Kevin Wirth Is Like a Piece of Old Farm Equipment

Kevin Wirth

Kevin Wirth

When I was growing up, I spent some of my summers on my grandfather’s farm in South Dakota. It was a fantastic place to run around, although my mother was convinced I’d get maimed.

She was always telling me horror stories about how dangerous a farm is. Allegedly one of her cousins or a friend of a cousin or a cousin of a friend of a cousin of a friend was eaten by pigs. Supposedly this cousin was walking on top of the fence, slipped, and fell into the pig pen. The ravenous pigs descended upon her in a piranha-like frenzy. By the time her father could chase the pigs off, all that was left of her was her hair.

Mothers are full of scary stories.

Another such tale seemed to change a bit with each retelling. She didn’t want me to get too close to the grain elevator while it was running. That’s what she called it, but I guess it was actually a hay elevator. It was a conveyor belt. One end was at ground level. The other end was above a door in the roof of the granary. You shovel the hay onto one end, and the conveyor belt deposits the hay into the loft.

She told me that when she was in school, one of the kids at one of the other farms was loading the hay elevator and he got his arm caught on the belt. Ripped his arm clear off! She saw that one-armed boy every day at school from then on.

But then there was the time she told me not to get too close to the combine. Way back when she was in school, there was this kid at one of the other farms. He had been helping harvest the crop when he got too close to the combine. It ripped his arm clear off!

Then there was the time she told me not to get too close to the windrower, and, well, you can guess the rest. I assumed that her school was populated entirely by one-armed boys.

One day I discovered an old wagon out in one of the fields. This required further investigation, so I started climbing all over it. My grandfather came by and said “What are you doing in the manure spreader?”

I ran out of that thing faster than a creationist running from an evolution book.

spacer

Speaking of manure spreaders, I came across our old friend Kevin Wirth on the internet today.

I was searching to see what sort of damage Access Research Network has been doing lately and came across this thread in a forum at the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

One of the members there, who goes by the handle “Eccles”, discovered that ARN was giving away a screensaver of Hubble images. He didn’t really scope out the ARN website too closely. He just downloaded the program and installed it on his computer. He tells us what happened next:

When I downloaded it and ran it, to my horror the images were peppered with BS about “Intelligent Design”. I immediately uninstalled that screen saver, unsubscribed from the site and sent the director, Dennis Warner a nasty e-mail.

Before long, Eccles discovered a very large turd in his email box. It was plopped there, of course, by ARN’s “Director of Turd Disbursement and Misinformation”, Kevin Wirth.

Let’s see what manure Kevin has been spreading in Australia.

I was dismayed to read your email to Dennis (which he has requested that I respond to).

First and foremost, we do not exist to proseltyze [sic] religion or religious views. This is a huge, but unfortunately common mistake about our mission.

The only mistake is that they weren’t able to come up with a scheme less obviously religious than Intelligent Design creationism.

Meanwhile, you should read our mission statement at ARN.ORG. Nowhere in it will you find anything about our intent to promote religion.

Duh! If they told people they had a religious agenda, they wouldn’t be able to sneak it into the schools!

Secondly, we do not knowingly promote “lies” about Intelligent Design as you claim.

Sure you do, Kevin. You flat-out claim that Intelligent Design creationism is not religious. It is by definition. The designer has all of the characteristics of God. Ergo, he is God.

While it is true that ID is consistent with many religious views, we don’t exist to promote religion of any kind.

This statement is patently absurd. My best guess is that Kevin thinks that because ID creationism is consistent with many religions, it is therefore not a promotion of religion. This is the sort of logic that leads high schools to think it is OK to have a prayer at graduation ceremonies. (“It’s a generic prayer, so it’s OK!”)

Our focus is on providing resources related to Intelligent Design, and we are frankly not terribly concerned about the religious background of those who advocate for or against this position. We’re more interested in the scientific and philosophical arguments related to this topic, and are willing to allow others to think and talk about where they think the evidence leads.

There are no significant scientific arguments for ID creationism. And of course he’s willing to let others follow wherever it leads. The purpose of Intelligent Design creationism is to give the faithful a plausible-sounding excuse for rejecting science.

Our main concern here at ARN is that you are being given an opportunity to explore information options about ID not found at very many other web sites.

You know, web sites that are about reality and facts.

But it also seems to me that that the fact of the matter is, a reliance upon the Almighty was very much a part of the founding our nation. That’s just a fact, pure and simple.

It’s true. Many of the founding fathers were religious. In fact, there was quite a diversity of Christian sects throughout the colonies in those days. That’s why the First Amendment, protecting religious freedom, was so important to them. So then why is Kevin trying to circumvent that protection by getting creationism taught in the schools?

We also make a distinction between Creation and ID. Creationists openly advocate connections to religious texts while ID prefers to focus on scientific and philosophical considerations

We’re religious. We just don’t focus on it!

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that simply because Intelligent Design is consistent with the idea of a “God of the Universe” that we are attempting to shove that thought or any other religious notion down your throat.

That’s misdirection. He doesn’t have a specific religious goal. ID creationism’s purpose is to provide cover for others to get God into the schools and other government institutions. That’s just those folks’ “academic freedom”. Guess what, Kevin. Facts and data are academic. Religious beliefs are not. Nobody has the “freedom” to inject religion into the classroom.

40 Responses to “Kevin Wirth Is Like a Piece of Old Farm Equipment”

  1. ericsan Says:

    There’s no way he actually believes the shit he spews.

  2. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Speaking of manure spreaders, I came across our old friend Kevin Wirth on the internet today.

    I wondered where you were going with that!

    While it is true that ID is consistent with many religious views, we don’t exist to promote religion of any kind.

    So if I showed up on their doorstep and told them, “I believe in Brahman, the universal consciousness that gave rise to reality – and of course, I don’t think anyone who disagrees with me is going to hell”, they’d welcome me with open arms? Good to know!

    Of course, if this is the case, why did Kevin become so hot under the collar when I said that Christians eagerly anticipate our impending damnation? As I recall, he told me, angrily, “They’re trying to save you from that!” Then he called me a dolt, if memory serves.

    Ah, good times!

  3. John Pieret Says:

    We also make a distinction between Creation and ID. Creationists openly advocate connections to religious texts while ID prefers to focus on scientific and philosophical considerations

    Translation: creationists are at least open and honest about what they’re doing, while we’ll go on trying to hide our motives and intents … especially our connections to religious texts … except when we’re talking to other creationists (ala “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory”).

  4. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Oh, this is a good one. I was looking through that thread, and someone mentioned an ad at the top of ARN’s website. This organization (although I bet it’s just one guy) calls itself “Solutions from Science“; it’s Christian paranoia on steroids.

    The insanity is simply breathtaking.

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Jeff:

    I saw that site. It’s one of the better examples of just how extremely crazy some of these people are. I bookmarked it for future fun, but I’ll probably never get around to ripping it here. I always have more articles to write than I have time for.

    If you want to be entertained (by lunacy) and horrified (that these people are running around loose) at the same time, go over there and check it out.

  6. Ron Britton Says:

    That thread has gotten a little longer since I reported on it. Eccles tells us that he and Kevin have exchanged a bit more email. Here is Kevin’s final reply:

    Great. Then you’re obviously not interested in exploring this issue. So go away and bug someone else. I’m done here.

    Translation: “I obviously won’t be able to infect you, so leave me alone and let me damage someone else’s brain.”

  7. Ron Britton Says:

    Jeff:

    Then he called me a dolt, if memory serves.

    You have a good memory.

  8. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Yeah, that I remember. Something from five minutes ago, I can’t!

    Interesting that he said:

    Their intent is to help SPARE people from the misery and condemnation that awaits everyone who does not (allegedly) have an advocate in Jesus Christ. Their primary message is to help save people from what the Bible claims is the ultimate end for anyone without Christ.

    I really wonder where he’s coming from. Is he a Christian, trying to hide his beliefs in the hope that he’ll be taken seriously by the scientific community, or by those with “open minds”? If not, why is he involved in this? What is his motivation? I can’t imagine his intellect is subtle enough to envision some sort of non-specific intelligent agency or organizing principle – again, like Brahman or the Tao. It’s a mystery.

    If you want to be entertained (by lunacy) and horrified (that these people are running around loose) at the same time, go over there and check it out.

    I know. For connoisseurs such as ourselves, it’s the equivalent of finding an old bottle of wine, a rare vintage hidden away for decades, stumbling upon it at the peak of its maturity.

  9. Meee Says:

    Speaking of manure spreaders…

    Best segue I’ve read this year.

  10. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Isn’t Brahman more like the “aether” and Vishnu more the intelligent agency? Admittedly, my understanding of Hinduism isn’t that great…

  11. Jeff Says:

    In Vedanta – Hindu philosophy that emerged in the first millennium BCE – Brahman is the ground of being that gives rise to all phenomena. It’s analogous to the Tao, but intelligence is implied, and it’s sometimes described in personal or quasi-personal terms.

    Brahman manifests itself as all of creation. Its first “subdivision” is the manifestation of the three main deities – Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Sustainer and Siva, the Destroyer. Brahma creates the universe, Vishnu keeps it going and Siva takes over when it comes time to collapse it back into a singularity and begin the whole thing all over again.

    As a side note – the Buddhists are willing to accommodate the existence of all of the deities of antiquity; they just don’t think any of them are omniscient or omnipotent or immortal, and they don’t any of them create the universe. Their cosmology is based upon that of the Indians, and they’ve ported over a number of their devas, or deities, including Brahma, whom they believe to be the first being to have taken rebirth in this universe, when it was young. He’s the oldest and most powerful of the gods. When Buddhist teachers, particularly the Tibetans, have an opinion (and they don’t always; they certainly aren’t obligated to) as to the identity of the god of the Western religions, they tend to think he’s Brahma. That is, they think there actually is a deity with whom people who have the ability have communicated over the centuries, and they think he’s well-intended and does what he can, but the devas are limited in the extent to which they can interact with people and affect outcomes at this level of reality. In any case, they don’t think Brahma created the universe.

    Interestingly, the Indians don’t worship Brahma much. Of the thousands upon thousands of temples dedicated to other deities – tens of thousands to Vishnu and Siva alone – there exist only a handful, perhaps half a dozen or less, dedicated to Brahma. There are stories about Brahma being cursed by sages or other deities so that he won’t be worshiped, but I don’t know about the underlying psychological motives, what the mythology was trying to express. I suspect it’s an anger or resentment over the fact of our suffering existence, but that may simply be my bias.

    There’ll be a quiz.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Holy crap Hinduism is interesting (from a fantasy/scifi perspective). This is way more fun than Christianity. It’s like a Tolkein novel.

  13. rayceeya Says:

    Religion, and they say you can’t spread a human virus through a computer.

  14. Jeff Says:

    Holy crap Hinduism is interesting (from a fantasy/scifi perspective). This is way more fun than Christianity. It’s like a Tolkein novel.

    Oh, it’s vast. That’s why I don’t even use the term “Hinduism”, generally; I think it’s a made-up Western concept. Indian religion and philosophy run the gamut from polytheism to monotheism, through various flavors of monism and non-dualism, all the way to outright materialism (although the latter was never widespread). Vedanta is merely one aspect – the one to which most Westerners get exposed – and it’s a relatively recent development, at that.

    There’s another important difference – their gods may have their moments, but, by and large, they aren’t dicks. I don’t think any deity can match the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God for sheer assholicism.

    BTW, if you read those Wiki articles, there’s a link at the bottom of the Brahma article to another article about the concept of Brahma in Buddhism. Apparently, the term “Brahma” is used to refer to several different deities or classes of deities, of which I was unaware. However, there’s a story related in at least two sutras (Buddhist scriptures) in which a monk cultivates the power of out-of-body projection and journeys to the highest heaven and visits Brahma. He asks him a fundamental question about reality; Brahma brushes him off then takes him aside and tells him that he doesn’t know the answer, but he didn’t want to say so in front of his attendant deities, as they think there’s nothing he doesn’t know. They think he’s the creator, or at least omniscient. I think in one of them, Brahma tells him to ask the Buddha. Anyway, the implication is that there is a Brahma who’s seen as the greatest of the gods, so I don’t know when these other ideas came in. The point of the story – and this is mentioned in the article as well in conjunction with the descriptions of the other Brahmas – is that there is no creator, and anyone, human or deity, who thinks there is, is suffering from what the Buddhists term “wrong view”.

