Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
Denyse, let me give you an example. We have two blacks. Let's call them Kunta and Benson. Scenario 1: Kunta calls you the "c" word. You reply that he is nasty. Scenario 2: Kunta calls you the "c" word. A bit later you run into Benson. You ask him why so many blacks are nasty. Scenario 3: You run into Kunta. You ask him why so many blacks are nasty. Which of the above behaviours do you think is acceptable? Do you think the question in your post belongs in any of the above scenarios?Hoki
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Seversky, you are aware that cyberbullying does exist? Seriously, is that all that they have on their side to prove their point: foul language and innuendo? If so, that is really, really sad.Barb
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Mr Tribune7, The point is that anonymity itself is not the tool of only one type of person, or only one side of a debate. Baylor Bear was attempting to smear all uses of anonymity, including apparently his own.Nakashima
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Eh? I know who Al Gore and Fred Phelps are, but I’m not sure what this means. Herb, Phelps was a big Gore supporter for president, although in truth it appears it was Fred Jr. who was the Gore delegate at the 1988 Democrat National Convention. tribune7
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Sparc: I've been trying to see if you had anything in your criticism that the Caduceus could easily be the same representation for laminin, Yet the original symbol for Caduceus is nothing like a cross: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johann_Froben%27s_printer%27s_symbol.jpeg Yet in as pure a rendering as possible, from electron microscopy, for the laminin: http://www.survivorbiblestudy.com/_RefFiles/Laminin%20slide.jpg we have a image that matches the earliest symbols for the cross that have a stable continuation of basic structure throughout their entire history in the church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross Thus once again, as always happens for you, your criticism to the inference of design in this instance, is found to be without true foundational merit.bornagain77
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Why do so many Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction? The root cause of these individuals' behavior is not their views on biology; rather, it is their denial of the existence of a spiritual soul. If I believe that a person whose views I profoundly disagree with has a spiritual soul, like mine, made in the image and likeness of God, then four things follow at once, which impact upon the way I relate to that person, if I keep them in mind (which I don't always do). First, that person possesses a value which cannot be adequately expressed in purely material (let alone monetary) terms. Nothing on Earth can be compared to the value of one human life. Second, that person is just as important as I am: we both have human souls, and spiritual attributes are not quantitative, so no person's soul can be greater than another person's. Third, that person exists for the same reason as I do: to know, love and serve God. He/She is a child of God. Fourth, that person has an eternal destiny. He/She was made to be happy with God forever in Heaven. If I were disagreeing with the views of the son or daughter of a king, I would of course maintain a certain level of respect and decorum at all times. How much more, then, should I do so when arguing with a fellow human being, who is the son or daughter of the King of Kings? Finally, insulting others places my own eternal destiny in jeopardy (Matthew 5:22).vjtorley
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Winston Macchi on righteous indignation: "So when one side does it, it’s filth. When the other does it, it’s righteous. Thanks for letting me know... ...A couple follow up questions. How am I to tell the difference between the two? Is the righteous one whichever side your on Mr. Hayden?" The main thing is that you acknowledge a distinction between two kinds of judgement. Let's look at what Jesus said about this. John 8:15 "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right..." Luke 12:54 He said to the crowd: "When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does. 55 And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is. 56 Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?57 Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" So let me ask you Winston... How do you tell the difference? Do you give us your partisan opinion, or do you give us objective truth? Let me help you... Is your's the right judgement or not? If you say that your judgement is mere opinion or personal preference, then you say by implication that it may not be objective. If you say yours is a right judgement (objectively true) then you would do better to speak with the clarity and conviction that Jesus brought to the table and not ask questions that cloud the real point of contention. The way you phrased your question, it is clear that you are not sure yourself. At the very least, you've smuggle in a postmodern belief that all of our beliefs are mere opinion. But what you've smuggled in is itself subject to the same critique. Perhaps a lot of the antagonism represented by the blogger in question, is stirred by a visceral annoyance of people who actually believe what they say with conviction. Hmm... I think it is there that you will find the distinction Winston; predominantly emotional and impatient reaction clouded by partisanship vs. level headed disemination of the issues in a compassionate yet convicted attempt to reach accros the isle and reason with the opposition. I am a layman. A truck driver and father. I have watched these debates for years now. And have participated much in some locals as well. I am continually shocked at the rebellious and infantile response of humanity to the hand of God no matter how he attempts to approach them be it with love or direct exhortation. Matthew 11:16-24 16 "To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners.'" But wisdom is proved right by her actions." When you decide which way you want it Winston, feel free to ask a legitimate question. I can relate philosophically with your 'sort-of agnostic skepticism', just watch out when you are so sure of it. You may find that this Kantian philosophy of yours is just another new cultural lemming leader. And I beg you to be careful not to take legitimate issues and parse them into political sound bites. Please don't ask trick questions like some cheap lawyer trapping his victim. Some of the pot-shots so often thrown, are almost whole issues in need of serious and objective analysis. Not enough time in a witness stand culture to really get to the bottom of it, and the jury is terribly uninformed themselves. So much of this is mere political posturing to a crowd swayed by the wind of peer pressure (PC). If you want a cheap and momentary political victory amongst cynics then you are one of the masters of the hew order (which is very old btw). But, if you want to talk seriously then let's talk. Otherwise you make a mockery of reason and cheapen the power of the spoken word to change the world. Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.Lock
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
trib7,
Al Gore-delegate Fred Phelps
Eh? I know who Al Gore and Fred Phelps are, but I'm not sure what this means.herb
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
The problem is the anti-ID mob jhave the power to refute ID just by substantiating the claims of their position. They cannot so they use the only methodology they have- personal attacks, strawman arguments and red herrings.Joseph
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, publishing ideas anonymously has a very noble pedigree, but Robert Peter John Day use of anonymity to attack mothers who lost their sons makes him even more despicable than Al Gore-delegate Fred Phelps.tribune7
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
They’re not spouting filth, nor being hypocritical. There is such a thing as righteous anger.
So when one side does it, it's filth. When the other does it, it's righteous. Thanks for letting me know. A couple follow up questions. How am I to tell the difference between the two? Is the righteous one whichever side your on Mr. Hayden?Winston Macchi
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Mr Seversky, Since Abraham can take God to task with "Shall not the God of Justice act justly?" it would seem that writer of Genesis is coming down on the side of law. If not law as the ultimate power, at least law as a constraint on how God interacts with the world. He can pick wings off of virtual flies in some other universe, but not here.Nakashima
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Mr Hayden, Thank you, I'll wait for Mr Bear to respond directly. Unless you are Mr Bear? To Mr Bear's point, however, we see that publishing your thoughts under a pseudonym has a long and proud history. I would honor Publius, and the erotica writer Solomon. Mr Bear, I recommend to you Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon in the hope that your next take on anonymity will be more nuanced.Nakashima
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Bornagain77
Laminin is made up of 3712 amino acids,,, 20^3712 = 10^26822 ,,,To put this in terms similar to what William Dembski would use, this protein molecule complex of 3712 amino acids is well beyond the reach of the 10^150 probabilistic resource available to the universe.
Once again I feel compelled to point out you distortion of the facts. No actual biologist measures these things "in terms Similar to what William Dembski would use". No actual biologist thinks these structures came about in one fell swoop. No actual biologist looks at a cell and thinks "The probability of this complex cell arising in one go is outside the resources of the universe, therefore design!" Yes, you can create these laughable statistics all day long, it won't change anything in real life biology. It has not in the last several years has it? Why is it going to happen now? Yes, the probabilty of a cell arising in one go is on the order of a 747 coming together in a junkyard tornado. Yet nobody who knows anything about evolution thinks that way except you. Nobody worries about this "problem" except the people bent on providing whatever evidence they can for their case. If that means pretending to the lay person that cells had to be designed because they are so complex and could not have come about randomly, then that's what you'll do it seems. Yet when asked to consider incremental progress towards a cell, or laminin or whatever you revert back to your massive probability calculations that in your mind "prove" design. It's laughable. Once more
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations: These people, including Fred Hoyle, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences
If you and Kariosfocus and all the other people who abuse this strawman as the main plank of your argument spent just 10 minutes looking into it's refutation I think there would be some egg on faces. You might have to admit you made an error. Again, this is why you are all so afraid of poor trival Weasel. Anthing that shows complex results can be obtained via culmalative selection scares you. Blah blah, target, blah blah shores of function, blah blah strawman. You all know what Weasel was intended to be. The whole issue of latching was simply face-saving. Anything you could do to "prove" culmative selection did not act as noted by Dawkins would do - latching, targets, Kariosfocus and his "well, it does not solve the origin of life question" objections. All distractions.Echidna-Levy
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
HouseStreetRoom @ 28
Consider this bit of wisdom from Lewis concerning God’s goodness: “To say that the moral law is God’s law is no final solution. Are these things right because God commands them or does God command them because they are right? If the first, if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the “righteous Lord.” If the second, then we seem to be admitting a cosmic dyarchy, or even making God Himself the mere executor of a law somehow external and antecendent to His own being. Both views are intolerable.
So Lewis recognizes the Euthyphro Dilemma, without naming it, and concedes that both horns, from his perspective, are "intolerable". The question is, how does his proposed alternative help?
…God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.” Excerpts from “The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S. Lewis.
All he offers here is an attempt to explain one ill-defined or undefined term by equating it to another equally ill-defined term. I know we all have some vague notion in our heads of what we mean by "God" and "goodness" but it is far from clear that we all share the same notion so asserting that a being called "God" is the same as a property or attribute called "goodness" really tells us very little.Seversky
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Barb @ 10
Seversky, what would anger you enough that you would call another woman a “cunt”?
Offhand I cannot think of anything that would drive me to use that word but that probably only reflects my limited imagination. Usually, I swear to myself when I feel I have done something remarkably stupid like accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer.
And, for the record, not all Christians or religions teach the doctrine of hellfire. Falling back on this tired excuse is getting ridiculous.
Just as ridiculous as the idea that atheists and agnostics, who according to the opinion polls are a tiny minority in the US, could "bully" members of one of the world's major faiths.Seversky
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
http://foreverandalways.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/laminin.jpg http://www.survivorbiblestudy.com/_RefFiles/Laminin%20slide.jpg http://www.steve.gb.com/images/science/laminin.pngbornagain77
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Sparc, it seems funny that evolutionists use similarity of all sorts to establish all sorts of unfounded conjectures for evolution and claim them as absolute proof for evolution, all the while ignoring and obfuscating foundational principles of science that render evolution impossible, yet when this similarity of laminin to the cross is found, which is by far the most prevalent type of laminin found in life, though you reference the t shape laminin 322 subset of laminin, you would say this similarity is rendered moot because of porin? Yet porin doesn't truly look anything like a pagan symbol that you said it did when rendered to its molecular level, therefore it was quite a stretch for you, even as an evolutionist, to infer that it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sucrose_porin_1a0s.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sucrose_specific_porin_1A0S.png In fact the vast majority of other proteins look very "weird" when rendered to their molecular level. This following image is rather typical to what we find for proteins: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Myoglobin.png That the laminin complex would render such a "clean" example of structure to the cross when rendered to its molecular level, and that laminin has such a foundational role in life in "holding us together" is stunning in its suggestiveness, (John 1:1-3) and though it leaves the foundation of empirical science to use pure similarity as absolute proof, I can say in all my dealings with the psuedo science of evolutionists, I feel rather comfortable making this connection since it is no stretch at all compared to the stretches of imagination that evolutions continually make in spite of crushing evidences to the contrary! “Electron microscopy reveals a cross-like shape for all laminins investigated so far.” http://www-vis.lbl.gov/Vignettes/Downing1998/kd.huge.jpgbornagain77
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Lock: A distinction was made beween legitimate charges and mere mindless attacks and insults. I do not believe, nor will I, that you cannot perceive the difference. Why doesn't your implied death sentence for those who call people names qualify as mindless? Can you not perceive that all sane people in this world would see it as being so? I maintain that there is a way to condemn and judge a man (or man) rightly, even to death, and do so in manner that is totally right, true, and just. Tell me, do you think someone can be condemned to death for saying something, however rude or unjustified it may be? Yes or no?iconofid
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Re:sparc 49 "I’ve been in Rupert Timpl’s lab for 1.5 years and can assure you that he would have been shocked seeing his work being abused in such a stupid way" I think he has a point. You people, stop abusing Rupert Timpl's work this instant!mad doc
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
I respect your accomplishments in music and hang-gliding.
plus accomplishments in
AI missile guidance checkers aerospace research and development GN&C software development precision-guided airdrop systems
sparc
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: "They’re not spouting filth, nor being hypocritical. There is such a thing as righteous anger." I could not have said it better myself (in 400 words or less).Lock
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
HouseStreetRoom, Nice quote from Lewis. The Poison of Subjectivism is a golden essay. ::SIGH:: if only David Kellogg would read it.Clive Hayden
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Alan Fox, ------"David, stop baiting Gil. Just because he is not up to your intellectual level is no reason to take pot-shots. We don’t want him to flounce out again, do we?" I'm debating whether to just moderate you or ban you. As it stands right now, you're only moderated. I'll check your upcoming comments, and may decide to ban you outright, but at the very least, I doubt you'll get out of moderation anytime soon. If you apologize to Gil, I may consider taking you out of moderation, but it better sound sincere.Clive Hayden
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
iconofid, ------"Why do so many anti-Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction, and do so with such blatant hypocrisy?" They're not spouting filth, nor being hypocritical. There is such a thing as righteous anger.Clive Hayden
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
iconofid writes: "Why are we singling out one name caller, then?" A distinction was made beween legitimate charges and mere mindless attacks and insults. I do not believe, nor will I, that you cannot perceive the difference. "I doubt whether the blogger who inspired this thread has suggested that anyone deserves death, but your verses do. And if those verses apply to everyone, why quote them in answer to Ms. O’Leary’s question about “Darwinists”? Because it applies to Darwinists as much as anyone else who acts in such a manner as the blogger in question. If we are going to engage on this matter, lets do so with total sincerety. The issue is one of condemnation. I maintain that there is a way to condemn and judge a man (or man) rightly, even to death, and do so in manner that is totally right, true, and just. Juxtaposed with that is another form of judgement. It can be as supposedly innocent as what we moderns might call a snide or even comical remark (far from an explicit death sentance) yet it is the very spirit of death, persecution, and bigotry. It takes little perception to grasp this, and little effort to sustain it as history provides plentiful support for the evolution from propaganda to action. It is words that bring death, and words that bring life. The material or physical manifestations follow naturally and logically from our worldviews. You understandably dissagree that naturalists fall into the catagories that I present here. You do not at all intend harm, nor do you believe that other naturalists do. I have no problem with that. Most of the harm I have done in my own life was the result of ignorance not intention. but for too long I was unable to admit my own ignorance. Jesus spoke about this very clearly. I will gladly provide the verses if you desire. But to use my own words, to make the case He did in word (and more importanlty in deed) let me address this issue of condeming language from another angle. The very fact you disagree implies a kind of condemnation though I do not think you fully appriciate those implications. Someone has to be right. Maybe its you, maybe its me, and maybe its God. The point is that ultimately, someone's judgement must reflect reality. So here is a dramatic illustration from my own personal life experience: A very interesting and strong man once said to me in response to my evanglelism, "I have a real problem with any God who would condemn me for the way He made me." I could have asked him, "so are you condemning God?" Obviously that wouldn't do... Some other things crossed my mind as well. But I was drawing a blank. His was hitting the real nerve. His was too honest a rebuttal to disrespect with metyphisical gibberish. I honestly had no reply. A minute or more passed, I prayed for an answer... Then I asked him, "So, are you saying that a real God would take responsibility for the way He made you?"Lock
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
iconofid, ------"“Calling a prostitute a prostitute is not viscious. Calling her ‘a cunt’ is.” Your Response: I thought Ms. O’Leary made her living as a journalist. :)" You think that's funny?Clive Hayden
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"Are you practicing what you are preaching? Is your name really Baylor Bear? Or should I assume you are fallen?" You should assume that he is fallen, just like you are.Clive Hayden
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
Me:Why do blacks steal so much? [DO they?...
Me:How come so many muslims are terrorists? [Very few Muslims are terrorists.
Me:Why do christians endorse genocide? [I haven't found that in the Catechism or anywhere else.]
Many people know it to be true. Mere claims that it isn't so are not accepted.
Me:In case it’s not obvious, I’m making a point here. Is it lost on anyone? [No, but I must say it is not a very good point.
I think you missed my point. I think you also missed my point that you are making prejudiced remarks against a group of people. Perhaps you think it is OK bemoan the bad behaviour of blacks, muslims and christians as well?Hoki
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Bornagain77
The Laminins - authors Peter Elkblom and Rupert Timpl: “laminins hold cells and tissues together.” “Electron microscopy reveals a cross-like shape for all laminins investigated so far.” http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/laminin.htm Laminin is made up of 3712 amino acids,,, 20^3712 = 10^26822 ,,,To put this in terms similar to what William Dembski would use, this protein molecule complex of 3712 amino acids is well beyond the reach of the 10^150 probabilistic resource available to the universe.
Would any reasonable designer build a cross out of three planks? In addition, even overall cross-shaped Laminins rather look like a caduceus which would relate Laminins to another God that's out of fashion for about 2000 years. In addition, if Laminin 332 had been discovered first laminins would have been described as T-shaped. And what about porins? Their triquetta like structure would point to Celtic paganism than the Chrisitian God. BTW, I've been in Rupert Timpl's lab for 1.5 years and can assure you that he would have been shocked seeing his work being abused in such a stupid way.sparc
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply