The Odd Blog

And when our cubs grow / We'll show you what war is good for

Spanking Sirius… Again

Posted by That Other Mike on 15/04/2008

The other day, as I was browsing around as I often do, I was reminded of an old but funny joke, which goes something like this:

A hunter goes into the woods to hunt a bear and takes with him his trusty 22-gauge rifle.

After a little while, he spots a very large bear, takes aim, and fires. When the smoke clears, though, the bear is gone.

A moment later the bear taps this guy on the shoulder and says, “No one shoots at me and gets away with it. You have two choices: I can either rip your throat out and eat you alive, or you can drop your trousers, bend over, and I’ll do you in the ass.”

The hunter figures that anything is better than death, so he drops his trousers, bends over, and the bear delivers on his promise.

After the bear leaves, the hunter pulls up his trousers and staggers into town vowing revenge.

He buys a much larger gun and returns to the forest. He sees the same bear, takes aim, and fires. When the smoke clears, the bear once again is gone. A moment later, the bear taps him on the shoulder and says, “You know what to do.”

Afterwards, the hunter pulls up his trousers and crawls back into town. Now he’s really mad, so he buys himself a bazooka.

He returns to the forest, sees the bear, aims, and fires.

When the smoke clears this time, the bear taps him on the shoulder and says, “You’re not REALLY here for the hunting, are you?”

The person (and I use the term loosely) who reminded me of that joke was Sirius Knotts, whom you may have seen being given a good fisking before.

You can see why I thought of the joke.

With that in mind, I present for your edification the following slice and dice of Sirius Knotts’s latest dribbling diatribe.

And again it goes:

I’ll challenge an atheist to disprove the existence of God and instead of arguments against theism or for atheism I get some variation of, “No, YOU prove there IS a

Well, yeah. That’s how it works, dumbass. You make the assertion that something exists, you prove it. Not convinced? OK. Disprove the invisible green dancing lobsters which live in my back yard.

Atheists! Listen up!

You know, being loud is no substitute for being right. I’m sure I’m not the first person ever to tell you this.

You guys are and always have been in the minority. It has ever been the responsibility of the minority position to have to make its case for validity. The majority position, whether you like it or not [and no one’s saying you do], enjoys the advantage of only having to defend itself against specific objections [or to offer up responses given by challengers]. The minority position, on the other hand, is forced to make its case for superiority over
the existing majority, unless of course it prefers to slip into obscurity and irrelevance.

Wrong-o. Truth is not a democracy, Snotts. It doesn’t matter how many idiots you have waving flags for your particular brand of idiocy; numbers don’t count. If that were true, you’d be going ra-ra-ra for Catholicism, rather than the puerile fundamentalism you seem eager on spewing all over the interwebz.

Now, a lot of popular “literature” by fols like Dawkins,
Hitchens and that other rude fellow who’s name I’ve [happily] forgotten may give you the impression that atheism enjoys some upper hand, or that it enjoys the upper hand at least amongst educated folk.

Argument from authority in reverse. Similar to the argumentum ad hitlerum; if you will, a form of poisoning the well. It goes something like this — Snotts has a low opinion of Dawkins because of his Atheism, therefore anything said by them is false, therefore Atheism is false.

Frankly, Snotts, if your poorly-spelled, indifferently-punctuated and intellectually-stunted vomit is Christianity’s best, then yes, Atheism is the position of intellectuals by default. Luckily, we can also prove that it is 🙂

This is a lovely smokescreen. Stephen Jay Gould did us all a favor of being intellectually honest enough to admit that theistic scienists are at least as common as atheistic scientists. Outside academia, atheism is a decided minority.

And outside your living room, your views are a decided minority. Guess you’d better shut up, huh?

Of course, atheists leap at this disparity of disbelief amongst intelligentsia versus the general public and add the non sequitur that the more educated we become the less likely we are to believe in God.

Well, yeah… Statistically, religious belief diminishes inversely according to education. Not only are you prima facie evidence for this, Snotts, but studies seem to show it, too, not to mention that the US National Academy of Sciences has only a 7% belief rate, for example, and US scientists in general are 60% disbelieving. So yeah, there is a correlation between disbelief and education.

You know why? Because you have to be ignorant and credulous to belief in that shit, and highly-educated people tend to be less ignorant and credulous, as a group.

This ignores the politics and peer pressure special interest groups may weild. A
minority, if vocal, zealous and focused enough, may take over an institution and impose itself upon the majority.

You mean the way that theocrats have taken over the Republicans? Yeesh. I knew you were stupid, Snotts; I didn’t realise you were also an internutter. Perhaps an institution, maybe a few; but a majority of all higher education institutions in the US? *snort* And we shot JFK, too!

Once in key positions it may deny those with opposing views equal opoortunities for
advancement, acclaim or simple expression. This has been the case in the universities over the past century. Scientists with theistic theories of origins are largely denied peer review and then their work is decried as not being peer reviewed!

Been to an advance screening of Expelled!, have we? “Theistic theories of origins” don’t get peer reviewed because they aren’t submitted for peer review because dah-dah-dah-DAH they aren’t science. Science has to be able to make predictions and be falsified. Belief in gods doesn’t qualify.

Theists are even denied positions in universities for holding THE MAJORITY OPINION of the Earth, that God exists and created the world.

Burden of proof again, Snotts, you lying little twerp. I presume this refers to Gonzalez; I imagine that pointing out to you that Gonzalez didn’t deserve tenure because he was a massive failure who didn’t do what he was hired to do probably won’t make a dent in that unshakeable belief of yours, will it?

In the world of print, Dawkins is particularly vocal in brow beating those who stray
from atheistic fundamentalism.

Oy gevalt. For there to be fundamentalism, there has to be a doctrine. Ergo, there cannot be any such thing as an Atheist fundamentalist. Incidentally, Snotts, did you think this one through? At all? You’re attempting to insult Atheists by suggesting that they resemble you and other Christians. You really aren’t here for the hunting, are you?

They are not winning their argument.

Sure we are! See above comment regarding numbers.

They are simply muzzling the opposition.

Sorry, how are we doing that again? At least be consistent in your delusions, Snotts. Are we an impotent minority or not?

The irony is that despite their usurped monopoly on higher education, attempts indoctrinate new generations in their atheistic dogma have largely failed. The statistics are not much changed. Atheism is still a minority.

Oh, Snotts. You’re really not too smart, are you? I guess you managed to stay clear of those dens of Atheist iniquities called… colleges! *cue dramatic incident music*

First – no dogma, so no indoctrination. Keep up. Second – again, numbers don’t win you any prizes. A position is correct, or it is not; a show of hands doesn’t have the power to change facts.

Now, the “No, YOU prove there IS a God!” argument usually invokes a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an Invisible Pink Unicorn or Russell’s Teapot. They’re allclever and they’re all flawed.

Uh, no, they don’t. They usually involve the burden of proof – you’re the one claiming the existence of something. You prove it. It doesn’t go Snotts asserts something, which someone then has to disprove.

The Noodly One deserves especial scorn for it is not so much an argument against theism as against the notion of theistic origins.

It’s a parody of the “intelligent design” (aka stealth Creationism) movement’s tactics, Snotts.

It has commonalities with the other straw man arguments in that it presupposes no rational, philosophical or scientific basis of any sort for the theistic position.

No presupposition necessary. As for it being a strawman… Well, Snotts, let’s see – one is an unevidenced belief in something which runs counter to everything we know about the world, which flies in the face of every observation or logical principle… And the other is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

All of these straw man arguments presuppose that religious belief, like the belief in God, is purest superstition that no modern thinking man could ever countenance if he were intellectually honest.

Explain to me then how belief in your god is different in substance to belief in any other unsupported claim.

And so the argument is made thus:

Your strawman version, anyway.

We say, “Disprove the existence of God.”

And we say, “Don’t need to, dumbass!” See, that’s the joy of being the default position…

They say, “Disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Russell’s Teapot, or Dragons, or Fairies, or Leprechauns!”

Which is commentary about the ridiculousness of your beliefs, not their ontology. At least try to pretend like you have a functional brain, would you?

I’ll say it again: They’re simply repeating our objection back to us. We believe it is impossible to either prove or disprove God’s existence. THAT is our point, but what makes it a straw man is that is is NOT our ENTIRE point.

Your entire point is an exercise in special pleading, Snotts; you’re asking for special favours because it happens to be your god. Newsflash! You don’t get to throw the rules of epistemology out of the window just because what you’re arguing happens to be Jesus-shaped. If the rule is that you have to prove assertions, that applies as much to your god as it does the existence of WMDs in Iraq or the principles of gravity or anything else.

We do note that it would be impossible to rule out God’s existence unless one knew everything, but we also note that in the end you must believe in God. Again, it cannot be aither proven or disproven.

Unless, of couse, your god is conceptually incoherent. Like being pink and invisible at the same time, for example. Or omniscient yet allowing free will, for example. As soon as you start assigning characteristics to your god, as soon as you start claiming any kind of interaction with the universe we all inhabit (as much as you seem to want to inhabit a different one), it becomes conceptually subject to such constraints. If it is internally contradictory so to be impossible, I can quite safely say that it doesn’t exist.

But is it based on blind faith? No, it is not. It is based on a weight of evidences and testimonies.

So show them. And, by the way, Snotts – testimonies are a show of hands.

Bertrand Russell partially addressed testimonies with his Teapot analogy. He noted that if an unprovable, undetectable teapot were also taught as truth out of ancient authority texts, in Sunday Schools and to our children that a man who believed otherwise would be looked upon as an eccentric.

And I bet that burns you, just a little bit, to realise that he was entirely right, that trends in god beliefs are socially constructed. Else everyone would believe in your religion, right?

I should note that his analogy can be turned upon its head, for nontheistic Darwinism is being taught as truth to our children in our schools and univeristies out of textbooks referring back to the musty text called Origins.

Because OtOS is the only thing we have in terms of evolution, right? You are indeed a moron, Snotts. How is it that someone as stupid as you has made it to adulthood? Seriously, let me know, because I’m just curious as to how you’ve managed to survive all these years.

It, being a process which takes hideous amounts of time to evolve a species into another kind of creature entirely, is unprovable and undetectable.

This crap again? Did you not get a good enough spanking last time? MRSA; ring species; mosquitoes specific to the London Underground; drosophila variants… I could go on. Point is, speciation has been observed on many occasions. You need to drop this one. It’s just making you look even stupider.

Scientists may say that this minor mutation or that adaptation is evidence of transition in action, but they are only presuming evolution to be true and presuming that these adaptations and mutations will someday far away lead to such a transition. I digress.

If “digress” is taken to be a synonym for “talking ignorant shite”, then, yes, you digress.

What we are saying when we challenge an atheist to disprove God’s existence is NOT simply that God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven. We are also saying that atheism [God’s nonexistence] cannot be either proven or disproven.

See above point regarding conceptual incoherency. This is another hunting moment, too; unless your attempted pose of Mr Logical is simply that, a pose, you also have to apply this principle to every other god going, else it is again special pleading. Hmm… I bet it just stopped looking like a good idea when it occurred to you that this argument now requires you to believe in Allah, Shiva and the Goddess.

It is however evident that God does exist. The complex, inter-related order and design of the universe, the existence of universal moral law with its inherent sense of justice and a host of other things [like personal experience, reason, philosophy, beauty and meaning] are compelling reasons to believe.

In other words, Snotts, you’ve decided to draw unwarranted inferences from neutral facts, which I will deal with as follows:

  • If you believe the Universe to be designed, you must have some reason for this. You can’t cite your belief in your god as a reason for believing in a designed Universe, because you’re citing the “design” as a reason for belief. So, what’s your reason? The usual way that we can tell a designed object from an undesigned one is by comparison: designed objects bear certain signs which mark them as designed, signs which make them distinct from the undesigned. So, Snotts – where is the undesigned universe which you used to verify your extraordinary claim? And more to the point, if you do have an undesigned universe lying around for comparison purposes, you just shot your own argument in the foot.
  • There is no moral law provably inherent in nature; even if you drag out the dubious argument that all human cultures show morality of some variety, you’re left with the fact that it varies hugely from culture to culture, it varies according to what century you’re living in, what colour you are and if you’re a man or a woman. If morality were some law of nature it would be blanket and indiscriminate, as laws of nature are; it would not be the way morality is now, which is in the form one would expect from a socially-constructed structure.
  • Personal experience, by which I presume you mean revelation, is inherently unreliable, Snotts. As to reason and philosophy, don’t make me laugh, son; the existence of deities is not a necessary precondition for them. Beauty, as the old saying goes, is in the eye of the beholder; it is not an objective quality upon which to base an argument; ditto meaning.

Frankly, if you consider those to be compelling, it’s a wonder you don’t fall victim to the Nigerians every couple of weeks; their offers of money must seem equally forceful and believable to you.

The atheist can give little reason to believe that the universe accientally came to be in such a way that intelligent life searches for meaning yet reasons that neither God nor meaning exists.

Accident implies agency, Snotts, because it implies that there is a non-accidental way for things to be in comparison, which leads us back to the undesigned comparison I mentioned above; simiarly, why does there have to be a reason? You’re begging the question – your assumption that there has to be a reason and thus agency is exactly what you wish to prove. Fortunately, as Spock once almost said, logic dictates that you’re talking out of your arse.

I digress.

See above definition of “digress”.

The atheist loves to throw out leprechauns and fantastical creatures of myth, folklore and legend alongside its own creations [for the hypocrites do not actually profess to believe in invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters or undetectable teapots,except with tongue firmly in cheek] and then compare such a belief with a belief in God.

Seriously, Snotts – show me what the difference is. What makes a sincerely held belief in one unproven creature any less sensible than belief in another unproven creature? You’re trying special pleading again — you’re making an argument but then attempting to qualify it with “Except God, of course.” No, not of course. The process is the same; only the content is different.

Note: They do illustrate that it’s actually impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence.

Repetition does not confer accuracy, Snotts.

By throwing out objections like pasta monsters, invisible unicorns and undetectable teapots, they are ADMITTING this! They are conceding the point.

Uh, no. The FSM et al are criticisms of the process by which you arrive at your conclusions; they utilise the same process with unfamiliar and ridiculous content in order to illustrate the inconsistency and inaccuracy of your arguments. The only reason you don’t fall over laughing at “God” rather than the IPU is that “God” is more familiar a concept to you, that it is a concept you already believe in. In reality, the only reason you have to not recognise this is intellectual inertia.

Note Also: They do not address whether it is mores reasonable to believe or disbelieve in God, given the available evidence.

Yeah, we do. That’s the whole point of the FSM and the IPU and the invisible green dancing lobsters, and the argument from evil, and incompatible properties arguments and so on.

Your failure to think isn’t our fault, and your inability to grasp the arguments doesn’t make them invalid. That you lack the capacity (or if I’m being generous, the desire) to understand the arguments is clear; but I wonder if you even have intelligence enough to realise just how dumb you are…

23 Responses to “Spanking Sirius… Again”

  1. Lottie said

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more… sirius case of cognitive dissonance.

  2. […] Mike’s latest entry, Ouchies. I do not share Mike’s talent for slicing and dicing these creationist fools, so I was delighted to learn of a way that I, too, can help expose at least […]

  3. They are not winning their argument.

    Yes we are — with a little help from you, Sirius, and your lame beliefs.

    He’s a living breathing, walking talking Monty Python sketch for the 21stC, isn’t he? — only without the humour… or the intelligence… or anything else worth mentioning for that matter.

  4. Mike said

    He’s the anti-Python. Does that make him a fluffy bunny rabbit?

    This sorts of ties in with what Isaac Asimov said (in paraphrase): the best argument for Atheism is the Bible. Sirius comes in a close second. If that is what Christianity does to a person, I want to be wearing some kind of protective suit if I get near it.

  5. Sirius said

    Before I say anything else, you will kindly note that you have violated my Copyright Notice.

    I should also like to say that your presumptuous title sums up your argument: over-reaching ad hominem. You’re clearly in over your head.sten up

    Listen up, little atheists. I realize that it’s possible that your brains haven’t quite evolved fully enough or quite correctly, but do try to comprehend this: quoting me piecemeal [and often out-of-context] and following them up with one-liners and slams only illustrates the weakness of atheistic thought. When you actually start presenting arguments rather than slams, I’ll be happy to humor you. As it is: Clearly, there’s no such thing as a rational atheist.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

    And by the way, the next time you violate my copyright notice, I’ll report you to the wordpress administator. Learn to play by the rules.

    –Sirius Knott

  6. Lottie said

    What a sweet little Christian. Makes me wanna run right out and get saved.

    Mike nails it as usual:

    If that is what Christianity does to a person, I want to be wearing some kind of protective suit if I get near it.

    Wonder if they make those suits in His and Hers?

    Hey, didn’t he say he was leaving and never coming back? Or was that just wishful thinking on my part?

  7. Sirius said


    Are you seriously implying that if I were a “sweet little Christian” that you would actually run right out and get saved?

    You have quite the double standard. You revel in this sap’s slams and personal attacks, but you seem to think that someone with the wrong opinion has no right to defend himself.

    If mockery is all that atheism/naturalism is capable of, Christianity nor any other theistic belief has anything to worry about.

    –Sirius Knott

  8. Sirius said

    I just realized what a mental midget I’m dealing with.

    You’re Mr. Oops!

    Dude, I had almost entirely forgotten about you. You really are a one trick pony, aren’t you?

    It was the complete and total lack of coherence and inability to grasp that laying down an off-topic, out-of-context ad hominem does not actually refute your opponent’s argument that gave you away. Little nuggets-o-nonsense like your unnecesary [and inaccurate] definition of digress. You are classic. Now, Im sure that buried somewhere in that big pile of hubris and mockery are a couple of vaild points of argument. To be camoflaged so deeply in that big pile, they have to be pretty weak, but I have faith in you, man. They’re there. I just know it. But why would I [or should I] both to root through your big pile in the hopes that there’sactually something more substantial there?

    Come to think of it, Oops, I think you’ve actually been spanked by Sirius before. Wow. maybe even more than once!

    Mike: I’ve taken out your links, Snotts. This isn’t a place for you to advertise your grade school apologetics; and you’re not getting traffic from here unless I point it at you.

  9. Mike said

    You know, Snotts, I was going to post a long reply to these comments, with detailed explanations of each instance where you’re wrong, stupid or both.

    One of them was going to be an explanation of fair use, which means your claims of copyright violation and threats of running to Mommy WordPress are as empty and brainless as they seem.

    Another would have been a classic exposition of how you just don’t understand the meaning of an ad hominem, and how it isn’t simply an insult, but an insult used in place of an argument, and how you, in contrast, were insulted while your piece was being taken apart.

    A further point would have been the irony of you, of all people, calling someone a one-trick pony, given your habit of rehashing the same ignorant nonsense about evolution and Atheism every couple of days.

    But then I thought that it’d just be better to let you keep going – you are swiftly becoming synonymous with the phrase, “Give him enough rope to hang himself”. Metaphorically, you’re standing on a stool with the noose in hand; your next post will see it going around your neck…

  10. If mockery is all that atheism/naturalism is capable of, Christianity nor any other theistic belief has anything to worry about.

    It isn’t, and you should be worried — “we” are capeable of much more. Rational thought, a fact-based understanding of the world, a true moral/ethical system based on humanistic principles, logic, freedom from superstition, love without threat or fear… tell me when to stop.

  11. Mike said

    *gives Gary a cigar*

  12. Lottie said

    Are you seriously implying that if I were a “sweet little Christian” that you would actually run right out and get saved?

    Nope. And the fact that my point flew right over your tiny little head doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    You have quite the double standard. You revel in this sap’s slams and personal attacks, but you seem to think that someone with the wrong opinion has no right to defend himself.

    You might be able to accuse me of carrying a double standard if I had ever tried to stop you from “defending” yourself, or even implied that you have no “right” to.

    And I believe Mike’s slams were in direct response to your slams, so quit your pathetic belly-aching. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    If mockery is all that atheism/naturalism is capable of, Christianity nor any other theistic belief has anything to worry about.

    Then I can see why you’re so worried.

    And look who’s talking – the guy who has dedicated an *entire blog to mocking atheists. Irony is completely lost on you, isn’t it Snots? Talk about double standards…

    *OK… maybe not the entire blog.

  13. Mike said

    This is just one of many reasons to love you, Honey. *smooches wife* 😀

  14. Oh purlease. Snot and smooching? It’s more than my stomach can take!


  15. Sirius said

    I’ve edited Snott’s comments. He was using too much bandwidth with a pile of the typically verbose and uninteresting junk which we get a lot from Christians. Nothing particularly original or spectacularly written. What I’ve done is edited it down to the keywords; enough to express the same message (such as it is) without your having to wade through it all. You’ll note that it’s the same mixture of threats and fallacies which we’ve all defeated a hundred times before.

    Gary. Stop. Your arrogance was already quite evident before you began speaking with your typical hubris.

    Mike. Taking someone’s ENTIRE article is way outside fair use.

    Lottie. You’ve not encountered irony much, have you? Educated folk use it to get a point across. Especially when they want to point out that someone else has just made a statement of no value. [Yours] I don’t imagine you run into much intelligence, if you and your husband’s comments are any indication. In any case, I was pointing out that your comment concerning my tone [when I am rightfully offended] is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    you guys deserve the scorn
    atheism requires as much faith as belief in God
    You believe there is no God.
    No one is more a fool than the man who denies God’s existence.
    evidence for his existence through creation
    you blind guides
    You believe there is no God
    your prefer darkness
    your deeds are evil.
    because you guys need to know the truth
    God loved you enough to send His own flesh and blood to die for you.
    The choice is yours.
    I was once like you

  16. You know, Sirius, I am going to stop — because, frankly, I’m tired of you and your brand of godly salesmanship. You accuse me of arrogance and hubris? And yet you act like you are on some god-given act of conversion? Save it, my friend. I for one don’t want or need it.

  17. Mike said

    Looks like Gary has made his feelings quite clear, Snotts.

    Mike. Taking someone’s ENTIRE article is way outside fair use.

    I have used the entire article as a basis for hostile commentary and criticism, which qualifies as sufficiently transformative to remain completely under Fair Use. In other words, eat it.

    I was going to reply to you on behalf of my wife, because, well, she’s my wife and I like to defend her when she’s the target of loonies. Then I thought a little further on it, and I realised that she’s quite able to take care you, Snotts. So I’m just going to sit back and wait for her reply; I look forward to seeing her chop you off at the knees.

  18. Lottie said

    Lottie. You’ve not encountered irony much, have you?

    Au contraire. And I have no trouble detecting it. You, on the other hand, wouldn’t recognize irony if it kissed you square on the mouth. It does seem to get you in the arse on a regular basis, though.

    You’re really not here for the hunting, are you?

    Educated folk use it to get a point across.

    Uh-huh. And what are you using it for?

    Especially when they want to point out that someone else has just made a statement of no value. [Yours]

    You know, I may have to agree with you here; any attempt to reason with you is about as worthless as a wooden nickel. On second thought, the wooden nickel is probably of much greater value.

    I don’t imagine you run into much intelligence, if you and your husband’s comments are any indication.

    Tsk tsk… this from the guy who cries like a baby over ad hominems, real or imagined. Hope that (ironic) poke in the booty didn’t hurt too bad.

    By the way, is that how you let your light shine? *snigger*

    In any case, I was pointing out that your comment concerning my tone [when I am rightfully offended] is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Oh, I’m fully aware of the point you were trying to make; that was never unclear to me. The only point you seem to get, however, is the one that bear keeps givin’ ya’.

  19. Sirius said

    Pearls. Swine. The incomparable Mr. Oops! and family.

    If you care to comment on my posts in the future, kindly leave them on my site.

    You have the manners of trolls and the faces to match.

    Farewell, Mr. Oops! It’s just as well you’ve taken out those links that made you look so poorly.

    –Sirius Knott

  20. Mike said

    Awww… How cute! Ahem. For someone who is so down on ad hominems, you sure do like to spread ’em around. And yes, what you wrote does qualify – instead of an argument, you presented a series of personal abuse.

    As to leaving your posts on your site – I don’t think so. I’m entitled to use the text to comment with, and the fact that it pisses you off is, frankly, just one more reason for me.

    Before you actually take your ball and go home (you’ll forgive the skeptical tone here, given that you’ve previously promised to never darken the doorway again and haven’t yet made good on it), you should be aware that you’re laughing fodder; I can take your “criticism” of evolution and Atheism apart piece by piece without breaking a mental sweat. Your reasoning is puerile, ignorant and incoherent; so much so that you’re not even wrong. Word salad dressed in Miracle Whip, basically.

    So, please, just sit back and carry on enjoying your hair. That’s about all your head seems good for…

  21. Sirius said

    Have you ever considered that the reason you don’t break a mental sweat is because you’re not actually using your brain, Mike?

    I would not expect a coward like you to respond on my site. Weak arguments like yours should only be preached to the choir.

    have a peachy day,
    Sirius Knott

  22. Lottie said

    Maybe he picks fights on Saturday nights because it helps set the mood for Sunday morning services.

  23. Mike said

    Well, I am only barely using it to slice your arguments into coleslaw, Snotts. It’s like using a Ferrari to outrace a kid on a scooter – the engine ain’t going to overheat.

    And yes, I’m such a coward that I a) ping back to your screeds when I pick them apart and b) let you continue to post your little rants here without interruption.

    And there you go again, using religious imagery as a source of insult, which again leads me to think that you’re somewhat hard of thinking.

    Have a nice day communing with your hairdo.

    *thinks* Maybe he’s an Elton John fan… You know, Saturday night’s alright for fighting…?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: