The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

The Beam in Mine Own Eye

July 20, 2006 | 70 Comments

Time, at long last, to turn the microscope on myself. For years I’ve been guilty of unfair and unbalanced attacks against decent people who deserved better, employing tactics whose immorality often dwarfed that of whatever faults I attributed to my victim. Regrettably, a case in point is the very post in which I promised to refrain from criticizing religion. That pledge was virtually the only honest part. The rest of it was permeated with lies and half-truths, driven by a combination of self-deception and malevolence. Apart from the fact that what I did was wrong, mean, and hurtful, I’m providing this analysis so that you’ll know what to watch out for in the future and to insure that I tread more carefully from now on.

In the post, I accused a number of atheist bloggers of dishonesty, intellectual laziness and a reckless disregard for the truth in connection with their charge that I was targeting atheist women or mothers for pro-life indoctrination. With respect to the first blogger I attacked, KC of Bligbi, my accusation was grossly unfair. Her conclusion was reasonable in light of all of the evidence available to her. Apart from my comment on her blog, I had solicited two other atheist mothers to volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers. Given the relative rarity of pro-life atheists in the population, KC was entitled to believe that this was more than a coincidence. In fact, in an unpublished draft of my post about one of the women, I did announce my intention to recruit atheists for CPC service nationwide. KC’s suspicions were not so far from the truth.

As it happened, the particular comment I left on KC’s blog was part of a general effort to counteract a Planned Parenthood e-mail campaign and was not directed at atheist mothers alone. However, there was no reason for KC to suspect that some stranger had become obsessively engaged in a late-night mass-commenting campaign, and it would have been virtually impossible for her to confirm that even if she had. It took even me a considerable amount of time to reconstruct the Technorati search that led me to the various blogs, despite knowing the precise wording of my comments. KC was not in a position to recreate my efforts.

Furthermore, when I started the reconstruction process, I actually had no idea whether the results would disprove KC’s conclusion. I was initially concerned that it would not. More than likely, I thought, all of the bloggers motivated to post on the abortion issue would turn out to be women, and women without particularly strong religious beliefs. To my relief, a few of the bloggers turned out to be male — but had I discovered otherwise, I doubtlessly would have engaged in some other subterfuge to score my cheap point.

At some point before I posted, I realized that it was wrong to question KC’s integrity based on information she could not have possessed. I could have left an explanatory comment on her blog instead, or e-mailed her the evidence regarding my subjective intent. But it would have undercut the predetermined theme of my post, and I figured I could get away with it because the evidence would support my basic premise.

My attack on AtheistMommy was both hypocritical and misleading. I accused her of a “breach of trust” for revealing my e-mailed suggestion that she volunteer in a CPC, and claimed that that I had never published an e-mail without first obtaining the sender’s explicit written permission. In fact, just this April I published the e-mail that is the subject of this post without seeking permission or even advising the author that I was doing so. Although it is not my regular practice (and I never disclose even arguably confidential or personal information sent to me), I reasoned that the hostile and offensive tone of the e-mail freed me from the ordinary conventions.

What AtheistMommy did was more justified than my conduct. She merely asked some forum readers for advice on undertaking a project which I had already told her I was intending to publicize on my blog. I had no reason to expect the offer to remain a secret. My real objection to her forum thread was its criticism of CPCs, which, given her pro-choice leanings, was perfectly understandable. I imagine I would have acted no differently had someone suggested I volunteer at Planned Parenthood. No, I do not consider PP centers and CPCs to be engaged in morally equivalent activity, but I should have just stated my position on that issue rather than disguising my motives by disingenuously accusing her of an ethical lapse.

For similar reasons, that part of my attack on Francois Tremblay which faulted him for failing to seek my permission to publish the e-mails was dishonest. Moreover, he was entitled to republish the e-mails without anyone’s permission insofar as they had already appeared in a public forum. Once again, I should have limited my criticisms to those relevant to the abortion issues.

Finally, Melissa of Sugared Harpy was correct to fault me in a comment for accusing her of “mindlessly reprinting” the Planned Parenthood e-mail story on her blog. She did, in fact, announce her skepticism and desire for more information on the incident in a comment that appeared nearly two weeks before I left mine. In my haste to attack and smear, I overlooked her clearly expressed concerns.

Consistent with the promises made here, the following are some memorable posts from the bloggers mentioned above:

Atheist Mommy: Hate Crimes are Not Special.

Bligbi: Was I a True Christian?

Sugaredharpy:An excellent question.

Francois Tremblay: His world view codified and revisited.

[Note: From time to time I will be publishing criticism, like this post, of previous entries at The Raving Atheist. If you believe you have been unfairly criticized, insulted, misrepresented, humiliated or otherwise maligned on this blog at any time since July 2002, please send me a copy of the relevant link at I will post the necessary retraction and/or corrections, together with an explanation of whether my errors were willful, reckless, inadvertent. I will also reveal any undisclosed motives I may have had in writing the post. If there are any particular falsehoods or inaccuracies you have in mind, please identify them. If you wish the retraction to be privately e-mailed rather than publicly posted, please specify that preference].


70 Responses to “The Beam in Mine Own Eye”

  1. Andy
    July 20th, 2006 @ 4:55 pm

    So, I take it we’ve reached step, uh, which is it? Step nine? Only 3 more to go!

  2. Choobus
    July 20th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

    The Twelve Steps towards Shitlordship, as defined by Arseholes Anonymous.

    1. admitted we were obsessed with abortions—that our blog had become unmanageable, and shit
    2. Came to believe that acting like a SSDW could restore us to sanity.
    3. Made a decision to bore the living fuck outof anyone foolish enough to read our posts
    4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our old good posts, and then poured shit all over them by apologising like a bitch.
    5. Admitted to God, Jeebus and Allah, and to some other abortion freaks human being the exact nature of our dongs.
    6. Bent over and got ready to have god fist our arseholes and remove all remnants of character.
    7. Humbly asked Jeebus to remove our senseof humour.
    8. Made a list of all persons we had not harmed, and became determined to bore them to death.
    9. Made extreme obsequious overtures to some mentally retarded polesmokers so they would let me play “save the fetus” with them.
    10. Continued to talk utter shit and engage in extreme jesus-induced hypocrisy.
    11. Sought through prayer, meditation and wanking to act like a godidiot, praying only for the ability appear very very gay. .
    12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to arseholes all over the web.

  3. Intergalactic Hussy
    July 20th, 2006 @ 5:40 pm

    After telling the same stories and/or making the same points time after time, we can get lazy. Its not as easy for us truth-seekers to keep repeating ourselves the way bible thumpers do. We have no script.

  4. Thorngod
    July 20th, 2006 @ 5:44 pm

    Choobus, hilarious!

  5. Thenormalyears
    July 20th, 2006 @ 7:37 pm

    Do you feel that its honest to maintain the name “raving atheist” given your current nature.

  6. woody
    July 20th, 2006 @ 7:37 pm

    So choobus… did you not like RA’s latest post then? superb reply…..!

  7. Los Pepes
    July 20th, 2006 @ 8:35 pm

    For the guys:

    You know that feeling that you get when your friend that you’ve always partied and got laid with suddenly turns to you and goes off on some estrogen-rich bitchfest about some girl that he’s in love with (stalking) or something similar?

    That’s kind of the feeling I’m getting on the front page…

    RA, you need to go to the tittie bar, and bring the big role of singles (and twenties for lap dances).

  8. Brent Nichols
    July 20th, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

    Choobus, if Raving Atheist is being sincere, then your response seems a bit immature and unnecessary. Are you sure what his motives are? I’m willing to give Raving Atheist the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s still an atheist and has had a change of heart, until he states otherwise. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be more honest and fair, even if you’re not as entertained by this blog as you used to be, but you seem to be still reading. Besides, your comments imply that you can’t fathom that an atheist would ever apologize for bad behavior or want to correct prior mistakes if he feels that is the case. What’s so bad about coming clean? For all I know, that’s all that is going on here. As a fellow atheist like yourself, I certainly think we can be honest and noble without being accused of converting to theism. If all RA is doing is retracting previous statements he now finds regrettable, then admitting so in such a public sphere is actually quite brave and admirable.

  9. Andy
    July 20th, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

    “Choobus, if Raving Atheist is being sincere, then your response seems a bit immature and unnecessary.”

    Why qualify it with “if Raving Atheist is being sincere”?

  10. Choobus
    July 20th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm

    Brent et al,

    If I have offended you I don’t apologize as it was purely intentional on my part to cause offence. Immature? Perhaps. Do I give a fuck? Absolutely not. What you call brave and admirable I call hypocritical bullshit. Why call yourself a raving atheist and simultaneously vow never to “malign” religion; that’s like calling yourself a pimp when you aint be got no ho’s. And if RA has simply decided to “do the decent thing” why does he not explain further? Instead he deliberately alludes to various things that are guaranteed to provoke speculation of a less than flattering nature. You can’t shit in your soup and then complain about the taste. Moreover, the Repentant Atheist will not even answer a direct question: does he still maintain that religious devotion trivializes American law and politics? The fucking banner categorically states that it does. He could change it if he wanted to, but does not. This statement is in direct contradiction to his stated goal and therefore backs up charges of hypocrisy. Let him explain this, and then perhaps it will be appropriate for you and other jizzmonkeys to criticize my criticism.

  11. sdanielmorgan
    July 20th, 2006 @ 10:30 pm

    Is this a joke? Is RA just fucking with us? This cheesy lovey-dovey make up and play nice bullshit is stretching thin.

    The theists aren’t going to take your lead and start being ethical, RA, they’re just going to get encouraged by your “conversion” and try to push their religion further into politics and into our arses.

    Thanks a lot.

  12. The Unbrainwashed
    July 20th, 2006 @ 10:33 pm

    It seems the RA has had a change of heart and promised to engage in more honest (among other adjectives like unenjoyable, pyschotic induced, Jeebus loving) blogging. In accordance with this, I believe the RA owes his faithful audience a forthright, open explanation of his current views. Namely, does the atheist label still apply? And, from where does his new behavior stem?

  13. Andrea
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:17 am

    If RA converted, the blog wouldn’t still be called the raving atheist and the tag line would be gone. Otherwise it would be all lies, and lies are sins, blah blah. Aside from the few religious commenters, it’s all just preaching to the choir anyways. You, me, RA, everyone – there’s more to us than what we write on atheist blogs.

  14. Choobus
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:22 am

    And another thing repentant atheist: you have the following sites listed as “Blogs by godidiots”

    # Pete’s Journal
    # Minute Particulars
    # Theist Gal
    # Eve Tushnet
    # Resurrectionsong
    # Balkinization
    Do you then believe that the term “godidiot” is in no way critical? Either you believe that “godidiot” does not violate your own stated promises, you are a proven hypocrite or this is an oversight on your part. None of these cases seems likely given your intelligence.

    And on what basis do you classify my awesome Chooblog as a hate site? Your own definition states that “a hate site is one which explicitly attacks a person or group based upon race, gender, sexual orientation or creed.” I have not proposed any such attacks, and it is highly presumptuous of you to assume that I will. Thus, you have clearly maligned me, with forethought and malice. Is it only theists that benefit from your new “Mr Nice guy” attitude? I invite you to attack me at will. If it will help you free yourself from whatever it is that has clipped your wings then that can only be a good thing.

  15. Erik
    July 21st, 2006 @ 7:17 am

    The reference to Matthew 7:3-5 (mote in your brother’s eye, beam in your own) has always been a bit curious, if otherwise a good point about hypocrisy. The admonition is, of course, to withhold judgment of someone unless you yourself can live up to the standard you are setting for others. A defensible proposition.

    But then Matthew goes on to say that you should not cast pearls before swine, because they will just trample all over them, and then turn against you. This, however, presumes that you are capable of and justified in judging others as swine.

    So, RA, you have a dilemma: judge not lest ye be judged (your new approach) vs. casting pearls before swine (unintended consequence of new approach?). After all, a fair number of posters here have trampled all over your pearls, and have turned against you. Are you prepared to start judging these atheists as swine, or have you already done so and are withholding your new pearls of wisdom? Then again, who would you be to judge? Or is it only a matter of time that your adherence to the former slowly slips to the latter?

  16. jeffazi
    July 21st, 2006 @ 7:37 am

    For me. the biggest problem with the “new” RA is that he’s just boring. YAWN.

  17. Paul
    July 21st, 2006 @ 7:58 am

    I want *everyone* to bow down before me and acknowledge that I called the 12-step answer for TRA’s behavior way back on July 6! (, post #28)

    If anyone brought it up earlier, I stand corrected, but I don’t think that’s the case.

  18. FNA
    July 21st, 2006 @ 9:33 am

    Whats your blog called or can you post a link. I want to read a blog by a real raving atheist.


  19. Kamikaze189
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:25 pm

    FNA, the Chooblog is the first one listed on the “Hate Site” list. (Scroll down, it’s on the right side nav bar)

  20. Brian Macker
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:26 pm

    “Choobus, if Raving Atheist is being sincere, then your response seems a bit immature and unnecessary.”
    Since when does the nature of what Choobus is responding to every effect the nature of his response? Your’s is an unreasonable expectation.

    BTW, Choobus, you are truly obnoxous. What is your problem anyway? What makes you so profain? It’s certainly not because you are an atheist. I know plenty of them and am one myself and don’t have your issues. Was your mother scared by Ganesha, the elephant god, while you were in utero?

    I don’t think you’d be so bravely flaunting all norms of decency if you were not hiding behind a pseudonym. In fact, I’m calling you chicken, a wuss. Expose your true name and locale so we can see if you really truly are so brave in your distain for what others think. I use my true name and I live on Long Island.

  21. Tenspace
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

    I wait with bated breath for Choobus’ response. It should be a goodie.

  22. Brian Macker
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

    Raving Atheist,

    Same goes for you. What good is an apology from an internet avatar? For all we know you’ve always been a Christian posing as an atheist. Probably been going to church every Sunday for the entire duration of this blog. Why should anyone trust you at all? You make pledges that are impossible to keep and break them by the very existence of this blog.

  23. FNA
    July 21st, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

    I posted those questions from debunkingchristianity on this catholic website curious as to peoples replies and this one guy replied with these questions that are so abstract i am not sure how to answer them? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Here is the link:


  24. Thorngod
    July 21st, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

    June has a more plausable explanation–#74 under “Madalyn.”

  25. FNA
    July 21st, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

    Brian Macker,
    Congratulations on using your real name…i think you may be the only one who really cares…since you ARE the only one with a real name on this blog. For all we know it may not be real. Hell i can say i live in pasadena, ca and my name is david macnamara but its not my name and not where i live.

    Choobus may be a “chicken” and he sure uses fowl (no pun intended) language…but whats the big deal? Dont read his posts if you care so badly. Im pretty sure he lives somewhere in England with some of the words he uses.

    And i am sure he doesnt talk like that in public either…which adds to the fun of debating online…you dont have to act like yourself. Just cuz the not-so-raving atheist made a vow to not offend anyone doesnt mean choobs or anyone else made that promise as well.

    See everyone in hell (im throwing a helluva party when i get there),

    The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist

  26. Choobus
    July 21st, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

    Brian Whacker of Long Island,

    Being called a chicken and/or a wuss (whatever that is) by you is as consequential as a fart in a hurricane. Indeed, everything you write is similarly inconsequential, and I had forgotten that you exist until you wrote your latest brilliant post. Being such a nobody it is not surprising that you don’t mind your name and location. Why don’t you go one step further and post your phone number and the address of the rub and tug massage parlour where you work as a spooge mopper-upper? That way if anyone ever wants you for anything they will be able to contact you without delay. It probably won’t come up. I prefer not to be bothered by random loons and so, like most people online who are not profoundly stupid or entirely ineffectual, I choose not to reveal my name and address. If you think about this for a while you might be able to understand why. It’s a bit like not writing your PIN number on your ATM card. I realize some people can’t remember 4 different numbers and so they might have no choice, but for those with an IQ over 75, it’s just not a good plan. You should try to post more often so that people can remember who you are. Then again, what’s the point? I hope that you do hate me, for the scorn of arseholes is as the praise of gods.

  27. Disappointed regular viewer
    July 21st, 2006 @ 6:09 pm

    This blog has become a pile of shit. I thought for the last couple of weeks, this might have been revealed to be some great joke on RA’s part, but it clearly isn’t.

    Unless of course, it has been revealed to be so in this latest post, but I couldn’t read beyond the first paragraph.

    I’ve now removed this complete nonsense from my favourites list. Cheers for all the interesting reading you did provide in the past, RA, but you’ve clearly either lost it, or you never really had the convictions you appeared to have in the beginning.

    Don’t bother replying to this, anyone, ‘cos I’m not fucking reading it.

  28. Brian Macker
    July 21st, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

    Exactly the response I expected. Of course you don’t want anyone to know who you are. You wouldn’t dare spout your infantile tantrums under your own name. Anyone can put two and two together to figure out what you are about.

  29. Choobus
    July 21st, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

    Macker, if you set up a moot point you will most likely get the response you expected. I don’t need internet loons or godidiot arseholes harrassing me, so like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE ONLINE I keep my personal information to myself. Is this surprising to you? If it is you reveal yourself to be a fool, although few will be surprised by this revelation. Congratulations on your recent demonstration of mathematical skills. A word of advice for you though: when you are sucking cocks in new jersey for 5 bucks a pop ask your clients not to penetrate your brain so much as it does appear to be causing you to lose IQ points on a daily basis. If this goes on much longer your impressive mathematics will be lost, and then you will no longer be able to calculate what I am “about”.

  30. bernarda
    July 22nd, 2006 @ 2:54 am

    Macker claims to be an atheist, yet uses this as a criticism, “Why are you so profain(sic)?”

    If Macker meant “profane”, that is a compliment.

    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.

    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.

    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.

    4. Vulgar; coarse.

  31. Choobus
    July 22nd, 2006 @ 3:02 am


    I do indeed consider all of the above to be complimentary, and I thank you for pointing out how the dim witted macker is essentially defeating irrelevance. (not to mention a fucking pikey nonce).

  32. Nokot
    July 22nd, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

    To Brian Macker and Brent Nichols: Choobus is obnoxious and vulgar because he (and others) find it to be humorous. He values humor more than the other things which might otherwise cause him to conduct himself with more courtesy (and blandness).

    Personally, Choobus makes me laugh, and I consider myself a fan of him. I particularly liked the phrase “the rub and tug massage parlour where you work as a spooge mopper-upper.”

  33. Gathercole
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 12:16 am

    RA wrote: “Time, at long last, to turn the microscope on myself.”

    LOL, sarcasm is back.

  34. Brian Macker
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 2:26 am


    That’s funny I am not bothered by anybody via the internet. I’ve been openly atheist since ’81. You don’t have to post your home phone number to identify yourself. Are you planning on running for office some day or something? I’m not. People don’t vote for openly atheistic candidates. You sound real paranoid about Christians.


    Meaning number four, vulgar. Are you implying I am not an atheist? On what evidence, that I don’t like foul mouthed idiots who have nothing of value to say. I think you should be more concerned about Choobus’s credentials. He’s the one acting like a jerk while claiming to be an atheist. How would my pretending to be an atheist achieve any religious goals. At least Choobus might be motivated to fake his believes in order to give non-belief a bad name.

    Oh, and I’m not a particularly good speller. I wasn’t fond of english class and preferred the sciences and maths. I took any opportunity to avoid my english homework in order to get outside and play. Luckily people like me invented spell checkers. Though I think it isn’t worth my time to run them most of the time. I can always depend on others with an axe to grind to find them for me. Thanks for being my proofreader. I’ll try to spell profane correctly next time I use it. Let me know about any other spelling errors you might find. Especially if you find that subject fascinating.


    That says more about you than me. You probably like Tom Green. I don’t. Seeing as how the spooge reference is directed at me I hope you can understand I have other reasons for not finding it particularily funny. I don’t mind profanity in comic routines either so long as the stuff is funny. In my experience Choobus is rarely funny. He’s probably some teenager trying to look tough. Tough talk is cheap when you hide behind a fake name and are probably on the other side of the Atlantic.

  35. Choobus
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 3:05 am

    whacker, you’re too funny for words, be the correctly spelled or not. There is absolutely no reason why I should pay attention to your pathetic whinging, so I won’t. And I certainly won’t be taking your advice and inviting trouble by stating my name and location. You haven’t had any trouble because noboy ever reads anything you write or gives a fuck about anything you say. If Iwere as boringly mediocre as you I might be as careless as well. And if a little joke about you mopping up spooge for a living hurts your feelings then you should stick to talking to yourself. You don’t think I’m funny? Fine. Here’s a little tip for you: don’t read what I write you stoopid prick. Those arrows on your keyboard can help you to achieve this goal and thereby save you many many tears.

  36. bernarda
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 3:32 am

    Macker, “Meaning number four, vulgar. Are you implying I am not an atheist? On what evidence, that I don’t like foul mouthed idiots”

    Maybe you don’t like foul mouthed idiots, though you are really not one to be talking–the idiot part I mean. I wasn’t implying, I was just wondering about someone who doesn’t seem to know the meanings of words. So finally you choose the one out of four possible meanings which suits you. Probably an idiot like you didn’t even know about the other meanings.

    Spelling is important, but not as important as knowing how to use vocabulary to say something that makes sense. I am tired of lazy, sloppy thinkers like you.

  37. Nokot
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 5:23 am

    Brian Macker writes, “That says more about you than me.”

    You are exactly right. I was only talking about myself. I never meant to imply that you or anyone else should think Choobus is funny. I apologize if that was unclear. (And for the record, I think Tom Green is completely unfunny.)

    Can’t we all just get along?

  38. Brian Macker
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 11:17 am

    Can’t we all just get along?
    Nokot, Apparently not. That statements seems a tad bit hypocritical coming from a somebody cheerleading a bombthrower like Choobis.

    BTW, to Choobis, that wasn’t advice. Jeesh, some people.

  39. Brian Macker
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 11:55 am

    Bernarda (or is it also Choobis?),

    Oh please, I was in the 99% on my SATs. Most of my regents exams I got every question right. I did mess up my earth science test and only got a 99 out of 100. Also my English regents wasn’t too pretty. I think I scored 97%, although it wasn’t really that hard. I was expecting to get in the mid eighties and lucked out.

    I don’t really put that much effort into spelling, grammar and the like on these posts precisely because I am not being paid. It’s a rational economic decision on my part. I did know about all the meanings of the word profane. You should also note that the word idiot has alternate meanings besides the one you assumed. I meant “foul mouthed idiot” in the sense of fool. Really, what rational person can argue with that adjective being applied in this case? Choobus really does act like a foul mouthed fool and he does so under an alias because it’s behavior he would dare do in public precisely because it is foolish.

    I think for myself. There are plenty of atheist running around being obnoxious and foolish. I don’t understand the behavior since it seems to serve no purpose that would reflect well on the person doing it. I’m not talking about stuff like pointing out that many a innocent puppy has been drowned by god in the bible. I’m talking about just plain foul mouthed obnoxiousness. I don’t know how you can be a cheerleader for this type of behavior and also think you are someone operating to avoid “lazy, sloppy thinking”. What more fundamental forms of fallacies are there than ad hominem attacks.

  40. Choobus
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

    Macker, you must be very insecure about your fragile “intelligence” to start listing your grades from years ago. How pathetic. I hope you are equally proud of your degree from the DeVry institute. Frankly, you may be a little over qualified to work as a spooge mopper-upper. You should see if they will give you a promotion. I really think you have it in you to clean toilets. Don’t let your dreams go unfulfilled. You can do it whacker. Believe in yourself!

  41. Nokot
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

    “That statements seems a tad bit hypocritical coming from a somebody cheerleading a bombthrower like Choobis”

    My “Can’t we all just get along?” remark was facetious. I was trying to get the idea across that this humorless hostility is absurd. At least let’s make the insults funny.

    Hrm. I’ve always thought of Choobus as a detector of Internet neophytes since they have not yet learned to disregard flamebait. Read I don’t think I’ve really ever encouraged Choobus, as I don’t think he cares whether I’m amused by his rantings. And I don’t think I’ve defended Choobus at all either. I have only tried to explain a possible motivation (humor). Maybe the wiki article will do a better job of that.

    If Choobus was motivated by a desire to change society for the better by articulating and advancing skepticism, I would take issue with his methods. But, as far as I can tell, he’s here to have fun by trolling and that’s ok by me on a site called “The Raving Atheist.”

  42. R and All
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 10:17 pm


    Holy crap, give it a rest! Some find Choobus obnoxious, others (myself included) think he’s hilarious…so what?! Why don’t you start a discussion in the forum that says: “Choobus, you are truly obnoxous” and see if anyone wants to hop in with an opinion. Stop hijacking this thread!

  43. Kreme
    July 23rd, 2006 @ 11:04 pm

    Brian, ignore Choobus. He has his fans, but you don’t have to be one. You don’t have to like Choobus to either be Atheist, or browse this site. I find some of the things he says make sense, others don’t. For the most part, he seems to me an Atheist Maddoxx, but better, because Maddoxx doesn’t criticize religion.

    Brian, take what Choob says with a grain of salt. Lay on us your ideas, and prepare to receive full spectrum analysis. If you don’t use Ad Hominem fallacies in your argumentation, then all the better. We stick to the ideas themselves.

    July 24th, 2006 @ 7:44 am

    HA HA — I just realized that RA is like NBC’s Earl — as the tag line goes:

    … Earl discovers karma- and in hope of a better life, he sets out to correct every bad thing he’s ever done ….

    What a bunch of hoooooey — a website where we watch “Earl” apologize to every undeserving xtian martyr he’s ever crossed.

    What keeps me checking in on this fiasco ? Is it the similar allure of a car wreck where we want to see if there are any dead bodies ?

  45. rdb
    July 24th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

    Y’know, RA, none of us are perfect, but if we all decided we would offer no critical opinions until we first corrected all of our own defects, it seems likely that what little progress we have would likely grind to a halt.

  46. Michael Bains
    July 24th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm

    I think Choobus IS Brian Macker!

    And, of course, that TRA is either wooing a christian sex-goddess (go for it dude!) or seriously off his rocker and taking this whole moral self-remediation thing waaaay too far.

    But that’s his bidness, not mine. I’m just morbidly curious as to what me blogdaddy is freakin’ up to with this schtick. Hope yer not dyin’ man. This would seem a waste of time if ya are. But whatever makes ya happy (sans insane and immoral anti-choice legislation, of course.)

    Either way, Choob’s the dude!

    Michael Bains
    Cleveland Ohio
    I’m too neurotic to be anonymous. {-;

  47. Choobus
    July 24th, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

    Mr Bains, I’ve been insulted so many times that it just seems normal, but you crossed the line sir. Whacker is a self righteous prick who is not fit to dab the sweat from my hairy ballsack after I have just finished getting the de-lux treatment at the naughty monkey (the spank parlour where macker works mopping up spooge).

  48. Brian Macker
    July 24th, 2006 @ 6:30 pm


    Now that’s funny. Liked your site. Are you saying you believe in deathbed conversions? I’m not sure Choob is a dude. What makes you think that? Which sort of ruins your theory since I am a dude.

  49. bernarda
    July 24th, 2006 @ 6:41 pm

    Whenever someone starts coming out with his Sat scores or IQ scores, you know they don’t have a clue. If they could make sense, it would show. Giving real or imaginary scores adds nothing.

    Maybe choobus is too modest to mention it, but he does have a blog at

    I apologize in advance to choobus if wankers like Macker start harrassing him. Other people might get a laugh.

  50. Michael Bains
    July 24th, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

    Sorry Choob. I still gots some New Age/Conspiracistism in me, I gues. And yah, the naughty monkey does rock. I’m ‘specially fond of their sicky-quickies. Give cheap ‘n’ easy a bad name!

    Thanks BMac! You’re honestly best off tellin’ yer opinion then rollin’ yer eyes and ignoring folk who attack you on it. It doesn’t hurt to look for kernels of truth in what they say, though. If debatin’ those doesn’t get ya anywhere, really why bother?

    I am totally entertained by Choobus, and would never remonstrate someone who’s just got too much snark-power for me, even in my least urbane moments. Did you check his site? Well, really, don’t unless you wanna expand your sense o’ humor to include deescustin’. Look for them kernels and you’d see it’s pretty intelligent too. But I laugh my arse off every time I read his stuff. Tom Green wishes he was that funny! (and man I hope my step girl doesn’t pick up that part of my sense of humor! D’oh!)

    Sure I acknowledge that folks have death-bed conversions. The odds of anyone benefittin’ post-croakedly from such are just as small as those of there bein’ a godcritter. Dead is dead, whatever anyone feels better believin’ ’bout it. I just honestly don’t know what eff TRA is up to with this track of posts.

    We’ll see… maybe.

  51. Choobus
    July 24th, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

    snark power! I might have to steal that

  52. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 12:15 am


    I answered some of the harder questions till I got bored. I’m afraid I’m not the best person at communicating my ideas. I am a visual thinker. Strange as it may seem I can even think in 4 spatial dimensions. If you don’t understand my answers I can try to explain more clearly but I basically vomited those out as fast as I could. If you want a better understanding of my beliefs on morality you can look at my comments in reply to this post on “Natural Rights: Useful Fiction” at qando.

  53. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 12:31 am

    Your truisms are trite. I only came out with my test scores because it was claimed I was an idiot, as in stupid. I had a reason to do so. I post extensively on the web and you can go out and search for my posts if you like. You will find I almost never post such information. Then again, most people are not so stupid as to make derogatory remarks about other peoples intelligence without any evidence to back up their claims.

    The rest of you praciticing pop psychology should be grateful you have day jobs. Choobis is consistently acting like a nasty coward and I was merely pointing it out to him. I also vaguely remember you Bernada being nasty in the past to me for no good reason. Actually I think you were trying to support a position and thought you could shut me up by being a absolute bastard instead of actually arguing your point. Was that you? I think the subject was rape. You trying to get even now?

    What exactly do you an Choobus have against reasonable people anyhow? I don’t buy the “This is the internet so I’ll act like an ass if I want to” answer. That just means that deep down inside you are a jerk. I like the next guy like the crude joke, or off color story. What I don’t like is when specific people are being victimized. That’s just my thing. Your free to act like jackasses and I’m free to dislike you.

  54. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 12:33 am

    “Stop hijacking this thread!”
    Cry me a river. Now you know what a true troll is.

  55. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 12:57 am

    You’re honestly best off tellin’ yer opinion then rollin’ yer eyes and ignoring folk who attack you on it.
    Actually, I’ve probably been at this longer than you have. I know what I’m doing. I wish people like you would live in a reality based world. If you’ll notice it was I who attacked Choobis, not vice versa. You see, technically, I’m the troll here. You know since I came into a peaceful community with established residents and started causing trouble. I’ve even got people complaining about me hijacking the thread. He, he. :)

    One trait some atheists share with some libertarians is someone “in their camp” thinking for themselves. Despite their staunch individualism some just can’t operate on an individual basis. Attack some cherished belief of the group or bad behavior on the part of a member and many in the crowd will get upset. Strange dynamics but it happens all the time.

    I’m in complete control and can disengage from Choobis any time I want. It’s as simple as ignoring him. I did it on previous threads and I can do it again. For someone who claims not to care what other people think of him he spends an awful lot of time defending himself. :) I don’t make that claim. I actually care what other people think of me. So if I defend myself I am not being a hypocrite. Every moment spent by Choobis attacking me is a testamony to his hypocrism, and the depth to which he sinks in the gutter a monument to his desperation. Bwaaahahaha!

    I thought I’d add some silliness because frankly the rest of you are taking this too seriously. It’s only Choobis who should feel the hate welling up within him, for I have made him contemplate the nature of his mind. I have wounded his internet persona and he is lashing out like a hyena in it’s death throes. It’s no mortal wound but it sure feels like it. Bwaaaahahaha!

    This is so much fun.

  56. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 1:00 am

    That should be: One trait some atheists share with some libertarians is not being able to stand someone “in their camp” thinking for themselves.

  57. Brian Macker
    July 25th, 2006 @ 1:07 am

    I want *everyone* to bow down before me and acknowledge me [as your lord and savior] that I called the 12-step answer for TRA’s behavior way back on July 6! (, post #28)

    If anyone brought it up earlier, I stand corrected, but I don’t think that’s the case.

    I will only bow down to you as a god when I have evidence of your powers. Sorry but we will not become aware until your prophecy is fulfilled.

  58. Choobus
    July 25th, 2006 @ 3:10 am

    Brian Macker Ladies and Gentlemen. Assclown, nutjob and imbecile.

    A hero in his own spooge mop. God bless the management at the naughty monkey for keeping him gainfully employed.

  59. bernarda
    July 25th, 2006 @ 4:21 am

    If you want to have a laugh, got to macker’s site and look at his reading list. What do you find? A lot of libertarian gospel.

    M. Rothbard, Ayn Rand(of course cited many times), Peikoff, N. Brandon, Tibor Machan, M. Friedman and so on. The usual suspects. And macker wants to convince us that he is not an idiot?

    On his list, no Marx, no Proudhon, no Kropotkin, no Paul Kruger, no Steiglitz, etc.

  60. choobus
    July 25th, 2006 @ 4:33 am

    A cunt said “Strange as it may seem I can even think in 4 spatial dimensions”.

    that does seem strange. Strange, or retarded.

  61. Tenspace
    July 25th, 2006 @ 8:29 am

    Strange as it may seem I can even think in 4 spatial dimensions. :)

    Tell me, what do you call your fourth spatial dimension? How does it manifest itself within your 3-D perceptory range? Have you written any papers on this ability?

  62. FNA
    July 25th, 2006 @ 9:11 am

    Brian you sure are catching some flak here. Just wanted to say i enjoyed your posts at the other site.

    See yall in Hell,

  63. bernarda
    July 25th, 2006 @ 10:14 am

    If string theory, aka M theory, is correct, there are 11 dimensions. Maybe he can also tell us how to think in those dimensions as well. Or maybe it is a new challenge for him.

    But I doubt that brilliant macker has ever heard of it.

  64. R and All
    July 25th, 2006 @ 10:37 am

    “I actually care what other people think of me.”

    Then you should find this interesting: I think you are a booger-eater.

  65. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm


    I will respond to you first, since your response seems the most reasonable, and you seem interested. First I want to say that I am taking Fridays off from spooge mopping over the summer to make my weekends longer. That’s why I’m responding during my normal working hours at the Naughty Monkey. I will say that I am upset with Choobis for revealing my place of employment because I often write articles critical of Islam and they don’t take criticism as well as the Christians. I am hoping people will respect my decision not to publicize exactly where the locations for the NM are and which franchise I work in.

    I think you were sharp enough to understand what I was claiming with my less than rigorous statement, “I can think it four dimensions”. More accurately I was claiming to be able to “visualize” in four dimensions.

    What do I call “my” fourth spatial dimension? Well I didn’t really bother to call it anything since it is completely homogenous with the other three dimensions. I suppose if I wanted to talk about fourth dimensional objects then I would have to invent some new terms. Perhaps I could use span to supplement the terms width, height and depth.

    This is not a natural ability but one that I trained myself to be able to do. I had read some article in the 70’s or 80’s in a science magazine about “hypercubes” and was trying to imagine what they looked like. At first I was incapable of visualizing them. Later after much effort I could. I can only visualize simple objects like hypercubes, hyperspheres, hypercones, and hypertubes. I can also visualize 3D objects as they are rotated into the fourth dimension.

    The only time I’ve explained the concept I’ve used regular objects (which are identical on all dimensions) so there was no need to mention the dimensions in the four different directions. If I did feel then need then I would say something like a hyperrectangle with width 4, height 2, depth 3, and span 5.

    How does it manifest itself within my 3-D perceptory range? Well at first I was puzzled as to how to do this. My first intuition was to utilize our natural ability to visualize in the fourth dimension of time. So at first I visualized the hypercube as an evolution of an object through time. Unfortunately our brains do not map our sense of time homogenously with our perceptions of our other four senses. Thus I was unable to rotate the hyper objects I was visualizing mentally.

    Well technically I could rotate them but only between the three normal spatial dimensions. I could never rotate any of the spatial dimensions into the time dimension. Later using other mental tricks I was able to gain enough control over my visualization so that I could rotate the object along paths that involved changes in the fourth dimension. This allowed me to visualize what would happen as a 4D object were to past through our 3D world at various angles.

    I don’t know how good you are at visualizing things so I don’t want to go into to much detail about how to train your mind to do this more advanced technique. I have noticed that some people are better than others at visualizing in even three dimensions. I don’t know to what extent this is due to mental practice or not. I think you would need to first be able to solve what is to me a simple 3D question before I judged you competent enough to take on more advanced visualization. Let’s see where you are at first.

    First the test: Visualize a cube. Now can you visualize drawing a regular hexagon on one of the sides? How about visualizing a regular hexagon floating inside the cube. Now can you visualize the cube inside the hexagon? Most people can do those things. Now can orient the cube in a direction such that when shrinking the hexagon that each side of the hexagon will lay exactly on one face of the cube? Most people cannot do that without assistance from someone who knows how. I never required such assistance. If you can do that then I think you have a good chance of visualizing in four dimensions. If you can’t then I would say the odds are worse.

    Have you written any papers on this ability? No. I did have a conversation about it on “The Church of the Virus” many years ago, but I don’t know how much detail I gave. I haven’t been on the forum in a long time as I found that the participants really had nothing to offer past a certain point. I am better at visualizing in 4 dimensions now then I was back then. You improve with practice. Not to say I’ve been practicing all those years. I only play around with this when it comes to mind. Each time I get a little better.

    I am rather jealous about my intellectual efforts and like to have credit, so I tend not to publish my original works on other peoples web sites. However, I will do so here to prove my contention. I consider this description of my efforts a copyrighted work for which, by posting it here, I have given permission to “The Raving Atheist” to show as part of this web site,, but no other venue.

    Now I will describe some visualizations of the hypercube to get you started. One can analogize all the way from no dimensions up to three dimensions to get a cube. Start with a point in a no dimensional universe. In a one dimensional universe you can drag that point to trace the full length of a line segment one inch long. Now if you add a dimension orthogonal to that original dimension you have a 2D world and you can drag that line segment sideways one inch to trace out the area of a square. If you now add a third dimension you can lift the square perpendicularly by its face to trace out the volume of a cube. Just continue this process in the fourth dimension to get a hypercube.

    If you pick time as your fourth dimension and map one second to one inch then a hypercube having one vertex at the point (0,0,0,0) will be visualized as a cube one inch on a side popping into existence at time zero and remaining in existence for one second then disappearing. This is also happens to be how a hypercube traveling in four dimensions would appear to a human if it happened to slam into our 3D world perpendicularly traveling at one inch per second.

    I will analogize down to lower dimensions so you get this. A 2D being cannot visualize the third dimension because he only has two dimensions plus time. However he could imagine a time as mapping to space at one inch per second and then see a cube as a square that exists for exactly one second. This would also be identical to a cube in 3D world traveling at one inch per second passing through his 2D planar world perpendicularly. When the cube first hit his world he would see a square pop into existence. This square would remain for 1 second as the cube passed through his world and then pop out of existence again as the cube finished passing through.
    Now being a 2D being he’s going to have a hard time visualizing what 2D shapes are going to form at anything other than a perpendicular angle. Think about it yourself. What if that hypercube I was talking about traveling through the 4D world intersects our 3D volume at some other angle. Can you visualize what shape it would be? I very much doubt that you can.

    That is not such a problem for you however if you imaging a cube intersecting a plane at an angle. For instance if one edge hits first you would know that at first a one inch line segment would appear in that 2D world. The length wouldn’t change but it would quickly grow in width to form at first a skinny rectangle, then a square of one inch, then it would get even wider than one inch, up to a maximum of the square root of 2 wide (depending on the angle). If the cube was traveling exactly along it’s diagonal then the rectangle would first grow up to the square root of two wide then shrinks back down to a line segment at the same position.

    If an edge hit first but the cubes diagonal was not perpendicular to the surface of the 2D world it was passing through then it would look different to a 2D observer. In that case the rectangle would grow wider faster on one side than the other. It would then go through a period of staying the same width but the side that was growing faster would have started shrinking instead until the other side was the largest from the perspective of the position of the original line segment. Then the rectangle would shrink back down to a line segment but it would be not be in the same place as the original.

    Now do the same for the cube if a corner hits first. It starts as a point, grows to a triangle, turns into a hexagon by adding new sides at the corners of the original triangle, the original triangles sides shrink as the new sides grow. This continues until the old sides shrink to points leaving yet another triangle consisting of only the new sides. Then this triangle shrinks to a point.

    The exercise a gave before with the cube and the hexagon was to show you that most people are not up to rotating and thinking even about 3D shapes in their imaginations. If I showed you a regular hexagon drawn on a cube you couldn’t help but to see how it was done. To visualize it yourself is quite a different thing. Now since our purported creature living in a 2D world would not have the ability to see let alone imagine what a 3D cube looks like it would be beyond his ken to visualize what rotated cube passing through his world would look like.

    I can describe exactly what a hypercube, a hollow hypercube, or a hypercube with arbitrarily thick walls looks like when rotated and passed through out 3D world. I can do so in my imagination. Not only that I can visualize what the shadow of a wire frame hypercube looks like as projected onto our 3D world from different angles. I can explain why to a fourth dimensional being can pass through a standard hollow object like a ping pong ball, which should be obvious from this discussion. I can do the same things I claimed to be able to do for hyperspheres, hypercones, hypercylinders, and hypertubes. Furthermore I can do so for simple and complex 3D objects passing through 4D space.

    I tried to visualize into a fifth dimension but frankly it was beyond my abilities. It is also beyond my current abilities to visualize and rotate more complex 4D objects. I might be able to statically visualize them but not rotate them properly.

    So I leave this as an exercise. Rotate the one inch hypercube so that the line running from its hyper-diagonally opposite corners is perpendicular to all three of our normal directions. Now have it plunge through our 3D world at a rate of one inch per second. What would a 3D person see? Now try it at various other angles. There are for different initial appearances depending on angle.

    There is much further I can say on the subject but frankly I’m keeping it to myself. I think my being able to describe how these things look should be sufficient to prove I can do the visualizations. A mathematician can check my answers. I am not doing this via any symbolic mathematical manipulation.

    Does anyone see how my claiming to have an ability you don’t is analogous to claims by the religious of access to spiritual knowledge. Like that Sam Harris guy and meditation, or your typical Christian claiming to have direct sensory knowledge to a spiritual realm? Do you see one big difference? That difference being that I can prove I have the ability the same way a sighted man can prove he can see to the blind. He does so by saying, “Duck about to hit you”. I will do so by describing what rotated and rotating 4D objects look like in 3D space.

    Now the whole point of my telling people about this ability was because I feel that my writing skills trail way behind my other mental achievements. There is a reason for this that is partially my own fault but my writing tends to cause people to underestimate me. I specifically write online in order to improve my writing skills. That is why I am doing it. I’m not being paid for it, and I don’t really believe I will change most people’s minds for the most part. I feel that my school and myself both shortchanged me with regards to my ability to write and I am trying to make up for it. I hope you were able to understand me.

  66. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


    “If string theory, aka M theory, is correct, there are 11 dimensions. Maybe he can also tell us how to think in those dimensions as well. Or maybe it is a new challenge for him. But I doubt that brilliant Macker has ever heard of it”

    If I’d claimed to be able to shoot a flying pigeon at 100 feet using a 22 rifle then I expect you’d be right there asking if I knew how the internals of a jet engine worked and whether I could shoot down a 747 with my rifle.

    Sorry, I’m not a mathematician, and have not really kept up with it since college. I have heard of string theory because I do read science magazines and books written on physics. I got enough out of those to satisfy my naturally overly intense curiosity. You should be aware however that visualizing (thinking) in four dimensions is quite different than what a mathematician would do. So it might well be that a mathematician who works in the field may not be able to do it. Just like a jet engineer may not be able to shoot down a pigeon with a 22.

    I posted a reply to Tenspace first on exactly what I meant by “thinking in four dimensions”. Unfortunately, It is being held for moderation. Not sure why. It claimed I used a different name but I didn’t. I think perhaps it also has length and link inclusion criteria it is going by.

  67. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 1:38 pm


    “If you want to have a laugh, got to macker’s site and look at his reading list. What do you find? A lot of libertarian gospel.

    M. Rothbard, Ayn Rand(of course cited many times), Peikoff, N. Brandon, Tibor Machan, M. Friedman and so on. The usual suspects. And macker wants to convince us that he is not an idiot?

    On his list, no Marx, no Proudhon, no Kropotkin, no Paul Kruger, no Steiglitz, etc.”

    I’m wondering how many here would laugh at what is a partial reading list I used to refute the claim of another Libertarian which was something to the effect of “I didn’t know what I was talking about”.

    I am also wondering why you think that reading books infers that I believe everything that is in them. I am a highly critical thinker. I do have a post on that web site citing some of my differences with Rand. I already believed in objective reality, reason, capitalism, and self interest, before I ran across her so I decided to learn her entire philosophy. Those positions are her summary while standing on one foot of objectivism. I have to say that I don’t arrive at my positions as she does. I think she is mistaken on many issues. I’m sure I could write a book on it. I am sure there are many people out there who independently decided those four things were reasonable positions without settling upon them the way Rand seems to think they ought to be. I would say that “enlightened self interest” is my actual ethics and not merely “self interest”. Furthermore what she describes in her ethics and the way she behaved seems more like egoism or selfishness than enlightened self interest.

    I only recommend books I have read cover to cover, and then only if I think they are good. My book list only includes books which I have read cover to cover. It also contains books I would not recommend. Now I don’t recommend people read Ayn Rand for the most part. Most people aren’t smart enough to bend her ideas around to something that resembles proper economics, ethics, etc. I do highly recommend Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene” on the topic of evolution and natural selection, although the last chapter on memetics leave something to be desired. I also highly recommend the book “Marxism” by Thomas Sowell the economist and former Marxist.

    Now I have read some original Marx and Lamarck, just not entire volumes written by them. This both from original books they have written and from excerpts in encyclopedias and other books. The reason I have not bothered to read them in depth is that both have been discredited in their fields of study, Marx in economics and Lamarck in evolution. I think it sufficient to read critiques of such failed “scientists”. Although I have my doubts about Marx being a scientist in any real sense. In both cases I think neither came up with something that was a fully scientific theory. There should be at least the hope that their theory was correct. If you read Dawkins then you will know what I am talking with in regards to Lamarck. Dawkins does a good job of explaining exactly why Lamarcks theory on evolution doesn’t even get past the hurdle of being a reasonable hypothesis.

    Now I have read many critiques of Marx. Either as whole volumes like Sowell’s “Marxism” or as part of other major works. So I know what he’s about. Frankly, I am surprised that you think reading the original Marx is something any educated person actually needs to do. Especially in the mocking way you do so. Would you think it appropriate to mock me if I have read entire volumes by Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Wilson (yes I read the entire Sociobiology in college), and many others, but had skipped reading the original Lamarck?

    Furthermore, I take it that by listing Marx you take him to be an authority. It’s as if you were claiming Lamarck was not only important to know for historical reasons but was actually the credible. If I were you I wouldn’t go around mocking pseudo-libertarians if you are an authentic Marxist. Just a suggestion.

    I can tell you that I know a lot about the subject of economics, and Marx is a joke. His theories are easily demolished and Sowell does so. As can just about any other competent economist. Marx’s labor theory of value is especially hilarious and even a child can be taught it and why it is preposterous. Same for his theory about why capitalists are expropriating from labor.

    You further recommend Proudhon and Kropotkin? OMG, why would you recommend commie anarchists like them? “Property is theft” – LOL. As for Paul Kruger, don’t know who that is or his significance but perhaps you meant Paul Krugman who I think is an arse. Steiglitz? Do you mean Joseph Stiglitz? I’m aware of his work on adverse selection and moral hazard theories though I don’t know if they are original with him. I am not familiar with his work in macroeconomics unless through someone else. Perhaps you mean someone else?

  68. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 1:41 pm

    There’s a partial critique of Ayn Rand done by me in the past here.

  69. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm

    “I actually care what other people think of me.”

    Then you should find this interesting: I think you are a booger-eater.

    That sentence didn’t mean I care what every single person thinks of me. Normally it means that a person cares what some people think of them.

    I imagine at some point in my infancy I probably indulged myself with a taste. Reminds me of a joke I heard once ends “… but if you suck just one cock your know forever as a cocksucker”.

    I can tell you that I am far less concerned with what people think of me than most people. Otherwise I wouldn’t be sharing what are embarrassing stories about myself on the internet. My dad used to tease me that I used to live off dead flies and cigarette butts. I can assure you however that I remember those days and I was merely dissecting them for observation. Those plastic inserts in the filters were especially cool.

    What I’m curious about is how Choobis became aware that there was such an occupation as spooge mopping. The Naughty Monkey has an exclusively gay clientele. Perhaps he’s one of the customers down at my job? Though most don’t realize what’s on the floor. Maybe he just makes deliveries and was involved as the complainant in a slip and fall lawsuit?

  70. Brian Macker
    July 28th, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

    I meant to say in that post about 4D visualization “homogenously with our perceptions of three dimensional space ” not “our other four senses”. My mind fetched the wrong info as I was writing. You know that whole five senses thing touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing. Oops.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links