Yes, God forbid you might read something you don't agree with.

galoob, LGF was probably my favorite site at one point. I hit it several times a day. I used to cite it all the time.

It ain't the same site it was then.

I have a couple of pieces floating in the back of my mind about how much I miss the "old" LGF, and I'm pretty certain that when I publish them, I'll send Charles into another frenzy of deletions and revisions and unnoted rewrites -- like he does when someone points out how much he's changed, and how he used to say a lot of the things he's now so upset about.

Wanna dare me into publishing those pieces, galoob?

J.

JT, no, I think we've already read them. You and Rick cover the old LGF territory pretty regularly.

What do you object to in the new LGF? CJ's respect for science or his concern about Christian religious fascism?

They're related subjects, I know.

galoob, maybe you're not reading the same LGF I still poke by at every now and then. That LGF is convinced that Christians are the greatest threat the world faces, that the single most important issue in politics is one's stance on evolution vs. creationism, and everyone who still believes what Charles used to say is crazy and evil.

Oh, and the John Birch Society is about to stage a coup and take over the nation.

Did I miss anything?

J.

G-goof would probably consider Johnson a kindred spirit.
CJ has also banned approx. 97% of the inhabitants of the solar system from commenting on his blog.

Yah, he's down on creationism, which seems like a reasonable thing to be down on. He's now against nutbar Christian fundies with the same fervor he used to be against nutbar Muslim fundies. I think he still gets in shots against the nutbar Muslim fundies from time to time, but he just sees the craziness of going full Pam Geller on things.

I've got no problem with someone being pro-science and anti-theocratic.

I gather that he runs a tight ship there, bans a lot of people. I never read it much.

Nobody ever said a blog had to be balanced or consistent.

I guess he's hated by a lot of right-wingers in the same way Muslims hate apostates or Leninists hate Trotskyites. Traitor to the cause, etc.

galoob, you can't be that ignorant, but I'll assume you are as you portray yourself. The thing about CJ is his intensity -- apparently, to him, being a Creationist (even if you don't push your beliefs, just state them) is worse than being a radical Muslim. And simple disagreement with him is grounds for banning -- because you'll say something respectfully that differs from his enforced group-think, you'll get down-voted and attacked, and you'll end up getting banned if you put up the slightest resistance to the attacks.

And then all your previous comments will mysteriously disappear, and everyone will talk about how awful you were and really deserved to be banned -- once the evidence has been safely deleted.

J.

I think Charles took one too many headers on his bike rides. Used to read it, a number of years back - he did some excellent dissection of the Rathergate forgeries and actually seemed like a serious amateur journalist.

Now? He's on a par with DU. Even a HINT of disagreement gets you banned. Something bad happened - can't say what, but it caused a 180 into lunacy.

As I said, I never read LGF much, and never commented on it.

I suppose he changed his mind on things. He still seems to draw a lot of commenters.

Maybe 25% of Americans think Obama is not a U.S. citizen, the Earth is only 5000 years old, Sharia law is a serious danger to the USA, and that the Rapture will come if Armageddon is set off in the Middle East. Maybe they are a greater danger to liberty in the USA than Muslims in Saudi Arabia are. Because they're 25% of the people here.

If he bans dissent, that's his loss, IMO. He banned dissenters before his change of themes, didn't he?

I suppose I can agree with his themes without approving of the way he runs his blog. Since there are thousands of blogs, he can try to find his niche as an intense anti-creationist ban-happy nut.

"Maybe 25% of Americans think Obama is not a "U.S. citizen, the Earth is only 5000 years old, Sharia law is a serious danger to the USA, and that the Rapture will come if Armageddon is set off in the Middle East."

Barry is a citizen of the world. And as such will be thoroughly dispatched in 2012. You however remain a jackass. Treasure it.

Actually, given the definition of "creation", the world could have been created just now as you are reading this message on your computer screen. Science can only deal witht he physical evidence at hand, and uses the assumption that everything moves back into the past based on the "laws of nature" as we know them. As a result, dogmatic statements as to the "age of the universe" are inappropriate from either end. The only reason that we say that the world is 5,771 years old this past September, is because we believe that we have read teh "birth certificate" of Adam. If one does not believe that, then it is impossible to make the statement.

As far as Obama and his birth, he has done his best to trigger the suspicions so that he can denounce his detractors as conspiracy theorists. The "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution should have some means of verification and enforcement just to avoid questions. After all, we need to provide proof in order to get a passport or a credit card. Someone has to provide proof of age in order to drink or drive (though not at the same time (:-)) why shouldn't a candidate for office have to provide proof of age or status?

As far as Sharia law being a threat, the threat is that people want to make it mandatory and not just a method that two parties can agree to use as a means of arbitration or to follow as a result of their own religious convictions. An example of the way it should be used is thaqt of those who go to a Jewish religious court or eat kosher. It is the use of Sharia Law that makes it a threat, not its existence.