    A lot of their stories are like that. For people who are so quick to point out that they don’t proselytize, they fucking love to tell people how wrong they are. I swear they get off on it. Many of their teaching stories involve the Buddha breaking down or deconstructing the philosophical arguments of others, explaining to people or deities why they’re wrong. And they continue with it today; you go into a Tibetan center, you’ll hear the lama (especially if he’s a member of the Gelug sect, the one to which the Dalai Lama belongs) explaining why they’re right and everyone else is suffering from “wrong view” (the Tibetan sects even differ among themselves). And they’ve been doing it for 2,500 years (the Tibetans not that long).

    Everyone is a pain in the ass. That’s the point of my teaching stories.

  15. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I think by the very definition of being a devout to a religion, you are always going to think others are wrong. I don’t see that as anything special, but I do understand where you are coming from (that Budhists (etc) get off too easy sometimes from non-theists).

    On the other hand, telling you that you are wrong in a wonderfully poetic and complex philosophical speech based on a shakey foundation is a lot smaller of an offense than, say, excluding an entire class of people from the right to marry or getting a boner thinking about genocide of your enemies.

    I dunno maybe some Budhists do act like that — I just haven’t seen it quite how like the JudeoChristianIslamic religions love to want to hurt and kill you for differing in opinion.

  16. Jeff Says:

    I think by the very definition of being a devout to a religion, you are always going to think others are wrong. I don’t see that as anything special, but I do understand where you are coming from (that Budhists (etc) get off too easy sometimes from non-theists).

    My point is – they claim superiority, not just in terms of theology, but by nature of the fact that it isn’t really a religion – which it most certainly is.

    I dunno maybe some Buddhists do act like that — I just haven’t seen it quite how like the JudeoChristianIslamic religions love to want to hurt and kill you for differing in opinion.

    You’ll find it more among Tibetans and their followers. No, they certainly don’t want to kill people who disagree with them, but the Tibetans do think they’ll have lower rebirth, probably in hell. Zen and Vipassana practitioners are too busy meditating to dwell on such nonsense.

  17. Taz Says:

    Holy crap Hinduism is interesting (from a fantasy/scifi perspective).

    I don’t want to piss anyone off who actually knows something about Hinduism (which I don’t), but I couldn’t let this comment go by without recommending Lord of Light by Zelazny. Great SciFi book.

  18. Kevin Wirth Says:

    RONNY

    Your posting of my comments is in direct violation of a private and COPYRIGHTED communication I had with another individual.

    The notice that accompanied my letter this person included the following statement:

    ******************
    Attention
    ******************
    This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged and confidential and is exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender by return e-mail or telephone and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Attachments and email contents are Copyright Kevin H. Wirth. Thank you.”

    You are hereby notified that my remarks are NOT available for public posting and are a protected and copyrighted communication.

    Therefore, I expect you to remove those comments IMMEDIATELY.

    Failure to do so will result in legal action, and I trust you understand the penalties associated with copyright violations and a refusal to remove copyrighted items once they have been called to your attention.

    Kevin Wirth

  19. Ron Britton Says:

    Bite me, dickhead. I merely reposted small excerpts from something published on a public forum. This clearly falls under the fair use provisions of the copyright laws.

    So this is what creationism has come to? You have zero evidence to support your claims that God an unidentified not-God who has all of the powers and abilities of God created the universe. You have been laughed out of the court of scientific opinion.

    Failing that, you have taken your claims to the public, waging a huge and expensive public relations campaign to confuse the public into thinking that evolution is anything but solid scientific fact. Despite this massive effort, the only people you have managed to convince are the scientifically illiterate.

    Failing that, you now resort to trying to shut down websites that critically examine your claims.

  20. Brian Says:

    Hey, Kevin! Are you now going to give us that prediction you claim ID is capable of making? No? Why am I not surprised.

    Really, Kevin. Your post above was not your best effort. Resorting to claims of copyright infringement when you are desperately trying to get someone – anyone – to take you seriously, well, that’s just childish. Maybe you won’t darken this thread’s doorstep again, but if you do, please go back to being the goofy, buffoonish imbecile we’ve all grown to love.

  21. Robert Tobin Says:

    The famous Eccles here. The one who is being threatened by Wirth with Legal Action. And he is harassing me via e-mail. Well I am not scared. I am finding out if e-mails can be copyrighted under International law. Even if they are, how much would a court case cost and how much would he get out of me – an always broke pensioner.

    So he is being an asshole on this site. That would not suprise me. I found out about ARN through legal action being taken by an employer of a USA Govt. Agency (Name I shall withhold) for being demoted for proselytizing to his work mates in working hours. In Australia there have been successful court cases over these bible thumpers.

    So he must have found out about me from this site and about the AFA. He has joined there and is making threats to them. Well the Atheist Foundation of Australia does have some muscle. We just held a very successful Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne last March with famous Atheist speakers such as Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, A.C. Grayling and Dan Brown. We have gotten the Churches scared. They are getting only about 9% of Christians attending Sunday Services regularly. We now have an Atheist Prime Minister. Will the United Christian States of America ever get an Atheist President? Religion is taking the United Christian States of America down to the level of a Third World country.

    RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING: Christopher Hitchens.
    RELIGION IS A MENTAL HEALTH HAZARD: Me

  22. Jeff Says:

    Religion is taking the United Christian States of America down to the level of a Third World country.

    Robert, many of us are of that opinion – apparently, though, not enough to stem the tide.

    (BTW, we prefer “The Unites States of Jesus”!)

  23. Robert Tobin Says:

    How long have you people known this Kevin Wirth and ARN? How did your encounters with him begin?

  24. Ron Britton Says:

    Robert:

    Look in the sidebar. You’ll see the Categories list. At the bottom of that is a category called “Wirthless Ideas”. Click on that, and you’ll get most of the articles that have something to do with his war on the American intellect (A few of those articles are just tangentially related.).

    You should start with the earliest articles. Be sure to look at the comments, especially in those early articles. He used to try arguing with us, be he got so hopelessly trounced that he ran off with his tail between his legs.

    He has only shown up sporadically ever since, to beat his chest (or his meat) and run off again.

  25. Lindsay Says:

    I used to babysit for a guy who as a kid on a farm, got his arm caught in an auger. Ripped the arm clean off from the shoulder.

    At least your mom’s stories have some basis in fact. Farm machinery has been proven to be dangerous! That is more than can be said for ID. ;-)

  26. Parrotlover77 Says:

    You’ll find it more among Tibetans and their followers. No, they certainly don’t want to kill people who disagree with them, but the Tibetans do think they’ll have lower rebirth, probably in hell.

    I can live with that. Smug superiority is annoying, but I’ll take it over bombing or being bombed any day of the week.

    But, yes, I get your point. You are comparing that to the Fundie Christian practice of enjoying the thought of nonbelievers burning in hell.

  27. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Kevin Wirth – HAHAHAHAHAHA. If you can’t win on the merits, then file a law suit! It’s so predictible, I’m literally laughing out loud right now! LOLOLOLOL.

    Oh my dear, dear Kevin, you have given us great lulz throughout the years. This might be the best, though.

    IANAL, but I’m pretty sure copyrighting an email is pretty much unpossible.

    Also, welcome to the internet. Nothing ever dies on the internet. The tubez have a very long memory. Dox downloaded and saved. Even if Ron has to ever C&D (which I highly doubt), the content will live on forever, because that’s what the internet does.

  28. Parrotlover77 Says:

    (Also saved an archive of the original forum – so should you! Just click on view printable version, then show all posts on single page, then save for your own personal archive. Because we would never repost any of that on other forums since it’s “copyrighted.”)

  29. Jeff Says:

    But, yes, I get your point. You are comparing that to the Fundie Christian practice of enjoying the thought of nonbelievers burning in hell.

    PL, a very important difference – the Tibetans don’t relish the idea. When they talk about compassion, they mean it. The Christians just use the term as a piece of jargon – a way to distinguish between “us” and “them”.

    I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this here before, but I have a history with Tibetan Buddhism, culminating in a recent three-year stint as house manager in a Tibetan monastic/teaching center (I think I might still have been there when I found this blog). Yeah, Tibetan clergy can be condescending (I don’t know that I’d use the term “smug”, but I’m sure there are nuances in their speech and body language I’m not getting), and FSM knows they piss me off royally, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say they actually relish the idea of anyone suffering. In fact, they’re genuinely horrified when they learn that Westerners believe God will send people to hell forever. The elderly lama with whom I lived once told me, “I would ask God, where is his compassion?” (again, he believes God exists, but doesn’t believe he has that kind of power, nor does he believe God would exercise it that way if he did).

    Plus, in Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism, the form to which Tibetan Buddhism belongs), the goal is to become a Bodhisattva, an enlightened being who could become a Buddha and step off of the wheel of birth and death, but who remains in order to work for the liberation of all sentient beings (by which they mean all animate life, not merely humans). As the number of sentient beings (depending upon whom you ask) is believed to be infinite, theoretically, the job never ends.

    In Buddhism, the goal is to get everyone else saved. In Christianity, it’s “I’ve got mine, you get yours.” So, yea, in that way, it is preferable. Marginally.

    On the other hand, some of the Westerners probably are smug. There’s a tremendous amount of fundamentalism among Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism. Just a whole lotta crazy. Seems to be a prerequisite.

  30. Jeff Says:

    In fact, now that I think about it – yes, at least some of the Westerners are smug. I can think of one as I type this, who is now the director of the center at which I lived. Smug and crazy.

    This is what it breeds in the West. It’s one of the many reasons I agree with the Dalai Lama – Westerners, by and large, should not become Buddhists. I used to tell the lama’s nephew, a lama in his own right, “When Tibetan people practice Dharma, they become Buddhas. When Western people practice Dharma, they become crazy!” He found that highly amusing. The Tibetans thought I was “funny guy”.

  31. ericsan Says:

    And I thought the little bitch had been slapped for the last time, but she’s coming back for more abuse. Poor Kevin never fails to amaze me with the staggering depth of his stupidity.

  32. OtherRob Says:

    There are no significant scientific arguments for ID creationism.

    There are no significant scientific arguments for ID creationism.

    There I fixed it for you. :)

    And all this talk of arms getting ripped out reminds me of a couple of episodes of Arrested Development. :)

  33. Kevin Wirth Says:

    Bite yourself.

    Doesn’t matter if my comments were posted on a public forum or on the moon – it was a privileged, private, and COPYRIGHTED communication.

    If I were you, I’d look a tad bit deeper into the doo doo you are looking to get yourself into by not removing this communication, IMMEDIATELY, excepts or not.

    You have been duly notified that this is a copyrighted communication, and so don’t come whining to me (or the magpies who follow your every dribble on this web site) when the hammer comes down.

    You’ve been notified.

    Kevin Wirth

  34. Coty Thomas Says:

    @Kevin: Are you threatening a lawsuit? And just when I thought people like you couldn’t stoop any lower…

  35. Syldoran Says:

    I can’t take seriously anyone who says “doo doo,” particularly when being threatening.

  36. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Kevin – Please, do try. First, IANAL, but I’m pretty sure you can’t copyright a communication thread, such as an email and a reply. That’s like saying I can copyright my reply to the DMV when they ask me to renew my license. WTF? Anyway, even if you can, please, oh I am begging, PLEASE hire a lawyer to pursue this. Then a lawyer will get paid (stimulating the economy) and you will waste your money on something so trivial. That would bring a tear of JOY to my eye. I feel the joy joy joy, joy in my heart!

  37. Ron Britton Says:

    please, oh I am begging, PLEASE hire a lawyer to pursue this.

    Yes, Kevin. And when you do, please tell us how much he charged you to tell you you don’t have a case.

  38. Ron Britton Says:

    Kevin:

    Doesn’t matter if my comments were posted on a public forum or on the moon – it was a privileged, private, and COPYRIGHTED communication.

    Oh noes! Look what I just did! I just reproduced another one of Kevin’s “copyrighted” communications that was posted on a public forum on the internet! Somebody get me Johnnie Cochran! Only the Chewbacca defense can save me now!

    If I were you, I’d look a tad bit deeper into the doo doo

    The only “doo doo”, as you so eloquently put it, is Intelligent Design creationism. I’ve looked into that deeper than I should have. It looks like you’ve been eating corn.

  39. mythras Says:

    Bravo.

    “On a public forum… [it was] privileged, private.” No problem with these adjoining statements, no sir.

    However, I’ve sad news to report: Johnnie Cochran has been dead since 2005. ;)

  40. Jeff Hooton Says:

    That should be no problem for Kevin, he has a direct line to god that is available to nobody else.