Joined: May 2006
Can this guy actually think that he's clever? Anyway, it's quite likely the same halfwit I tackled last night, trying to be "clever" where he can't be competent.
|<blockquote>2nd. this is in response to Glen Davidson who will no doubt pounce on my primitive remarks. hey, call me reckless.</blockquote>|
Nah, ignorant and incompetent will do.
--i do apologize to everyone else for this because it is way off topic but could prove to be entertaining to some so get your popcorn and that stale diet dr. pepper and read on.--
Yeah, that's right, it's way off topic, and you're too incapable of any insight to actually address anything I wrote. Hence a long ad hominem attack, none of it honest or substantive.
--Seriously though, you are a fantastic spokesperson for Darwinian evolution…and unresolved rage my man,--
I deal with the emotionally committed who can't make an intellectual case on their own level, at the level of emotion. Of course you wouldn't understand me, you know nothing about me and are intent only on trying to defame whatever you cannot comprehend.
--but what a wealth of knowledge! WOW!--
Yes, quite unlike yourself, I don't ramble on stupidly about what I don't know.
--I’d love to have an evolution party with you sometime. We could talk Darwin and you could unpack the mysteries of the universe to me and chop a few heads off in the process. woo hoo!--
Wow, clever. Who'd think to imply that we who defend the Enlightenment are axe murderers. Oh, except for the rest of the herd who has no capacity for making substantive comments.
--you seem to get around the blog sites too so i’m sure we could go over your “Davidson’s Top 5 Slams” and boast about all the idiots you exposed.--
You'd be on it. No, not really, you're pretty weak as substanceless maligners go. I'd put you in the top 50, though, if I cared to document biting gnats.
--do you have them taped on your wall or just saved on your hard drive?--
Actually, I rarely start any of these brawls. You missed that, didn't you? True, I hit the "Prof", because he's claiming expertise in an area where he is so clearly lacking. But I don't do ad homs, I just have to respond often enough to people like you who hate not being able to provide the sorts of evidence that we do.
--i know you believe you’re fine and you’re only upset at the stupidity of that scientist who must be a liar and an idiot savant who happens to help cure lethal diseases but seriously, man. you act like he attacked your belief system or something…weird.--
Oh yes, we know the game. The creo or IDist attacks scientists, implying that they are liars for maintaining actual standards. Then when we realize that the snake oil is convincing enough people and we raise the alarm, you attack us for actually responding to a boatload of defamatory comments and attempts to impose theocracy upon the nation. Tragically, such an obvious and dishonest ploy works on enough people.
--What do you do, cowboy? something noble i’m sure. something that helps and doesn’t hurt which is why you have to take all your aggression out on people you’ll never meet.--
Here's the dolt who can do nothing but attack me for responding to the anti-Enlightenment push, ascribing his own ill tendencies to me. The fact is that I haven't used particularly strong language, rather less strong than many on both sides have used, you're merely trying to put down what you find impossible to answer.
--what are you so afraid of boss? why do you have to belittle?--
Because you harm people. Can you get that? I fear those who would use power to overcome free inquiry, freedom of religion, and the freedom of speech. In fact just now you are effecting a de facto attempt to curtail my freedom of speech (legal, but immoral), by making a whole lot of dishonest claims in your ad hominem attack. If you were concerned about honest dialog, you'd engage me on the substance.
--that’s not exactly the best way to educate or inspire, but i’m sure you know that. you do want to educate and inspire right? that’s why you’re standing for something right? its not like you’re learning all this just to justify your rightness and be better than others or anything.--
What education do you bring to this thread? I don't employ the slimy tactics that you do, I keep it honest. And no, I do not try to educate people such as yourself, whose hatred of competence combines with your unwarranted egoism to try to put down whatever you can't counter with legitimate arguments.
I do educate. But I also know how to fight those who will use whatever tactics they can to undermine the integrity of science.
--i mean that would be lame and you don’t have to time for that you have a difference to make. --
Apparently you're really addressing yourself, whatever the pronouns you misuse.
--after all, anyone arrogant enough to tell another scientist whom he doesn’t know from Adam (or grandaddy rock - presludge you know ;)), who obviously has well thought out arguments and ideas, that he isn’t “worth his salt” as a scientist and doesn’t have “a smattering of knowledge” about science or philosophy must be on the brink of an enormous breakthrough in science or medicine.--
Yeah, I knew it was "Prof" again, not willing to show himself, and completely unable to back up his erroneous claims. Sorry, I studied philosophy a great deal, and I have no business treating some ignorant claptrap as if they were "well-thought out" arguments. They're not, they're pop philosophy, and the call of every honest scientist to actually look at the evidence remains the only proper response to such post-modernist nihilism.
--no? maybe just the head professor at a well respected college changing his community? oh, well i’m sure it’s something worth while.--
And it is a distraction from the issues you're trying to avoid. You haven't even given your name. Plus, the issues are laid bare on their own, and it is all too apparent that you wish to avoid the actual issues by bringing in irrelevancies--again because you lack the ability to deal with substance.
--by the way, thanks for proving that idiot “Phd”’s argument for him since he couldn’t do it on his own. you really hit those points home about science having to believe before it knows and all that.--
I guess when you run out of ad hominem attacks you resort to complete fictionalization of the exchange. Well, you could hardly answer me, now could you? After all, science is about questioning and skepticism, while your formulation is exactly the opposite, the falsehood that it is about dogma.
--don’t get me wrong. i had to work through all your hate toward your mom, society and that girl that dumped you in highschool that you never got over but seriously,--
Wow, that's really a new one. Gee pop psychology when your pop philosophy fails you. Make up a few lies, throw them out, hope that your flung feces work where your wits obviously do not.
--thanks. you really helped use that reverse psychology to drive the point home. did you do that on purpose?--
Even better, the old "reverse psychology" ploy. Nice to have someone from the '70s visit me with his "profound insights".
--genius. congratulations again for defeating your own argument and actually supporting the other guys.--
Since you're apparently not too bright, I'll have to figure that you came up with that standard little feint by recognizing your own tactics here. The whole mom and girlfriend thing, while standard empty rhetoric for witless drones, are more than likely to be your own story.
--nice work man.--
You'd mean that, if you were capable of understanding the issues.
--From Carnegie to Lincoln, its pretty common knowledge that the more you have to cut down someone else the less confident you are in yourself and your decisions.--
Gee, I bet you think that hate isn't the opposite of love, only apathy is, also. Where'd you learn your "psychology", out of Playboys?
Anyway, if your pop psychology is correct, it clearly cuts against you far more than myself, since I discussed issues and called the "Prof" as I saw him. It really goes against the intelligence you claim when you suggest that somehow calling out an arrogant guy blabbing on about things he doesn't understand actually exhibits some kind of "need" to cut people down. From Lincoln to Carnegie, competent people have used the proper words to describe the pompous and substanceless, people like yourself.
--You don’t have to be a scientist to know that. but you don’t care what other people think do you? least off all a lesser mortal like me. all i do is make people millionaires.--
The plaint of the truly pathetic. 'Why yes, I know how to make money, so my opinion about Darwin and DNA is worth something.' Try that out on the truly stupid. Come to think of it, I'd guess you do that a lot. Well then, learn enough to differentiate between the stupid and those who see immediately through your ad hominem attacks.
--i don’t really know a lot about science. speaking of, got a client so have to go. u get clients Dr Glen?--
Gee, I wish I were a suckup to the bourgeoisie like you. I thought you had no substance, but by God, you have clients (so you say). That changes everything.
--oh, and before you call me out for belittling you and therefore defeating my whole “confidence” vamp. remember this. i did it with style.--
Thanks for telling me, since I thought that was a collection of inane pop psychology and lame repetitions by the truly uncreative. Hm, so that's style. How could I have been so wrong as to think that T.S. Eliot had style, when it is really the babblings of a dull troll are what really counts as style?
--that’s the difference. take notes, cowboy. ciao.--
Write that down.
Gee, you're turning into JAD (John A. Davison, who attacks the person instead of the substance because he has none of the latter--like you "Galactic") right before our eyes, with the same clicheed patter, the desperate attempts to claim "style" or some such thing for crude and derivative attacks, and of course, a total lack of substance coupled with the projection of your own failings onto others.
I bet you're going to try to claim some triumph for this sad little attempt at a slam, since you reveal yourself in your tired little attacks. I, naturally, don't do anything like that, since responding to someone like you is too easy. The only things I remember are the opportunities I have for discussing science and the philosophy of science in depth, while these feces-flingers are answered and quickly forgotten (unless they haunt the forums with their raging impotence).
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy