Friends.

Moreover Abbie, I and I suspect millions of others would like to thank you for doing worthwhile research. The creobots however..

I'm glad we have you on the good side. Of course, it's hard to imagine that you could be on any side other than that of truth. :)

Just in case things get really bad, the friends of PZ have prepared a refuge for him "somewhere in France".
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/09/building-festooned-w.html

We love having you on the good team. Thanks for being you.

it is nice having an us.

though I have to say, some of the people over at dawkinsnet are a little strident... shall we make them a them?

Abby - please put me down on your list of friends...

I totally support PZ, and John Wilkins has supped at my dinner table here in Sydney. My thesis is there on the web proclaiming the reality of evolution (in the context of the flow of CCR5's "delta 32" allele between Vikings and the Ashkenazi Jews, and whilst I have *never* taken a class in "Darwinism" I must confess to supporting him as well.

I like the "us" situation as well, though, as always, I'm on the periphery of whatever communities I belong to. Of course, that makes me an ideal guerilla fighter...

Hey Bill Donohue - I think you are a Big Poopy Head, and Catholic wafers taste like crap.

Can I get on the D-List too?

ps: Abbie - "Luskin is used and abused like any other cheap prostitute by his 'friends'." Picturing Luskin with his caterpiller eyebrows, his tiny limited brain, wearing smeared makeup and lipstick in a cheap red dress with broken down heels, is not a good vision to have this early in the morning. On further reflection it's not a good picture in the middle of the night either! UGGH!!!

Can't believe that PZ Myers didn't reach this pinnacle until now. Amazing, isn't it? Anyway am delighted to have you, Abbie, as a good friend.

Truth is that we're just not into volatile gang banging like you folks are. Just sayin'.

Oh, hey Abbie, you might wanna hone up on your writing skills just a tad. At the moment, you seem to be rating at an elementary school level. Not too impressive for a "science" blogger. Tee Hee.

Check it out, honey...

You might consider using punctuation, limiting your lolspeak, and actually writing about something sciency rather than your typical anti-religious cheerleading rants.

I wouldn't worry about grammar too much. There are plenty of us that would more than compensate for atheist blogs with poor grammar (like my own genius-level blog), so show your genius in ways that really matters! :)

(Although the fact that my blog is rated at a genius level makes me wonder what kind of crack the blog readability test must be smoking ...)

You really don't understand, do you ftk? What matters is the content of the posts, not the grammar. All these people posting know ERV's style well, and they all enjoy what she writes.

I know this is harsh, but when was the last time anyone enjoyed a piece of your writing?

Hi Manigen,

I second your endorsement. I think Abbie's a fine writer in her own right who's stood toe-to-toe (proverbially speaking) against the likes of Mike Behe. Who's FtK anyway to judge? He's merely yet another Uncommon Dissent lurker interested only in belittling Abbie.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Oh look! Fuck-Tard-Kretin is back! From what I can tell she's right tho, the Catholic priests tend to enjoy ass-pounding alter boys one on one, not in big groups. The big groups are saved for the cover up.

Write something that is sciency? As if your ignorant ass could understand it.

And yet another attempt at concern trolling by For The Kocks. I find it hillarious that she keeps harping on Abbie to write more "sciency" posts whilst she completely overlooks all of the posts that deal with science. On top of that, For The Kinks wants to talk about Abbie's grammar? I'm actually dumbfounded, given that this is:
1) Abbie's blog that is done for her enjoyment and that of others
2) Not an academic journal

Honestly, do you think that Abbie writes this way in her professional life? If you do, then you are a lot more dense than I thought. Keep it up, and you might turn into a black hole!

Yours in Jeebus,

Lledowyn

OMG, FTK is here! She's For The Kids, you know! Gettin' out a big bucket of live concern bait, trollin' for the Grace of Gawd!!!!

FTK, you righties are far too hung up on appearances. I know what you're like because my mother is one -- humorless, clueless, and obsessed with not being embarrassed, and absolutely convinced that everyone should feel the way she does or we're WRONG WRONG WRONG. (Have you ever attempted to start a fistfight with your son over blueprints that proved you wrong? My mom has.) It's like when people like Michelle Malkin complain that bloggers like Amanda Marcotte or Ana Maria Cox are "potty-mouths" or people like Martin Luther King get labeled "agitators" -- it's because they don't have poles up their asses, so the fact that they're willing to violate arbitrary standards of decorum to get their point across. Of course, your lot do the same, but either try to give yourselves special justification (like a pro-lifer getting an abortion) or just deny you're doing it.

But hey, what do I know? I'm a commenter and occasional TV cook, and you're a semi-professional getting-thrown-off-of-blogs person.

Everytime I see "FTK" I think of the BTK killer. And it probably isn't because of the close association of the two names . . . maybe it is because they are both psycho.

FTK:

How much science is there over at UD? ERV actually does research. How much research has Behe done in the last fifteen years? Have you read the excerpt from Dembski's latest book? Did you notice the message being sent that science is bad because it makes people not love Jesus? How sciency is that? Finally, have you thought about how you're allowed to comment here but most of us have been banned at UD?

Oh, I just noticed I didn't talk about the post at hand. Ummm...hooray for *us*!

Truth is that we're just not into volatile gang banging like you folks are.

I would normally say this very slowly since you're clearly brain damaged, but I think you can get the same effect by reading what follows by sounding out every word:

This is a reaction to a Catholic gang who sent death threats to someone who did something utterly trivial. It isn't about the stupid cracker, you stupid boob, it's about the death threats, harassment, and obtuse, sanctimonious hyperbole that a college student got for putting it in a god-damned ziplock bag.

Ah, see, Dustin, there we hit what I like to call the nub of the problem: the ziplock bag he used wasn't sanctified!

Seriously, FtK, I've never been inclined to gang-bang at all. But after hearing you denounce it, I'm thinking I might try it.

Feel free to concern-troll my blog any time. I need the hits.

I'm not even close to D list. I'd tell you what list it is, but I can't find a keyboard to produce the ancient Sumerian alphabet (or whatever.

Oh, and I wrote the U of M prez on PZ's behalf. I told him that while I thought PZ's remark was out of line (and told PZ so), he had a right to say whatever he wanted on his PRIVATE blog. Dimwits.

Everytime I see "FTK" I think of the BTK killer. And it probably isn't because of the close association of the two names . . . maybe it is because they are both psycho.

They are both from Kansas.

I'm just saying.

I sent an email to the Pres. Bruininks asking him to support free speech and not to pander to religious bigots.

FTK gives advice on writing? She is one of the worst I have seen and she poses as a writer? Proper punctuation, etc. alone does not a good writer make. Her book and blog entries at UD and elsewhere are full of nonsense in many ways. Criticisms of her on the video with PZ and ERV were right on. What really good science has FTK done?

*us*

You're welcome.

We're lucky to have you, Abbie.

You've probably been waiting for this comment (ahem), so here it is:

Contrast that to *the bad guys*

Don't you think that's a bit petty? Do you really believe that we who are by chance of birth and environment marginally more educated than our mis- and uninformed co-sentients are somehow `better` than them? That we're all nice and mutually supporting and selfless and that they're all hypocritical and selfish wankers?

Phew, I really wish it were that simple...

(Alright, somebody had to walk straight into this, so let it be me then.)

You really don't understand, do you ftk? What matters is the content of the posts, not the grammar. All these people posting know ERV's style well, and they all enjoy what she writes.

No go, manigen; if the writer'd been a creationist you would have been the first to agree that a kinder-garten writing style often coincides with a kinder-garten level of understanding.

Good, now that I have my monday morning vibes out of the way...

Gralgrathor,

There is a difference between just not knowing better and willfully attacking science and learning. The former I find nothing wrong with so long as the person does try to learn, the latter really is bad, and regardless of if it's their own willful choice or simply the result of brainwashing the end result is that they are the "bad guys."

As the evidence stands we are mostly supporting each other as well, something with the ID side has shown it doesn't do on multiple occasions. There are some on this side of the debate that aren't supporting as they have concerns that PZ may be going too far or some other reason, but by and large the community is united behind people like PZ and Abbie.

As for language, from my experience when creationists use kindergarten level writing abilities, it really is kindergarten level and isn't because they can write better but chose to mess with their english. Topics that don't make sense, statements without needed follow-ups, and a whole slew of problems that goes far beyond just spelling and punctuation errors. Abbie however, uses language changes that do not really limit the readability of her posts and require actual thought about their implementation. It's easy to butcher a language, however what remains after the butchering shows if the problem is truly being on a kindergarten level or if the writer can do better but instead choses to do things their own way for fun.

Show me a creationist blog that has a kindergarten level rating for its language where it has that rating only because it uses LOLspeak and messes with its punctuation intentionally and I'll admit that they are a good writer still. Maybe some people would like to point out the kindergarten level of understanding still, but I think most people here can admit it when a creationist writes something well.

The real language problem comes in from how some kids are taught. I know of some fanatical sects where they think the Bible is the best way to teach anything, including using the King James version to teach modern english to children. I can say from growing up in a family belonging to such a group that I had a very difficult time in all my english classes, and it took me years to undo the damage enough that I could communicate meaningfully with other people. The fact is, more often than not, fanatical creationists really do have a language problem and I've experienced the cause of it first hand while seeing the evidence all around me. There are serious problems with thinking that the Bible can teach english, math, science, and everything else schools handle and in the end it's the children raised in such families that pay the price for this.

Wow, bad typo there, second paragraph should say "something that the ID side has shown it doesn't do on multiple occasions"

One thing I will say is that Gralgrathor is generally right on the second point. However, I think our distinguished host is a special case, given that her introduction on Scienceblogs included this:

I rarely use apostrophes, and when I use them, its inappropriately. I declared war against apostrophes in third grade, my mother is an English teacher, there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.

I frequently slip into lolspeak when I get excited. I can be in the middle of a perfectly normal 'Bloggers for peer review research' post, get all excited about a new viral structure, and end up with 'VIRUS KRYSTUL STRUCURZ-- UR DOIN IT RITE!!!

I also slip into the slang of internet message boards I frequent, like AtBC. Lots of my readers are from those places, and sometimes I forget an inside joke is... an inside joke. For instance, Uncommon Descent, and other locations full of Creationists have been nicknamed 'TARD-mines'. No, we are not making fun of handicapped individuals. TARD is a funny acronym for 'The Arguments Regarding Design'. No amount of concern trolling will cause me to stop using that acronym. Its funny.

We are told up front to expect these foibles. In that case, I can ignore them. Hell, Cormac McCarthy doesn't use quote marks in at least one of his novels. When you know such things are part of a deliberate style, rather than sheer bad typing/ignorance, you can ignore the issue.

If someone prefaces a post or something apologizing for the grammar/typing and explaining why it's bad, I disregard the errors. Considering our host prefaced the entire blog with such a disclaimer, she gets the benefit of the doubt.