A little tip, Panda-bloggers: If you didn't spend so much time taking pictures of yourself sticking your hands up the butt of a panda puppet, you might have time to figure stuff like this out for yourselves.

For the record, I'm not a Panda's Thumb blogger so I'm free to pose in pictures, with their panda puppet, to my hearts content.

"The guy with his hand up the Panda's Bum."

I was quoting Reed, who said that he thought it was "a joke at the expense of people like you."

You wrote…

TP, stop cluttering every thread with your favorite topic. You are welcome to discuss the topic of the thread, but any further tangents will go down the Memory Hole.

Thank you for the confirmation that I am still welcome to post here. And while you may disagree, I thought the ethical status of this particular Panda's Thumb post (Hexely) was very much on-topic.

As for my "favorite topic", I would rather talk about an ID proposal like mine or even yours if you have a link to it.

For the record, I don't agree with anyone making a "joke at the expense of people like" you.

By the way, were you quoting Reed or yourself? I think Reed said ""¦poking fun at intelligent-design activists and creationists". Are you (and TT) intelligent-design activists?

Provoking Thought

Disclaimer: withheld for this particular comment, will be included on future comments

Perhaps you can answer this: How does Wired falling for an old hoax constitute a "joke at the expense of people like" me? Who are "people like me", anyway?

A little tip Krauze, at no point in time did I take the Wired comment as anything but a joke. If you paid more attention to my "pop culture" posts on PT and DRN, you will see that I often make posts about instances where the media makes fun of creationists. I've mentioned Family Guy, Robot Chicken, a few websites, etc.

Oh yeah, why do you think the Hexley post was filed under Humor?

And I have considered the idea that you are not being serious, but if that is the case I have decided to play along.

Or something like that.

The link is made because it feeds into a useful stereotype. Much easier to argue against strawmen.

I agree that the stereotype is a part of it. It would also explain why Cartwright lumps TTers in with creationists ("people like you").

This is about how I imagine this played out:

"Hey guys, look at this funny joke about those ID creationists! They really think that Hexley is proof of the Darwinian link to Satanism! What idiots!"

"Oh, hey, guys, that was just a joke. We just bolded that one false statement because we knew it wasn't serious, not because we thought it was."

Look, it is not surprising that the critics would be snookered by this. It's easily explained as confirmation bias.