patrick.net

I'll make it easy.
Give me 100...
Dan8267 says

I could give you thousands of examples where you are not invited to speak.

Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.
Another false equivilancy. Yawn...
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

People that are involved in a thread do not necessarily scan other threads to see relevant input.

Irrelevant. The newspaper and television stations not giving you free publicity is not an infringement on your free speech.

The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.
Another false equivilancy. ...yawn
Dan8267 says

Just because not every person gives the microphone to every other person in every venue on the planet does not mean you are being censored.

False Yawn equivilancy
Dan8267 says

You can't say things on the White House press releases.

Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?
Public or private?
Dan8267 says

You can't say things in the fiscal reports of corporations

BlueSardine says

My posts in this thread prove i have freedom of speech here specifically because i am not banned on this thread.

Hey thanks for making my point..

I didn't. You're just not that smart.

I would have to have the power and exercise the power to ban you from all threads for your point to have been made.

You can shout all you want on PatNet. I'm not under any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to invite you into my broadcast and hand you my microphone. That's where your analogy fails.

BlueSardine says

Apples and oranges

False equivilancy again.

No two apples are the same. So I guess you are saying that you cannot compare apples to apples.

BlueSardine says

Patnet.com is not the newspapers or television.

Another false equivilancy. Yawn..

PatNet is electronic communication just like television and modern newspapers.

PatNet isn't Use.net or Reddit. So unless censorship applies specifically to PatNet, then you are saying it's impossible for anything on PatNet to be censorship. After all censorship is what government does, and PatNet is not government. False equivalency.

Works both ways.

BlueSardine says

The comparison is anonymous internet forums, not people with microphones sharing on a global basis.

Censorship has nothing intrinsically or uniquely to do with Internet forums. Plus PatNet isn't any other Internet forum. It's not Usenet or Reddit. So apples and oranges again.

You have utterly failed to show anyway that my banning trolls like you from my threads in any way censors you or violates your freedom of speech. And quite frankly, you could get unbanned simply by growing up and no longer starting flame wars. You simply lack the maturity to do that.

BlueSardine says

Oh is Patrick.net an S or C corp?

As usual, you demonstrate too little intelligence to get the point that is obvious to everyone else.

The validictorian can.
The rest of the class is banned.
Oh are we talking about your year end kindergarden graduation? You must have been the chief heehaw.
Splains a lot bout how you turned out..
Dan8267 says

You can't say whatever you want at a random high school graduation ceremony.

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Dan8267 says

Hey thanks for making my point..

I didn't. You're just not that smart.

BlueSardine says

The validictorian can.

Actually no. But anyway everyone else's freedom of speech would be violated according to the arguments you are making. To continue the analogy, the high school administration is the thread host and the valedictorian is invited to speak, but the class clown is not. You are the class clown. You were not invited to speak because you are an embarrassment to the school, have nothing worth listening to, and would just take a giant dump on the podium if given the chance.

BlueSardine says

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

You did. You're just too stupid to realize it.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Actually, yes.
Tell me who screened and approved the validictorian speech for Cal Berkeley 2017?
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

The validictorian can.

Actually no.

BlueSardine says

I'll make it easy.

I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.

Ok so i was wrong about you being the kindergarten king.
You still have not shown the validictorian's speech is reviewed and censured.
Just another outright lie hidden behind a dan produced tidalwave of meaningless words...
Dan8267 says

To continue the analogy, the high school administration is the thread host and the valedictorian is invited to speak, but the class clown is not

Yeah his speciality is hiding his bullshit in a tidalwave of words that most people won't take the time to parse and expose the leaks.
I love his use of the word "everyone" when that means 2% of the unbanned patnet population.

P N Dr Lo R says

BlueSardine says

I'll make it easy.

I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.

BlueSardine says

as witnessed by your banning of 98% of users?

The half of content produced on PatNet that isn't flame wars and debunked propoganda is generate by users that I have not banned, even though we debate many issues, and those users call you a despicable troll.

BlueSardine says

Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..

BlueSardine says

Fortunately the evidence is abundant in your previous posts..

You spent several days flinging poo in a thread opened for the sole purpose of attacking me. The evidence of your pettiness, vindictiveness, and disruptiveness is clear and indisputable.

Why the fuck should I allow a troll like you in my threads when it is obvious you will start flame wars in them?

P N Dr Lo R says

I guess you've noticed Dan loves spending his time writing long posts.

I like writing good, insightful posts. This necessitates length because such posts require evidence and detailed analysis. You only think they are long because your attention span is so damn short. Try reading any peer reviewed paper. They are far longer than my posts. Try reading a novel. No comparison.

You simply have the attention span of a toddler. This is your failing, not a failing in the lengths of my posts.

I get where you are coming from now.
That's a lot of childhood memories you just dumped on 10000 members.
But if it helps you to ease the pain, please continue. ( I'm assuming you can't afford a shrink )

Dan8267 says

You are the class clown. You were not invited to speak because you are an embarrassment to the school, have nothing worth listening to, and would just take a giant dump on the podium if given the chance.

Subjective view. Inherently biased...
Fail.

Dan8267 says

I like writing good, insightful posts

Triggered.
Ad hominum
Uncivil.
You lose
Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

I love his use of the word "everyone" when that means 2% of the unbanned patnet population.

Like your mom's dildo, this statistic was pulled from your ass.

Irrelevant.
Off topic.
The proof is in your posts above, enshrined forever in countless digital backups.
Dan8267 says

You spent several days flinging poo in a thread opened for the sole purpose of attacking me. The evidence of your pettiness, vindictiveness, and disruptiveness is clear and indisputable

An anonomous multitopic current events blog is not designed for "peer reviewed papers" . Irrelevent example.. .
Dan8267 says

You only think they are long because your attention span is so damn short. Try reading any peer reviewed paper.

Maybe he should offer to wear a dress. The libs would like that.

The conjoined twins below, which, for all intents and purposes are the same, demonstrate your limited capacity to understand what you are writing.
Probably why you need to write a novel every other post in a vain attempt to mask your deficiencies...

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

Apples and oranges


False equivilancy again.

No two apples are the same. So I guess you are saying that you cannot compare apples to apples.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Liberalism is NOT a self-identifying term. If you don't believe in liberalism, you are not a liberal.

Christianity is NOT a self-identifying term. If you do not know Christ as your savior, you are not a Christian.

"Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler."

More lies from Dan. You assume the authority to tell us who is a liberal and who is not by evaluating empirical evidence. And yet you refuse the authority of anyone else to do the same regarding Christians. You are a semantics arguing, lying hypocrite. The most prolific liar on this site.

The true liberals are known by their actions. The same is true for Christians. Quit your lying Dan, it is shameful.

Dan, as a non-Christian, who lacks understanding of even the most basic of Christ's teachings you have no idea who is and isn't a child of Christ. Do yourself a favor and turn off the keyboard, and start studying rather than typing. You will give an account for every lie you have told about Christ and Christians when you meet Him. You might as well know the truth and seek mercy rather than justice.

.Strategist says

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Once more you are caught in a lie. There is no way that any person on PatNet can censor another person. All users are free to open their own threads and say whatever they want.

Stop it Dan, no one censors more than you. I am the true guy who never censors. I have never ever put anyone on ignore or given an ad hominem. I have never given a "dislike" either.

Strategist is one of the most civil contributors to this site. Probably because he is a conservative.

Dan8267 says

Saying that liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying that atheists believe in gods.

Saying liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying Christians believe in rape, slavery and murdering babies. All of which Dan has stated on multiple occasions. Hypocrite.

Dan said:
Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

PeopleUnited says

"Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler."

More lies from Dan.

So you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of Christianity, anyone who makes Christianity look bad is no true Christian. By that criteria, you are no Christian.

The flame war in this thread is the perfect justification for the banning of trolls from an author's threads.

PeopleUnited says

Dan said:

Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

Satan. Satan is the supreme being who created the universe and who you should worship. This assertion is every bit as well-justified as your assertion of your false god.

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself? Why should a self-begotten entity have to be alive or sentient? A first mover premise does not imply the morality or sentience of the first mover.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

"Yes, a Christian is, by definition, someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Many such persons were pure evil, including Hitler."

More lies from Dan.

So you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of Christianity, anyone who makes Christianity look bad is no true Christian. By that criteria, you are no Christian.

