the possibility of error is only accepted by one party.

Rip it to bits...

[Edit: grammar clarification]

156. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193407 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm

So this would be part of his "objective morality"?

Arh yes, that charming article. *Throws up*

Interestingly enough, not all atheist philosophers argue against objective morality (moral realism).

This is on my reading list, but I haven't got round to it yet - curses!

Not that I am about to argue for objective morality in that I do not think that moral realism is tenable. However, when people say that atheists cannot advocate such things they are over simplifying somewhat.

I have just bought Bernecker and Dretske's "Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology" on MPhil's recommendation.

There's another one for the list! I'm having trouble keeping up. That MPhil is expensive.

---
Ketch22

Depravity and ignorance breed more depravity and ignorance.

The centre will not hold??

157. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193383 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 1:44 pm

A follower of Plantinga are you?

Wouldn't be surprised. Maybe Lane Craig too.

Either way he needs to think for himself.

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193315 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 9:34 am

RtG

My prayer group will be diligent in praying for you to understand, recognize and deal with the demons which are eating at your soul. I think you are in denial.

Sigh, I see my "chocolate" story went over his head :(

Forrest Gump would have got it.

159. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193313 by Corylus on June 15, 2008 at 9:23 am

Epeeist

...what is it with people being accused of bitter?

Obviously psychology leaflets are being handed out with bibles at fundamentalist churches these days.

Bearing in mind the literacy levels I would be astonished if they were based on anything as new fangled and daring as Freud, so it is doubtful that they would mention projection.

(Hmm, isn't it interesting that it always appears to be the miserable fundies who throw out the 'bitter' jibe?)

Furthermore I'd be really astonished if they mention reaction formation.

That's way too complex. This is a real pity as it would give them a bit of insight into Ted Haggard and his ilk.

160. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192838 by Corylus on June 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

Whenever I see these 'let's all worship together' pleas from religious moderates I am simultaneously impressed with the effort and infuriated by the missed opportunities.

But if it becomes a means of peaceful coexistence, teaching people to live with a diverse religious ecology, to respect "the other", to search for common values while respecting differences, then faith becomes an important power for making the 21st century work more humanely and the one shared creation a better place for all its inhabitants.

By using the term 'other' he is underlining and supporting the very differences he seeks to overcome. He has to do this, of course, because if religious differences are human, (as opposed to divine) constructions, then his own beliefs have no legitimacy at all.

Radical thought: The 'other' is a human invention. Ditch it.

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192818 by Corylus on June 14, 2008 at 2:30 am

RtG

Can I tell you a story? When I was young I had an aunt who always used to buy everyone (particularly her husband) chocolates as presents. Nice, but not really want he would have wished for.

Now maybe it was habit, maybe she just didn't think much about what he really wanted. Maybe she just loved chocolates and knew that he would leave the open box hanging about for others (including her) to dip into in if they wished.

She liked eating chocolates you see and it made her feel good.

Only continued prayer has a chance. I really do feel sad for all of you. I pray and will continue to pray for all non-believers to be saved..

Three mentions of prayers chocolates there!

That's a strawberry fondant, a coffee cream and a toffee fudge given to someone without a sweet tooth. Do you understand? Some gifts have nothing to do with the wants of the recipient and everything to do with the needs of the giver.

It was an unsatisfactory situation all round. My uncle never got a present he wanted... and my aunt??

Well, she got all puffed up and bloated.

162. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191860 by Corylus on June 12, 2008 at 2:36 am

Clearthinker/David Robertson

Rather than deal with the point of the story in context (I accept that this was too much to expect) some of the atheists got all moral (despite of course not having any absolute morality) and started claiming I was dishonest, a cheat, liar, murderer (therefore God does not exist) because I wrote a 'dud' cheque.

Me

Where were you accused of being a murderer David?

Kindly supply a reference for this accusation.

Clearthinker/David Robertson

Corylus...Look up sarcasm and irony and you will get the point. (Boy - its so hard dealing with all these literalist fundamentalists!)

Sarcasm? Irony? 'Hyberbole' is perhaps the most generous assessment that I could make concerning the above. However, I feel that a disgusting 'falsehood' would be more apposite description. (Look up both terms if you have to.)

does this mean that you want me to be banned again?

That is Admin's decision: not mine.

-----

Philip, Thank you.

163. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191850 by Corylus on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 am

I got a letter published in The Beano once. Quite a lengthy number, but is was so good that they didn't cut a word!

Arh... glory days.

Seriously, Paula gutsy letter. Head down tomorrow :-)

164. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191715 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Anyone else finding this video jerky with fluffy audio? (Sigh, probably just my awful connection).

If someone knows of an alternative link (youtube download) that would be great - thanks.

165. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191705 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:31 pm

You'll live Al.

I least I didn't accuse you off covering them up with bunny slippers.

But then that's a nasty vegetarian, hippy, left wing habit - hell, I should know!

*waves feet and watches the floppy ears fly*

:P

166. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191694 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

richard_dawkins

Sigh, some of us do attempt to have sensible conversations on here.

I would pat you on the head and tell you that 'it isn't big and it isn't clever', unfortunately, your dated references and idiom demonstrate that you are older than me and there is thus no hope for further growth.

There is a critical period for shrugging off such idiotic behaviour and I'm afraid you are well past it.

*Trolled and waiting for admin to deal.*

167. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191488 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 3:49 am

Can I add to your Amazon bill?

I'll do that too. Might I suggest both On Bullshit and On Truth by Harry Frankfurt.

Small books, but absolute gems (I see Amazon has an offer on if you buy both at once).

---
Paula, oh dear. What an evening!

168. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191306 by Corylus on June 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I am trying to catch up on the conversations here - and all I am seeing is some idiot cross-thread trolling.

I'm a easy going type, but I am becoming irritated.

169. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190775 by Corylus on June 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Al

I don't have paws =/

Hmm, you say that, but from your picture it is impossible to tell.

All that weightlifting and meat-eating, I have my suspicions...

I bet you have Yeti feet too.

170. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190761 by Corylus on June 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Oh dear.

*Puts head in paws and whimpers*.

----

To be fair the writer has a reasonable grasp of grammar and a fair vocabulary. This is someone (who could have excelled) deeply, deeply ,deeply let down his own teachers.

Trouble is, I can just see this being waved under some poor kids nose with someone saying in the background...

"See! Someone real smart don't agree with them atheists either."

... and round we go again.

171. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190403 by Corylus on June 9, 2008 at 3:00 am

One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say.

Agreed.

He is not here to give another viewpoint or have a debate like some other theists we have on here.

I'm marking as troll.

172. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190379 by Corylus on June 9, 2008 at 2:07 am

Clearthinker

Rather than deal with the point of the story in context (I accept that this was too much to expect) some of the atheists got all moral (despite of course not having any absolute morality) and started claiming I was dishonest, a cheat, liar, murderer (therefore God does not exist) because I wrote a 'dud' cheque.
(My emphasis)

Where were you accused of being a murderer David?

Kindly supply a reference for this accusation.

173. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190093 by Corylus on June 8, 2008 at 11:13 am

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the link between FGM and animistic religions:

The sewing together of the vaginal walls is not, strictly speaking, an Islamic custom. The Prophet Muhammad says in the Koran that boys should be circumcised, but no mention is made of female circumcision. The tradition of stitching is pre-Islamic but was adopted by Islam; you could compare it to what happened with the pre-Christian tradition of the Christmas tree in Christianity. Muslim scholars have never condemned the practice of female circumcision because in Islam the importance of virginity at marriage counts so heavily. When they came into contact with this tribal ritual they must have thought, Hey, wouldn't that be a good way to guarentee a woman's virginity? Excellent! Stitching is especially popular in African Islamic countries, such as Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Eygpt, and also in Indonesia.
The Caged Virgin

Of course, it is impossible to say from article whether the 'parents' concerned are Muslim or continuing a strictly tribal custom.

Either way, it's a disgusting practice that I am glad to see a prosecution is being planned.

174. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #190006 by Corylus on June 8, 2008 at 6:16 am

Apewoman, I feel for you, I have in the past waded through such stuff. You are quite right, it is self-referential and self-defeating.

If you have to go through it (and write polite essays on it in order to pass a course) this book is invaluable. (I see you can pick it up used very cheap).

It, although broadly sympathetic to postmodernism, does actually give you a clear exposition of the central ideas of the 'usual suspects' and their forebears .

Also, most importantly, it allows to you follow 'schools of thought' - you can actually see where it all goes from honest questioning concerning past thinkers to relativistic drivel.

175. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #189911 by Corylus on June 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Wonderful article. I can't fault it: both literate and humane.

It demonstrates why the 'problem of evil' is the biggest hurdle of all for traditional theism; and why it will always remain so.

This is because, even if every individual in the world were suddenly able to stop needlessly causing pain, (for which the 'Well God gave us free will!' defence is always invoked) we would still have 'natural evil' to contend with (in the form of hurricanes, earthquakes etc.)

There is no-one out there to care for us. All we have is each other.

176. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189684 by Corylus on June 7, 2008 at 1:24 am

Shuggy

I have published an discussion of circumcision as a memeplex, that goes some way to explaining why it continues.

Very interesting, also extremely clear with a great layout. Must have taken a huge amount of work to produce.

177. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189160 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Pathfinder

...another saying I am in favour or concur with the idea of an interventionist God. Can i have some consistency here?

No problem. I came to that conclusion because of your self-declaration as a "Christian."

Christian implies that you believe that god intervened in relation to that resurrection business (even if nowhere else).

If you want to say that God never intervenes then I am, of course, interested to hear you say that. However, if that is the case you need to go sit with the deists and not the theists :-)

Anyway, you wanted to talk to Steve and it is nearly my bedtime...

178. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189150 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Robotaholic,

I didn't entirely agree with Pathfinder either, but that was because I do not think that his/hers NOMA position is compatable with an interventionist christian God.

However, s/he is obviously trying to seek areas of agreement. Let's not flame people when they do this.

179. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189139 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Hamsters?

You sicko! Human/rodent sex. That's a step too far. Urgh!!

Case in point, that Appleby guy is someone who would never get any "hot mouse action" from my direction.

180. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189133 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 2:04 pm

There was no mention of ducks Prankster. Cats, cows and sheep. Yes.

(Plus I do vaguely recall mention of a chicken, but don't quote me).

But ducks? No.

*Quack.*

181. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189127 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream. It's hard to take issue with that in the abstract...

Actually, it is very easy to take issue with this in the abstract and this is because of a lack of clarity about the word 'right'...

... what they believe is right....

Now does this mean 'right' the sense of being 'correct'? (i.e. corresponding to reality) or does it imply 'right' as some form of moral injunction?

Of course, teachers must teach what they believe to be correct, however, what they believe to be 'right' has no place in a science classroom.

'Right' is an ambiguous, emotive term: be cautious. When people use ambiguous, emotive terms (when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives available) : be suspicious.

182. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188961 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 3:34 am

Appleby

Actually, no. Most don't bother and a few get some perverse pleasure out of letting you make an even bigger fool of yourself for all to see. As long as they remain silent, they can continue to derive this pleasure with impunity (because they could be wrong about you, after all).

Bullshit. We constantly pull each other up if we think arguments are mistaken.

BTW; the attempted manipulation and powerplay technique shown above is spectacularly unattractive. [Edit: And, in this context extremely stupid] Fostering paranoia works with people who have low self-esteem or are at the wrong end of a power relationship. (No wonder you like virgins because they are 'humbler').

Pack it in, sunshine.

183. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187152 by Corylus on June 1, 2008 at 11:34 am

Sigh, I wasn't going to get sucked into this one. However, there is a possibility that I would like Appleby to consider.

I find male homosexuality disgusting because I'm a straight guy. I think that also answers why I don't find female homosexuality disgusting.

No it doesn't explain it.

There are several possible reasons for the common male feeling that male homosexuality is disgusting and female homosexuality is not. Personally, I suspect a great deal of this is due to social conditioning.

Evidence for a societial explanation rather than a biological explanation - see the marked generational differences in attitudes to homosexuality. Female homosexuality was not stamped down upon so much in past times for the simple reason that many people did not accept that it even existed. Hence less repression.

Another reason for male homosexuality being seen as bad and female homosexuality seen as not bad, well, I think that there is a very specific factor at work here which is related to the conditioning done by fathers onto their sons. I expounded on this here. (Comment 118)

All well and good. This isn't the whole story though.

With you I have a different suspicion. This is because you have been coming across as an deeply egocentric individual. Your beliefs/needs/desires etc, are something that you are obviously quite happy to discuss in depth. Evidence: your checklist of what you require of a life partner - virginal, beautiful, intelligent (but methinks not too intelligent), witty etc, and presumably enamoured enough of you to contemplate marriage. I have to say that your requirements are of no interest to me. Although I am deeply amused by your optimism.

Have you considered the possibility that you find it (butt sex) disgusting because you would not like the idea of a man considering you in the same way that you consider women?

It's egocentrism again. Male/female sex is about you. Male/male sex is about you. Female/female sex is (one of the few things in the world) not about you. It threatens your self image in no way - hence it cannot be a subject for disgust.

It is no accident that homophobia and misogyny go hand in hand, they are often flipsides of the same coin.

Please think about this.

----

I am going to follow some excellent advice and stop feeding the troll now, but I wanted that point made.

[Edited for grammar correction.]

184. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186959 by Corylus on June 1, 2008 at 1:01 am

Professor Jones said religious students; even those studying medicine; were becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to evolution, saying he was "telling lies and insulting people's religion" by teaching the subject.

Don't blame him for getting annoyed. There was this fiasco at UCL recently.

185. Flea of the week

Comment #186246 by Corylus on May 30, 2008 at 2:36 am

The full Time article regarding Tony Blair can be read here

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810020,00.html

P.S.Also, another, much more cheerful story (about someone rejoicing in the name of 'Nutter' taking on the boy scouts for anti-gay and atheist bias).

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1810449,00.html

186. Synthetic Copycat Of Living Cell Underway: Life, But Not As We Know It?

Comment #186238 by Corylus on May 30, 2008 at 2:22 am

A short article, but I am sure one that would not exist without a huge amount of work and study.

Congrats to all involved.

187. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185805 by Corylus on May 28, 2008 at 3:55 pm

PJG

Peter Vardy is a creationist who has sponsored two or three "faith" academies here in the UK. He too is a used-car salesman.

Not just Peter Vardy. Out of sheer curiosity I googled 'evangelical car dealers'; as a joke with myself and look what came up.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/christiancardealerswanttheirreli.html

(Hard to tell whether this is new or old news, but it does seem to indicate a possible pattern)

I reckon they get so used to conning people into buying dross that they think that they can expand their empires into conning people into buying ignorance for themselves and their children.

A used car dealer can be looked down upon by social snobs; a Christian philanthropist never is. I imagine that the respectability gained by changing one's product is a marvellous motivation.

188. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184853 by Corylus on May 26, 2008 at 9:48 am

Esuther

Why, for example, is this Muslim community building a school so far away from Sydney, where all the students live?

Good question. I have been wondering that myself. I can only presume that the land is cheaper.

However, to be willing put children through an hour journey to and from school seems to indicate that child welfare is not the school planner's first concern.

189. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184757 by Corylus on May 26, 2008 at 5:55 am

Well, I have been having an informative time reading the effusive Amazon reviews of Jeannie Fulbright's work (one way of immersing yourself in and understanding another mindset).

One particularly telling comment was found in a positive review on her Exploring Creation with Astronomy*

I've spent my life avoiding science, but this Apologia book brings the Creator right into the study and leads you to worship as you learn so that I've discovered that science is about HIM!

These are books that can be purchased without feeling any sense of fear about what they may contain.

No wonder they sell.
----
*Not just biology this woman is messing with, she's obviously quite the polymath.

190. Repulsive but right

Comment #184751 by Corylus on May 26, 2008 at 5:36 am

Fairy nuff, Quetz, mustn't forget the principle of charity.

Anyway, glad to hear Hitchens has given up the cigarettes. Not just because of the image problems, but for his health too.

191. Repulsive but right

Comment #184742 by Corylus on May 26, 2008 at 5:12 am

"Repulsive but right" or "repulsive because he's right?"

It's a very thin line.

The first statement can be a starting point for discussion concerning techniques of debate and manners of expression.

The second, however, is a battle nobody can win. It is merely anti-intellectualism given form.

I am often not sure which point is being made in articles like this.

192. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184466 by Corylus on May 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

I'm glad you put your comment back up Alan Canon.

Happy Towel Day to you too.

193. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184070 by Corylus on May 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Ah yes Quetz off to play on your blog now.

194. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184064 by Corylus on May 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Quetz

Arh. Dis cute!!

However, your spelling is too gud.

Tis 'fites' not 'fights'... srsly :P

195. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184054 by Corylus on May 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Wasn't going to get sucked into this one, but, I just have to say that Wiki is fine. I have not found a serious error yet. What you do sometimes find is a lack of detail. However, these articles are generally self-defined as 'stubs' - which is fair enough.

I have absolutely no problem with people citing it. In fact, I have noticed when people say 'aha but it is only Wiki' they are often only appealing to intellectual snobbery. The issue is not that people cite wiki; it is when they cite only wiki that you start to wonder.

Something that I have noticed the most people on here (very much including Al here), simply do not do.

Oh crap! Wanders off to shot self yet again for sitting on fence.

What can I rail against?? I know Conservapedia ... I look at that when I am feeling sluggish and need to reignite some fire in my belly. Uncyclopedia? Hehe; that's just funny.

Errors with grammar and punctuation? Blah. Never play that card. I make too many errors with both to do so.

196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #183172 by Corylus on May 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Well Calvaryguy I am not really concerned about who you are personally acquainted with.

However do, please, elucidate about what 'necessary research' was done.

Tell you what. Why not give us a particular point that you agreed with so that we can discuss it?

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182312 by Corylus on May 19, 2008 at 4:37 pm

You are a bad man Goldy, but I spend enough of my pennies on my car.

Which I always drive with either my glasses on or lenses in (hmph these also cost me...)

Oh no, what's that big bird like shadow hanging over me!! *hides*

----

Ternatornis - only playing sweetie :-)

198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182306 by Corylus on May 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Goldy

I've also got a bit of astigmatism as well,on top of the myopia.

Heh - hindsight, foresight - it's all stuffed.

Honestly glad no bike :-)

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182295 by Corylus on May 19, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Oh rats Dr. B. Get well soon.

(Tried to leave a message on your blog, but it's not playng for some reason - probably my dreadful connection)

Re motorcycles, I once had a desire for one in my teens which caused parental panic like you wouldn't believe. With hindsight, I'm glad they stopped me.

Incidently, why not send your husband off for a thorough eye test? Might distract him long enought to rethink, and if not, at least you know he is seeing ok to ride the thing.

I spent a lot of my adolescence with undiagnosed myopia, I guess I just assumed everyone else lived in a blur (you don't notice when it comes on gradually) yet another good reason for no bike...

200. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181825 by Corylus on May 18, 2008 at 10:23 am

Quetz

What makes everyone so sure that it's the same David Robertson as he who frequents this site?

You're right Quetz, we shouldn't just assume and it is a common name.

Reading though the comments on the Telegraph site, I just to say, well!

There are (at present) three comments by a David Robertson on there.

One sounds a lot like him (calling atheists vehement and vitriolic). Another one sounds a bit like him (but more political than normal; libertarian argument), but the third one really strays into 'green ink' city (excess capitalization, lots of scripture and an anti-evolution rant).

I might be that there is more than one David Robertson on there, and our DR is not responsible for all of the comments, or it might simply be that none of them are him. (Unlikely, but I cannot in all fairness discount the possibility).

HoHum, maybe he will be on later to clarify.