"The Religion thread" Part III

This is a forum for all off topic posts.
User avatar
Inaubryn
Ogre
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: Dallas (GMT -6)

Post by Inaubryn »

From now on, I'm just doing play-by-play in this thread.


And TDawg has gone with the Rogerian argument! What a blow! I think that one hurt Mulu, Jim. I don't think Mulu's corner wanted him to step into the Dawg like that.
"You people have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation! So, from now on, when Private Pyle fucks up... I will not punish him. I will punish all of you! And the way I see it, ladies... you owe me for one jelly donut! Now, get on your faces!"
User avatar
Swift
Mook
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:59 pm
Location: Im somewhere where i dont know where i am
Contact:

Post by Swift »

Jeppan wrote:or that the invisible giant purple bunnies that eat invisible carrot-pies does not exist.
THEY DONT?

Well, theres my entire belief system shot to shit. I hate you Jeppan! :P
User avatar
Killthorne
Orc Champion
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:22 am
Location: Saint Cloud, Minnesota

Post by Killthorne »

I guess that makes you a racist against atheism and evolution. It's a two way street.
No, I don't start hate-filled topics that force theories down people's throats and state that everyone should believe it. I leave it up to the individual. Oh, and by the way, discrimination is discrimination Rotku. Does that mean we can start bashing bi-sexuals on off-topic? Next!
That's because you are uneducated in biology. Humans have a mutation in a protein in their jaw muscle that makes it weaker. That mutation resulted in less anchor stress on our skulls, which then allowed our skulls and concomitantly our brains to get bigger, thus making this discussion possible. The mutation that caused people to lose pigmentation and become white has been identifed. Thousands of such mutations have been identified. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You should leave this debate to TDawg.
Ok.. less stress on the skull mutation. Hmm.. since when did this mutation occur and I want to know the exact point in time. And as for losing pigmentation, how is that helpful? Tell me which mutations are helpful and evolutionary advancements and not deformities? Next!
What I believe is what we've observed as actual fact, and what we can logically deduce from those facts, nothing more. I don't even speculate on the origin or potential lack of origin of the Universe, there is no point to it. We've observed the Universe expanding. Extrapolating back that means it must have been much smaller in the past, perhaps even a single point (though that's just a guess). There is residual radiation left over from the Big Bang, so it therefore occurred. That's as far as I go regarding my beliefs. Well, I also of course reject any supernatural explanation of those events, for the simple reason that nothing supernatural exists.
Well I don't have limitations nor speculations. As for believing what you believe, have at it. Not my loss.
Technically it was tunicates, though we didn't sludge out onto land until amphibians.


Still haven't reasoned how sea sludge becomes an amphibian, and so forth, adding matter to it's self to become a more complex lifeform. Show me some facts here.
Think of it as opportunism. There was food, and no predators. Both good incentives.


Uh huh. Somehow I think being wet and oxygenated would be abit more opportunistic than flopping on land and experimenting with choking to death in order to evolve.
You had gills as an embryo. Explain that.
Ok I will! :wink: According to Jan Langman, Medical Embryology 3rd ed. (1975), " The pharyngeal arches and clefts ( creases) are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called 'bronchia', the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."

The upper fold contains the apparatus that will develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold becomes the parathyroids, and the bottom will grow into the thymus gland. :wink:

Next!
Hence the importance of TDawg getting it on with his brunette. You see, through sexual reproduction, we reinvigorate our DNA line with every new baby.
Hmm reinvigorate, not so sure. Mix it up definitely, but not create new heights of evolutionary advances. I'm thinkin' you get too deep into them X-Men comics there Mulu.


Natural evolution takes millions of years for such slow generational beings as ourselves. Those environmental issues have only been around for a couple hundred years at most. Also, there is no evolutionary incentive to live forever, since the longer you live the more you compete with your offspring.
Again, let's see some accurate time frames here. And as for no evolutionary incentive to live forever? Stop having offspring and adapt. Maybe after a million years, we'll be able to live forever one day, just like that first walk out onto dry land millions of years ago, choking to death on lack of water in order to adapt.
People make mistakes in labs. They're human. I've seen mistakes done on blood exams. Does that mean blood exams are invalid, because sometimes people make mistakes?
No, but usually blood exams are redone, and the previous finds discarded and not accepted as solid fact, and then printed in textbooks and shoved down everyone's throats in the scientific community.

You most certainly have not done your homework, or more accurately what you've read is obviously tripe. You're willing to believe authors who purposefully lie to vindicate their faith, like the Texas streambed fraud artists, but you're not willing to read authors who are actually experts in the field. That's your choice, but it's a poor one.
Like I said before, most of my finds have been been documented findings from scientists who have taken the time to snuff out hypothetical guessing on evolution and crack open some of the worst cases of scientific fraud abound. As for what you read, I could not assume like you do, so I can only guess.
A few centuries ago you'd be tying the rope around some woman to burn as a witch. Humans may not change, as that would require biological evolution which has been largely circumvented, but society changes. Largely for the better, which is a good sign for the future.
That's where you are wrong. According to my beliefs, "judge and be judged." and " thou shall not kill". So witch burning is out of the question. You don't seem to get it about human nature. You speaking as you do on people's faiths and religions and how you'd love to abolish it altogether, is just ONE example of the control issues human beings have a hard time accepting. Their destiny! Their habitats! How people treat them! How people should live around them! Eventually it turns for the worse and a large number of people end up getting massacred for that simple lust for power and control.
Yes, you are fully indoctrinated into Western religious thought.
Stated before that I've done my research into both eastern and western philosophies and religions, and came back around to believing in something I think is right. If I was fully "indoctrinated" I would be going to church every Sunday, baking cookies for the church bazaar, and accepting organized religion as it is, without question. But since I do none of those things... it seems you are wrong once again.
Disagreeing makes me hateful? Then I guess you are filled with self-righteous hatred too. *yawns* Some christian you are.
That's some assumptive retort there. Again, I'm not the one saying " Let's rewire all the atheists in our world because they're not spiritually inclined and their soulless selves are destroying our world." Personally, I don't care if you believe in God or not, don't care if you think you have a soul or not, but the moment you tell me that I am insane, delusional for trying to be a peaceful christian, that actually tries to follow Christ's parables and teachings, and think the world of the man, AND lump me in with organized religious groups that are more political corporations than anything else, that's where I get a little slighted.

I have suggested throughout this little pointless debate, that the truths that I have found come from scientists ( and man, I just don't have the time to bring out all the references and sources, I work my ass off all day, come home and want to relax)... have my own personal opinions in my faith, and that you can't just generalize every single christian into the right-wing, NUKE EM ALL that don't believe in MY GOD category. In that, you reveal narrow-mindedness and I have a hard time debating with someone that has horse-blinders on.


~Killthorne~[/quote]
Current PC: Ethan Greymourne, Ranger of Gwaeron Windstrom
User avatar
AlmightyTDawg
Githyanki
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:56 am

Post by AlmightyTDawg »

Killthorne wrote:
Hence the importance of TDawg getting it on with his brunette. You see, through sexual reproduction, we reinvigorate our DNA line with every new baby.
Hmm reinvigorate, not so sure. Mix it up definitely, but not create new heights of evolutionary advances. I'm thinkin' you get too deep into them X-Men comics there Mulu.
Just in case anyone's wondering, I actually tested negative for the mutant gene. This is all just a defect of character.

And as a brief clarification, for those wondering about my "conceding" with a 99.999% argument.... reading is fundamental. My assertion is you can knock out 99.999% of historical beliefs "born of ignorance" or whatever the term is. That does not, by association, equate a plus/minus of the remainder 0.001%. You might see a pattern and get all precociously predictive, the same way that one believes the next coin flip will be tails because the last eighty have been heads. But, logically speaking, they're distinct so the failure of one doesn't influence the other. That is the correct interpretation, Mulu's misrepresentation aside.
Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly!
Save the Charisma - Alter your reactions, even just a little, to at least one CHA-based check a day!

Quasi-retired due to law school
Past PC: Myrilis Te'fer
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

AlmightyTDawg wrote:From moment one I've happily conceded faith is irrational.
Well, not exactly. You initially said it was logical and inevitable that people would assume a creator when observing the universe, essentially a watchmaker design argument. That hardly sounds like "irrational" to me. But you're there now at least.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:It need not necessarily be delusional, unless it contradicts incontrovertible facts.
And we've already discussed those facts, in particular QM. You can have a creator spirit in isolation I suppose, but nobody really does, and once you start imparting purpose and meaning and order into a Universe that has been mathematically shown to be random, you are contradicting incontrovertible facts.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:Is he sane or insane at that moment?
Being able to do simple math from rote is not a sign of rationality or sanity, really. It would have no bearing on the analysis, or if any than it's odd juxtaposition would probably favor insanity, IMO.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:Nor is it "chaos" in the traditional sense. At the Planck level, sure, but last time I checked that chaos doesn't well translate to the macroscopic level. Nor does purpose and meaning necessarily have to come from predetermination.
What randomness at the subatomic level shows, as Einstein realized fully, is that order is totally lacking. If outcomes are random, that is evidence of a natural origin for the Universe, with nature traditionally being seen an unsentient and therefore random, and a watchmaker seen as sentient and therefore orderly.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:I'm not sure I follow.
It was your analogy to claim the Universe was really only 10,000 years old but made to look older, basically a Creationism argument but for the whole universe. Instead of god putting fossils in the ground that seem old, every atom was placed to seem old. By the way, if you actually believe that nonsense that makes you a Creationist.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:Those two universes, the big bang as we know it, and the "set in motion" are identical from the perspective of the later observer. How do you choose between them?
Well, since the latter one requires Santa Claus, the choice seems obvious. It is both paranoid and irrational to think the *entire freaking universe* in all of it's potentially infinite scope was created just to trick us into thinking it was older than it actually is. Talk about egomania and delusions of grandeur. Do you really think all of these trillions upon trillions of galaxies are just here for short-lived us? Would *any* rational person? I think you just jumped the shark.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:
Mulu wrote:How is belief in a creator spirit not belief in the supernatural? Please explain that to me.
You phrase "belief in the supernatural" as though it's a self-evident indication of error, stupidity, or so on. Though phrased as a "fact" which is supposed to controvert something, you've presumed your conclusion and hence just thrown out a pointless insult.
No, it's meant as a straight question, which you are shallowly avoiding answering. How is belief in god, or the creator spirit by any name you want, not a belief in the supernatural?
AlmightyTDawg wrote:The only proper answer to the question (or some variant thereof) would have been:

1. Boo Berry cereal
2. ???
3. Rationality!
I know you tried to set it up that way, but a strict interpretation killed it. We all play our games here.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:The point is that you can't convince me (or anyone else) either - you have arguments set to appeal to those who are naturally inclined to your position, and they'll fall short on those naturally disinclined to your position.
The only people who could ever have their opinions shifted are those who don't really have any to begin with, certainly that does not include those "naturally disinclined" to my position, so there is no reason to even attempt to cater to them. Definitely not from an entertainment perspective.
AlmightyTDawg wrote: Nor is the "irrationality" necessarily relevant - even if you lived with me for twenty-five years and shared my house and meals and everything and then took me to throw me into the volcano (thanks Firefly), and aside from asking me directly, you would notice no discernible difference between two versions of me - one who believes in a creator spirit, and one who doesn't.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that belief in the supernatural does cause some cognitive disfunction, though it would be variable depending on many factors. I admit a vague Spinozan belief that is never really dwelt on wouldn't do much damage, and from a public policy perspective such an individual would be much closer to an atheist than say an evangelical.

But it's still a supernatural belief, a holdover from our ignorant ancestors, so the question becomes, "why have it at all?" At the point where you are effectively 99.999% atheist, why bother? I submit it's from your upbringing, not an intellectual choice.
AlmightyTDawg wrote:So go ahead and mock my critical thinking and pull out the same old hackneyed tricks, the fact is deep down you know I'm right. You may not think it's terribly relevant, but you understand the value of the objections. You're too smart not to.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you were right about something. What was it again? Certainly not your ridiculous assertion that belief in god, by any name, is not belief in the supernatural. You've already admitted such a belief is irrational, so why not own it properly and also admit you are in fact believing in something that is supernatural?

By the way, what do you call your creator spirit? Do you use the term "god" to be fashionable despite its inaccuracy due to normally meaning a big guy with a white beard, or do you have your own nomenclature for the elf that created it all?
Last edited by Mulu on Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Killthorne wrote:
I guess that makes you a racist against atheism and evolution. It's a two way street.
No, I don't start hate-filled topics
Technically speaking I didn't start them either. Rick7475 started all this. :P [edited, oops!]
Killthorne wrote:Ok.. less stress on the skull mutation. Hmm.. since when did this mutation occur and I want to know the exact point in time.
2.4 million years ago.
Killthorne wrote:And as for losing pigmentation, how is that helpful?
Tell me which mutations are helpful and evolutionary advancements and not deformities? Next!
Wow do you need an education. You really never heard about Vitamin D? As for other examples, all I had to do was type "human beneficial mutation" into Google. You should try looking things up sometime.
Sickle cell resistance to malaria
The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.

Lactose tolerance
Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk. [9]

Resistance to atherosclerosis
Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.

Immunity to HIV
HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele. (See Appendix IV)

For a description of the recent literature consult the OMIM site for CCR5.
You could fill a book with this stuff. In fact, many books have been filled with this stuff. I realize that you know next to nothing about biology, but why you parade that ignorance as something to be proud of is beyond me.

For example, I know next to nothing about computers. I would never *dream* of debating someone like Cipher about, say, server configurations or whatever. For that matter, I'd never debate you about FR lore. I know better. A little advice: Stick with what you know, don't express opinions about what you don't know.
Killthorne wrote:
Technically it was tunicates, though we didn't sludge out onto land until amphibians.

Still haven't reasoned how sea sludge becomes an amphibian, and so forth, adding matter to it's self to become a more complex lifeform. Show me some facts here.
You want the *entire pathway* of human evolution? Easy. Go get a degree in evolutionary biology, then we'll talk about it. I'm certainly not going to even attempt to give you one for free in a gaming forum.
Killthorne wrote:
You had gills as an embryo. Explain that.
Ok I will! :wink: According to Jan Langman, Medical Embryology 3rd ed. (1975), " The pharyngeal arches and clefts ( creases) are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called 'bronchia', the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."

The upper fold contains the apparatus that will develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold becomes the parathyroids, and the bottom will grow into the thymus gland. :wink:
The embryonic structures are the same in fish and humans, and are not a fully formed gill in either to be sure so I suppose my word usage was sloppy there. I should have said "gill slits," so that's what I'll ask now. "Why did you have gill slits as an embryo?"

BTW, kudos on actually looking something up for a change.
Killthorne wrote:
Hence the importance of TDawg getting it on with his brunette. You see, through sexual reproduction, we reinvigorate our DNA line with every new baby.
Hmm reinvigorate, not so sure. Mix it up definitely, but not create new heights of evolutionary advances. I'm thinkin' you get too deep into them X-Men comics there Mulu.
You are mixing your concepts. You were using a rust analogy about essentially the oxidation of tissues, which is what I answered. Your baby isn't "aged" like you are, because DNA is remade to form it.

As for macro-evolution, since self-replicating bacteria undergo it too, sex isn't required. Only mutation and natural selection are, though sex does have an impact.
Killthorne wrote:No, but usually blood exams are redone, and the previous finds discarded and not accepted as solid fact, and then printed in textbooks and shoved down everyone's throats in the scientific community.
There are few examples of corrections to prior carbon dating from text, though there are some. Still, the fact that the errors get corrected should tell you a great deal. It's not like Christian creationists are the ones detecting the errors, it's the real scientists.
Killthorne wrote:Like I said before, most of my finds have been been documented findings from scientists who have taken the time to snuff out hypothetical guessing on evolution and crack open some of the worst cases of scientific fraud abound.
Show us your sources.
Killthorne wrote: As for what you read, I could not assume like you do, so I can only guess.
I have a degree in biology, so what I read were biology textbooks and peer reviewed articles. Lots of them.
Killthorne wrote:You speaking as you do on people's faiths and religions and how you'd love to abolish it altogether, is just ONE example of the control issues human beings have a hard time accepting. Their destiny! Their habitats! How people treat them! How people should live around them! Eventually it turns for the worse and a large number of people end up getting massacred for that simple lust for power and control.
Well, there is a big difference between taxing churches as businesses and committing genocide.
Killthorne wrote:If I was fully "indoctrinated" I would be going to church every Sunday, baking cookies for the church bazaar, and accepting organized religion as it is, without question. But since I do none of those things... it seems you are wrong once again.
Indoctrinated, but lazy and apathetic.
Killthorne wrote:
Disagreeing makes me hateful? Then I guess you are filled with self-righteous hatred too. *yawns* Some christian you are.
That's some assumptive retort there. Again, I'm not the one saying " Let's rewire all the atheists in our world because they're not spiritually inclined and their soulless selves are destroying our world." Personally, I don't care if you believe in God or not, don't care if you think you have a soul or not, but the moment you tell me that I am insane, delusional for trying to be a peaceful christian, that actually tries to follow Christ's parables and teachings, and think the world of the man, AND lump me in with organized religious groups that are more political corporations than anything else, that's where I get a little slighted.
And yet you would obviously vote for public policies like teaching creationism in public schools, and abolishing evolution for that matter, so from the perspective of a secular country founded on principles of the separation of church and state, you are part of the problem, if even a very small part.
Killthorne wrote:I have suggested throughout this little pointless debate, that the truths that I have found come from scientists
I don't believe you, and your unwillingness to cite sources is telling. I suspect your so-called "scientists" are in fact graduates from Christian schools that never get published in legitimate peer reviewed journals. It would be like if you and I put together a university in our garage and gave diplomas to people so they could go write articles that playing NWN makes you a better citizen. They'd hardly qualify as experts.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Your stepping over the line when your saying graduates from Christian schools are not credible. Thats like saying Gays shouldnt be lawyers or Black people shouldnt be policemen. We are a group and your not debating your patronizing.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft.

Follow me on Twitter as: Danubus
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Danubus wrote:Your stepping over the line when your saying graduates from Christian schools are not credible. Thats like saying Gays shouldnt be lawyers or Black people shouldnt be policemen. We are a group and your not debating your patronizing.
No, a gay or christian that graduated from a normal school has a normal education, and some Christian universities are quite good, but I was obviously referring to the "Bob Jones" type school, and they are crap. That's not discrimination, that's reality.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

Once again your full of shit.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft.

Follow me on Twitter as: Danubus
User avatar
Drankathar
Gelatinous Cube
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Sydney Australia WOOT!

Post by Drankathar »

:popcorn:

tho really, why dont you all quit poking Mulu with a stick. All it does is stur up more and more bs.

(and no im not religious Mulu)
"This god that I worship (a faded reflection).
This demon I blame (a flickering flame).
Conspire as one, exactly the same.
It's exactly the same!!"
User avatar
Inaubryn
Ogre
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: Dallas (GMT -6)

Post by Inaubryn »

Jim: We're back as we begin round 21 of this Flyweight Bout.

Mike: Jim, I don't think Mulu was petted as a child. I mean, I've seen people passionately argue about things before but Mulu seems gleefully hate-filled. I mean, he's downright nasty. I haven't seen an attack this bad since Sigfried and that Tiger. Sheesh.

Jim: *laughs* Yeah. Well, I haven't seen it myself, but they say the guy drives a Ford Festiva with "Gawdh8" on the license plate.

Mike: You're kidding?

Jim: I'm not. *laughs* I wouldn't wanna be Buddha and run into this guy in a dark alley. Heh. I'm tellin' ya.

Mike: Well, I'll give it to Killthorne.. he's hangin' in there. He's taken every blow Mulu's thrown at him and then some. He's got a cut over his right eye that's startin' to swell. His trainers better get that under control.

Jim: Speaking of trainers... I spoke to Mulu's trainers the other day and couldn't really get a straight answer out of 'em. They neither denied nor confirmed that Christians raped Mulu as a child? Rumor has it that he was an altar boy when he was a kid. That Father Flannigan.

Mike: That would explain all the hostility. Ohh! Did you see that uppercut from Mulu?! He just chided Killthorne on his lack of supporting evidence. Wait... the ref has sent both to neutral corners and is talking to the judges. *pause* Wow! It seems like the judges are gonna deduct a point from Mulu because when asked for evidence himself, he told Killthorne to go get a degree in Biology instead of providing any sources.

Jim: Yeah, that one's gonna hurt his credibilty and his point standings. I think Mulu may've overestimated his own degree comin' into this fight, Mike.

Mike: Well, debaters can often do that. They consider themselves the foremost authority on a subject if they read even one paragraph about it let alone have a degree. And it's even worse with nerds. Next thing you know they're layin' on the canvas.

Jim: You're telling me.

Mike: And I'll tell you something else. If the Dawg and the Killer keep tag teaming Mulu like they are... he's gonna tire and go down, Jim.

Jim: I know what you mean. Well, that's the bell and we've made it through 21 rounds of sheer banality. Let's go down to Larry Merchant and see what he has. Larry?

*A beat*

*another beat*

Jim: All right. Well, it appears Larry may be in a drunken stupor, lying in a pool of his on vomit.
"You people have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation! So, from now on, when Private Pyle fucks up... I will not punish him. I will punish all of you! And the way I see it, ladies... you owe me for one jelly donut! Now, get on your faces!"
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

That's hilarious. I like that TDawg and Killy the Creationist are on the same team. There is no such thing as being a little pregnant, after all. :P
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
Post Reply