No, you believe in the No True Scotsman definition of liberals, anyone who make Liberals look bad is no true liberal. By that criteria you are a Conservative.

I simply called you on your bullshit because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to define what a liberal is according to empirical evidence. And you want to deny the right of anyone else to apply the same logic on identification of a Christian. Furthermore you seek to redefine Christianity into something that Christ (the author of Christianity) never intended and instead define it based on those people who CLAIM to be Christisan yet who commit atrocities that Christ said specifically NOT TO DO. That is like redefining liberalism as Triglypuffism as you rightly pointed out, yet you do the exact same thing with Christianity. It is bullshit and when someone calls you on it, you ban them. You are a liar and a censor of anyone willing to call you what you truly are.

You assume the authority to tell us who is a liberal and who is not by evaluating empirical evidence. And yet you refuse the authority of anyone else to do the same regarding Christians. That is hypocrisy.

Dan8267 says

"Saying that liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying that atheists believe in gods."

Yes, and Saying liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying Christians believe in rape, slavery and murdering babies. All of which Dan has stated on multiple occasions. More hypocrisy.

Dan8267 says

The flame war in this thread is the perfect justification for the banning of trolls from an author's threads.

The flame war was started by you when you sought not only to poison the well against individuals on this site, but in fact you poison the well and defame ALL CHRISTIANITY with your lies. And somehow you think you are the noble one. You spread lies, you spread hate and you censor those who call you on your bullshit. How come you are the only one who has to ban 28 people in order protect his own ego. Oh, because you are the biggest liar and most special snowflake on the Christmas tree. Thats right sweetheart, don't let any of those truth tellers make you feel bad, you just lock them out of your threads and create your own little safe zone. Mamma Patrick will keep you safe with your little ban button to keep the bad people out. Sleep tight honey.

ROTFLOL...

PeopleUnited says

Oh, because you are the biggest liar and most special snowflake on the Christmas tree. Thats right sweetheart, don't let any of those truth tellers make you feel bad, you just lock them out of your threads and create your own little safe zone. Mamma Patrick will keep you safe with your little ban button to keep the bad people out. Sleep tight honey.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Dan said:


Quarks tend to align themselves with peaks in quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles have been observed.

So Dan where did they come from?

Satan. Satan is the supreme being who created the universe and who you should worship. This assertion is every bit as well-justified as your assertion of your false god.

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself? Why should a self-begotten entity have to be alive or sentient? A first mover premise does not imply the morality or sentience of the first mover.

Exactly, now you have admitted your true religion. You desire so deeply to discredit God the Creator, that you have defined the universe as its own creator and would jokingly give worship to Satan as a supreme being, knowing it to be anathema to Christian principals. Why don't you just be honest enough to say, that you will go to your grave ignoring any evidence, any notion of conscience that God created you and the world you live in. Your very existence is evidence of God, any every time you seek to explain God away, you admit that there is something out there that you cannot comprehend or fully describe. You push Him out of your knowledge only to find He is still lurking there in the shadows as the "first mover" you wish to depersonify.

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by you

It's what Dan lives for then feigns phony indignation--no one has thinner skin. It's also called drama.

P N Dr Lo R says

PeopleUnited says

The flame war was started by you

It's what Dan lives for then feigns phony indignation--no one has thinner skin. It's also called drama.

A true queen of his own little screen.

If we may please return to the topic of the thread:

"A Corte Madera bookstore has stepped up to host an event with evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins just days after Berkeley public radio station KPFA abruptly canceled a similar event, citing Dawkins’ criticism of Islam.

Book Passage will hold a book signing and discussion of Dawkins’ latest work, “Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.” The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 9 — the same date the original Berkeley event had been planned."

Also, don't donate to KPFA. Since they've chosen to go Islamic, let them cash in on the Petrodollars from Linda Sarsour.

Dan8267 says

How is the left and the right not both wrong for the fundamentally same reason?

They are. The "left" is simply 10x worse. This is exactly why the liberals are and will continue to lose.

Who said god was self-begotten?
The theory is that god has always existed outside of the space/time continuum.
No need to be 'created' in this instance...

Dan8267 says

Again, if god can be self-begotten, why not nature itself?