Skip to main content

Let the Mockery Continue

Just following up on the previous post: the first parody comment on Dembski's link seems to have made it past the censors (though really, it's hard to tell what's not parody). I thought I'd link to it here before Dembski et al. erase it along with the whole embarrassing episode. The poster calls him/herself "NoeticGuru," and writes:
Heh, long time lurker, first time poster here. But I’m glad that organizations like ICON-RIDS are showing up, and that proponents of ID are taking notice of them. I think that it will help show that ID isn’t a single religious doctrine since it can incorporate so many different non-materialistic philosophies. ICON-RIDS, for example, will probably attract a lot of followers with its ethical philosophy (you’ll probably need to scroll down a bit to get to his Transparadigmic Pleasurian socio-ethical paradigm, but it’s worth a read).

Since I’m also a dabbler in mathematics, I’ve been particularly impressed with Dr. Brookfield’s cosmological proof of cosmological physical incompleteness — I wonder how many mathematical polymaths ID will have to accumulate before Darwinists stop making light of the field’s credentialed researchers.

I love how NoeticGuru begins in the idiom of a talk radio listener. This "dabbler in mathematics" manages to get in a blurb for Pleasurian philosophy as well as a quiet dig at "Dr." Bloomfield's "credentials." Fine, fine snark.

Update: Just to give a sense of who is piling on: we have Stranger Fruit, Afarensis, Duae Quartunciae, Red State Rabble, Pharyngula, and Clever Beyond Measure.
Labels:

Comments

sylas said…
Yes! That one set off all the alarm bells for me as well.

And, as long as you are collecting contributions to the pile on, you must NOT miss out on William Dembski and Barbarella!, at "Amused Muse". I'm in love!
6/18/07, 1:51 AM
Hermagoras said…
Thanks. Wow! That's great.
6/18/07, 9:20 AM
Kristine said…
You guys, you're so sweet, but after today I don't have any lipstick case left to notch.

Not that I'm complaining or anything... :-)

Now I need to go out and find some bubbly 60's pop so's I can write that opera.
6/19/07, 12:15 AM
Anonymous said…
Hey now, I don't call your hard work parody! Sometimes I think there isn't anything that you Darwinists won't stoop to.

Dr. Brookfield's work in transparadigmic sciences is something to be taken seriously. Far too seriously for you Pharyngulites to understand, so I don't doubt that you'd interpret it as parody.
6/19/07, 1:59 AM
Hermagoras said…
noeticguru: Quite right. How could I not have seen past the crunchy snark coating to the chewy center of your sincerity?
6/19/07, 2:14 AM
Anonymous said…
Hah! Probably because the chewy center is neglegible to second order -- leaving my snark as the bulk of the presentation.

I'm pretty impressed with you, hermagoras. Most people aren't able to pinpoint the finer points of my well-laid snark as easily as you can.

(This is really Dustin, by the way)
6/19/07, 6:04 AM
Zachriel said…
NoeticGuru: "Far too seriously for you Pharyngulites to understand..."

You are mistaken. Angels are created beings and were never developing pharyngulas.

Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
6/24/07, 9:15 AM
Bob O'Hara said…
We were wrong. NoeticGuru is serious. Oh well, we'll have to settle for longer term entertainment.

Bob
6/24/07, 2:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who else can't speak for himself? Hermagoras, that's who. Because UD won't let him.

Welcome, Uncommon Descent members ! For the record, I don't ban users or arguments (I will delete threats and suchlike.) As long as you're here, you might check out the reality behind ICON-RIDS (if you haven't heard about this before). A letter to GilDodgen, responding to this : I, Hermagoras, am banned at Uncommon Descent but apparently still discussion-worthy. Indeed, a whole post devoted to refuting someone (me) who is not allowed to respond. You guys are certainly committed to fair debate! I was trying to make a fairly simple point, which I would have thought IDers agree with: that all observations and all "facts" are theory-laden. It's simple enough. I elaborated it in a post which Dembski apparently thought was off-topic and led him [to] ban me in precisely the terms I previously discussed on my blog . Hilarious. Then continued discussion (again I can't respond) about how I'm trying to be the clever one . Nothing in my banned posts ...
84 comments
Read more

Radical misreading: Kairosfocus on Saul Alinsky

Just a brief note to respond to kairosfocus, who claims regarding Saul Alinsky: For those who came in late, Alinsky was a neo-marxist radical who saw cultural and community subversion as the means of communist revolution. I cut my critical thinking eye-teeth on Communists, messianistic charismatic pols and cultists, and have wariness about all three. (All quotes in bold are emphasis added.) Truth be told, kairosfocus couldn't tell a Communist from a hole in the ground. He links to a passage in his bloviating web page on "selective hyperskepticism" as follows: His premise for resorting to ruthless radicalism -- as stated in his key work, the 1971 Rules for Radicals [RFR] was that: " A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of...
19 comments
Read more

Scott Simon and NPR hate poetry

On NPR's Weekend Edition this morning, Scott Simon delivers a commentary about the recent exposure of gang-banger "memoir" Love and Consequences by Margaret Jones (actually Margaret Seltzer). Simon observes that "the book is a fraud, but Ms. Seltzer came within hours of of being on NPR." Wrong . In fact, Jones/Seltzer did make it onto NPR's syndicated show "On Point," and the show followed with an hour-long, hand-wringing examination of how they got punked in the first place. But that minor error is nothing compared to what happens next. Simon quotes Seltzer making up some bullshit about her life and observes (my transcript of the online audio): Now if some Brooklyn or London novelist had written a story set among drug gangs and uttered those words, people might have dismissed them as pretentious nonsense. Put those sentences into a so-called memoir, people call it "gritty and real," or "raw, tender, and tough-minded,...
12 comments
Read more