See the whole collection here and the best of the

From the Mailbag

I actually didn't have a worthy email until the 20th if this month -- and it was a humdinger:

Have you considered the Wstboro Baptist Church? They are the only church I know that are doing something that could possibly resemble what a true church of Jesus Christ would be doing.

And that was all I got for screwy email that was worthy. Pathetic, huh?

The February 2010 John Loftus Collection

John won himself another embarrassment of a lifetime in his debate with Dinesh D'Souza. His opening statement sets the tone for screwiness:

I’m going to offer several arguments based on facts we should all agree on that show the Christian God does not exist. My claim is that these facts will force Dinesh into arguing over and over for what I’ll call the Dumb and Dumber Defense, based on the movie with that title starring Jim Carrey. In every single case Dinesh’s response will be pretty much the same. Rather than admit his faith is improbable, he will be forced to claim that what he’s defending is still possible despite these facts. But remember, it’s possible that Jim Carrey could’ve gotten the girl of his dreams in the movie too. The girl said he had a “one in a million” chance at doing so.

Loftus' analysis of the debate deserves win too:

Skeptics who were in the audience for the debate are weighing in and they're all saying I lost miserably. This troubles and disheartens me since I thought I did well. I couldn't sleep and was even thinking of calling it quits. But then, what did they expect? Did they expect too much out of a debate? Why? I said the real debate takes place in our books. I even wondered if skeptics bought into the rhetoric of Dinesh. If rhetoric without substance is all it takes to win debates then Dinesh will win most of the time. Some of Dinesh's comments seemed to be too ridiculous to bother answering, and maybe that's part of my problem that night. One other problem was that I had to choose between being rude or not responding at all, since the moderator was not giving me a chance to respond to questions asked of Dinesh, who was asked more questions in the Q & A from the audience. And since I do not think Christians take science seriously I responded with philosophical arguments to questions about the existence of God and Intelligent Design. In any case, it'll be interesting to watch the debate in a few days online to see the reactions from others. And it will equally be interesting to see the results of the comment cards.

As always, it just can't be Narcissist John that's the problem, can it? We sure know this John well, don't we? Even more excuses flew as John was told, after soliciting feedback on why people think he lost:

I think they’re should be a repository, somewhere, of debate responses (short, pithy, accurate to the argument, provocative) for all of the standard opponent’s arguments. As an atheist, I admire the person who came up with this rebuttal to the argument for the Empty Tomb: “The Empty tomb is like my saying I have an invisible unicorn inside my fist. I can open up my hand and say, See, it’s invisible.” I think most people understand how that analogy is similar to the Empty Tomb, and how the comparison is not favorable.

To enter a debate against a familiar opponent and not have a handy toolkit of these types of tested responses seems ridiculously reckless.

To which Loftus replied:

...if that’s what you wanted then you should’ve suggested that Hitchens debate Dinesh. And to be quite frank, I do not see how the kind of responses you suggested are helpful at all. What do you want? A bunch of meaningless rhetoric being floated back and forth with no substance? There are many thoughtful people who can see through that kind of rhetoric. Those were the people I was aiming at.

But he also managed to say a few other screwy things apart from the debate:

Christians claim that people who do horrendous evils simply refuse to change despite God's repeated attempts to help them see the error of their ways. If I were God I could change anyone’s mind if I chose to. I could harden a person's heart like the Pharaoh’s. I could speak audibly to them, appear to them, or do a wondrous deed for them. That’s anyone, as in ANYONE. That Christians refuse to acknowledge this tells me something about them. They do not believe after all. They only believe what is convenient to believe. ;-)

The Lunchback of Notre Dumb

The Lunchback started by posting these as contradictory:

STATEMENT: "The Lord..not willing that any should perish..." 1 Jhn 3:9

ABSURD CONTRADICTION: "lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and live forever. Therefore the LORD sent him forth from the Garden..." Gen 3:21,22

Someone responded: Yo lunch:

"I'm almost seventy."

Yo lunch's mother: "He's still so young..."

Absurd contradiction? No. You see, Statement 1 was made years after Statement 2.

To which we have the Screwy reply:

So what? It's STILL a contradiction! Yours is a specious analogy and not applicable here! Sly, but it won't get by!

This deserved a hoot too:

Fact is, Paine has never been refuted! Perhaps on a point or two but as for the entire work, not a chance!

Atheist Miscellany

Seasanctuary continues to get denser each month:

That's on the assumption that the Gospel portrayal of what happened that same weekend is accurate.

Analogy time! Let's say we're playing a word guessing game and the only letter we've uncovered is the first letter "B":


You suggest the answer is "BRICK." To prove your point, you ask me which letter makes sense here:

B_ICK P>or here:




In all three cases, the letter you're looking for does seem likely...assuming the surrounding letters are right. However, none of this is good evidence the word is "BRICK" at all. It could be "BLUNT" or "BUNNY" or "BROWN" or "BINGO". Maybe you'd get upset at me and demand I prove it isn't "BRICK" before I'm justified thinking it could be something else. Since I can't, your confidence increases that "BRICK" is the right answer.

Hooks is going for his second straight Platinum:

I have no reason to believe that Paul was not like every other person I know, and as far as I can tell like every other person that ever lived. So I don't find him credible when he claimed to know the thoughts, motivations, and reasoning of other people as he does here:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them" (Rom 1:18-32 NIV).

I don't believe Paul could know these things about others, and find it offensive that anyone takes to heart such unsubstatiated vitriol about others. Furthermore, anyone who suggested "invisible qualities" are "clearly seen" makes me wonder whether he had a few screws loose.

He also plays Humpty Dumpty, when told how the dictionary defines "marriage" (not gay marriage):

I'll define it any way I want, and don't need your approval to do so. My alternate definition is not harming you or trading on your liberties.

And this too:

I would have a much easier time believing Christian claims if we knew first century palestinians were all stoned. After all, how else do you explain all but one Gospel writer neglecting to mention the zombies flying around, which Matthew reported? How did Mark forget to mention that people saw Jesus in the flesh after his tomb was found empty? Etc. etc.

robertb is still biting sound:

Of course, apart from apologetics, the vast majority of current NT scholarship assumes that there is a substantial amount of fictional elements in the Gospels.

Though posted last month, this entry by AIGBusted aka Switch89 on TWeb deserves Gold:

The Greatest Antiapologists

I want to make a list. Two lists, actually.

I want to make a list of the men and women who have written books, essays, websites, and blogs that give religious apologetics a lot to worry about. I want to make one list a list of men from 40+ years ago who wrote against religion: people like Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and Percy Shelley along with links to their finest works.

The second list would consist of people from within the last forty years along with links to their work, and would include people like John L. Mackie, Richard Carrier, and Daniel Dennett.

So please comment with the names of your candidates and (optionally) links or mentions of their finest works.

And comments are just as golden:

You have got to include Robert M. Price in your list of contemporary anti-apologists.

What about Hitchens and Dawkins?

And of course there is John Loftus!

Thomas Paine needs to head the first list. That man risked his life and livelihood so many times, always for the sole purpose of bringing the ideas of freedom and liberty to everyone he could. What an inspiration!

Others: Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman, Scott Bidstrup he has a very thorough presentation on the meme complex that is Christianity). There are many others.

I think you can do worse than those dedicated to truth whose youTube channels do such a great job of debunking creationism, and, by extension, religion's footing in the real world:

Thunderf00t, ARonRa, dprjones, supportextantdodo, donexodus2...there are many as I'm sure you know, and their contributions to the proclamation of reason and truth are very real.

You'd think he was compiling a Screwballs Hall of Fame.

Tassman indicates his competence to discuss anthropology:

I find all this JPH Tektonic “shame culture bit” quite unconvincing. Only the upper classes were concerned about honor, reputation and shame and they overall did not join the Jesus movement at the beginning. It was by-and-large the lower orders which joined Christianity because it promised a bodily resurrection and eternal life.

And nominates Platinum for his grasp of physics:

We already know that the universe exists as, to use your strange phrase, brute fact. The physicist Victor Stenger has argued that: “The universe and its laws could have arisen naturally from "nothing." Current cosmology suggests that no laws of physics were violated in bringing the universe into existence. The laws of physics themselves are shown to correspond to what one would expect if the universe appeared from nothing. There is something rather than nothing because something is more stable.” - ‘Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Nothing to do with the philosophical notion of Necessarily Existent!

Tassman: living proof that something can produce nothing. He and Jaecp win a dual award for comments of this sort. Jaecp also wins for this exchange:

AP: Because we know a question asking if we really need God has nothing to do with theology....

Jaecp: Precisely!

dindin, who may be skepticbud, wins for these kinds of comments:

If you truly believe you have a personal relationship with Jesus that makes meaningful use of verbal communication (such as when you pray), then why don't you talk to Jesus while you also have a conversation with other physical people, say, at work? Or at the supermarket?

Example: you are in line at the supermarket, your friend is behind you.

Friend: "Hey Bill, thirsty, i see?"

You: "yeah, we all like bottled water pretty much, and we were running low, so..."

You: (looking away) "Lord Jesus, do you think the city tap-water is unhealthy?"

Example, suppose you are at work:

Supervisor 1: "here's a stack of receipts for you to process, no hurry."

Supervisor 2: "here's a stack of bills for you to process, no hurry."

: (looking away, but still in their presence): "Lord Jesus, I leave the decision of which stack of paperwork to start on first, up to you, which shall it be?"

fact that you are able to make up your own mind on such things doesn't prompt you to quit asking for opinions from your sinful friends, so why should your autonomy cause you to to never ask Jesus his opinion on such things? Maybe it is true that it is entirely your choice what to have for dinner, but does that mean you NEVER kick that idea around with friends? Ok, if there is nothing wrong with discussing what's for dinner with friends, even those who won't be attending, why don't you also kick that idea around with Jesus? If Jesus wanted you to know that it was his will that you and your family have corn instead of peas with dinner tonight, how would he communicate this to you, and how would you verify it was him and not just your own will? And if your friends can legitimately express their opinion on that kind of of subject without taking away your autonomy, then why can't you discuss the same topic with Jesus without affecting your autonomy? Does Jesus ever make suggestions to you about daily life, and how do you know it is him doing the communicating?


If your belief about God is correct, he as patron would naturally have far more interest in what his 'client' is doing.

But thanks for the joke. I never heard Christians characterize their relationship to God as patron/client until Tweb. I'll try harder in the future to always assume Christians are wrong when they give an answer you don't agree with, god.

Reader sent in this personal story about Skeptical friends:

Don't think that will change many skeptics' minds, but then again, they seem to overrate their knowledge quite a bit. A sad, hilarious, and personal example of this last night that will either make you laugh, or cry, or maybe both: I was playing "taboo" last night with the people in my apartment (the object of the game is to describe the object without using certain words.) They all look down on me for being a Christian- they don't really say it, but it's quite obvious. One of them once sent me a nastygram saying "I am surprised that someone as cultured as you should be Christian. What a waste of intellect."

So as we were playing, a lot of popular figures came up who I didn't know, because I haven't watched TV in years. They all looked at me funny, and then proclaimed that I needed to get a life and start "watching TV" so I could become a "normal" person. I shrugged and laughed it off. The next round, one girl got a card and screamed "ooh ooh ooh! It's...uh...the 3rd rotating thing from the sun!" The other girl looked confused. "'s really cold's color is kinda like orange..." The other girl said, "Oh, MARS!!!!"

I sat there flabbergasted. Every single person was laughing and nodding- not because they though her description of Mars being the 3rd planet from the sun was wrong, but that they though she was so clever in her description. After they calmed down, I pointed out that Mars was the fourth planet from the sun. The girl squinted and look towards the ceiling. "Mercury...Venus...Mars...yeah, it's the 3rd planet. Aren't you supposed to be the smart one?" I lost it and said "EARTH, YOU IMBECILES! EARTH IS A PLANET! IT IS THE 3RD PLANET FROM THE SUN, MAKING MARS THE FOURTH! This is why I DON'T watch TV, because if I did I would end up like you! My God!"

Response: "Oh, geeze, why re you so mad? It's just a game, calm down! You need to lighten up and have a little fun."

Prof. Steven Jones wins for this answer to the question, "Does religion aid the development of science in any way?"

Well, I have to say historically, clearly not. If you look at the times of religious supremacies and the times of the Inquisition and so on, it clearly interferes with it. If you look at the United States, Fundamentalist Christians have gone again and again and again to the courts in an attempt to force, well, uh, basically lies about the origin of humans into American schools. Look at the world of Islam: enormously rich, enormous numbers of people, almost no science. So they really are almost incompatible.

Earl Doherty gets Gold with Dunning's Syrup, on the Jesus Project's refusal to consider the Christ myth:

So it seems that the Jesus Project almost immediately closed the door to progressing beyond the now-traditional groups and positions which have been willing to apply critical scholarship and open minds to virtually everything except the question of Jesus’ very existence. We apparently still have to await that last critical step in mainstream scholarship for...what—another generation? It shows that the ‘outsider’ community, centered on the Internet and privately produced books, is still miles ahead of established, university-based academia in its innovation and courage.

yabadabaoo is going for Platinum on Newbie, as he said this of the Christian ThinkTank:

I clicked on it (identified it as Christian gibberish and immediately selected the X on the top right corner of my browser). Seriously though I know religion is a necessary thing, probably a survival mechanism natural selection built into us (but you fundamentalist right wingers are so closed minded and stupid it's just annoying).

showmeproof needs some help with logic:

Firstly, your nothing begats nothing nonsense is plainly wrong. For more read about quantum vacuum fluctuations. It turns out that 'nothing' is highly unstable.

The Christian and Theist Collection

alexeyhurricane takes the Greek Knowledge Trophy:

there is no such love us EROS it is lie , show me in the Scriptures pls! and this greek three types of love i doubt it is scriptural so...

stephen goswami decides to dispense with evidence the easy way:

History is mostly by nonspiritual and partisan people. It often makes an unreal picture.

And also says:

I must atone for Revelation’s blasphemy to save my soul.

Catholic church abused Christ’s and Heavenly Father‘s character in their manufactured Revelation to terrorize people to subjection. Then they could prosecute torture and kill dissenters by its wrong moral principles. Many worthy philanthropists like Voltaire became atheists due to it. For this most intellectuals in Christian countries have become atheists. Their description of Catholic’s diabolical cruelty then is still revolting. Protestants were no better as they also adopted Revelation with the bible as their base. Often they became protestant not for following living Christ but rebelling against Catholic Church. They also got the moral ground in it for torturing opponents. Revelation is not written by apostle john as his gospel’s Love-God tone and language is far different from it. Bible parts were selected, edited and compiled by the human reason of the Catholics. But they refuse to use reason now to judge it. As they had less power than Catholics they could torture opponents less. The ‘faith’ of Calvin, Luther which killed people is fake faith. Their predestination and ‘salvation by faith alone’ theory gives them such an assurance of Salvation that they can sin without impunity! But still among those Christians there are people like Good Samaritan, Gandhi, Luther king, mother Teresa etc. who create Heaven here to be worthy of that after.

joel gets achy breaky over dust:

Does he care about a grain of dust floating through space? Yes, He is there. He created it. He is (lovingly) sustaining its being and movement--even though it has nothing to do with us, and seems unimportant to us. How much more for the socks adorning one bearing His image, and the way (His) light reacts when it hits the molecules in the socks and is changed before reflecting back to your eye. Where it is detected by the sensitive retina that He lovingly created and sustains, and the impression this makes on your soul.

Obsidian masters the non sequitur:

Yeah I have something to say. If you embrace asceticism about meat on Sundays, I think you ought to abstain from marriage as well. You pretend that it's wonderful for other people to become monks but you will never be one yourself. You are being completely hypocritical.

Livelystone serves up some fresh nuts:

As i said I am not going to spend much time dealing with the flesh as that is not the purpose of my point. So I will accept what you said about the same chromosomes found in both man and woman as sufficient........ after all does it not make sense that if Eve came from Adam that the the two of them would share a common physical makeup?.......... I think so!


Contrary to what you think I am quite well aware of the why the KJV says and does not say what it does. FYI my reason for using the KJV is simple....... Using the KJV and coming to God alone and not to the teachings of man is what He told me to do when I asked Him where to go for the truth.....

Moving on

However neither does the KJV say that there were two woman together (Mat 24 Like 17) that you must also be aware but to keep your own "private interpretation" for your understanding decided to not include them in your reply...

This is a prime example of why Jesus told us to live by every word that comes from God and not us just randomly picking and choosing verses to support any particular view that we choose to support without considering other verses that shed a different light on the subject.

One must be careful but contrary to the standard "every scripture taken from context is pretext" doctrine that has no support in scripture there are laws for determining the truth of the scriptures that are found in the law given to Moses on how to "rightly divide the Word". Unfortunately when just one of those laws are overlooked such as any relevant witness remaining silent or as Jesus said "every word" the student misses out.

I suppose with a campus staff available here it should not be to difficult for to find out the reason why the KJV has it as "men and woman" versus the "people" found in the more lukewarm translations.

........ and this takes us back to the use of male and female gender uses in the original languages of the scriptures......... they are there for a reason and that reason is for our edification. As much as i disagree with the Jews for obvious reasons the fact that they mandate using the original Hebrew thats true intent is often lost in other language translations speaks well for them.

Now going back to where God is a spirit that has a soul (according to scripture) can you now see where the Spirit of the Lord in Isa. 11:2 has six more spiritual aspects within it?

UrbanMonk wails on the Trinity:

It's important to understand that Go(o)d creates, and creates only equals..."like from like". This is a never ending expansion/extension. And so, it can be argued that Go(o)d is always increasing, but is never changing. Go(o)d is perfect, and creates only perfection. As there is only one perfection, there is only one Go(o)d. Because perfection involves an equality (like from like), creation affords every "Son" the opportunity to be a "Father". If this is true, the "Son of Go(o)d" also has a Son, thereby making him a Father also. The Son's Son also has a Son, making it a Father also. In this way, the World of Go(o)d maintains an equality as it ceaselessy expands/extends. If this is true, then one could argue that there are unlimited Son's and Father's. And yet, because they are all the same, there is really only One Son, and One Father, just as there is only One Go(o)d. As I understand it, there is only One Son per Father, each Son perfect.

Normally, each Son creates a Son of his own. As mentioned, there is only one kind of Son - an equal - because there is only one kind of perfection. Abnormally, a Son may imagine another kind of "son", and therefore, another kind of "creation". Such a "creation" will be perfectly imperfect, composed entirely of imagination, wishful thinking and fantasy believed. Herein is comprised the "destruction" of the perfection of the Son of Go(o)d (Our Father).

The "Holy Spirit" is the "Savior" "sent" to restore this Son's mind to it's original perfection. Salvation, then, is for a mind that uses its power to imagine what is not true. The Savior helps this mind sort out what is true from what is false so that it can return to its original (perfect) inheritance (nature). A mind that imagines is driven by a kind of unholy spirit/desire. The Holy Spirit represents a desire for that which is Holy, Whole, Total and Complete. Such is the Son of Go(o)d. What the Son imagines is opposite what is Holy, Whole, Total and Complete.

The Holy Spirit is an equal, whose creation was for the purpose of saving the wandering mind of an imaginative Son of Go(o)d. In this sense, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equals. However, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" for the purpose of saving the wandering mind of the "prodigal son". In other words, the Holy Spirit is for bringing the prodigal son back home, so-to-speak. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it must mean that the issues of salvation deal with a kind of split mind...a mind divided against itself. The Holy Spirit is for making such a mind "whole" again, thereby healing what would wound itself. When salvation is finished, what remains is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What does not remain (passes away) is every thing the Son ever imagined to be true (but wasn't). And so, whoever is "baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is whoever is willing to accept that only the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit will remain after everything else (all that is imagined) has been washed away. This means that the entire world of time/mass will be washed away. As it is washed away, the Son of Go(o)d is cleansed of what is not true.

We are saved as we lay down our so-called lives, which are really just lies that have been dreamed up in the mind of the prodigal son (a mind divided against itself). As we lay down our so-called lives, we are cleansed of what is not true. As the lies are washed away from our minds, we come to know our Self again. We come to know our Self by joining with the Savior, the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit we are brought back to Christ, our true Self. We are brought back as equals and as lords. This is the way Jesus went, as an equal and as lord. As equals, we become the saviors of that which believes it is not equal. The Holy Spirit is the Teacher of teachers. As the teachers teach, they become "one" with their Teacher, and through the Teacher, they reach the Father. This is the route Jesus went back to the Father. If we would follow, we would go the same way. We cannot go to the Father as anything but the Son of Go(o)d. This is the only way. There is no other way. The popular orthodoxy is trying to go another way, as if trying to get in over the fence. To be saved, we must go through "the Door". The Door is the Holy Spirit which brings us back to our own mind by teaching us the difference between what is real true) and what is unreal (untrue).

michaelcollins forces this dichotomy:

Never cared for paul, think he is arrogant, a know it all not very christ like.

we are called on to be Christ-like, not paul-like. have not seen that it is ok to follow paul's teachings over christ- I think that is the problem, paul says vs jesus says.

TyRockwell tells us:

The people calling someone manifesting the Holy Spirit via tongues a "babbling fool" are people so ignorant of it that they think they are supposed to be able to understand the language, or that to them it is supposed to sound like a known language.

What is the problem with Unitarians? Does not Eph. 4:13, speak of the unity of the faith?

Eeset had this nutty comment:

If we outlaw abortion why not then outlaw driving which kills thousands each month.

Anonymous commenter on Greg Koukl's blog wins:

i think the evidence that aliens have walked on earth, is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR superior to the evidence that God walked on earth.

Living witnesses

Witnesses who have passed lie detector tests

Video footage

Radar surveillance

Widespread belief - 24% of Americans believe that Extraterrestrials have visited Earth (2005 Gallup Poll)

Quite reputable sources: (president Ronald Reagen & President jimmy carter - both freely admitted sightings. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell claims UFOs have given us technology and met with world leaders.)

This is much much MUCH better evidence than anything offered as proof that God visited earth.

So do I believe in UFO's?


TheTelevisionPirate, whose spiritual state is unknown, said to our reader who operates under the name "Darth Executor":

I don't know what's up with you name, you speak of murder being wrong, but yet you have executor in your screen name! Pretty hypocritical...

shunyadragon self-refutes:

Good and evil do not exist, and yes we have a very natural well working moral system without good and evil, at least sufficient for the human species to survive to the present time.

Lausten discovers TWeb isn't friendly to morons:

Don't worry, I have plenty of other sources of information and inspiration. The recent discussions have only put me off Theology Web, not Christianity in general. The type of abuse of scripture that RBerman practices is fortunately the minority in the world. Unfortunately he has a lot of time on his hands and tends to dominate around here. I am surprised at the general domination of those who believe in an inerrant Bible. I was hoping for more diversity.

RBerman: Lausten is a unitarian, not a Christian.

Lausten: Don't really need any help from you. Nice that you took the time to read my profile, but typical that you would take one thing and make that mean everything. It was an answer to a multiple choice question with no room of nuance. We have had lengthy conversations so you would think you might know me a little better by now, but that is not what you do. You find one piece of information and use it like a club. For example, scroll down a little on my profile and note that I attend a Methodist church. Actually United Methodist, but that option was not available, thus my point about the lack of nuance in multiple choice questions.

Nomination for's site for kids which briefly had a Section called Buster's World which taught kids about how to use the internet safely. Unfortunately the company that set it up didn't do this little thing called a Google Search. Parents looking for Buster's World that the kiddies are talking about visiting on the computer were shocked to find that the first returned result from Google is a Gay Fetish site.

Nomination to New Zealand Judge Grant Fraser, who sentenced a man who was found with over 300 000 porn images, many of them children, on his computer to a mere four months home detention and granted him permanent name suppression because he is a prominent member of the community. -- At Large Platinum nominee.

Brian McLaren earns the Ultra Super Duper Platinum Screwball with Fudge and Nuts and a Cherry on Top for using Henel Ellerbe as a reliable source in his book A New Kind of Christianity.

Award to the translators of this billboard: