Study suggests people attribute their own views to God.

Susan B. Anthony said in 1896: I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

The above is not news to anyone who is paying attention. Ask most Believers what they feel God’s stance is on a particular moral question and then ask what their own views are on the topic and, more often than not, you’ll get the same answer. Now there’s a study that supports that simple truth:

For many religious people, the popular question “What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” That’s the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

Religion provides a moral compass for many people around the world, colouring their views on everything from martyrdom to abortion to homosexuality. But Epley’s research calls the worth of this counsel into question, for it suggests that inferring the will of God sets the moral compass to whatever direction we ourselves are facing. He says, “Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one’s own beliefs.”

It’s the sort of thing that prompts a knee-jerk reaction of, Well duh! But it’s probably best that there’s some research that supports what seems obvious to many of us. If nothing else it can act as a jumping off point for challenging believers to truly consider what they think they know about their God(s). Combined with the fact that there’s such a wide-ranging variance between believers on what they think their God’s viewpoints are, it also bolsters the argument that there likely aren’t any God(s) to begin with.

Gods are created in man’s image and always have been as it is only in the mind of man that they exist. Considering some people’s opinions on what God is like, perhaps it’s best that simply wishing for something doesn’t make it real.

37 thoughts on “Study suggests people attribute their own views to God.

  1. …perhaps it’s best that simply wishing for something doesn’t make it real. Ramen!

  2. Well, duh

    Do you think this may change how True Believers™ perceive the “Will of God,” or just give rational thinkers more ammunition?

    And, I can’t login, again.

  3. Add it to the list of qualified sources coming out. While this may not be very enlightening to us, it can help make a stronger argument which benefits any atheist.

  4. As I said in my post on this today, it’s actually not as obvious as all that. The prima facie dismissal of this would be to say that it’s the other way around: people are taught what their families and communities say that God thinks, so it’s their views that align with God, not the other way around.

    What makes this study interesting is that it nicely supports the conclusion that we individually mold “God’s view”, rather than that God molds us. That is something useful to have.

    Not that any True Believer is going to give this any credence, of course.

    [Wow… the CAPTCHA on this post is “quality $1.5-billion”. That’s the most involved CAPTCHA I’ve yet run into.]

  5. Pingback: Unblogged Bits for Wednesday, 02 December 2009 | ***Dave Does the Blog

  6. I have been reading through this site and wanted to comment about a few things. I didn’t find a general comment area. I noticed many people posting here with an anti religious view resort to name calling, followed by an accusation of name calling by someone else.

    Personal attacks are a perfect example of a religious person. No matter what they say.

    I believe christians are the dumbest race on the planet earth. Yes I said race. (observation) hehehe

    Ghandi said it best “I like your Christ, I do not like christians, they act nothing like your Christ.”

    How many so called true believers call names during a discussion?
    Every single self professing christian I have met is guilty of this.
    So whats the difference between someone who claims to be religious and acts like that, and someone who claims they aren’t religious?

    Nothing, both are lacking.

    Now don’t be confusing the off hand joking comment to what I am talking about. The complete lack of self respect and rudeness is what I am speaking of.

    I know of people who have been on the wrong path, and have read the bible and then have chosen to change how they behave and treat others.

    They treated the bible as an instruction book for how to treat others.
    (do unto others as you want others to do unto you)and did a good job changing.

    Now anyone wanting to quote the old testament and claim that’s what the message of the bible is, obviously lacking in information.

    The problem with christians is by knowing what one SHOULD do (do unto others as you want others to do unto you) they think that somehow equates to salvation.

    So is it any wonder that you see the same clone for every christian that shows up? Obedience is not taught. Nothing makes me puke faster than a disobedient christian.

    Now what do those who do not read the bible use to better themselves and their treatment of others? This site? hahaha see that was a joke.

    No matter what YOUR opinion is there will be someone else with a different opinion. If a person is rude and abusive to anyone with a differing opinion they will never be able to educate themselves beyond their current position.

    Everything you have ever learned has come from someone with a differing opinion. Sometimes you had no opinion, which is still different.

    So as a critical thinker, will you dismiss people with differing opinions or will you dismiss the opinions instead of the people?

    For instance I saw where the owner of this site doesn’t have a best friend named Tom Bearden. I do not know Tom personally but I have read some of his work, not all of it. If the owner has information I don’t have, and I dismiss the owner because of the differing opinion, will I come to the truth?

    I would like to know why Les doesn’t like Tom. Maybe Tom is a whacko and I don’t know yet. Maybe Tom stole Les’ girlfriend and that’s why he doesn’t like him. Either way a personal attack from me because Les has a different opinion of Tom is not beneficial to either party. I simply ask WHY? and hope Les tells me why.

    I also wanted to comment on a thread from the archives pertaining to someone’s idea of evolution.

    Because someone posted they believe that there is a God that created the universe they were mocked and berated, only for those who were mocking to post one of the most ridiculous assumptions I have ever heard.

    claiming that single celled organisms “figured out” things, like reproducing.

    All I can do is laugh, and laugh a lot.

    (to the person posting)
    So you want me to dismiss the possibility of something invisible being the creator of all things, but want me to blindly accept a notion that a single celled organism ” figured out” something. Did they use a calculator? A computer? Slide rule?

    I am sorry but if those are the only 2 choices, I am going with the invisible. Stop pretending to know things you do not know. That just makes you look like a christian.

    Critical thinking goes both ways.

    If you are going to mock, don’t post such easily mocked responses.

    Like I said christians are the dumbest race on the planet, but there is a village idiot in every town that makes them look smart.

    Don’t be the village idiot.

    This study proves what disobedient christians do. Do as they please and equate it with God.
    Obedient christians do not do this, too bad an obedient christian is harder to find than bigfoot!!!

  7. I was going to take the time to respond to this, but I figure a quick fuck you is really all it needs.

    When I got to the part where you ask why I’m derisive of Tom Bearden it became clear you’re one of those “I’ll consider any idea no matter how ridiculous it is” people. The fact that you think evolution is false only confirms you’re an idiot and a waste of time better spent playing a video game.

    Or, as is the case at the moment, going to class.

  8. Obedience is not taught. Nothing makes me puke faster than a disobedient christian.

    Don’t be the village idiot.

    too bad an obedient christian is harder to find than bigfoot!!!

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😉

    Peace

  9. LOL@Les you did exactly as predicted.
    At no point in time did I say I didn’t believe in evolution, what I did say is that single celled organisms do not ” FIGURE THINGS OUT” .

    It was that statement that caused my reaction. If you think single celled organisms “FIGURED OUT” things then it is you whose “FAITH” is larger than any faith I have ever seen.

    That’s right your religion has caused you to respond in such a way.

    I never said evolution was false, I simply said with people making “DUMBASSED STATEMENTS” like single celled organisms ” FIGURE THINGS OUT”
    If the only 2 choices were (see the qualifier?) THEN I would have to pick the invisible creator.

    However those are not the only 2 choices. It would do you good to brush up on your comprehension. And stop assuming things.

    I never said I liked Tom Bearden. I never said I agreed with Tom Bearden. I simply said I read some of his work.

    It is you and your
    “FAITH” that has caused you to ASSUME these things.

    If someone uses different words to describe the events of evolution then maybe they won’t be referred to as a “VILLAGE IDIOT”

    It takes a whole lot more faith to believe a single celled organism “FIGURED OUT” things than it does to believe a creator of superior intelligence created the universe.

    SO we have Tom Bearden who has quite an accomplished record now that I have been looking, (I still didn’t say I agree with anything he wrote)

    and then we have you,

    ” a FATASS loser from michigan, who doesn’t have a clue, just a website he can bitch about things on. ”

    See how I too can sling irrelevant comments.

    JEALOUSY doesn’t look good on you.

    500 years ago the world was flat, according to people like you. People with your attitude and outlook on things are the very same people that locked up Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

    So they mocked him discredited him and locked him up, because they couldn’t expand their mind beyond their ego.

    They were jealous and now they look like complete fools.
    Follow in their footsteps.

    I don’t expect this post to last I expect you to delete it because if anyone challenges your jealousy and ignorance you will cry I am sure.

    And again, you have no idea what I believe I never stated it. So you called me names because I read some of what Tom wrote.

    Did you read anything Tom wrote? Yes? then you are just like me. I never said i agreed with Tom on anything he wrote.

    If you haven’t read anything he wrote then you are just a BIG FAT LOSER!!!,,,lol Making claims without looking.

    see how tossing names around is again irrelevant?

    I have never met someone with so much FAITH in my life, you are the most religious man I have ever communicated with.

    SO what are your accomplishments? Exceeded 200 pounds by the age 12?
    HAHAHAH

    The bottom line is you try to PREDICT what people think, which is a bad move. EGOCENTRIC

    Again you still have no idea what I believe, I never stated it, however you have condemned me for NOT KNOWING A THING about what I believe.

    THAT IS NOT CRITICAL THINKING>

    That’s just a moron with an attitude.

    And you never stated why you didn’t like Tom Bearden. I will just chalk it up as jealousy on your part. Or is it wrong to make assumptions without knowing? ROTFLOL

    Have a GREAT DAY!!!

  10. You know, it would help if the trolls would learn to assemble their comments into paragraphs every so often.

  11. Ken, I called you an idiot because you’re acting like one. Now, as MM pointed out, you’re just acting like a troll.

    You’re right, though, I am just some fat loser in Michigan with a website he can bitch about things on. Beyond that my accomplishments in life are few. A happy family, a somewhat decent — if at times rocky — career in IT, and a fairly popular blog are about all I can lay claim to. Nobody has any reason to take anything I say as being anything more than the ramblings of a nobody from nowhere, but then I don’t expect anyone to take them for more than that. Surely there is some ego involved in being a blogger, but not as much as a lot of folks would like to think. Not enough that I think my words are gospel to anyone outside of myself. Hell, I’m amazed anyone stops by on a regular basis.

    As for what you believe, I don’t really care what you believe. You showed up and started spouting off as though you had some great wisdom to dispense and proceeded to show that you can’t tell one someone is trying to put things in layman terms by saying a cell “figured out” how to divide.

    Did the cell literally think and come up with a method of dividing? Of course not, but at some point a cell did manage to divide and rather than go into the technical details of cell division it’s a bit quicker to euphemistically say they “figured out” how to do so. Apparently you’re a bit too literal minded to deal with that.

    If you’re not capable of telling when someone is trying to speak in layman terms then I seriously doubt you have anything to add to the conversation. And if you’re even remotely considering anything Tom Bearden has to say then you’re not worth wasting anymore time on.

  12. I never understood the reasoning behind calling comeone a troll before banning them. As if Mistermook’s “objective” opinion makes him sub-human.

  13. Phillip, as I recall I removed his last comment before banning him because it wasn’t worth keeping. He then went on to continue to email me trying to troll even further.

  14. Ya… you just don’t seem to respond to what I’m actually saying. What is the point, of calling him a troll?

    Spammer is a word I can agree with, when ads about viagra start popping up and a bunch of gibberish, I agree with removing it. But the troll label has really got to go. It is not a reasoning tool. The word itself has no real definition, a troll is a creature from fairy-tales.

    Troll is nothing but a childish name. It of course has no concrete meaning other than what the caster wants it to mean.

    This is, ironically enough, symonymous with the paragraph quote at the opening of this thread. People use the question “What would Jesus do” to simply ask themselves “What would I do?” Its the same kind of false label.

    You call him a troll, which actually just means you don’t like him. There is no such thing as a troll. Calling somone a unicorn can mean the same thing.

    Is “being a troll” good to be used as an imaginary rule? This guy had an opinion and quite frankly… if you are going to remove the evidence that would convince me he is a troll (don’t bother making up a definition for that) whatever you removed seems to have come after the two of you had already called him a troll. Its gone, but you bring it up as if it covers up your fallacy. If I DID call you a pig, for example, it says more about you than I know about you, but its easy to do, the label sticks you in a role that is sub-human. You are a pig Les.

    You want to ban me, fine, but its no different that calling someone else a troll, or a moron, or whatever stupid insult you can come up with.

    You removed a crummy 10 kb of his typing to save space for your next stupid rant. Sounds more like the words affected you, and you couldn’t squash his ideas.

    Perhaps it would be best if you delete this and ban me, call me a troll pig, and find a way to keep your rational little cult of friends banning people and shielding yourselves from people with slightly different opinions.

    Lots of people are going to disagree with you, it’s up to you to convince them you are correct, not just convince yourself.

  15. Philip writes…

    Ya… you just don’t seem to respond to what I’m actually saying. What is the point, of calling him a troll?

    The point was to explain to others why I banned him. I thought that was obvious.

    Spammer is a word I can agree with, when ads about viagra start popping up and a bunch of gibberish, I agree with removing it. But the troll label has really got to go. It is not a reasoning tool. The word itself has no real definition, a troll is a creature from fairy-tales.

    Troll is nothing but a childish name. It of course has no concrete meaning other than what the caster wants it to mean.

    I know a number of trolls who would disagree with that statement. They live to “troll” blogs and message forums with no goal other than to piss people off. The content of their replies often has little to do with their own personal views or beliefs. They just write whatever it is they think will piss off the most people.

    You call him a troll, which actually just means you don’t like him. There is no such thing as a troll. Calling somone a unicorn can mean the same thing.

    I called him a troll because that is what he was doing. I have no real opinion about him beyond that. I don’t even necessarily have a problem with trolls so long as they don’t engage in it here.

    As for whether to call them trolls or unicorns, all I can tell you is that I didn’t pick the name.

    Is “being a troll” good to be used as an imaginary rule? This guy had an opinion and quite frankly… if you are going to remove the evidence that would convince me he is a troll (don’t bother making up a definition for that) whatever you removed seems to have come after the two of you had already called him a troll. Its gone, but you bring it up as if it covers up your fallacy. If I DID call you a pig, for example, it says more about you than I know about you, but its easy to do, the label sticks you in a role that is sub-human. You are a pig Les.

    So I am a pig. I’m OK with that. Goodness knows I’ve been called worse and, honestly, I have no real reason to give a shit what you call me.

    As for my fallacy, would you care to explain exactly what it is?

    You want to ban me, fine, but its no different that calling someone else a troll, or a moron, or whatever stupid insult you can come up with.

    I have no reason to ban you yet. If you start trolling, however, then it’s an option I’ll consider.

    You removed a crummy 10 kb of his typing to save space for your next stupid rant. Sounds more like the words affected you, and you couldn’t squash his ideas.

    Nope. I’ve got tons of comments on here from people who disagreed with me often with very harsh language. I don’t delete comments simply because I disagree with, or dislike, a particular commenter. If I did that then Moloch would’ve been banned years ago for being offensively racist. Yet he still comments here from time to time. It’s not because I like the man.

    Perhaps it would be best if you delete this and ban me, call me a troll pig, and find a way to keep your rational little cult of friends banning people and shielding yourselves from people with slightly different opinions.

    Lots of people are going to disagree with you, it’s up to you to convince them you are correct, not just convince yourself.

    Perhaps you should read more than one blog post before you decide that you know everything there is to know about me or how I run my blog.

    As for your comments, I’ll leave them up as an example of a dumbass who jumps into conversations without really knowing what the fuck he’s talking about.

  16. LEGURA:
    Wow, an insult.

    LES:
    Ok fine, so you are not a petty brainless human being. I don’t know anything about you brother. I just jumped to conclusions by calling you a pig, it was a brash point I was making.

    You can label something with a new word, but its a simple insult, from a long list of words, all these insults basically mean the same thing.

    The same way that an insult can be delivered by a number of words, unjust removal from groups can come with any number of different labels. You choose the troll label, to represent what is really going on.

    I said do not bother making up a definition. You are not the sole individual responsible for its use and this “definition” you gave me, so you didn’t really make one up. I applaud you.

    The fallacy is that you called him a troll. He clearly, according to your very own definition, is not a troll.

    You said, Philip might even start trolling. How am I suddenly going to start trolling? This is insane. You are completely out of your mind. If I did start trolling, first off, I would leave your website. Secondly, it would not be a random attack. So it is not possible. How could I ever get banned for turning into a troll?

    This proves troll does not mean what you say it means, what I said earlier is true: “You call him a troll, which actually just means you don’t like him.”

    You know the word has a definition. I mean… you gave it to me. You are telling me the definition of troll on one hand, as someone who trolls around looking for places to make unreasonable comments that upset people.

    This is what Ken was doing? You did not act civil towards him, your opening line was “fuck you” and he had a goal of communication. You react in a group by calling him a troll. Then you say you have no other problem with him than the fact he is a troll? Lies.

    Troll – They live to “troll” blogs and message forums with no goal other than to piss people off. The content of their replies often has little to do with their own personal views or beliefs. They just write whatever it is they think will piss off the most people.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m not, but doesn’t everyone troll around on the internet, visiting random sites and leaving posts?

    Troll (excerpt) – “The content of their replies often has little to do with their own personal views or beliefs…”

    Hmmm… so not only are they “on” the internet, “visiting web sites”, but to identify them YOU must be some kind of mind reader.

    Troll (excerpt) – “They just write whatever it is they think will piss off the most people.”

    So… they write on a message board. I’ll be on the look out. What is most peculiar is the knowing about what they actually think. No problem for LES the great knower of all things. Tell us all about Ken’s motivations and thinking process, belief system, and point of view, do tell.

    What is left of your definition?
    Let’s see what we have left… wow, how about that. He pissed some of you off. Funny. That sounds familiar…

    The only thing then that defines a troll, if you dismiss extra sensory perception, if you exlude the idea that you could know what motivates a person, aside from what they have actually written. The only crimte, other than being a human on the internet who visits multiple sites and leaves messages, is that they piss you guys off.

    End of story. Oh, and just because you don’t ban EVERYONE on here who pisses you off doesn’t make you some objective humanitarian. You still banned Ken without any just cause, so it proves nothing to let some racist pedophile troll your website.

    If he was a “troll” he would have come and started calling people fags, if that didn’t work maybe pigs, or Christ whores. He asked you relevant personal questions, none of which you even answered. Then you said “fuck you”, his response was an insult. Very boring conversation.

    The real fallacy is that your million year old reason to ban him just has a new name.

  17. If you say you have no other reason to hate him that what motivates him and consumes his life, aka being a troll, then I guess there is no other reason to hate him. I hate the nazis, aside from them being Nazis I don’t care though.

    Same game, new label. The problem is that Ken just wanted to ask you some question and gain insight into your personal beliefs.

  18. Phil decides to try again…

    Ok fine, so you are not a petty brainless human being. I don’t know anything about you brother. I just jumped to conclusions by calling you a pig, it was a brash point I was making.

    You’ll have to explain your point as I’m not sure I see it.

    And, again, I don’t care if you think I’m a “petty brainless human being” or not. It doesn’t matter to me either way as your opinion of me is not something I’m overly concerned about.

    You can label something with a new word, but its a simple insult, from a long list of words, all these insults basically mean the same thing.

    You’re assuming I meant it as an insult instead of a description of the activity he was engaging in. If I ban someone for being a “painter” does that make calling someone a painter a simple insult? It would seem so by the logic you’re presenting here.

    The fallacy is that you called him a troll. He clearly, according to your very own definition, is not a troll.

    I’m not sure you understand what the word “fallacy” means.

    As for whether or not he was a troll, that’s a subjective opinion and seeing as this is my blog I get to decide who participates and who doesn’t for whatever whims I may have at the moment. You’re free to set up a blog yourself and then you can show how much more egalitarian you are compared to me. And I won’t really give a shit.

    This is what Ken was doing? You did not act civil towards him, your opening line was “fuck you” and he had a goal of communication. You react in a group by calling him a troll. Then you say you have no other problem with him than the fact he is a troll? Lies.

    It seems you’re not too familiar with the concept of “snark” either. Yep, I opened with a “fuck you” to Ken because it was clear right from the get-go that there was no point in wasting my time. I believe I made that pretty clear right in that comment.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m not, but doesn’t everyone troll around on the internet, visiting random sites and leaving posts?

    You’re wrong.

    So… they write on a message board. I’ll be on the look out. What is most peculiar is the knowing about what they actually think. No problem for LES the great knower of all things. Tell us all about Ken’s motivations and thinking process, belief system, and point of view, do tell.

    I’m not aware of Ken’s motivations and I really don’t care what they happen to be.

    Truth be told, I don’t have to justify my decisions with regards to this blog to you or anyone else. My house, my rules. It’s really that simple. If you’re not happy about that then there are literally millions of other websites you can spend your time at. I won’t mind.

    Oh, and just because you don’t ban EVERYONE on here who pisses you off doesn’t make you some objective humanitarian. You still banned Ken without any just cause, so it proves nothing to let some racist pedophile troll your website.

    I’ve never claimed to be some “objective humanitarian.” The fact that I let Moloch participate does prove that I can tolerate people I don’t like.

    If you say you have no other reason to hate him that what motivates him and consumes his life, aka being a troll, then I guess there is no other reason to hate him. I hate the nazis, aside from them being Nazis I don’t care though.

    I don’t hate Ken. Don’t know him well enough to have a reason to hate him. Don’t hate you either despite your borderline coherency.

    Same game, new label. The problem is that Ken just wanted to ask you some question and gain insight into your personal beliefs.

    I seriously doubt that was his motivation, but it doesn’t matter because he’s gone now.

    But as long as we’re on the topic of gaining insights, I’m curious what prompted you to engage in this little diatribe. This thread is from well over a year ago. Do you feel I’ve committed some grave injustice that needs to be rectified? Or do you just go around standing up for poor persecuted trolls for the hell of it?

  19. During a debate spawning from comments made in December of 2009, a man known only as “poster Ken” was banned for trolling after asking Les Jenkins why perhaps he dislikes Tom Bearden.

    The problem, Phil says, is that this material is still searchable and as significant now as it was a year ago, stating, “I found it, and people that search long after me will find it as well. The injustice committed should not stand without conscientious objection.”

    Has Les Jenkins created some sort of fallicious attack site, which abuses visitors ad hoc?

    Les Jenkins supplied comments earlier today that may have sealed his fate in this debate, and others like it. After allegations were brought against him on his web domain that he misrepresented the actions of another user to conceal his cyber-bullying, Les made the assertion that he never “…claimed to be some “objective humanitarian.””

    Les Jenkins made this claim on his website, stupidevilbastard.com under the thread titled “Study suggests people attribute their own views to God.”

    The hosts profile of this same website (https://stupidevilbastard.com/about/) has this to say about its buffooned creator:

    Chief Troublemaker: Les Jenkins
    Politics: Liberal Independent
    Religion: None (Atheist)
    Age: 43

    Les Jenkins also said in an earlier post to Phil, “I don’t delete comments simply because I disagree with, or dislike, a particular commenter.”

    These two pieces correlate with claims made by Phil, clearly showing Les has misrepresented himself as some egalitarian crusader.

    Shortly after being backed into a corner, by the logic of his adversary, Les seemed to contract his earlier statements by saying, “Truth be told, I don’t have to justify my decisions with regards to this blog to you or anyone else.” Is this man liberal, non-humanitarian, or simply sadist?

    Whichever the case, I can only hope that he contracts fully into a state of non-existence on the internet.

    Les then reaches out with this question, “Do you feel I’ve committed some grave injustice that needs to be rectified?” Making the assertion himself that Phil appears to be standing up for the unjustly persecuted, while giving him direct consent to copy and paste the debate on a separate website.

    Now, that somewhat apologetic response may be one year too late, in the eyes of some web crawlers, and who knows what else may be uncovered inside a one-man-cyber-bully-attack-site.

    In closing, Phil had this to say, “That’s a real compliment. Too bad it came from a man like Les Jenkins. It would actually make me feel better if he didn’t like me.”

  20. Philip,

    I’m going to say something Les is undoubtedly too nice to say;

    FUCK OFF!

    My god, but are you not a prick of the highest order.
    If you don’t like Les’ rules, or his politics, then fuck right off out of here. There are millions of other blogs out there who give a shit what you say. Here, I suspect no-one does.

    Back under your bridge, concern-troll.

  21. Another mind reader. Where do you keep coming from?
    Being concern-troll is like being sheriff, I own a bridge?
    Cool, thanks! You guys are neat-o.

    Thanks Legura for trying to stick up for me. Its been fun ridiculing all of you. You make me feel like I am 9 again!

    I have a question. Is Overload like a personal servant, can he fetch things for me?

    Also, I like the animal pictures.

  22. I see that now you’ve moved into troll mode. Somewhat ironic given your protestations. Though I did enjoy your blatherings elsewhere.

    But really, a MySpace page? Don’t you think that’s a little passe?

  23. How the fuck am I a mind reader? I simply have to peruse the crap that you have spewed here, and compare it to similar crap spewed here before to know that people don’t like it when trolls appear.

    You clearly have no interest in having a real conversation. Les explained to you his reasons for banning Ken, which are pretty clear and pretty fair actually (and even if they weren’t Les makes no apologies, and need make no apologies, for his despotism. His house, his rules. You don’t like it, start your own blog). I like this blog as I find myself mainly agreeing with Les (whom I have never met, much less served). Most people here do, of course.

    Those which disagree are welcomed, provided they are here to have a rational discourse and not just paint the walls with their verbal diarrhoea.

    No, troll boy, you have not shown even a milligram of sense so far. You make no attempts at a rational discourse. You have nothing to offer.

  24. Well, you both obviously have something to gain from me. I am fending off both your attacks with positive remarks and mild jokes. You do nothing to gain any real ground, so I can see these attacks are just masks you are wearing.

    It changes people when you exclude them for being themselves, it hurts all those involved. Its only when we return back to being ourselves that we make personal break-throughs.

    I don’t exclude from my circle of friends. Bullies can always come in and learn to regret their former behavior, which were nothing more than their irrational fears being turned outward.

    Not rationalize our actions do not mean they are fair. The more rational choice would be deciding to feel good about yourself, by helping others feel good about themselves.

    It’s spelled diarrhea Your, it is Latin, meaning to flow out entirely. When it comes to sense, I find weight is much more important than mass. That way I can pound it in. ❓ 😉

  25. Can’t say that I’ve gained anything from your presence, Philip. You’ve certainly not convinced me that I’ve wronged anyone or that I have anything to regret. Your only real addition to this conversation has been in increasing the noise to signal ratio.

    Though I must admit now I’m tempted to exclude you just out of spite because I know how much it would annoy you.

  26. Actually, both spellings are valid.

    Ahh, yes, aren’t you the noble one? No enemies, you!
    So being so noble of spirit and grown up, why do you come onto someone’s blog and then criticize them for exercising editorial control? Why spew such drivel rather than just accepting the fact that Ken was being a bit of an ass and got booted for it.

    As Les pointed out, he removed Ken’s last post, so here’s the important point; YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF KEN WAS TROLLING.

    I would advise you to drop this one. Les explained it to you why Ken was dropped – his comments had degenerated into trolling. That’s the end of the matter. Let it lie. You are welcome here if you want to have a reasonable discussion about something interesting. I see no point in anyone spending any more time on this non-issue.

  27. It isn’t what you gain, it is what I offer. That is a british variant YMO. This is not a publication.

    I’ll be going now.

  28. Anyway, the language is called ENGLISH! Definitionally, the American spelling must be the variant.

  29. So far you haven’t offer anything outside of mild bemusement, Phil. The really funny part is that you seem to think you’ve gotten the better of us.

    But please, feel free to take your wisdom elsewhere. You won’t be missed here.

  30. Ya, that’s interesting Your Mighty Overload, I was going to ask if you were British with your reference to nobility. Is diarrheoa the dominant spelling in Britian?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.