The Bathroom Wall
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall
bumping
bumping
More testing.
Dang; if only somebody had told me there wuz gonna be a test I could’a studied fer it… :p
Entries here show up on the main page’s Recent Comments panel. Should they? I’m thinking that perhaps all the bathroom wall traffic will drown out the main PT comments rendering the Recent Comments panel less than useful.
I may not be able to prevent comments on pages from showing up in the recent comments box, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW the Update function is really cool. I trust it will be featured on the main site soon?
Oops, ignore my last comment. The answer is implicit in your original post
This should be fun!
http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/600991
Blog: Stages of denialism
Denialists never want to admit that they are wrong about anything, so they keep a debate going as long as possible to sooth their egos. Then, when their views are discredited by the mainstream scientific communities, they appeal to the prejudices of the general public instead.
Global Warming (GW) denialist stages:
“Global warming is not happening and may not happen. Why worry about it?”
“Global warming IS happening, but there is no evidence that humans are a factor in the problem.”
“Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, but there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway.”
‘Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, we can stop it, but the costs of trying to stop it would outweigh the benefits.”
Decades ago, most GW denialists were at stage one. Today, most of them are at stage two, with some already moving to stage three or four. Truly honest and fair people should have stopped at stage one.
Creationist (evolution denialist) stages:
“Species are eternal and unchanging, existing in their present form since Creation. There is no evidence for evolution.”
“Species do change, but only within the limits of created kinds. Evidence cited for evolution can also fit within Creationism.”
“Even if evolution occurs, an Intelligent Designer must have been involved, so complex are some biological forms.”
“Evolution is as unscientific as Creationism.”
The difference between a skeptic and a denialist, on any subject, is that a real skeptic knows in advance what evidence would convince him that something is real or that action of a certain kind is justified. A denialist has no such standards. His commitment to an ideology trumps any scientific standard. Gaps in scientific knowledge, which would motivate most scientists to look for more data, are wrongly used by denialists to reject completely a concept they do not like because of prejudice. This is dishonesty.
I’ve changed the panel size to ten to make it easier for y’all to play with it. We’ll eventually settle on a larger number.
Great idea.
Besides color (and tabbing the BW from the main page) I would suggest keeping or increasing PT default font size - no reason to humor trolls ranting off masses of texts.
With this PT has evolved as a dynamic site on the web. Kudos!
PS: In preview I get the default font size. Yet another reason to keep posted comments as default size.
‘Nuther thing: refreshed the 2nd page and got back to page 1. Saturday is cookie day, nom nom nom - but anyways.
There is cookie support, for the last viewed tab, but it may be iffy.
I’m not sure what you mean about font sizes. Are you asking for comments to have the same font size as the entries?
If you access the page normally via the url http://pandasthumb.org/bw/, then last page viewed will be properly retrieved. If you use the a link with a fragment ID, then it won’t try to cookie. I’ll try to patch the tabs library that we’re using to change that.
The tabs also understand links to specific comments and will load the proper panel. Try it out.
http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706
It seems Sal Cordova has matriculated back to UcD. He is now holding forth on how Fisher’s Theorem is the death of Darwinism, on the back of Michael Lynch’s new book on genetic architecture.
If by Darwinism, Sal means the strawman pseudo-religion invented by creationists, great! Kick it down, Sal, just don’t erect Kimuraism in its place when you find that we haven’t all become YECs.
If, OTOH, Sal means a theory composed of strands assuming Deep Time, common descent, variability, and selection, then he should increase his dosage. Nothing in Lynch affects those things. As I understand Lynch’s work, the relatively small populations of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms coupled with neutral drift is the key source of variation upon which selection operates.
Sal also does a quick switch in his post between ‘biodiversity’ as used in a quote from Lynch, and ‘diversity’ as used in a discussion of Fisher’s Theorem. The two terms mean vastly different things.
Yup; both for hampering trolls and for editing breaks et cetera in fairly accurate previews.
Comment preview is going to become 2.0ified as well. The preview will be displayed on the entry page, probably under the update button.
On Wallace’s personal blog he whines
Such a lovely display of Christian ethics and morals… Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.
Bump test:
http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706
Okay, I changed the hue of the default color scheme to fit with our bluish color scheme.
[Crossposted from Good Math, Bad Math]
@ SC:
Oh, you are here now, kvetching over the same points. As the Panda’s Thumb thread that activated you is now closed due to your ranting, I will post my belated answer here instead. (Isn’t the ability to google crosslinks to get to the full picture wonderful?)
On PT:
The URL DiEb looked at and when skewered you, sparing me the analysis?
Here:
The thread here answered that already, but more detail is provided in the link above.
The continuing misunderstanding of how to make proper limits is clearly exhibited, demonstrating the shallowness that Mike Elzinga, DiEB and others have noted several times over now.
H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.
H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.
^ | | Oh good, it works.
Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.
why oh why do you let people who are obviously not completely (or even partially) sane get to you so, Pim?
he certainly doesn’t speak for xianity, or ID, or creationism, or anything other than the random delusions flitting through his skull.
I hope you at least can confine your non-arguments with him in this new locale.
Frankly, i still say he’s not worth your effort.
What Ichthyic said. I made one final insult to whatever Wallace had been blubbering about, but he is not worth ANYONE’s time, save as a crashtest dummy.
So why post a mention of him at all? Well, I feel that creationists reveal the seabed of asshole-ish stupidity (as opposed to crackpot asshole-ish-ness and stupidity, though there are PLENTY of those, more mundane, types of creationists, of course!), but the thing that mimics a human personality sometimes takes on compellingly repulsive forms, unique in their awfulness. Anything unique is a treasure to be admired, at least for a very brief time. Or so I deeply believe. The wonder of the human mind, to this mere human, is that the most sickeningly ugly dross can be used to understand life (yes, and the UNiverse and everything.) Sal Cordova represents one of these bizarrely ugly mounds of dishonesty that move along sifting through the intellectual/moral/spiritual feces that covers the bare idiocy of standard creationism. I believe W. Wallace, like some self-poisoning pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the putrid floors of this silent poisoned sea represents another.
From a very, very distant point of view, William Wallace provides us all with a unique service, although thanking him for that service would be absurd: he provides it despite himself, and I would never wish his fate on the shittiest person I have ever met.
Booger!
Ben Stein pooped here.
if scientists are on the same trend of thought as you guys are, the world will evolve to “perfection” and bliss …
go with your gibberish to some other planet…
i am leaving…
but before, if evolution taught you and me a “language”, i would be a moron…
only that you are the moron’s…
the same as you are so particular about grammar, evolution should be so particular about it’s created beings…otherwise they would not be…
you are all pathetic…
evolution is worse than a 6 day creation…
and that means, illogical, brainless, the worst science ever humans have ever accepted in ACADEMIA…
moron’s is clear:
double meaning…of the morons, and morons…
how do you like that…?
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
evolution is taught in universities around the world, because it must be a global conspiracy, or they like showing publicly, and for that matter, legally, how stupid they are…
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Pure-Log[…]p/1434395367
To paraphrase Oolon Coluphid: Well, that about wraps it up for george.
Loon.
How can a Toilet Wall comment be moved to the Toilet Wall?
I win again. No one’s got any answer to my question about survival of the fittest under US bombardment in Iraq/Afg.
That’s because they don’t believe in evolution.
Oh ye of little faith.
Woden’s day 10:35.
novparl,
When no one responds to your idiotic questions, you lose! There is no possibility of you ever discussing any real science, therefore it is obvious that all you want is attention. If no one gives it to you you lose, period. You can’t disrupt a conversation on the bathroom wall, so why do you bother? If there were a toilet, your comments would be taken off the wall and thrown in the toilet.
Now answer this, how many bones are there in vanilla ice cream? If you can’t answer, I win. Oh ye of misplaced faith.
Liar.
Whoever was doing the moving probably accidentally moved one that had already been moved, which copied the “this comment moved” text to here. That’s my guess.
As a reminder here’s Novparl’s question:
Important safety tip: Headdesk then Facepalm. Otherwise you may find yourself typing one handed for the wrong reason.
As off the charts stupid as it was I will answer it straight up.
No.
Unless the survivors were genetically distinct in some way from those who were killed, there is nothing for evolution to work on. Now this gets right at the heart of the Theory; it is fundamental and basic to understanding evolution. It also happens to be pretty easy to understand. Now I have a question for you, Novparl. Do you think it is a good idea to argue against a theory, even through attempted snarkery and would be “gotcha” questions, when at a very basic and elementary level you don’t understand said theory?
Actually I do understand that part of the theory. Many evolutionists don’t. They think ice ages propel evolution. Actually they just kill off loadsa animals, thus reducing the chance of evolution. Unless you think some Power helps a small population to evolve faster than a larger one? (It’s called guided evolution and it’s even more pointless than Darwinism.)
As told to Slarty Bartfast.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Ice ages kill off loadsa animals, and therefore they reduce the chance of evolution. It makes perfect sense, if you shut your mind down entirely.
That one’s right up there with the Bishop of York, who once asked how it was possible that polar bears had evolved white fur to hide in the snow, when they had no predators.
But I don’t want it. Can I give it back?
I rather suspect that most “evolutionists” think that any change of environment is apt to cause some traits to become more beneficial than they were, and other traits to become less so. The result, if the species survives the shift, is a change in the average phenotype for the species.
Henry
Novparl,
So, I guess you answered your own question then. If loadsa people are killed in Irack, then there will be less people for evolution to occur in, thus reducing the chance of evolution, at least for people in Erack. In any event, the survivors will definately be more fit that the nonsurvivors. See, that wasn’t so hard now was it? I guess the whole US strategy is to reduce evolution in competing nations. You should be in charge of foreign policy.
If you disagree with my answer, then perhaps you could tell me why it is not correct, without contradicting your own statements that is.
Once again you have completely ignored all of my answers and all of my questions. Once again you have completely failed to discuss any real science. Oh well, at least you have demonstrated a level of understanding of modern evolutionary theory so fundamaentally flawed that no one will ever take you seriously again, about anything. But then again, I guess it would be hard for anyone to take you seriously after you were banished to the bw.
Dave,
I would love to hear the answer that novparl would give to that one, seein as how he has such a tremengous grasp of evolutionary theory and all.
Who ever took Nonpareil seriously to begin with?
You did. You screamed for me to be banned.
Re US in the Muddle East. The US hasn’t killed enough people for evo to take place. Try harder.
Monday 17:50
Novparl,
Great jumpin grasshoppers, you can’t even get the simplest things right. I did NOT demand that you be banned. I requested that your nonsense be placed on the bathroom whgere it belongs. That is probablu the onl reason why you are even allowed aruoud decent people al all.
Now you contradict yourself again. You first claimed that evolution would happen faster in larger populations. Now you claim that not evnough people have been killed for evolution to take place. Do you think that killing people increases the population size? Man what a twit.
For anyone who is really interested, evolution generally proceeds much more rapidly in small populations. That has been an important factor in human evolution. Of course, no one would ever figure that out reading novpari and his crap.
Everyone should notice that in novparl’s sick twisted mind, “screaming for me to be banned” equals “taking me seriously. Nuff said.
Update