Dawkins on Faith Schools in UK

[Jaecp]

Sorry Jaecp, but this merely a cop out that doesn't address what I said. Even if resources are no object, you still have to take balance into mind whenever you go about making something. Again, engineering is all about gives and takes. Besides, the fact you are unwilling/incapable of showing a better design is an indication that you can't show a better design because one does not exist. Fact, the human eye is actually very acute and can see far better then the most advanced human technology. Fact, engineering is all about gives and takes and you can't make something indestructable and capable of fast movements, at the same time. Why don't fundy atheist ever understand this? Is there something that prevents you guys from understanding these simple facts?

Engineering is about that, because we neither have access to any material we could possible imagine, nor are we perfect engineers. As a result, I do not see the relevance in most of your reply

"The human eye can see far better than the most advanced human technology"? Why do you say that? Then again, why does it matter what the current level of human technology is?

I developed inside the womb through an intricate cascade of biological interactions. So, concerning my development, there were limited resources. I was not delivered by the stork fully formed from God.

You're mixing the designing of humans, in general, with the gestation of you, in particular.

[lilpixieofterror]

Engineering is about that, because we neither have access to any material we could possible imagine, nor are we perfect engineers. As a result, I do not see the relevance in most of your reply

Yet again, it seems your entire argument rest upon, "WAAA!!! God doesn't do what I want to exist!" yet still nothing showing what a better eye would look like. Just crying that God doesn't do things the way you want and invent special materals just to make Jaecp happy (which I might add, flesh and bone isn't used in any machine I know, so that is a pretty exotic materal for a engineer to work with). Sorry jaecp, but even assuming 'exotic' metals doesn't help you problem out at all because those metals, would have limits too. Again, why do you have such a hard time grasping this concept? Engineering is very difficult and has a lot to do with a balance game. Gives and takes are all part of it, even by more advanced standards. Besides, the human body is a very advanced peice of engineering. It has self repairing features, the ability to walk on two legs, a sturdy frame, etc. How many real life machines have thsoe kind of features? Not a single one and that isn't even getting into our brains capacity to process information. Fact is, you're just seeking excuses to feed your doubts and not looking at the actual facts before you rant about how terrible of a designer God is.

"The human eye can see far better than the most advanced human technology"? Why do you say that? Then again, why does it matter what the current level of human technology is?

I guess the point flew right over your head, didn't it? If we have been working on photographic technology for over 150 years and still haven't reached the level that our eye can see at. What does that say about the engineering involved in the eye itself? You'll be amazed at how engineers will take something we do daily and work for decades to try to copy what we do so eaisly.

[Jaecp]

Yet again, it seems your entire argument rest upon, "WAAA!!! God doesn't do what I want to exist!" yet still nothing showing what a better eye would look like. Just crying that God doesn't do things the way you want and invent special materals just to make Jaecp happy (which I might add, flesh and bone isn't used in any machine I know, so that is a pretty exotic materal for a engineer to work with). Sorry jaecp, but even assuming 'exotic' metals doesn't help you problem out at all because those metals, would have limits too. Again, why do you have such a hard time grasping this concept? Engineering is very difficult and has a lot to do with a balance game. Gives and takes are all part of it, even by more advanced standards. Besides, the human body is a very advanced peice of engineering. It has self repairing features, the ability to walk on two legs, a sturdy frame, etc. How many real life machines have thsoe kind of features? Not a single one and that isn't even getting into our brains capacity to process information. Fact is, you're just seeking excuses to feed your doubts and not looking at the actual facts before you rant about how terrible of a designer God is.

This part here is just you making fun of me and repeating yourself, nothing to respond to,

This part,

I guess the point flew right over your head, didn't it? If we have been working on photographic technology for over 150 years and still haven't reached the level that our eye can see at. What does that say about the engineering involved in the eye itself? You'll be amazed at how engineers will take something we do daily and work for decades to try to copy what we do so eaisly.

It looks like we've gone from "The human eye can see far better than the most advanced human technology" to speaking of only photographic technology now?

Either way, cheers

[lilpixieofterror]

This part here is just you making fun of me and repeating yourself, nothing to respond to,

That's right Jaecp, you can't respond to it because you want God to do things the way you want him to do. Yet, when I ask you to show us what a better eye should look like you whine about 'what if's and saying that God could do better. Well, I would say that the fact that our most advanced technology still hasn't surpassed us on vision, walking, talk, emotion, etc is an indication that the engineering of the human body is far more complex, then it looks. What do you do with this? Ignore it because it seems all you have left is your what if's of magical metals that seem to be capable of doing anything. It's not my fault that you fail to grasp that every material, has it's ups and downs.

This part,

It looks like we've gone from "The human eye can see far better than the most advanced human technology" to speaking of only photographic technology now?

Either way, cheers

Trying everything you can to run away, eh? You're the one that whines that God is such a poor engineer, but when it's revealed that he is a far better engineer than we are (since even a task as simple as walking, has taken scientist over 50 years to develop and it's still incapable of moving at the speeds we are) you whine that I'm 'going off topic'. I should know a little bit about this, I did get to watch one of these robots, live and in action and even though it was technically more advanced then anything we have now, this Honda robot, didn't have very good vision, was incapable of walking at the speeds we do, and was incapable of doing complex task. If scientist still haven't reached the levels our bodies perform at. What does that say about the complexity of humans? Sorry jaecp, but whining and complaing about being put on the spot, doesn't make your case. It just makes you look desprate for a way out.

[element771]

You're mixing the designing of humans, in general, with the gestation of you, in particular.

How do you think that humans got here?

Just like I did not pop into existence....neither did humans. They went through millions of gestation periods, during which resources were limited, to evolve into what we are today. Humans did not just pop into existence fully formed.

[Kane]

Translation: "My arm-chair psychoanalysis isn't work, so let me throw up more accusations without facts because I don't care what the truth is, I just care about supporting my psychoanalysis."

I think my armchair analysis of what I said is actually quite accurate. It's what you stated in return that is egregiously inaccuracte.

Now, are you going to take what I say about myself as authoritative about myself? Or will you continue with your libelous tactics?

I have dealt with pretty much all of your objections:

Would that that were true! Then we'd have something to discuss. Instead, I'm finding myself having to do damage control against your immature babbling.

1. Isn't it funny that I get along with many people who disagree with me and never had called them stupid or ignorant? I disagree with everybody on my friends list, in one way or another. Funny thing is, I have never called them stupid for it. Why is that? Oh, I know because your lazy psychoanalysis is not true, but you could care less. Is that more accurate?

It's not funny at all that you get along with the people you get along with. That's just logical. However, it is rather illogical of you to equate what you consider as my "lazy psychoanalysis" with your reason for not calling your friends "stupid". So, in answer to your question, no, it is not "more accurate". In fact, you're now getting less accurate than you were when you were simply vituperating and bloviating.

2. It's sure funny to watch you whine about me psychoanalyzing people while you do it to me. I guess it's ok though because you are above the rules you expect me to follow.

Are you making more unwarranted assumptions about my intentions, LPOT? Have I ever stated that I think I am "above the rules"? It seems to me the only person stating that is you.

3. I do not 'hold a grudge' against Jaecp or anybody. I just used that as an example because if Jaecp can't even be trusted to admit to errors on easy things, like education in the military. How can he be trusted to give accurate information on big things?

Oh, is that the way it works? Because a person makes a simple mistake they are no longer trustworthy when it comes to "big things"? I think your saviour, Jesus, was a lot less harsh than that. Didn't Thomas make the mistake of being skeptical about Jesus, and yet Jesus trusted him as a disciple anyway? Didn't Jesus continue to bless him by appearing to him bodily and removing all doubt from Thomas by displaying his stigmata? Didn't Jesus continue to trust the disciples even after they fell asleep in the garden? Didn't Jesus continue to trust his disciples despite the fact that they misinterpreted his parables?

Granted Jaecp is not Jesus, so you have no need to express an absolute trust in him. And you are not Jesus, either, so you have no reason to expect Jaecp or me to trust in your tutelage, especially given the overbearing arrogance with which you express your corrections.

Yet, here you are, LPOT, refusing to trust the inquiries and thoughts of Jaecp (not that he actually need your approval anyway) because he made a mistake (and probably didn't admit it because he didn't think he was wrong) at some point in the past. I think you would do well to consider the example of your Lord at this point, no?

4. I find it really funny that you attack me about morality; while you defend people that talk about religion being a mind disease, teaching religion to children is child abuse, or who say they would like to take a crap on the Pope's grave.

I haven't defended them. You are in error. Will you admit it?

Of course, no condemning of these comments, no acknowledgement that these comments are bad or rude to say, you just ignore them and go on your merry little way.

In fact, I believe I drew your attention to the fact that Hitchens has said a good deal more than that he would like to defecate on the pope's grave. Perhaps you know that though, because I'm assuming you've bothered to read the works of the person you are calling down?

In any case I have no problem saying that Hitchens's comment is rude. It is. That was the point of the comment that he made though, wasn't it? So you got his point. Good job!

Yet again, the facts just keep getting in the way of your lazy psychoanalysis, but do keep it up so everybody can see what you really are like.

And what am I really like, LPOT? Dazzle me, please.

unlike you, I presented facts to make my case and you ignored them.

Where?

Tell me, why should I take you seriously when you can't even take the 15 minutes required to see if your psychoanalysis is true?

Perhaps because you are a moderator and supposed to exemplify a higher level of maturity than the people you moderate? Just a thought.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think my armchair analysis of what I said is actually quite accurate. It's what you stated in return that is egregiously inaccuracte.

I did and I gave the facts, It seems that all you can do is whine, complain, and throw a temper tantrum for daring to disagree with you! How dare I do that! It's a such a terrible sin. What is really funny is how you reported me for being mean and crass and yet... you are getting mean and more crass as time goes on. What's the problem... Is your usual methods of holding your nose up in the air and pretend to be 'above' the very thing you are doing not working for you this time? That's right, keep going down this road and showing the world those true colors that lie beneth the veil of chivary.

Now, are you going to take what I say about myself as authoritative about myself? Or will you continue with your libelous tactics?

More whining, no evidence yet. It is your job to prove it. All I did was present the facts that showed you in error. You haven't produced the facts to show me in error. You just ranted and whined how mean I am (while of course, showing the world your true colors). Sorry, but what is really funny here is this...

- I'm not the one breaking my own standards, but you are.
- I'm not the one that is whining and crying, but you are.
- I'm not the one that defends people that want to crap on the Pope's grave, but you do.

All I am doing is holding up a mirror (to let your true self shine) and presenting facts that prove you wrong. Yet again, it's a fact that I get along with most of the people on T web. It's a fact that it has nothing to do with you being an atheist or disagreeing with me. It's a fact that I'm friends of people, with all sorts of backgrounds and beliefs. These are all facts I presented and you ignored, in your arm chair psychoanalysis.

Would that that were true! Then we'd have something to discuss. Instead, I'm finding myself having to do damage control against your immature babbling.

Translation: "WAAAAA!!! You're such a mennie! "

So much more accurate than your sad attempts at damage control. Where was my error? Oh that's right... I didn't make one, you did, but just like the arrogant person you are... you just can't keep your mouth shut and shame yourself even more. I have presented the facts to make my case, you haven't. So what one of us is babbling? You or me?

It's not funny at all that you get along with the people you get along with. That's just logical. However, it is rather illogical of you to equate what you consider as my "lazy psychoanalysis" with your reason for not calling your friends "stupid". So, in answer to your question, no, it is not "more accurate". In fact, you're now getting less accurate than you were when you were simply vituperating and bloviating.

No actual answer from you, as always, just ranting and crying about how mean I am, while of course, you get more and more aggressive with every post you make. Your psychoanalysis is lazy and is dumb, but do you admit it is? Of course not because the facts don't seem to work their way into your logic. You're the one that seemed to accuse me of calling people names who disagree with me. Yet... have I called the dozens of people, on my friends list, whom disagree with me, stupid or ignorant? Nope because I don't think they are. In fact, if you would have bothered to research, before you ranted, you'd discover that I have often argued that there is strength in different views and opinions and I love to hear different views and opinions from my own. It challenges me and allows me to grow and learn. Oh dear... it looks as though my actual views are contradicting your lazy psychoanalysis yet again! Quick, ignore it or accuse me of dodging the point with some more obscure and random words to dodge your silly little errors! You're getting more and more pathetic and dodgy there Christopher. What's the problem... are you looking more and more wrong, so you have to look as though you are winning?

Are you making more unwarranted assumptions about my intentions, LPOT? Have I ever stated that I think I am "above the rules"? It seems to me the only person stating that is you.

And yet... who is the one diving down to things they claim is wrong? You or I? I'm not the one that has condemned the behavior that you are now engaging in, but you sure are! What is it called again when you do the very thing you condemn...

Oh, is that the way it works? Because a person makes a simple mistake they are no longer trustworthy when it comes to "big things"? I think your saviour, Jesus, was a lot less harsh than that. Didn't Thomas make the mistake of being skeptical about Jesus, and yet Jesus trusted him as a disciple anyway? Didn't Jesus continue to bless him by appearing to him bodily and removing all doubt from Thomas by displaying his stigmata? Didn't Jesus continue to trust the disciples even after they fell asleep in the garden? Didn't Jesus continue to trust his disciples despite the fact that they misinterpreted his parables?

Laziness to the rescue yet again, time to correct your silly little errors and show how you don't bother to get people's positions right... did the thought ever occur to you that Thomas, once presented with ample evidence that proved him wrong, changed his view and believed? Oh dear, yet again Christopher shows that he can't think and follow my logic, so he has to be lead by the hand about my logic. Thomas made mistakes, so did Peter, Paul, James, and pretty much everybody that ever lived has made mistakes. Here is the key though... Peter, Paul, James, and Thomas admitted to their errors and worked on changing their past. This is the key differences between Thomas and Jaecp. Jaecp STILL HASN'T said he was wrong about the military education thread and that is my issue with him. It's not the issue of being wrong, it's the issue of being shown he was wrong and merely IGNORING it and going on his merry little way. Oh dear... looks like yet another one of your strawman arguments comes crashing down around you! Quick, accuse me of dodging so you can look like you are winning!

Granted Jaecp is not Jesus, so you have no need to express an absolute trust in him. And you are not Jesus, either, so you have no reason to expect Jaecp or me to trust in your tutelage, especially given the overbearing arrogance with which you express your corrections.

Yep, still showing your lazy thinking, yet again. Tell me Christopher, if I said that the speed of light was not consistent and you showed me, several scientific articles that said it was and even showed me examples (such as GPS satellites) that prove it and I still didn't say I was wrong. Would you respect what I would have to say on any topic? I sure wouldn't, so if Jaecp is presented evidence that he was wrong about how the military education system worked and still refused to admit he was wrong. What does that say about him? Yet again, your laziness and inability to follow what I am saying shines though. It has nothing to do with my 'overbearing arrogance', but with your sloppy logic and thinking that has presented itself with this very post.

Yet, here you are, LPOT, refusing to trust the inquiries and thoughts of Jaecp (not that he actually need your approval anyway) because he made a mistake (and probably didn't admit it because he didn't think he was wrong) at some point in the past. I think you would do well to consider the example of your Lord at this point, no?

Wrong again Christopher, if you would have bothered to follow my logic, instead of your lazy thinking and poor armchair psychoanalysis, you would have discovered that my problem with Jaecp is that he STILL hasn't admitted he wrong and refuses to admit he is wrong about anything presented. I'm not the only one who notices this and he has been called out on this, several times and by several people and yet... still stubbornly refuses to admit to his errors. This is my true argument, not the strawman you tried to burn. Now how about you actually attack my argument instead of your strawman re-construction of it or would that be too hard for the mighty Christopher to do?

I haven't defended them. You are in error. Will you admit it?

From what you showed me above, you don't even understand what I have said. My issue with jaecp has nothing to do with him making mistakes, it has to do with his refusal to admit he's wrong, when he clearly is. Will this get though your thick skull now or will I have to beat it in there for you to finally understand?

In fact, I believe I drew your attention to the fact that Hitchens has said a good deal more than that he would like to defecate on the pope's grave. Perhaps you know that though, because I'm assuming you've bothered to read the works of the person you are calling down?

I don't care what he said, I am talking about his morality and your refusal to admit that was a very rude and mean thing to say. Comments like this reveal a lot about a person and show their true character. Tell me, would you respect a person that said they wanted to crap on Hitchens' grave? I sure wouldn't and I would go even as far as to condemn such a person that comment (even if it was a 'well respected' Christian leader). In fact, I think it's very funny that you would actually defend such a man. Tell me, if Hichens' was a Christian and said he was sorry he was dying because he wanted to take a crap on Dawkin's grave. What would you say? Would that be warranted, even if you agreed with everything else he said? Yes or no?

In any case I have no problem saying that Hitchens's comment is rude. It is. That was the point of the comment that he made though, wasn't it? So you got his point. Good job!

Took you long enough. Does it always take you this many post to admit you are wrong about something?

And what am I really like, LPOT? Dazzle me, please.

You're showing it right now Chris and I'm sure others can see that you're getting more and more passive-aggressive and showing more and more anger, as you keep posting or is there a reason you reported me for being crass and rude when you said this to me:
"Would that that were true! Then we'd have something to discuss. Instead, I'm finding myself having to do damage control against your immature babbling."

The pot just loves to keep telling the kettle how black it is, huh?

Where?

The ones that you ignored or strawmaned! Try this again and please don’t get too much spittle on your monitor. I wouldn’t want it to short out on you now.

Perhaps because you are a moderator and supposed to exemplify a higher level of maturity than the people you moderate? Just a thought.

I've been far more patient with you then I have with people in the past and if you think I'm rude or mean... some of the other mods here could show you what real rudeness is all about. Sorry Chris, but there is no rule that says I have to be nice to you nor Jaecp and nothing I saw on the mod rules say that, so perhaps, yet again... you are just making excuses for why you hold others to a different standard then others. Lovely system you got going for yourself there, but just like the rest of your rant, this one falls flat on its face. Got another excuse you can dig up now for why you're above the rules you expect me to follow?

[showmeproof]

Here we go again....another LPOT derail. Congratulations.

[Tassman]

Here we go again....another LPOT derail. Congratulations.

Ah yes, but for some people being the focus of attention is more important than a mere thread staying on track. It’s therapy.

[lilpixieofterror]

Here we go again....another LPOT derail. Congratulations.

That's right... people start fights with me and yet... it's somehow my fault that they do it. Blame me for everything instead of looking at your atheist buddies for starting it because it has to be my fault.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah yes, but for some people being the focus of attention is more important than a mere thread staying on track. It’s therapy.

That's right Tassy, even though Christopher started this fight with me and has been following me around and making comments about me being rude to Jaecp, it's my fault that he does this. That's right, ignore your atheist buddy doing it and blame me for it instead because ignoring facts you don't like is, oh so much eaiser. How dare I defend myself from baseless attacks that don't deal with the facts! That's just terrible of me.

[Jaecp]

That's right Jaecp, you can't respond to it because you want God to do things the way you want him to do. Yet, when I ask you to show us what a better eye should look like you whine about 'what if's and saying that God could do better. Well, I would say that the fact that our most advanced technology still hasn't surpassed us on vision, walking, talk, emotion, etc is an indication that the engineering of the human body is far more complex, then it looks. What do you do with this? Ignore it because it seems all you have left is your what if's of magical metals that seem to be capable of doing anything. It's not my fault that you fail to grasp that every material, has it's ups and downs.

My personal ability to engineer an eye is not relevant here. Neither is societies for the matter.

Trying everything you can to run away, eh? You're the one that whines that God is such a poor engineer, but when it's revealed that he is a far better engineer than we are (since even a task as simple as walking, has taken scientist over 50 years to develop and it's still incapable of moving at the speeds we are) you whine that I'm 'going off topic'. I should know a little bit about this, I did get to watch one of these robots, live and in action and even though it was technically more advanced then anything we have now, this Honda robot, didn't have very good vision, was incapable of walking at the speeds we do, and was incapable of doing complex task. If scientist still haven't reached the levels our bodies perform at. What does that say about the complexity of humans? Sorry jaecp, but whining and complaing about being put on the spot, doesn't make your case. It just makes you look desprate for a way out.

What the heck do robots and the rest of that have to do with a picture of a nebula that is quite impossible to see with the naked eye, but necessitates technology.

That's right... people start fights with me and yet... it's somehow my fault that they do it. Blame me for everything instead of looking at your atheist buddies for starting it because it has to be my fault.

The first post involving you was made by you, post 31, after which Chris said you were being unnecessarily harsh. This went back and forth a bit, but no one started a fight with you, you started the fighting yourself. Chris grew more frustrated as you started being more and more crass to him, but that is hardly him picking a fight with you. I couldn't have picked a fight with you, you responded to me first! Let alone that the contents of my posts could count as such. Personally, I see you as someone who views her participation in religious discussion as a fight or a war, a war you need to win, and that anything is acceptable, hence the gratuitous use of "riposte" that you and the various other NHBD types rely upon.

How do you think that humans got here?

Just like I did not pop into existence....neither did humans. They went through millions of gestation periods, during which resources were limited, to evolve into what we are today. Humans did not just pop into existence fully formed.

This is, again, talking about specific gestation instead of the design as a whole.

[lilpixieofterror]

My personal ability to engineer an eye is not relevant here. Neither is societies for the matter.

Yes it does Jaecp because you are claming that X is a bad design. How do you know that it's a bad design if you do not know what is wrong with it to begin with and how to make it better? AKA, you are basing this off not off from knowledge, but a personal opinion, which, means nothing without the facts to back them up. Why is the eye a bad design? Will you answer this already or will you just keep squaking the same thing, over and over again in some sad attempt to avoid your silly errors? Engineers do not say something is a bad design without pointing out why and showing how it can be better. Why do you refuse to do this Jaecp? It's a simple question that you do everything in your power to dodge.

What the heck do robots and the rest of that have to do with a picture of a nebula that is quite impossible to see with the naked eye, but necessitates technology.

Sorry jaecp, but I never said that the naked eye was the best thing at seeing everything (the human eye is not built to see in the IR spectrum and making the eye capable of doing this adds complexity and therefore... takes brain power away from our thought process and would make us less capable of reasoning on that level). That is a strawman of your creation so you can avoid engaging my arguments. Are you denying that camera's can not be fooled by tricks that the human eye can not be fooled by and often times can not see as well as we can? Yes or no? Answer the question please and stop dodging.

The first post involving you was made by you, post 31, after which Chris said you were being unnecessarily harsh. This went back and forth a bit, but no one started a fight with you, you started the fighting yourself. Chris grew more frustrated as you started being more and more crass to him, but that is hardly him picking a fight with you. I couldn't have picked a fight with you, you responded to me first! Let alone that the contents of my posts could count as such.

Yet again, it's all my fault that Chris has a thin skin and can't take criticism. he brings the thread off topic, spends mutiple reported post to try to get me in trouble, and gets more and more aggressive with me (while of course ignoring his own attitude) and yet... it's all my fault! How dare I defend myself from his baseless accusations, I should just sit back and let him. No matter what... it's all my fault that Chris posted about me first, whined about me, made up accusations that didn't stand up to the facts, and started this rant about me, yet it's all my fault because I dared to stand up for myself and defend mysel from these baseless acccusations. I should just sit back and let him say whatever he wants about me, would that make you happy?

Personally, I see you as someone who views her participation in religious discussion as a fight or a war, a war you need to win, and that anything is acceptable, hence the gratuitous use of "riposte" that you and the various other NHBD types rely upon.

Sorry Jaecp, but that is your invention so you can avoid admitting you are wrong. Isn't it funny that I get along with so many atheist and yet... you don't get along with many Christians, in fact, can you name off, just 5 Christians that you are friends with? I can name off 5 atheist I'm friends with? Why can't you do the same? Here is reality now... several Chrsitians have tried to reason with you and ended up coming to the same conclusions about you that I did. Do you think I PMed DO, Steve007, AP or RG and told them what you were like? I didn't do anything, they learned about this, from you and all came to the same conclusion that I did. You're a passive-aggressive troll that can't stand religion and will ignore anything and everything he is proved wrong on, even stubbronly refusing to admit he is wrong, when he clearly is shown wrong. It's been what... about a year and you STILL haven't admitted you were wrong about education in the military? If you can't even bring yourself to admit you are wrong on this... why shoudl anybody trust you? Sorry jaecp, but the bottom line is that it has nothing to do with a war with atheism at all, it has to do with you and your inability to deal with any arguments you can't answer.

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

If God created the eye, why can't we see in the dark? Answer me that then huh! Awful design! I almost want to pluck mine out.

[lilpixieofterror]

If God created the eye, why can't we see in the dark? Answer me that then huh! Awful design! I almost want to pluck mine out.

I wonder why we can't shoot lasers out of our eyes! How much eaiser would it be to warm up a cold coffee if you could just shot lasers out of your eyes and warm it up that way? It's bad design I tell you!

How good was my rant? I rate yours at 4.2 out of 5.