Online Bullying

One of the biggest lies I've heard on the internet is that forum "moderators" are opposed to bullying. I am opposed to bullying. I think it's wrong that moderators take delight in banning people by the dozens or the hundreds, and I ask how many countless people have been traumatized by their encounters with hostile forum administrators?

When forum moderators say they are opposed to bullying, that may well think they are, but then they go and bully people? Do their actions jibe with how they treat members on their own boards?

And you always have this list of tools who (bizarrely) stick up for the moderators making the bans, who then often-times find themselves banned just weeks later. SA member Good Citizen said it was "entertaining" to watch people like me get banned, and he himself was banned for 30 days shortly after.

I have no doubt these people have seriously traumatized hundreds, if not thousands of the people -- guests, really -- who visited their websites.

[18:34] «Gaime-BrownerthanOrin» I love the internet
[18:34] «mac» now to go read about this on ironknuckle twitter
[18:34] * jett has joined #ga
[18:34] «mac» and his monthly newsletter
[18:34] «thesoapster» there is one? haha
[18:35] «mac» well, he started his blog up again
[18:36] «bluemax_work» who the hell is ironknuckle
[18:36] «bluemax_work» besides an enemy from zelda2
[18:36] «Sea_Manky» he's the shining beacon of truth that neogaf wants to suppress

You got that right. Ten years and counting.

Now that Super Tuesday is Over

I said it. Didn't I say it?

InsiderAdvantage had Gingrich at +2 in his home state of Georgia. He ended up winning by 21.3 percentage points.

It's difficult to say what, precisely, InsiderAdvantage has been doing. They consistently had the worst numbers for Romney heading into the primary season. They were the only pollster who had Romney in the 20s in Florida after the South Carolina contest. They missed the Florida result by an enormous margin.

I feel the biggest outrage was actually Newsmax's headline, leading into the Florida primary that Newt Gingrich was "surging" and failing to even tell their own readers that Gingrich had lost support from their previous poll. To this day, I have yet to receive a reply from either Newsmax or InsiderAdvantage's Matt Towery to justify how bad their polling and their headline was.

More on Evolution

A few thoughts on the evolution posting. First, the math I'm using to argue against evolution is based on the premise of a 2-person "starting point" society, but evolution actually argues that mankind's standing population would have been substantially larger, in the tens or hundreds of thousands... meaning, evolution is even weaker (or grows faster) than the numbers I put up. It's creationism that says society started with two people.

Next, the math strongly suggests that if mankind were really on the planet for 200,000 years, that man should have fully circled the planet much sooner. In fact, there should be massive civilizations all over the place that just aren't there.

And in spite of small facial etc differences between races, man is currently one species. If mankind had really been on the planet for 200,000 (or millions of) years and if evolution had been happening all this time, evolution fails to address why there is only one species of man in spite of people spreading everywhere, all over the globe.

Creationism addresses all of these problems. There is only one species of man because we have only been on earth for 6,000 years. If we had been on earth for 200,000 or more years and if man had been isolated from one another in places like China, South America, Europe, and Africa, I argue that the theory of evolution predicts there would be substantially greater anatomical etc differences between people than we see today.

Evolution FAIL

Tonight, I'm reposting this since the election business had superceded everything.  I was browsing "a forum" online and a pro-evolution poster was dissing the "earth is 6000 years old" mindset.

They say they (including IronKnuckle) reject science! So here's what I did. I googled "How long have humans been on earth?" and read the very first article that came up. Apparently, the pro-evolution people think that humans have been on earth 200,000 years!

That's what SCIENCE says!

So like any good science person, I've decided to TEST their analysis!

How many generations would there be in 200,000 years? Divide 200,000 by 30, and we get 6,667 generations! Oh wow, that's a lot!

So then I checked Wikipedia. Wikipedia says that in 2009, humanity grew by 1.1%

But I'll be nice and say it was 1.00%.

Get out your calculator. Figure out, at a one percent growth rate, how many humans would roam the earth today if we started with two humans, at a one percent growth rate, over 6,667 generations.

F(x) = 2 * ( 1.01 ^ ( 200,000 / 30 ) )

It's 129309074852917940168926827484 people. Fail. The population of the earth is 6,997,000,000.

Evolution FAIL. 

( I also want to remind everyone before continuing that these numbers figure an extremely slow growth rate of 1% per generation.  The population of the world grew at a significantly faster pace, by 1% per year, in 2009. )

Evolution also fails to explain a lot of the, shall we say, conveniences about the universe. Why do men have baby teeth and adult teeth? Why is earth's gravity just so perfect? Why didn't the Mayans develop gunpowder before the Spanish?

Not to worry, the pro-evolution people will come back and say any of the following, or perhaps all of the following:

• That a one percent growth rate is too high a number to use. No, it's not. If ANYTHING, we know populations have a tendency to explode in the absence of a natural predator, not to languish.
• There must have been an extinction level event!  Yeah, and we'd know about it.
• Humans evolved from the ape and apes were dumb so they wouldn't live long.  Yeah, and we'd have lots more bones than we do today. 
• Carbon dating!  How difficult do you think it is for God to change the half life of carbon in the universe, seriously? By the way, I'm not saying He did.

IronKnuckle 2012 -

Hello again and welcome to IronKnuckle 2012. We're at the beginning of month #3. I want to thank my readers for getting me to the 35,000+ mark.

Mission: Impossible 5, starring Gingrich and Santorum

Last night, I watched a Newt Gingrich aide give an interview in front of the camera late in the night after most people had left the Gingrich ballroom.  He argued that the race was not over, against the ironic and terribly unfortunate backdrop of men taking down curtains, banners, and things generally falling over in the room behind him, all on camera.

How impossible?  Let's start with Newt Gingrich.

Math:  2,288 delegates total.  1,144 needed to win and 1,547 are available.  Gingrich has 106, needs 1,038.  1,038 / 1,547 = 67.09% 

Next up, Senator Santorum.

Math:  2,288 delegates total.  1,144 needed to win and 1,547 are available.  Santorum has 165, needs 979.  979 / 1,547 = 63.28%.

What these numbers mean is that Gingrich needs 67.09% and Santorum needs 63.28% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.

Ron Paul people, even under the most majestic of scenarios where RP somehow gets these unbound delegates, Ron Paul's uphill climb is roughly the same as Santorum's climb.

Keep in mind that in spite of all of the "let's get Newt out of the race" talk today, Gingrich's withdrawal would not change these numbers.  By staying in the race, Gingrich probably just makes it even harder for Santorum. 

Most Bizarre Headline...

Many times, foreign media outlets do not begin to portray an accurate picture of America.