Dissecting the Doofus

[Guest Guest]

Name calling went out in the second grade. . . . There is probably nothing useful you could do with your pathetic life anyway.

72302[/snapback]

Uh-huh.

[Guest Ad Infinitum]

Here’s Mr. Proselytizing Fundie Doofus’ fractured explanation of the big bang:

Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith. Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out of nothing. You understand?

LaClair: ...no...

Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make

sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there, there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something. Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!! And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe. How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies human reason.

So what’s wrong with that?

1. Yet again, Doofus is counterposing creationism against science, which is forbidden by law.

2. The big bang is not true because that’s what we’re told. That’s how they do it in his church, obviously, but it’s not how science works. The big bang is an accepted theory because the evidence supports it.

3. Yet again, Doofus is discussing something he knows nothing about, namely, the big bang. The big bang theory is based on scientific observations of the observable universe (stars, galaxies, nebula, quasars, etc.). Based on those observations (including the fact that the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other) and the speed of light, scientists have calculated the age of the universe. From there, they have posited that a singularity “exploded” in what is commonly called the big bang. This part of the theory is part theory, part hypothesis. It’s the best explanation scientists have. By applying the best explanation, science advances. That’s how science works. We may have a better explanation a century from now, but we’ll probably never get to it without applying this one first. Some scientists imagine the beginning of the universe (as we know it) happening in other ways. That’s not the point. The point is that scientists take the data, draw working hypotheses from those data, and then apply the hypotheses. As they continue to apply their hypotheses, they see whether additional observations tend to confirm or deny them. If enough observations of the right kind tend to confirm the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. That is how the big bang theory was “born.” This belongs in a science class with a qualified teacher who actually knows something about it, not a history class being taught by a scientifically illiterate buffoon with a religious agenda. Doofus’ offense was in his purpose (promoting his religion) and in the fact that he overstepped his bounds, as much as in the fact that what he said is simply wrong.

4. Doofus’ comparison between the big bang and exploding firecracker or building collapse has no merit at all. Those events do not produce bodies large enough to have their own gravitational pull. This is a perfect illustration why someone who knows nothing about science should not presume to teach it.

5. Science is not based on faith in the sense Doofus is using the term. Science is based on faith to the extent that scientists look for answers not knowing that they can ever find one. However, once they have an answer, the basis is not faith, but evidence. That is one of the things that separates science from religion: science is in the faith stage before it has an answer, while theistic religion never gets past the faith stage. That’s because the claims of a religion like Doofus’ are not verifiable or falsifiable; they’re useless as explanations for reality, completely and utterly useless. Furthermore, the test of good science is not whether it is true in every respect. Newton’s theory of gravity, for example, is fundamentally wrong, as Einstein and others proved a century ago. Just the same, Newton’s theory of gravity is one of the most important ideas in the history of science, contributing powerfully to the scientific, industrial and technological revolutions of the past few centuries. Doofus doesn’t begin to understand how the scientific method works, which is yet another reason why he should not presume to lecture on it.

6. The arrogance of Doofus in saying there’s nothing scientific about it, when the entire scientific community says there is, is appalling. Not that science doesn’t have its gray areas, but Doofus is not qualified to do any of this, and he’s wrong.

[Guest Guest]

Way to stumble out of the blocks, there.

Young LaClair asked about which religion (not which scripture):

LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be

taught in schools, what would decide that?

Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about

teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we

get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk

about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -

but the scriptures aren't religion.

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Then LaClair asked what happens if a student doesn't believe the Bible.  That's when Paszkiewicz (quite constitutionally) brought up the comparison to evolution--an epistemological comparison.

1a)  What bias was supposedly presented as fact?

1b)  Paszkiewicz did not call the teaching of evolution indoctrination but the manner in which it is taught indoctrination.  The understanding of evolution produced on this message board provides considerable support for his statement.  People don't seem to have any sense of the epistemic limits of science.

1c)  Arrogant and biased beyond belief?  Plausible as your self-description, perhaps.

There's nothing unconstitutional about discussing the creationism versus evolution debate.

If only you could put aside your bias for a moment and pay attention to what Pasziewicz said.

It's a pity that the philosophy of science (including epistemology) gets so little time in public schools.

Paszkiewicz was obviously dealing with macroevolutionary claims, not bare-minimum speciation.

"we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms, ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis."

Evolution from a bacterium to a bacterium is not evolution from simple life forms to complex life forms.

Evolution of one fruit fly species to another fruit fly species is not evolution from simple life forms to complex life forms, either (unless the new fruit fly species reflects a marked upgrade in terms of design complexity).

Scientists who conclude that evolution is a scientific fact without acknowledging its basis in faith have made an epistemic error.  Note that faith is not belief without evidence.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol1.html

"No qualified scientist or educator would teach dogmatically, or compel student belief."

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles...icle=university

"A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation."

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

Paszkiewicz seems to be on solid ground while you seem to be, well, an idiot.

72349[/snapback]

Oh come on. Paszkiewicz wasn't teaching epistemology. He was evangelizing for one particular and very narrow view of things that has nothing to do with science.

1. It's not a part of the curriculum.

2. It's not allowed under the law.

3. He's not qualified to teach science, and what he said was both biased and incorrect.

[Guest Guest]

It actually went like this: "Please, mother, I do not want to go to church.  It is so boring!"  I took my grammar and diction very seriously.  I would also cry on my pillow -- it was simply too difficult to get inside of it after a while.

I actually had the opportunity to go to church AND play soccer.  How Kearnyite-American!

Regarding ignorance, that is what I was saddled with back when I actually believed the nonsense I was being taught at Sunday School.  I am still ignorant of many subjects, but this is one where I have gained great clarity.

If you are curious about my age you can reference my only topic posting on this message board.  I dated myself quite precisely.

72364[/snapback]

Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why? We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god? Why do you feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe? Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one. I wonder why you are so mad at god.

[Guest Guest]

. . .  Just the same, Newton’s theory of gravity is one of the most important ideas in the history of science, contributing powerfully to the scientific, industrial and technological revolutions of the past few centuries. Doofus doesn’t begin to understand how the scientific method works, which is yet another reason why he should not presume to lecture on it.

72405[/snapback]

And he also doesn't understand his science fits into history. That's how bad his lack of understanding is.

[Strife767]

4. Doofus’ comparison between the big bang and exploding firecracker or building collapse has no merit at all. Those events do not produce bodies large enough to have their own gravitational pull. This is a perfect illustration why someone who knows nothing about science should not presume to teach it.

That's actually not even the worst part of the comparison. The Big Bang is not an "explosion" at all. It is a rapid expansion of space itself and time--there is no present-day analogue to that.

Also, Paszkiewicz makes the common (for creationists and 'laypeople' who have been misled by them, anyway) mistake of saying that the Big Bang posits 'something coming from nothing.' The actual singularity in the model is the exact opposite of nothing--it is everything, condensed to an unimaginable degree, and the expansion is literally that. "Something coming from nothing," ironically enough, is something inherent to creationism as a concept. The word create itself means to bring something into existence, and I've never heard a creationist talking about where God got the materials for the creation job.

[Guest Guest]

Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why? We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god? Why do you feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe? Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one. I wonder why you are so mad at god.

72423[/snapback]

You're still missing Michael's point. What you call religion is a self-contradictory fairy tale that is forced on children from the time they're too young to defend themselves from the damage it does to them. You can't blame people for being upset about it when they get older and realize the damage that was done.

And please, give me a break about the god thing. You write as though you own God, so you're hardly one to talk about someone thinking he's above everyone else.

The way I see it, Michael has a better understanding of God than you do, because Michael is seeking the truth instead of settling for a fairy tale. For growing numbers of people, God is what is real and true and good. We can't put a name or face on it, give it a personal history or reduce it to a collection of stories from one culture a long time ago. We know that we don't know enough to try to fit God into our little stories and concepts. For growing numbers of us, God is not somebody. It's What Is, and it may not be conscious. It may just be a cold and uncaring universe that somehow produced us. We don't know. Yet for thousands of years human beings have been deluding themselves into thinking that they could understand it with their little stories, and guess what: they've done a lot of damage.

You can't blame people like Michael (and me I suppose) for thinking we've gone beyond that. If it offends you that we see it that way, I'm very sorry, but at least we don't tell people that they deserve to suffer forever if they don't agree with us. Your religion's record on humility is hardly anything to be held up as an example - except maybe an example of what not to do.

From what I read in his writing, Michael really wants to know What Is, and is looking for answers to all kinds of questions where they actually are, not where he wants them to be. He may not spend much time thinking about how everything began, but if he's not it's probably because he appreciates how far beyond our understanding that is.

They way I see it, Michael is not mad at God. He's upset about people saying foolish and sometimes ridiculous things and calling it God, and then forcing people who don't agree into a corner of isolation and contempt, or worse. Again, he knows his own mind and can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Strife767]

Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why?

Well, for one, because they grow up to be people that hold stances like this:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." --James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan

And mentalities like that harm everyone, especially when a joker like that manages to get into a position of power, riding on the votes of people like you.

Also:

We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god?

People are not equivalent to their beliefs. If someone thinks their beliefs are absurd, they should have every right to say so. And it's not like most Christians aren't aware of that--they'd quickly mock Scientology or Sun Myung Moon's religion, but out comes the persecution card if someone says anything negative about Christian beliefs.

The beliefs themselves have had a free ride for far too long, and they deserve no more automatic respect than any other baseless idea (and to restate, denouncing or ridiculing a religion is not equivalent to ridiculing the entire body of its members--atheists especially tend to know that most people are indoctrinated into this religion or that while they're too young to do or say anything about it, and most people can't recover from that). Let's try and keep the standards down to one, yes?

Why do you feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe?

Why do you equate disagreeing with a religion with such an exaggerated level of arrogance? Do I detect a tone of "how dare you not agree" in there?

Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one.

But he's the one not gambling his life away in hopes of hitting the ethereal jackpot. Perhaps it is you who is scared. So scared of death that you have to invent an afterlife just to reassure yourself. Ever consider that?

I wonder why you are so mad at god.

72423[/snapback]

I wonder why you are so mad at Zeus. Why do you hate him so? Clearly, the only reason one would not devoutly worship him would be anger, right? So what do you think he has done to anger you?

People can't hate entities they don't believe in, goofball. Atheists don't hate God any more than Christians hate Ra.

[mnodonnell]

Okay, you got me there, "on your pillow!!" Are you happy now? My problem is, why would you actually care what other parents are teaching their children out of the public schools? Really, why? We shouldn't preach/teach religion in the public schools, and I completely agree with that, but why would you now feel the need to insult the people that actually do believe in god?

It is because I have a regard for my fellow humans, my community, and society in general.

Parents have every right to teach their children whatever they want, and I cannot (and should not) control that. However, that does not mean that I'm not allowed to care.

Why do you feel the need to be so above and beyond everyone else in this universe?

I think you have the "above and beyond" argument backward. I put myself on the same plane as everyone else. It is religion that seeks to segment the human race (e.g. "God's Chosen People", and the Rapture).

Unfortunately, you seem to be the sad one, and the scared one.

"The sad one" and "the scared one" as opposed to who?

I wonder why you are so mad at god.

I needed someone to fill that void after I reconciled with Santa Claus.

[Guest Guest]

I'll put you on the list for my fan club meetings.  Our next session concerns the spelling difficulties presented by double consonants and the proper use of the ellipsis.

I'll give you a preview of the introduction of the next meeting, which is where I lay out what I do know.

1.  I know enough to admit that I do not know something.  For example, what came before the Big Bang?  I do not have the faintest clue.

2.  However, I do not fall back on a supernatural deistic force as the default answer to things I do not know.  I do not consult 4,000+ year old books for answers to these kinds of questions.  Despite what you have perceived, I'm content with simply not knowing.

3.  I know that there is a big difference between deism and theism.  It is the difference between: "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist."; and "I believe there is some higher intelligence that is responsible for the universe in which I exist; and he has said unto me: do not eat the pork."

72293[/snapback]

Ignorance coupled with a superiority complex. Be careful, you may be President someday.

[Guest Guest]

I can't speak for Michael, but I think you missed the satire in his post, which reads as follows: "If schools didn't encourage social acceptance of individual deviant behavior, how would rationalists deal with religious people?  It's hard for ethical people to sit idly by as children are dragged into church every Sunday, like lemmings over a cliff.  But we learn to tolerate the madness, as sad as it may be."

Those of us who do not believe in or practice a traditional religion are bombarded with the arrogance of self-proclaimed "believers" all the time, as though belief was the exclusive province of Christians, or whatever group is culturally dominant in a particular area. We non-theists are treated like deviants all the time, to such an extent that both president Bushes said that an atheist was ipso facto not a good American. This is a tragic strain of thinking that has appeared many times in American history.

If I interpret Michael correctly, he was pointing this out by turning back at y'all what y'all do to us all the time, the main difference being that for those of us who think according to the evidence and not according to what we wish was true, theistic belief has many foundations, but truth is not one of them; however, conformity is. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but that is how I read his intent.

72344[/snapback]

Michael's satire was not lost. However, my satire appears to have been. My over-the-top-point was to show how Michael's post lacks the common courtesy and respect that "y'all" (myself included) say is lacking in the treatment that we receive from the fundies. At what point does referring to Sunday School students as "lemmings" engender mutual respect or further the discussion? At what point does it make you or me any less "deviant"?

At the end of the day, non-conformists are unlikely to be accepted in the world of those the choose (or otherwise need) to conform. But shouldn't we hold our conduct up to a higher level (of course, if that is where we aspire to be)? If not, do we not justify their derision?

[Guest Guest]

Just because one thinks it's obvious that the Abrahamic religions are nonsensical doesn't mean that one considers oneself divine. In fact, even considering how many more theists are around than atheists, I've still met more atheists who are willing to admit a possibility of error. Why do you suppose that is?

72355[/snapback]

(sigh) Clearly, I have to get better at making my points through sarcasm ... (added that for Michael ... with a smile).

The answer to your question is that atheists typically are "born" of thought. Whereas most theists believe the system in which they were raised, atheists (excluding those raised by atheists) are born of skepticism and thought. Of course, those atheists that are raised by atheists may simply be regurgitating the beliefs taught by parents and, therefore, may or may not be exercising intellectual dominion over their beliefs.

I also think that it is the nature of the belief system. The foundation of most theistic belief systems is faith. The lodestone of most atheistic systems is skepticism. So, naturally, you will find more skeptics willing to admit to error than you will ever find in the faith community.

It's funny, two of my colleagues were debating religion several years ago. And, of course, the argument of "if I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I'm right, you lose everything" came up. This is the only time I have ever heard this retort, but I thought you would appreciate it. My atheist colleage said "to the contrary, for if I am wrong, I have the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised, but if you are wrong, you are setting yourself up for the supreme disappointment".

Anyway, I will take a humor class and show up at the next Michael O'Donnell fan club meeting ready for my first lesson in punctuation from the master of all things grammatical and punctual (and yes, I know that's the wrong word).

[Guest Paul]

(sigh) Clearly, I have to get better at making my points through sarcasm ... (added that for Michael ... with a smile).

The answer to your question is that atheists typically are "born" of thought.  Whereas most theists believe the system in which they were raised, atheists (excluding those raised by atheists) are born of skepticism and thought.  Of course, those atheists that are raised by atheists may simply be regurgitating the beliefs taught by parents and, therefore, may or may not be exercising intellectual dominion over their beliefs.

I also think that it is the nature of the belief system.  The foundation of most theistic belief systems is faith.  The lodestone of most atheistic systems is skepticism.  So, naturally, you will find more skeptics willing to admit to error than you will ever find in the faith community.

It's funny, two of my colleagues were debating religion several years ago.  And, of course, the argument of "if I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I'm right, you lose everything" came up.  This is the only time I have ever heard this retort, but I thought you would appreciate it.  My atheist colleage said "to the contrary, for if I am wrong, I have the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised, but if you are wrong, you are setting yourself up for the supreme disappointment".

Anyway, I will take a humor class and show up at the next Michael O'Donnell fan club meeting ready for my first lesson in punctuation from the master of all things grammatical and punctual (and yes, I know that's the wrong word).

72671[/snapback]

I say it's time to get past mere belief versus skepticism. Those are biases, and I think both approaches are overly simplistic and inadequate. I'd like to see a world in which people continually seek to learn more with an openness fortified by a healthy degree of skepticism.

In fact, I have to get cracking. Many, many people are already there.

[Guest Paul]

Ignorance coupled with a superiority complex.  Be careful, you may be President someday.

72665[/snapback]

I found Michael's comments entirely on the mark. He has an edge, but I think he's using it to make a point. Some may not think it's effective, but he's not just needling; he's needling to make a point, and I think he does it well.

If Michael is angry, that's his issue. I prefer to focus on the points he makes.

[Guest 2smart4u]

(sigh) Clearly, I have to get better at making my points through sarcasm ... (added that for Michael ... with a smile).

The answer to your question is that atheists typically are "born" of thought.  Whereas most theists believe the system in which they were raised, atheists (excluding those raised by atheists) are born of skepticism and thought.  Of course, those atheists that are raised by atheists may simply be regurgitating the beliefs taught by parents and, therefore, may or may not be exercising intellectual dominion over their beliefs.

I also think that it is the nature of the belief system.  The foundation of most theistic belief systems is faith.  The lodestone of most atheistic systems is skepticism.  So, naturally, you will find more skeptics willing to admit to error than you will ever find in the faith community.

It's funny, two of my colleagues were debating religion several years ago.  And, of course, the argument of "if I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I'm right, you lose everything" came up.  This is the only time I have ever heard this retort, but I thought you would appreciate it.  My atheist colleage said "to the contrary, for if I am wrong, I have the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised, but if you are wrong, you are setting yourself up for the supreme disappointment".

Anyway, I will take a humor class and show up at the next Michael O'Donnell fan club meeting ready for my first lesson in punctuation from the master of all things grammatical and punctual (and yes, I know that's the wrong word).

72671[/snapback]

Someone please clarify something for me. When "doofus" is referred to

in this thread, which doofus is actually referred to; Paul, Michael, Strife,

a doofus in texas, autonomous doofus, a proud american doofus or that

doofus in Mo. ?? Thanks for your help.

[Guest Guest]

Michael's satire was not lost.  However, my satire appears to have been.  My over-the-top-point was to show how Michael's post lacks the common courtesy and respect that "y'all" (myself included) say is lacking in the treatment that we receive from the fundies.  At what point does referring to Sunday School students as "lemmings" engender mutual respect or further the discussion?  At what point does it make you or me any less "deviant"?

At the end of the day, non-conformists are unlikely to be accepted in the world of those the choose (or otherwise need) to conform.  But shouldn't we hold our conduct up to a higher level (of course, if that is where we aspire to be)?  If not, do we not justify their derision?

72666[/snapback]

Nothing seems to get through to die-hard religious zealots, least of all reason. The same thing is even true of many theists who aren't so zealous. They believe based on a wish, and if you try telling them what's wrong with that, most of them just find a way to tune you out. They don't see the double standard in insisting that we stay away from discussing religion openly and honestly, yet insisting that everyone bow a head in prayer, etc.

Maybe coupling reason with some shock value will get through. It's not a happy situation, but I'm not so sure we can criticize people for trying everything they can after years and years of the frustration that comes from being ignored, put down and hit over the head incessantly with the breathtaking illogic of theism.

[Guest a proud american]

Someone please clarify something for me.  When "doofus" is referred to

  in this thread, which doofus is actually referred to; Paul, Michael, Strife,

  a doofus in texas, autonomous doofus, a proud american doofus or that

  doofus in Mo. ??  Thanks for your help.

72894[/snapback]

I believe the reference to doofus is Mr. P. However it can also be applied to you and your ilk. But hey, you're smarter, more intelligent and wealthier than I am. By the way, you need to get off the computer now. They need a clean up in aisle 4.

[mnodonnell]

Ignorance coupled with a superiority complex.  Be careful, you may be President someday.

72665[/snapback]

I'll be eligible just in time for the 2012 election. If only an atheist could get elected...

[Guest Keith- Marshall, Mo.]

Someone please clarify something for me.  When "doofus" is referred to

  in this thread, which doofus is actually referred to; Paul, Michael, Strife,

  a doofus in texas, autonomous doofus, a proud american doofus or that

  doofus in Mo. ??  Thanks for your help.

72894[/snapback]

Doofus in Mo? I guess that's what you consider an insult, feeble as it was. Unfortunately you missed your mark because I cannot be insulted by those for which I have no respect. Better luck next time.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Doofus in Mo? I guess that's what you consider an insult, feeble as it was. Unfortunately you missed your mark because I cannot be insulted by those for which I have no respect. Better luck next time.

72943[/snapback]

It wasn't intended to be an insult, just an honest opinion.

[Bern]

Someone please clarify something for me.  When "doofus" is referred to

  in this thread, which doofus is actually referred to; Paul, Michael, Strife,

  a doofus in texas, autonomous doofus, a proud american doofus or that

  doofus in Mo. ??  Thanks for your help.

72894[/snapback]

Pitiful.

[Strife767]

I'll be eligible just in time for the 2012 election.  If only an atheist could get elected...

72929[/snapback]

Yeah, seriously. This country would sooner elect a black Jewish lesbian (three of the minority groups with higher percentages in polls of "would you vote for a qualified candidate that was X") than an atheist.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Pitiful.

73104[/snapback]

I know, you're dejected because I omitted your name from the doofus list.

Sorry Bern, you're a doofus too. Feel better ?

[Autonomous]

Everyone-please stop feeding the troll. If you ignore 2Dim, Patrat, and the other trolls they'll go away. I know it is fun mocking their stupidity, but their stupidity is already self-evident. So why bother?

[Guest Kearny Senior Citizen]

Everyone-please stop feeding the troll. If you ignore 2Dim, Patrat, and the other trolls they'll go away. I know it is fun mocking their stupidity, but their stupidity is already self-evident. So why bother?

73224[/snapback]

I would put Autonomous on any troll list before 2smart4u, at least his posts

are witty and sensible.