April 9, 2012

Q & A

Dawkins and Pell on Q&A:  where the hell did they get the audience?  They're twits, they applaud anything and everything, most especially utterly contrary points.  They also seem to have never acquired rudimentary scientific knowledge during their primary and secondary school educations.

Pell, on the other hand, has no such excuse.  He's supposed to be god's top guy in this country, yet can only muster the most child-like responses and explanations.

Gawd, it's awful viewing.

This, I suppose, is why I don't normally watch Q&A.  I'd smash too many televisions.

Update: 

A reasonable summary of the whole tedious business:

Dawkins shades Pell in battle of beliefs

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:19 PM

    I suffered about ten minutes, went into cringe mode, got the 38 from the safe, and blew my brains out.

    Thus proving something!

    Which would be that Tasmaniacs can do fine without any brains at all. Not sure about everybody else but.

    j

    ReplyDelete
  2. j

    lol, that's funny.

    Caz
    I gave up watching it years ago. Now the occasional (very occasional) good program is missed, but there are braver men out there than I am, Gunga Din, who watch and report.

    Nite!

    ReplyDelete
  3. PS
    Didja notice I took the stupid word thingy off my blog?
    Some of those spam emails are truly weird!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kae - yes I did notice, and good for you!

      The receipt of spam, subsequently, should peter out rather quickly (annoying though it is; apologies - I think I did warn of such). And yes, some spam is creatively weird! On one occasion, a few years ago, Timmy (Tim Train) turned his word thingy off and was rewarded with - I swear - the LONGEST spam I've ever seen, went on for ... pages ... still have no idea what it was about, but was quite magnificent, in its way.

      At least the "delete" function within the blog page has recently been restored; does save having to go off the comments folder in the managerial section of Blogger.

      Delete
    2. Humph! Wish I'd seen it now!

      Spam is an occasionally amusing genre. A few years ago when I posted some 'World of Warcraft' poems I got feedback from someone who was (probably) a World of Warcraft spammer. I thought it was only fair to let those comments stand.

      Delete
  4. So, you missed some of the *best* bits then (of the show, I mean, not of your blown-out brain).

    Pell, explaining how he knows hell exists. (I thought that even the Catholics had surrendered hell, but it seems not.)

    One word from Pell: "Hitler".

    You see, given what a nasty-parsty Hitler was, surely he must be in hell now. Clearly, if he wasn't, then he got off way too lightly. Ergo: there is a hell.

    I kid you not.

    Pell promptly undid even this *evidence* by stating that he truly hopes no one is in hell. Pell believes in some sort of cleansing house, where everyone on their way to hell is so shocked and awed by the vision of god that they repent, and, presumably go straight to heaven. (How easy is that, hey? Why even bother going to confession while here on Earth?)

    Obviously Pell's theory means that Hitler is NOT in hell, therefore Pell's only evidence of the necessary existence of hell vanishes!

    Despite decades devoted to his own cause, Pell also struggled with the simple and obvious question of why god allows so much suffering. Pell stumbled all over the place, basically he didn't know, then decided - his trump card - that Christ also suffered, so there!

    Yep.

    Really.

    ReplyDelete