Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

Comment #251342 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 11:35 am

Getting tired of planetary differentiation, so I'm back shortly.

GoatBoy thanks again for getting it.

Caudi, while I don't deny there are atheist groups who get it, I don't see any in the race at the moment. Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

ggab, as regards Iranian ambitions, I think that you can see the best illustration of what's going on here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmToGmw2DDw

It's an amusing vid of a serious subject.

352. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251312 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:57 am

Retiring for the night, so I'll just end with a word of thanks to Caudi, as that's an argument worth having.

353. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251307 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:53 am

Caudi, answered above.

354. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251304 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:52 am

ggab, I think that Hitchens was asked that same question at FFRF. I'll give the same response: demolish those sites, and take down the regime in the process. Our survival is incompatible with a nuclear Islam theocracy. War, in other words.

355. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251290 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:41 am

ggab, way to completely miss the point.

I don't see how there is anything the US can offer Iran that it'd rather have than nukes. It follows that any negotiation is going to be a massive waste of time - like the one that just got alot of people killed in Darfur. This isn't academic.

356. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251285 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:37 am

There aren't claims that there is nothing to choose between American Christianity and Iranian Islam

Steve I refer you to BS's comments.

357. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251280 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:32 am

Who said that it was a negligable matter, and what information do you have on "these damn talks that Obama wants to have" that worry you so much?

Everyone seems to skate right over that matter when I bring it up, or raise some idiotic idea that there's nothing to choose between American Christianity and Iranian Islam.

Now, Obama has pledged to negotiate with IRan without preconditions. That sounds suspiciously like a preparation for the usual UN-inspections, endless talks farce that, in effect, means giving Iran time to build it's nukes. That is why I'm worried.

----------------

Caudimordax, you're pushing at an open door with me there.

Stop Iran, but coldly, calmly and with precision.

If that was on offer, I'd be ecstatic. It's just, as I've said elsewhere, that political, that is, election choices very often are that of a man on a raft, choosing between seawater and his own urine.

358. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251275 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:24 am

Nairb, what, exactly, was so damn diffiult of giving that response when I first raised these questions four weeks ago? THere was nothing "vague" about my objecitons: I asked what adjustments were made for the shorter Muslim generation time, something you failed to answer. I also pointed out that those optimistic scenarios depened on the recovery of European birth rates in one generation, which you failed to answer. I finally pointed out that Muslim populations will be unevenly distributed which, again, you failed to answer.

What is this supercillious tone? I've been asking for specifics, details and that damn link for some time now, and this is the first time I get anything like a specific from you, and you think that I'm being unreasonable here?

I find the following also interesting:

Generations are not needed and not used.

Then why, in most of your explanations, have you invoked the concept of generations, speaking about "five generations to a population" and so on?

This high-handed tone sounds as though you'd always laid things out clearely, while the truth is that getting specifics has been like pulling teeth.

Sorry, but we wouldn't be having this argument if you'd given me the infernal calculations when I first asked for them, four weeks ago.

359. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251266 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 10:16 am

Paine, thanks. That's an argument actually worth having.

I am finding myself a little creeped out by the responses on this site. Can anyone seriously think that Iranian nuclear ambitions are a negligible matter? That they can't be of any concern in this race?

Caudiomordax, correct, and eno, if it comes to sacntioning something, these damn talks that Obama wants to have with Iran seem to fit the bill fairly well.

360. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251248 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 9:33 am

Nairb, if the model does indeed account for these objections then you will have no problems explaining how it does so. Now are you going to do that? Or are you going to keep on "avoiding the obvious"?

361. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251246 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 9:26 am

Lazarus, if this was a "which candidate is the more religious" question, there's no question. What I said was that the issue for me hinges on which one is more likely to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions.

That's the reason I think Obama being elected would be far more dangerous. Apart from anything else, if Iran get's nukes and then uses them, what kind of political forces do you think we'd see let loose?

362. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251211 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 7:52 am

I love this. Apparently the idea that Palin might unleash nuclear apocalypse is uncontroversial, but the idea that Iran would do it is considered either "scaremongering" or beneath discussion... Is it because the former is obviously insane, whereas the latter is a real threat?

363. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251202 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 7:41 am

Lazarus, you throws unfounded accusations at me, and then get huffy when I throw them back?

364. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251190 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 7:26 am

Lazarus, as I've explained before, it's not that I have no problems with her, it's that I have far more problems with Obama. Now what is so complicated about that idea?

365. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251186 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 7:20 am

Lazarus,

but you mention words like "faith",

Quotation, please, to prove that I ever spoke of faith, in the sense of holding unbased beliefs, as a positive thing. Also a quotation showing that I believe in the Devil (my comments about Oxbridge beaurocracy do not count...).

And if you think evil isn't real, you should go and take a look at what happened in Ausschwitz, or what General Butt Naked got up to in Africa.

Finally, as I've said, the serious case for Palin is pragmatic. To hear you talk, you'd think that if she became Pres (and for the umpteenth time, I'm not an American) you'd have a theocracy.

I'd say your comments put you close to someone who harbours a hidden desire for freedom from moral constraints...

(yes, I can play this game too, and play it nastier, if you want to go down that route).

Sarg & decius sorry, I didn't spot that.

Though, if that advocacy is bieng condemned as moraly wrong, isn't that a recourse to moral absolutism - of the sort that Lazarus is now complaining about?

366. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251177 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 7:01 am

Actually Nairb, no I don't have your model because when I asked about certain limitations, it took you four weeks to make a reference to another model that apparently took those limits into account. No mention of that was made. I don't even have the link to the original model, and you are oddly coy about posting it. I don't want to dig through your endless posts - is that so difficult to understand?

Incidentally, if you go back to the other Palin thread, you'll find my - well, 'model', is stretching it; my calculations.

Mitch, again, by "insane" you mean a p.o.v. that differs from yours. Honestly, the level of discourse here can be every bit as moribund as that of fundie creationists

367. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251173 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:56 am

Who said anything about "extra judicial killings" or repealing the inviolability of the home?

368. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251170 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:53 am

Oh for crying out... Apparently people really can't tell when I'm joking. My line about growing my beard, getting a few wives and keeping my head down was about the odd way that it's principally us right-wingers who are aware of the threat of Islam.

Lazarus,

I'm finding it harder to believe that you are an atheist

Translation: " I'm finding it harder to believe that you're an atheist who DOESN'T agree with ME!!!!!!!!!1111...."

I've said that, quelle horreur, I'm not above forming alliances with Christians and Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists and Animists... It's strange that I can honestly give a damn about the human rights of people like the Sudanese Christians, isn't it?

Anyway, to return to the more profound issue, I've been saying for some time now that if the atheist movement, such as it is, insists on bein so damn wishy-washy in the face of Islam, we'll end up with the Christian right, in the same way that we see the neo-fascists on the rise in Europe because the mainstream won't even discuss the problems of Islam.

369. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251166 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

decius, but in the original post Sarg was talking about drug dealers & knife-wielding hoodies. Now I am not arguing about your criticism of Palin per se, just about the idea that it 'isn't right to criticise' these other groups.

370. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251163 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:41 am

Nairb, you still haven't given me those proofs I asked for... Come now, you can hardly make your case on mathematical grounds and then get all slippery about providing those grounds.

Nor do you really address any of Hugh's points.

371. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251161 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:38 am

Mitch, just a little gentle joshing, that's all. Still, it's a serious point. Sarg was talking about street-scum. Why isn't okay to condemn them?

372. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251157 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:34 am

Oh, really, Mitch? What about this:

Those you have just stated are demonstrably wrong and morally reprehensible.

373. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251154 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:31 am

You should really abstain from harsh condemnation until you have all facts in, that's all I'm saying.

Izzat so, decius? Should then the rest of this thread lay of Palin? If not, why not? If it's not okay to lay into junkies, thugs and other riff-raff, why is it okay to lay into a candidate?

374. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251152 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:23 am

Nairb, I also notice that you can't actually refute what FitzGerald is writing there. Interesting, isn't it?

EDIT: Sargeist, the way that 'bigot' get's used around here is to dismiss those who have some incling of what evil is like. It's used to rule out from discussiong anything that doesn't fit into the milk-pap relativist weltanschauung.

375. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251150 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:20 am

Nairb, thanks for that. Saves me the bother of looking it up.

