Louis
Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Avo/Wes
AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.
1) The "Someone no names mentioned" etc is GoP, not Avocationist. This is easily understandable from something we grown ups call "the context". It's also why I seriously dislike separating one post (or quote or whatever) from the context if that context forms part of an ongoing conversation. I trust GoP as far as I could spit a solid metric tonne of baccy, and certainly don't think it beyond him to fake multiple posting personalities for the purpose of trolling. He's not only already done it but already ADMITTED it. Forgive me for being the only one to think this loathsome. Tchoh, the standards of the youth of today
If Avocationist is not a troll, and instead a sincere and interested conversationalist then I 100% totally retract my description of him/her/it as a troll and apologise unreservedly. In this instance I was wrong, obviously dependant on the above being the case. Do I need to explain the use of the conditional in the above?
2) The thing I was describing as loathsome was the behaviour of people who do such trolling, not Avocationist. A relatively simple reading of the sentence reveals that. Nowhere was a phrase that could in any reasonable sense be parsed as "Avocationist is loathsome".
3) Let's see what I actually wrote:
Quote | P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well. |
Bolding mine. Future tense people, future tense. Not "Avocationist is a liar", not "Avocationist is a subverter of science". This is a prediction based on current behaviour, NOT an accustation. Colour me amazed that, uncharitable though it is, intelligent people can't tell the difference.
Amazingly enough although I am all for outreach, education, promoting science (I actually do this moderately successfully in my spare time as it happens) I am not a massive fan of calling shit shinola or vice versa. Do you advocate hypocrisy in the face of unreason? I know I don't.
Oh and of course, my open and upfront admission that I am willing to be proven wrong on the basis of the evidence makes me the intolerant one, right? Told you that Avocationist wouldn't get it didn't I.
4) The "spits baccy" comment was about Avocationist's direct and unjustified leap for his/her/its high horse on being challenged or indeed spoken to in any way shape or form. It was a joke about the attitude of IDCists and their ilk to skeptics, the joke being that they accuse us of fundamentalism. Projection on their part, not denial on ours. The funny bit being that the "fundy persecution complex" emerges BEFORE the persecution, not after it. Anything that can then be interpreted as persecution (whether it is or not) is used as evidence. A point I think, Wesley, you've made yourself.
The second part of the joke regarding the poking stick was again, a joke about US, as it were. We the body skeptic/rationalist looking for a victim to poke. Not that a) we are so desirous, or b) we actually do this. It's a parody, a pastiche. Geddit?
5) The comment about commendation. Note Avo's snip from context. ####, note all lines snipped from ALL context. Context you will note that proves that the Wes/Avo interpretation is not the correct one. That comment is a reply to Serendipity commending my arguing with creationists for 14/15 years. I said that it doesn't deserve commendation of any kind (it doesn't) and commented that my motivation for doing this was because I don't like liars and people who are lying deliberately to subvert science.
This is the closest thing I can think of that Avo could take as directed at him/her/it. It isn't directed at him/her/it, but hey, what's a small matter of reality between friends? It is directed at the Hams, Hovinds etc of this world, people PROVEN to be dishonestly attempting to subvert science and shoehorn it into their own false beliefs. Sorry, should I equivocate about this to spare your blushes? Pardon me if I don;t think I should.
As can be told from following the CONTEXT of the conversation (yes I know all that tiresome reading, sorry) the comment is a general one. Part of a series of comments I have already openly expressed that I hope I am wrong about. PROVE ME WRONG, don't whine about it.
If this is the best "evidence" you can come up with, colour sincerely unimpressed.
Tell you what, if you aren't so quick on your leap for your high horse, I'll be less quick about my pessimism regarding your ability to hold a rational conversation. Sound fair?
Louis
-------------- Bye.
|