Ok

Well, it seems the RRS has finally fallen over the edge. If someone wants this blog, let me know and we'll talk. Especially if you're willing to give me money for it. :)

Otherwise, I've recently rediscovered my lifelong love: computer programming. Specifically, game programming - thanks to Conitec for providing a free version of their game engine while I save up money for the commercial edition.

Anyway, it takes up a lot of time, not to mention work and friends and I just don't have the motivation to write about nonsense like the RRS.

Peace.

Is the RRS Dead/Dying?

I may be a bit late to this topic. However, I've been tied down with certain goings-on in my life.

It seems to me that the RRS is pretty much dead or dying. Kelly quit her writing project months ahead of her planned schedule (probably after her articles were picked apart so harshly that any rational person would have been embarrassed), they can't raise the $11,000 (!!!) needed to supposedly fund their website, and they have transitioned from a community of atheist activists into a community of atheists.

If this is the case, then I suppose this blog serves no useful purpose. If anyone is still checking this blog, or happens to stumble on it, maybe you can fill me in on the missing pieces. If I don't see any comments, then that'll be all the answer I need I suppose.

Brian Sapient Demonstrates How NOT to Keep Reasonable Atheists on Your Side

Warning: Foul Language!!!

Over at the Rants 'n' Raves forums, the RRS is getting criticized by more of their atheist peers. Interestingly, Brian Sapient sent this e-mail to a user named "Stopper", seemingly for no good reason at all (note, although Sapient has established that this is "copyrighted", by publishing it on his website, the implied license clause allows me to reproduce the private e-mail here). I should warn you that this e-mail has some strong language.

From: infidelsapient@hotmail.com
To: my hotmail address that I never use
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Go fuck yourself cunt

A letter from all of us at RRS...

Go fuck yourself. We see you in public, and we'll let everyone in the room know about your baggage. Bitch.

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740

Your fucking scum. So glad none of the atheist groups want you back. Idiot. [sic - basically that entire thing]

That exchange, followed by Sapient's (over)reaction can be summed up in one picture:

Now, aside from the atrocious grammar, what's with Brian Sapient's "The Internet Is Serious Business" attitude? Was this really necessary, coming from anyone with an ounce of maturity and intelligence, or for that matter rationality?

Baggage? Interesting. Apparently, the baggage Sapient is referring to is referenced when he says something to the effect of her having more skeletons in the closet than Jeffery Dahmer. So, the moral of the story is: Don't criticize the RRS in any way shape or form, or even harbor criticism of any kind, or else the RRS will attempt to assassinate your character and humiliate you. Hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't there another group that does something like that? Gets you to trust them, then when you reveal personal secrets, uses those secrets against you if you criticize them? Ah, that's right! The Cult known as Scientology.

To top it all off, Sapient made a big stink that Stopper violated copyright by publishing the e-mail (look at this thread). What is Sapient going to do? Sue her? Wouldn't surprise me since he threatens lawsuits more often than the Church of Scientology (I'm noticing a pattern).

Maybe the RRS is being vilified unfairly here, so let's take a look at some excerpts from their forum to find out for sure.

Kelly adds her two rational cents with:

They are obviously a bunch of dipshits

Then Mr. Sapient has this to say:

just wrote a two hour piece exposing these fucking idiots, and I lost it. Aerik, I love you man but these RRS hate issues are issues I just ignore due to stupidity, however when they pop up in my house I feel the need to respond. I just spent two hours on it, and will now need to spend more time. Time that could have been used on actual humans, not subhumans like the morons you're mingling with.

Then he follows up with:

Ask Jake about how when someone posed a thread about beastiality back in the day on the AN she was so restrictive about the speech she told Jake that if he didn't ban the user she would leave. This was at a time when we all tried to embrace her even though she has a closet of problems that rivals Jeffrey Dahmer. Thankfully Jake doesn't take well to ultimatums from Nazi cuntlicks who have low self esteem and stab the people in the back who try to protect her.

More on that cunt coming soon.

Man, I feel like I'm getting more rational just reading Sapient's incisive wisdom here. But for the life of me, I still can't see what reason these atheists would have for criticizing him. I mean, clearly he is a reasonable, mature, rational person...

Why certain people at RnR who think they are freethinkers, are in actuality gigantic fucking morons. We may also start telling stories about how insecure, insane, sick, and back stabbing, the cunt Janice Rael is.

Ok, I think that's all I need to quote from Sapient. Clearly his atheist detractors are being entirely unreasonable here. I mean, they're more-or-less calmly and rationally criticizing the RRS, when what they should be doing is calling people names, posting pictures of a person, and then mocking that person's body...Wait. Did I mention that Brian Sapient was posting pictures of Ms. Rael and then calling her a "400 pound whale"? No? Because he did. I'll paraphrase the wise utterances of The Sapient here, for your edification and so you can see why his atheist critics are just jerks who are out to use the RRS to gain fame because secretly they love the RRS and are insanely jealous, which sounds strangely narcissistic but it can't be because Kelly said it.

Anyway, here's the paraphrase:

At first, I thought this was in bad taste, but then I noticed the words under the picture of Rael's forum avatar which read: "Her avatar can fit insider her ass!! Talk about misrepresentation!" Now I know that it most definitely was not in bad taste.

Anyway, what is she misrepresenting? The Sapient addresses this misrepresentation when he says:

Furthermore I can add a tinge of parody to the article by noting that the sexy picture of Janice is a poor representation of her. She's more like a 380 pound whale, not that I have anything against people being overweight, I just find the deceit to be funny.

Sapient apparently thinks that Ms. Rael intended her readers to think that the obviously fake, computer generated model which looks nothing like a real person is supposed to be Ms. Rael. Obviously, we were meant to think that something which clearly isn't a human, is supposed to be a human. Ms. Rael is blatantly dishonest.

Sapient uses this as proof that Ms. Rael is a 380 lb whale, and therefore...well, I guess everything she says is invalid. I say, "Good for you, Sape." Obviously your atheist pals need a lesson in rationality, and posting these pictures with the complimentary remarks of "whale" is going to give them exactly that.

Sapient also included this nifty photo:

Then he changes his mind: She's not a 380 lb whale, she's a 400 lb whale. Which really means that we can clearly conclude that any of her criticisms of the RRS, or any of the criticisms of anyone remotely affiliated with her is moot. Right?

This raises a question which has been raised before: Does The Sapient objectify women, based merely on looks? After this, and the way he treats Kelly, the question seems rather poignant. But so what? Right? Obviously objectification of women would be a good thing, otherwise Sapient wouldn't do it.

On a bit of an ironic note, The Sapient criticizes Christians for rationalizing away supposed moral atrocities in the Bible, thus violating common sense morality. But here Sapient is violating common sense morality, by mocking people incessantly and beyond any possible need, so he can circle the wagons around his group as his obnoxious personality fans the flames of more and more criticism from fellow atheists. Obviously when he does it, its a good thing, because anyone who says otherwise is just spreading a dishonest meme.

Greetings

I've been asked to contribute to this blog in Frank's absence. I was happy to take over, despite that I had all but abandoned the RRS on my other blogs.

I'm looking forward to catching back up with my old friends (the RRS), since there's no shortage of laughable material coming from their intellectual black-hole of a website (rationalresponders.com - which they finally managed to overhaul from a travesty of web design, into a pretty decently designed 'site).

There will be a few minor changes to the layout, otherwise the only difference should be in writing style. I like to focus more on philosophical arguments, when possible, and I like to keep up-to-date on the material coming out of the RRS as it happens. Not that Frank didn't do these things, mind you, I simply mean that I am enough of a loser to write anti-blog notes on everything Kelly writes for instance.

As a final note, I am leaving for a number of months for boot camp and technical training, so in a week or so there will be a "hiccup" in posting. Not to worry, though, it won't be permanent.

I'd just like to thank Frank for the opportunity, and wish him good luck and I hope God blesses him and his family.

That said, enjoy!

On Rook Hawkins on Paul and Identity

Rook Hawkins just posted an article entitled "On Paul and Identity" where he makes the same argument that I've dealt with here. Some people never learn.

The RRS are open about their sexual perversion in front of children

I find it absolutely hypocritical of the RRS to post a video about a low-life pedophile priest on their website, when they are known for exposing teenagers and children to pornography!

There are two things that are unquestionable about the Rational Response Squad:

#1 - They target youngsters.
#2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

What a combination, huh?

Let's deal with #1 - They target youngsters.

That's a no-brainer. When asked, Is it true that you are targeting young people with their "blapshemy challenge"campaign"? Their answer is "Yes" (blasphemychallenge.com/faq.html). Furthermore the RRS help a teenage group of atheists known as the Freethinking Teens! As you can see RRS propaganda is throughout the whole website.

Now #2 - They are overtly sexual in their orientation.

You need only see how Brian Sapient films Kelly here:




Let me ask all concerned atheist parents some questions: Would you want someone like Brain Sapient be the leader of a movement that your teenage daughter follows? Does it comfort you that he objectifies girls? How about this: Would you want someone like Brian Sapient be the boyfriend of your daughter after watching a video clip like that? It looks like Sapient had himself a "Girls Gone Wild" moment, huh? I don't know about you guys but if I caught Brian Sapient filming footage up my daughter's skirt, I'd take that camcorder of his and shove it up where the sun don't shine. And if I caught my daughter acting like a little slut like Kelly, I'd teach her a lesson she would soon not forget.

Furthermore, RRS' website is easily accessible to children, and their image gallery is not hard to find. Check it out at your own risk:

www.rationalresponders.com/image

Is Brian Sapient and Kelly the only perverts in the Rational Response Squad? Nope. It looks like Rook Hawkins has a flare for it too. Not only are RRS into pornographic material, but literature seems to come their way, too. The following comes from Rook Hawkins' blogsite:

The Pleasure Cruise

By Rook Hawkins

He ran his finger tips over the curvature of her shoulder, the feel of her silky skin sent electric jolts through his body and into his loins. Just the touch of her excited him, his imagination sent soaring in untold fantastical directions, the things he wanted to do to her. They were the gentle whispers in his ear that nobody else would ever learn of.

She faced him now; her soft, violet-eyed gaze made him dizzy, but he still found strength enough to focus on her. She didn't have to move at all, he appreciated every inch of her, both inside and out. Yet it was the fact that she did move that made his heart want to leap out from his chest, and had he not been so enthralled by her he might have found that his palms had become sweaty from the heat of their passions.

Slowly, she laid him back on the soft, new bed he'd recently bought for the two of them. She didn't have to fight with pesky buttons or zippers as their clothes had long since been stripped from both their bodies. Her enchanted silver hair tickled his chest as much as her lips enticed him as they planted sensual kisses down to his stomach.

Each time she pressed against his skin he couldn't help but breathe heavier, he could feel his lungs start to burn from trying to hold back moans of pleasure. She didn't make such a task easy on him, and he dreamt that such a time would never come when she did. He enjoyed the game as much as she enjoyed winning at it. And although at times he felt he would burst, he did his best to restrain himself.

But she played dirty, and he could never commit himself for long. The addition of her tongue forced his joy to crescendo. It was as if all his surroundings had vanished, leaving only the shell of their movements remaining. He could taste the saltiness of his sweat dripping down from his hair, the sensation of their skin brushing up against each other with intentions of becoming one.

He stretched and grasped at the bed sheets involuntarily, as if such gestures of futility would stop the growing eruption within him. It was only a matter of time before she'd release him and take him. She played until she knew he could take no more, until he was beckoning her with his ample moaning and warm breadth on her wet, auburn skin.

Aside from the literature that reeks of pure cheesiness (my God in high heaven! Rook's writing is just awful!), it doesn't take a lot to know that Rook Hawkins is a pure amateur. He makes soap operas look bad.

Don't be fooled: Misogyny is a player in the Rational Response Squad.

And of course, where would all this perversion be were it not applied. In a live public chatroom where the following was said:

[note:
Brian Sapient overlooked this chat
this is bumbklaatt
bluemustangxxx is Rook Hawkin's then girlfriend
this is fyre86
this is abrahobscura]

bumbklaatt: I'm still hammered
bluemustangxxx: lol
bluemustangxxx: im still naked
fyre86: 5 times a dayyy
fyre86: once we did it 12 times
bluemustangxxx: dude
bluemustangxxx: 3 times with you on top bri
bluemustangxxx: then 2 with her on top
abrahobscura: on the zoloft i m luck if i get 2
bumbklaatt: nikki = succubus...
bluemustangxxx: then you wouldnt even have to work the last 2
fyre86: i l ove lube!!!!!!!!
bumbklaatt: just sucking a mans life force
fyre86: lolol
bluemustangxxx: your only job would be to provide thecum

Gee, how lucrative.

This is what it all comes down to, ladies and gentlemen:

1. The Rational Response Squad are targeting youngsters.
2. Obviously youngsters will be drawn toward RRS if they chose to. (Heck, they have children participating!)
3. Those children will be exposed to overt sexual antics of this group.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were exposing such adult material to, well, adults (although that has its own moral questions), but to children?! Dude, get real! If a little girl finds her self-worth in such graphic depictions, can you imagine how she'll grow up? You look how Sophia Mills defends her atheist father's immature and immoral act, and finds absolutely no problem with it, now, we're going to have children defending lustful promiscuity? And seeing how RRS is setting an example for kids, they're going to think this sort of lifestyle is okay. Imagine, your young daughter strutting around for perverts like Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, bumbklaatt, and Mr. Gawn. Or imagine her acting as loose as Kelly, fyre86, and bluemustang. And, what of your sons? Your sons' masculinity will be defined by how much they can objectify women. Is that what a man does? These male pigs wouldn't know how to treat a women right. You need only look at Brian Sapient's life:

He doesn't live with the mother of his child.
At one point he lived in his the girlfriend's basement.
And his then girlfriend payed the bills to his show!

Is that what a man does? Shouldn't he be providing for his girlfriend?

If RRS are truly "rational" shouldn't they provide teenagers with reason and logic? Not sex orgies and half-naked women.

Do you want your little girl to end up growing into this (Is that a butt-crack on her chest or a cleavage?):



Or this (thank God they blacked her out):



You get the picture. But can you imagine how this girl would grow up under the lustful watch of the Rational Response Squad? That answer scares me. Furthermore, this overt promiscuity and influence on children gives an open door to pedophiles and perverts. The RRS should be ashamed of themselves. But no, they want teens exposed to their pornographic lifestyle.

Brian "Sapient" and the RRS are the most passive atheists in the world... bar none!

Never in my life have I met a far more passive group of people than the members of the Rational Response Squad. Usually, when they're confronted they runaway. Brian "Sapient's" cowardice will always be remembered. It's darn near legendary by now. He still continues to refuse to debate able Christians, while taking on shallow apologists like (get this) Kirk Cameron! Also, Rook Hawkins refuses to debate able historians (like JP Holding). To grow more in life you have to be competitive. Sapient and Hawkins aren't. Rather, they do drive bys and back-biting without confrontational face-to-face combats. Taking on people you know you can beat isn't hard. It's cowardice. Read the lies.

Related:

Brian Sapient Can Dish Out But Cant Take It