You know, I'm still waiting for you to provide that "complex mathematical model" of yours. As I recall, I provided mine, but you weren't even able to critisize that one...

Oh, and you migh find what JihadWatch has to say about Palin interesting, too. So, please, one and all, feel free to head over to JihadWatch and read.

376. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251144 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 6:09 am

decius,

This would imply that all views are equally meritorious. Those you have just stated are demonstrably wrong and morally reprehensible.

Any second now, Steve Zara & all the rest will come pouring, ah say pouring in to pile on you the knowledge that of course there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong...

*waits*

EDIT: Oh, and if it's "bigotry" to be against thugs, rapists, hoodlums and gangsters, well, by all means colour me bigoted.

(for those twerps thinking of making the obvious asinine comments, please restrain yourselves).

377. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251140 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:56 am

Yep, pasted's a word.

378. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251137 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Titania, did you mean to repost?

379. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251135 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

Titania, again from Whittle:

It may come as a bit of a shock to these worldly sophisticates, who are so quick to point out how parochial and ignorant we simple folk are, that the United States of America has local, state and federal governments! And that this is the order in which crises are dealt with!

A person of some modest education might have remembered that the worship and adulation fostered after 9/11 was for the NYPD and the FDNY. No one was buying FEMA hats after 9/11, because FEMA is essentially a mop-up agency. It's the first responders, the local governments, that will determine if a city will live or die. The State -- that means, the "governor"-- has the sole authority to mobilize the National Guard, and the governor of the state of Louisana was not only slow to do that, she turned down NG assistance from several OTHER states as well. The President does not have the authority to drop precious egg salad sandwiches from Michael Moore's missing helicopters. We do this ON PURPOSE. We limit the power of the federal government, as those of us fortunate enough to have spent time in Civics, rather than Self Esteem classes, are aware. This is so that we do not develop a central power so strong that eventually we end up with idiot inbred royals, or Presidentes for life, on the face of OUR money.

Now, if the critics on the far left are saying that George W Bush needs more power, then by all means let's amend the Constitution before Hurricane season ends. Me, I'm agin' it.

380. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251132 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:35 am

So, zecat, you'd like to, as it were, dissolve the people and elect a new one? Good luck with that.

381. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251130 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:32 am

To phrase it even more simply, whereas the Republicans are tainted by their association with fundie nutcases, the Dems are tainted by their association with shifty nihilists like Michael Moore etc.

EDIT:

Democrats tend to handle those issues better

Weren't the Dems in charge of both the city and state-level governments at the time of Katrina?

382. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251126 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:26 am

Mitchell, on the subject of elitism, how on earth can you bring yourself to watch the sequel to Kannazuki no Miko, in itself one of the worst series in the history of the Universe. (I looked at your blog).

EDIT:

We have not been able to buy gas here in Middle Tennessee for the past several days, not at any price. I was unable to travel the 150 miles to see my mother for her birthday

Titania I'd say that's an argument for expanding domestic oil production right there.

383. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251122 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:19 am

Titania, by all means do so.

EDIT: Sure thing, help yourself to the quote. Just remember where you heard it from first. ;-)

384. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251119 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:18 am

A follow-up Titania: an Oxford buddy of mine and I were discussing the relative demerits of the Dems vs. the Reps. He's a New York liberal, yet we still get on great (mainly because, like Sam Harris, he get's it about Islam). Anyway, the conclusion we came to was that both parties produced unbelievable amounts of nonsense, yet it was always easier to spot Republican nonsense because it comes conveniently marked with a cross.

385. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251117 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:15 am

*chuckles* Titania, as I said right at the start, though I was addressing Sam at the time, this really isn't an argument about "who's campaigner is leeter" but a more fundamental disagreement on principles.

I don't look to politicians - heaven forfend! - as intellectual guides or leaders (that is, with the exception of Nelson Mandela, because getting degrees while working in a chalk-pit in Robben Island is nails). I want the government to guarantee life and liberty, and secure freedom. That is, I'm fine with the government killing jihadis abroad, while leaving us at home alone so that we can get on with the business of progress. I'm in favour of limited, effective government on the domestic side, and confident, muscular pursuit of the counter-jihad abroad.

The trouble with Obama is that he looks suspiciously like the converse: massive, statist fiddling on the domestic side and wishy-washy debate-and-diplomacy surrender on the war side. I dinnae like the look of that at all.

Conversely, McCain has bankable proof of his willingness to fight when it's necessary, and it's necessary right now. If Iran get's nukes, we're cooked, quite literally. That's enough of a decider for me, even if McCain wants to stay in the damn Iraq tarpit.

Actually, writing this a possible counterargument came to me: that Obama is more likely to be able to learn than McCain/Palin. It's unlikely that he'd learn, or learn in time, though. Ideology has a stronger hold than simple mistakes, especially if the ideologue thinks his views are unchallengable.

386. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251111 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 5:04 am

Sargeist, a man after my own heart! :-)

Titania, I really enjoyed being able to say that. Thanks. ;-)

387. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251101 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 4:54 am

For crying out - Laurie, I was referring to BS as a troll. Not you.

----------------------

Ooohhh... I'm really going to enjoy this:

Fanusi, how are you more elite than Obama with his Harvard degree?

Well, m'dear, I hold degrees from the British Universities, yes, both of them. :-)

388. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251096 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 4:45 am

Mitchell, I'm an elitist snob myself. It's one of the reasons I dislike Obama so much.

389. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251093 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 4:42 am

Um, how is that relevant to anything I've said?

Laurie, it was more of a insanely optimistic attempt to engage the troll in rational conversation.

Anyway, I freely admit that my perspective on this is skewed by principally reading praise of Obama & criticism of Palin. I suspect that if things wer the other way round, I might see things differently.

As I said, it's not so much a matter of what I'm for, as what I'm against: the jihadis & the idiot, asinine moral equivalence fools who see no difference between American Christianity and Islam. I'm sorry, I have no patience - none - for that kind of drivel, and I do think that anyone like BS who espouses it should spend a little while in Iran or Saudi Arabia so they learn the difference on their own hides.

*corrects* Nuts, that previous post should have read "re-run of 2004". I've corrected it now.

390. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251077 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:53 am

Laurie, another reasons I intensely dislike the left is this assumption that if you won't join in their cheerleading for a given position or candidate, you must be mentally deficient. The worst example of that was that moron Haidt and the following thread.

But please, please continue on this way. This is turning into a re-run of 2004 where the Guardian and it's readers (including, I'm sorry to say, Professor Dawkins himself) managed to be pivotal in Bush's reelection. "And in the halls of the VRWC, there was much rejoicing..."

N.B.: You haven't seen the arguments I've had with my fellow rightists about the effect of Christianity, so kindly get off that idiotic high horse.

EDIT: And speaking of disconnected with reality, anyone who can compare Sarah Palin with the Iranian regime is out of their tree.

391. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251071 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:41 am

For the umpteenth time, Laurie, I'm not American.

I have one political issue, and only one: stopping the Jihad. Get that wrong, and everything else is meaningless. Now, who has a more credible stance vis a viz the Jihadists and Iranian nuclear ambitions?

To ask the question is to answer it.

392. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251070 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:39 am

Fanusi, Obama refuted Rev. Wright's comments long ago

After going to that lunatic Church for twenty years. His 'repudiation' (please learn the difference between "refute" and "repudiate), was extremely weak and obviously political. Wright has connections, strong ones, with Qadaffi and the Nation of Islam.

Pastor Thomas Muthee who openly brags of chasing a witch from her village in Kenya and shooting her pet snake.

I ain't defending that, and you're missing the point. Sorry, girly, this isn't about supporting Palin so much as about a desire to see the Obama campaign go down in flames.

393. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251065 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:29 am

Well, that's cool, Fanusi - if W.C. is your guide, you'll be voting against McCain/Palin, then?

Actually, no, Laurie, since I'm not an American citizen and they get picky about stuff like that.

The point I'm getting at, and this isn't hard, is that my distaste for McCain is overshadowed by my utter loathing of Obama. Or to be more accurate, the Obama cult.

394. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251061 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:26 am

Hmmmm - given that this article is about association with religious whackos and experience, two things that will get the Obama campaign caught, gutted, cleaned, smoked and hung out to dry, I wonder whether Sam may not have been turned?

395. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251060 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:22 am

Now you're going to tell us how much more intelligent and astute than Obama she is

I'm going to do nothing of the kind, Laurie, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the fact that the Republicans have managed to put the Democrats in a position where they have to try and argue that their pick for president is more experienced than the Reps pick for vice-president. Gotta admire the Machiavellian brilliance of that.

Like I said, I'm not so much for Palin as against alot of her critics and Obama. My maxim is the aformentioned one of W.C. Fields.

396. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251054 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 21, 2008 at 3:14 am

I think that Sam really doesn't seem to get the difference between the two parties, as elaborated by P.J. O'Rourke:

Democrats are the party that say government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickenweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it

I'm actually enjoying this:

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps.

Oh, indeed you can Sam, indeed you can. Does "the Reverend Jeremiah Wright" wring any bells? Or William Ayers? And just because she's out of the race is no reason not to kick her, does the name Huma ring any bells? You know that "indin Muslim scholar who relocated to Saudi Arabia to found an institute"?

I'm really enjoying this...

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery.

Are we really going to make this an argument about experience? Really wanna open that door? Oh, wait, Hillary already did.

Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality,

That's hardly the perogative of the religious, given that Obama wants to negotiate with Iran.

unite the entire world against us

Oh, come on, Sam. The allies that matter - India, just for example - in the struggle against Islam care more about America being strong than America being charming. The others are either impotent and hence irrelevant (Europe) or corrupt and so nasty that they'll only come round when things get really rough - China and Russia.

It's funny, I had very little feelings one way or the other about Palin, until I read the criticisms against her, and the praise of her opponent. As W.C. Fields observed:

"I never vote for anyone. I always vote against."

That pretty much sums up my views about elections. I'm not really "for" Palin; I just have a loathing of the Cult of the Obamessiah.

397. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250766 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 20, 2008 at 9:47 am

*starts spreading barbeque sauce on his hat*

THanks for the links; you can, I hope though, see where I'm coming from. It's the sunni and shia gangsters who are the ones who, in the main, are doing things like blowing up school busses, shooting twelve year olds in the head et cetera.

I have trouble seeing how a war whose price tag is in the upper billions can be 'just for the money'. I think Bill Whittle summarised it neatly:

What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port � probably Basra � and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

There would have been no overland campaign � what for? � and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

That�s what a war for oil would look like. It�s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for �stealing Iraqi oil,� then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier�mache heads.

My position in Iraq is that I was fine with getiting rid of Saddam, and fine with helping Kurdish independance, but not with the nation-building nonsense. A Sunni/Shia divide where they rip each other apart is very, very good for Infidels everywhere, as it will drain manpower and cash and other resources away, and will maybe even distract the world's muslims from their core business of killing jews and whatnot. Also, they tend to like terrorism less when it's they that get blown up.

I am a very strong atheist. I really hate all religion, and Islam being the worst, it is at the top of the list. I may not know as much about it as you do.

May I respectfully suggest you learn a bit more about it? I could suggest some good starting points. I think you'd find it interesting and also very important.

398. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #250752 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 20, 2008 at 8:58 am

Professor Dawkins, not wishing to step on your toes, but could he have been referring to what goes on in the lab, not so much in the organisms themselves?

I've just spent a highly irritating few weeks trying to work out what on earth it is that keeps crawling onto my petri dishes. It doesn't seem that far fetched that if oyu are doing huge amounts of sequencing, viruses could get mixed up in the samples? I have this vision of someone running the data going 'lambda, lambda, HPV, lamda again...' and so on.

399. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250733 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 20, 2008 at 7:36 am

Steve I have pointed out a very suspicious correllation between the numbers of those who want Shariah and the ones who want apostates dead.

Also you are skipping the fact - again - that even those who don't fully understand what Shariah would entail, still give the shariah movement, if I may call it that, additional momentum.

400. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250720 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 20, 2008 at 7:16 am

Why, Steve? You think to call me out about unanswered questions?

believe. I have attempted to point out to you that Shariah is a very complex and varied set of rules. If someone says "I support Shariah" it could mean anything.

No, it couldn't. It really couldn't. The schools of Shariah were fixed a long time ago. How about reading, say, the Umdat al-Salik and learning a little about Shariah before asserting these things?