RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2008,11:03   

At TT, Raevmo asks:
Quote
robin has been a bit quiet lately. (s)he didn't get banned did (s)he? I seem to recall Mike saying that he wouldn't do that.

Mike Gene dislocates his spine trying to rationalize the banning:
Quote
No, this is what I wrote on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm:

Quote
BTW robin, I think it is rather obvious you are keiths. And pay attention to this – even though I think this, I don’t advocate that you be banned.

Note the present tense.

At the time, I did not know he was keiths; I just believed it to be the case. And I did not say I wouldn’t ban keiths; I said that I did not advocate banning him at the time that I wrote that. And I clearly said “Pay attention to this.” In other words, keiths was being given a second chance. He was being allowed to post when he knew that we thought he was who he was. How would he react to this act of courtesy?


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2008,11:21   

Mike Gene is a true master of the double standard.

He excoriates me repeatedly for having posted this:
Quote
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

And then he posts this:
Quote
If someone opposes the banning because you either approve of what he was trying to do in that thread or you think we are somehow obligated to tolerate such behavior, now is the time to go on record and say so in this open thread.

You sort of have to admire his self-blindness; it saves him from what would otherwise be intolerable amounts of cognitive dissonance.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2008,22:04   

Two and a half years ago, a Telic Thoughts contributor named "bipod" had this advice for his fellow ID proponents:
Quote
Just Do It: 9 Pieces of Advice for the Next 3 Years

by bipod

This message is aimed at that minority of individuals who 1) acknowledge that Intelligent Design (ID) is immature as a scientific research program, 2) recognize that the current generation of intelligent design theorists have laid a unique foundation for exploring the biotic world, and 3) want to be participants (and possible failures) in the development of a telic science.

The next 3 years should prove to be pivotal for any prospective intelligent design research program. It really is time (er, has been time) to stop arguing about the scientific status of ID and to let history play itself out by conducting research and doing the hard work.

Just do it, as they say.

Here's some primitive guiding advice for the small minority.

1. Start small and be meticulous
2. Don't aim for "smoking-gun" results
3. Don't be afraid to make mistakes; take chances - speculate and imagine
4. Don't extrapolate wildly from the data and don't look for grandiose results
5. Explore the world with unfettered curiosity
6. Don't force the data into your model.
7. Ignore the buzzbots and cherish the true skeptics.
8. Resist the temptation to spectate.
9. Don't hold your breath for Mike Gene to publish a book;-)

This entry was posted on Friday, December 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 am and is filed under Intelligent Design.

How's that project coming along, bipod?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,02:57   

Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

A recent example:
Quote (Rock @ June 30 2008, 3:12 PM)
Which reminds me–Does anyone know anything about the Hanoi Tower puzzle?

Quote (Joy @ June 30 2008, 4:22 PM)
Yeah, used to 'play' it all the time with my toddlers and their plastic rainbow donut towers (which is what I call it, since I'm married to a Viet-era vet). Recursion. Which of course plays a role in deep time adaptation, but not so much in things like punk-eek. Sans directed mutation, that is, and while channeling also plays its role, there's not enough time there (apparently) for straight randomness.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,03:05   

Another choice example of blowtard from Joy:
Quote
When I was working with Matti Pitkanen on an attempt to quantify an anomalous issue under his TGD model of consciousness, I was introduced to a whole "new math" that this subject probably deserves - much as gravity deserved calculus back when Leibniz and Newton were arguing the details. Needless to say, I wasn't very "up" on the technicalities, so tried to frame what I was being exposed to in terms my ancient QM training would allow.

It turned out to be slightly easier than grokking multiverses, but not by much. Matti's only got 8 dimensions to work with, which I think is probably better than 11, 22 or infinite [FWIW]. Penrose is still working in a 4-D manifold, which is a good place to start, though he does give some lip service per Nigel Cook in his latest tome to Matti's p-adic primes as a mathematical framework the world's just not ready for yet.

I had stubbornly insisted on equating Matti's multi-stage vector alignment for the extremal of consciousness as akin to the vector of a magnetic monopole. It was the only theoretically existent particle I knew of that would take more than one phase transition to align to 'reality', so my mind kept focusing on its hedgehog extremal vector. Recently Matti has indeed integrated magnetic field dynamics into his 20+-year project, and it's starting to almost make sense! Check his blog for incoming details.

JohnJoe McFadden had a pretty good EM field ubertheory for consciousness that would be deducible from both Penrose's dynamic and Matti's. Since neuronal biophysics does operate on electrical circuitry, and biophotons must of course generate an EM field that extends not only throughout the brain itself, but also extending exterior like an 'aura' around the biophysical body.

True, the world isn't ready for multi-sheeted 8-dimensional spacetimes, hierarchial 'selves' or even magnetic monopoles. Penrose, at the late end of a long and storied career, can risk censure because nobody would dare censure him. He's plowing the road, and some of Matti's students may just plant some seeds. For the subject of life and biological evolution, it's the PCCs and NCCs that count. And these are well on the way to quantification.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,14:42   

It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.  In a despicable and shameless comment, Bradford has even tried to reverse the tables on the situation (I shall refrain from linking to it).

In light of this, I have decided to publish the full, unedited correspondence between Guts and myself.  If you have the patience to read it, you will walk away with only one conclusion: he is a sleazeball.

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.  anon9 said that Nelson Alonso was unethical, not Guts.  My posts here do not mention Nelson.  Only Frostman would know that Nelson Alonso is Guts, as revealed in the following correspondence where he changes his name in mid-stream.

[Two large posts to follow.]

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:15   

Remember, at the beginning of this correspondence neither of us knew what the problem really was.  Normally I would remove the unnecessary quoting and other cruft, but I cannot risk any appearance that I have made editions.  The following is pristine and unedited.  Due to the 76800 character limit, I have split it into four parts (two should have sufficed, but the site was still dropping text).

Part 1:

Subject:
farewell -- The Design Matrix contact form
From:
Frostman <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:45 -0700
To:
furtive.clown@gmail.com

This message is for Mike Gene.

Happy vacation to you, and also a fond farewell.

As you may know, I have been banned from Telic Thoughts.  Though this may
not concern you, I have documented the banning here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518

Good luck with the book.







Subject:
farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:49:56 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, krauze_id@hotmail.com

Hello,

Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few Telic Thoughts
members who list their email address.  It's been fun.

Though you may have no interest in this, I have detailed my recent
banning from TT here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518

In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT thread in question:

http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
sorry for not being impressed.  


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
> > Telic Thoughts
> > members who list their email address.  It's been
> > fun.
> >
> > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
> > detailed my recent
> > banning from TT here:
> >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
> >
> > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
> > thread in question:
> >
> > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
> >
> > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
> > Frostman
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

By the way , your banishment is only temporary, it was
not approved by the majority of TTers, if you agree
from now on to respect the decisions of the various
blog authors, I might be able to get you back in.


--- Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a
> > 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.  
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
> >
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:57:01 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I found the panda's thumb section of antievolution.org after I was banned
while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find their email addresses.
The only reason I posted there was to have a record of the event to which I
could link.  You'll see that I registered there just before posting --- I've
never been one to hang around with those who agree with me, and it's not my
choir  :)

To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have already anticipated that
objection here

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556

As you know, the issue is not that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not moved to the memory hole,
contrary to TT policy.

As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately you are unable to judge
my position and my arguments, as my posts were deleted.  You only have a
record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.  Do you believe
Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his disregard for the deletion
policy hold any relevance to you?

Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT than non-ID members.  I
respond to as much as I can, and when that is not enough, I'll inevitably
hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring posts which "refute" mine.

Please forward to me any and all posts which, in your view, refute any of my
arguments.  I regret that you have been left with this impression.  However
you must cite the specific posts in question, otherwise your claims are
empty.

There is one case where I intentionally held off my responses.  In the "eyes
have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical mistake in reasoning
which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after eight times asking.
Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to his arguments while
focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those counterpoints.  I was
determined not to let that happen again, so I held off my responses.

Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue brought up by someone
else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk about that.  Bradford
escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away in the confusion of
irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to explain this in that thread.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you had
> > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
> > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You continued
> > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
> > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
> > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
> > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when we
> > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like a 4
> > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the choir,
> > sorry for not being impressed.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those few
>> > > Telic Thoughts
>> > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>> > > fun.
>> > >
>> > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>> > > detailed my recent
>> > > banning from TT here:
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>> > >
>> > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the TT
>> > > thread in question:
>> > >
>> > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:10:10 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
that my posts were deleted --- as completely
unwarranted as that is but that they were not
moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
explained to you what was happening with the deletions
(again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
told people to save comments because the memory hole
wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
I know everything that was ever posted.

Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
were acting like a baby.

So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I found the panda's thumb section of
> > antievolution.org after I was banned
> > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
> > their email addresses.
> > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
> > of the event to which I
> > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
> > before posting --- I've
> > never been one to hang around with those who agree
> > with me, and it's not my
> > choir  :)
> >
> > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
> > already anticipated that
> > objection here
> >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
> >
> > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
> > deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
> > moved to the memory hole,
> > contrary to TT policy.
> >
> > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
> > you are unable to judge
> > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
> > deleted.  You only have a
> > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
> >  Do you believe
> > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
> > disregard for the deletion
> > policy hold any relevance to you?
> >
> > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
> > than non-ID members.  I
> > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
> > enough, I'll inevitably
> > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
> > posts which "refute" mine.
> >
> > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
> > your view, refute any of my
> > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
> > this impression.  However
> > you must cite the specific posts in question,
> > otherwise your claims are
> > empty.
> >
> > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
> > responses.  In the "eyes
> > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
> > mistake in reasoning
> > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
> > eight times asking.
> > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
> > his arguments while
> > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
> > counterpoints.  I was
> > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
> > off my responses.
> >
> > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
> > brought up by someone
> > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
> > about that.  Bradford
> > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
> > in the confusion of
> > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
> > explain this in that thread.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
> > had
>> > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>> > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
> > continued
>> > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>> > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>> > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>> > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
> > we
>> > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
> > a 4
>> > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> > choir,
>> > > sorry for not being impressed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Hello,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
> > few
>>> > > > Telic Thoughts
>>> > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>> > > > fun.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>> > > > detailed my recent
>>> > > > banning from TT here:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
> > TT
>>> > > > thread in question:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I don't even understand what you are saying now.  Please bear with me.
Previously you said,

"You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you would
ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other threads as well, such as
the Fodor one)"

So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in your opinion, I ignored
posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't even make sense.  When did
I do that?  And when has such an opinion been sufficient grounds for
deletion?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you saying the memory hole
works for you, but not for Bradford?

I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is obviously something I'm
not understanding about the situation.

"So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
your response to this offer?"

I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree with Bradford's decision to
jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does TT have a deletion
policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I am just trying to
understand it.

Frostman


On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is not
> > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
> > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
> >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
> > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I already
> > explained to you what was happening with the deletions
> > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
> > told people to save comments because the memory hole
> > wasn't working, I double as technical support for TT,
> > I know everything that was ever posted.
> >
> > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones ,
> > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
> > reason why you were temporarily banned was because you
> > were acting like a baby.
> >
> > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what is
> > your response to this offer? If you ignore it again, I
> > can only conclude that you are truly just trying to
> > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>> > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>> > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't find
>> > > their email addresses.
>> > > The only reason I posted there was to have a record
>> > > of the event to which I
>> > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there just
>> > > before posting --- I've
>> > > never been one to hang around with those who agree
>> > > with me, and it's not my
>> > > choir  :)
>> > >
>> > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>> > > already anticipated that
>> > > objection here
>> > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>> > >
>> > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>> > > deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were not
>> > > moved to the memory hole,
>> > > contrary to TT policy.
>> > >
>> > > As to the reasons for the deletions, unfortunately
>> > > you are unable to judge
>> > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>> > > deleted.  You only have a
>> > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is gone.
>> > >  Do you believe
>> > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>> > > disregard for the deletion
>> > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at TT
>> > > than non-ID members.  I
>> > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is not
>> > > enough, I'll inevitably
>> > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>> > > posts which "refute" mine.
>> > >
>> > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>> > > your view, refute any of my
>> > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left with
>> > > this impression.  However
>> > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>> > > otherwise your claims are
>> > > empty.
>> > >
>> > > There is one case where I intentionally held off my
>> > > responses.  In the "eyes
>> > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a logical
>> > > mistake in reasoning
>> > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer after
>> > > eight times asking.
>> > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints to
>> > > his arguments while
>> > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding those
>> > > counterpoints.  I was
>> > > determined not to let that happen again, so I held
>> > > off my responses.
>> > >
>> > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side issue
>> > > brought up by someone
>> > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to talk
>> > > about that.  Bradford
>> > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run away
>> > > in the confusion of
>> > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>> > > explain this in that thread.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought you
>> > > had
>>> > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your friend
>>> > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>> > > continued
>>> > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted (you
>>> > > > would ignore posts that refuted your assertions in
>>> > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one), and
>>> > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even when
>> > > we
>>> > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit like
>> > > a 4
>>> > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
>> > > choir,
>>> > > > sorry for not being impressed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hello,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Just thought I'd give a fond farewell to those
>> > > few
>>>> > > > > Telic Thoughts
>>>> > > > > members who list their email address.  It's been
>>>> > > > > fun.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you may have no interest in this, I have
>>>> > > > > detailed my recent
>>>> > > > > banning from TT here:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85518
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In that post I amazingly forgot to mention the
>> > > TT
>>>> > > > > thread in question:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > http://telicthoughts.com/science-and-faith/
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
>>>> > > > > Frostman
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better pen pal.
> > Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> > http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:52 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Wow. These are simple points:


- There was NO jettison of any policy, the website
recently moved servers, which broke the Memory Hole
function, it didn't work for anyone. I instructed
everyone to delete offending comments and save them
for manual insertion of the memory hole.

- This completely refutes any assertion that your
posts were deleted due to unethical behavior or to
circumvent TT policy.

- You were banned because despite constant and patient
requests for you to stop, you continued like a spoiled
brat.

You say you don't understand my offer but then you ask
completely irrelevant questions. Note, I will make a
note of this publically if you once again ignore my
offer.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:46:38 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I can understand how one would misunderstand
the first point, which is one of the reasons I'm
giving you this opportunity to come back (with
stipulations), it's not like you understand how
internal functions work, and we should have announced
this when it actually broke. So nix my last statement.






--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't even understand what you are saying now.
> > Please bear with me.
> > Previously you said,
> >
> > "You continued to ignore the reasons why posts were
> > deleted (you would
> > ignore posts that refuted your assertions in other
> > threads as well, such as
> > the Fodor one)"
> >
> > So the reason my posts were deleted was because, in
> > your opinion, I ignored
> > posts which refuted my assertions?  This doesn't
> > even make sense.  When did
> > I do that?  And when has such an opinion been
> > sufficient grounds for
> > deletion?
> >
> > Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.  Are you
> > saying the memory hole
> > works for you, but not for Bradford?
> >
> > I promise that I am acting in good faith.  There is
> > obviously something I'm
> > not understanding about the situation.
> >
> > "So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
> > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in, what
> > is
> > your response to this offer?"
> >
> > I don't even understand the offer.  Do you agree
> > with Bradford's decision to
> > jettison the Telic Thoughts deletion policy?  Does
> > TT have a deletion
> > policy, or not?  I am not ignoring your offer --- I
> > am just trying to
> > understand it.
> >
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2007 2:10 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I can tell by this line "As you know, the issue is
> > not
>> > > that my posts were deleted --- as completely
>> > > unwarranted as that is but that they were not
>> > >  moved to the memory hole,contrary to TT policy."
>> > > you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. I
> > already
>> > > explained to you what was happening with the
> > deletions
>> > > (again this is what I'm talking about with you). I
>> > > told people to save comments because the memory
> > hole
>> > > wasn't working, I double as technical support for
> > TT,
>> > > I know everything that was ever posted.
>> > >
>> > > Our site is crawling with ID critics and new ones
> > ,
>> > > join on a daily basis. Make no mistake, the only
>> > > reason why you were temporarily banned was because
> > you
>> > > were acting like a baby.
>> > >
>> > > So again, if you agree to respect blog entry
> > author's
>> > > decisions, I MIGHT be able to let you back in,
> > what is
>> > > your response to this offer? If you ignore it
> > again, I
>> > > can only conclude that you are truly just trying
> > to
>> > > trump up disingenuosly some martydom card.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I found the panda's thumb section of
>>> > > > antievolution.org after I was banned
>>> > > > while googling for TT members, as I couldn't
> > find
>>> > > > their email addresses.
>>> > > > The only reason I posted there was to have a
> > record
>>> > > > of the event to which I
>>> > > > could link.  You'll see that I registered there
> > just
>>> > > > before posting --- I've
>>> > > > never been one to hang around with those who
> > agree
>>> > > > with me, and it's not my
>>> > > > choir  :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > To the idea that I "couldn't let it go", I have
>>> > > > already anticipated that
>>> > > > objection here
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=85556
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As you know, the issue is not that my posts were
>>> > > > deleted --- as completely
>>> > > > unwarranted as that is --- but that they were
> > not
>>> > > > moved to the memory hole,
>>> > > > contrary to TT policy.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > As to the reasons for the deletions,
> > unfortunately
>>> > > > you are unable to judge
>>> > > > my position and my arguments, as my posts were
>>> > > > deleted.  You only have a
>>> > > > record of Bradford's point of view; my side is
> > gone.
>>> > > >  Do you believe
>>> > > > Bradford's behavior is ethical?  And does his
>>> > > > disregard for the deletion
>>> > > > policy hold any relevance to you?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Obviously there are many more pro-ID members at
> > TT
>>> > > > than non-ID members.  I
>>> > > > respond to as much as I can, and when that is
> > not
>>> > > > enough, I'll inevitably
>>> > > > hear complaints such as yours that I'm ignoring
>>> > > > posts which "refute" mine.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Please forward to me any and all posts which, in
>>> > > > your view, refute any of my
>>> > > > arguments.  I regret that you have been left
> > with
>>> > > > this impression.  However
>>> > > > you must cite the specific posts in question,
>>> > > > otherwise your claims are
>>> > > > empty.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There is one case where I intentionally held off
> > my
>>> > > > responses.  In the "eyes
>>> > > > have it" thread, I cornered Bradford with a
> > logical
>>> > > > mistake in reasoning
>>> > > > which he made --- the thing he wouldn't answer
> > after
>>> > > > eight times asking.
>>> > > > Bradford's strategy is to ignore counterpoints
> > to
>>> > > > his arguments while
>>> > > > focusing on the tangential issues surrounding
> > those
>>> > > > counterpoints.  I was
>>> > > > determined not to let that happen again, so I
> > held
>>> > > > off my responses.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Imagine my position: if I respond to some side
> > issue
>>> > > > brought up by someone
>>> > > > else, Bradford will seize the opportunity to
> > talk
>>> > > > about that.  Bradford
>>> > > > escapes from the checkmate, being able to run
> > away
>>> > > > in the confusion of
>>> > > > irrelevant arguments.  In fact I attempted to
>>> > > > explain this in that thread.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kind Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 27, 2007 3:09 AM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Farewell frostman, it's a shame too, I thought
> > you
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > at least a tiny bit more sense than your
> > friend
>>>> > > > > Keiths, but you just couldn't let it go. You
>>> > > > continued
>>>> > > > > to ignore the reasons why posts were deleted
> > (you
>>>> > > > > would ignore posts that refuted your
> > assertions in
>>>> > > > > other threads as well, such as the Fodor one),
> > and
>>>> > > > > continued to accuse us of wrong doing, even
> > when
>>> > > > we
>>>> > > > > asked you to stop, you continued, thats a bit
> > like
>>> > > > a 4
>>>> > > > > year old. Now you're preaching martydom to the
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:16   

Part 2:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:14:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

OK we may be getting closer to understanding each other.  Again I pledge
that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume you are doing likewise.

This was the series of observations which upon which I drew my conclusions:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.
- You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's working now.
- I see two posts by you which say "test" and "test2" in them memory hole.
This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as your tests presumably
confirmed it to for you.
- Afterward, several of my posts which defend my position on the Davies
quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear,
without going to the memory hole.
- I ask if the memory hole is really working.
- Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The memory hole works fine.
:grin:"
- I notice the last post in which I so asked is moved to the memory hole.
This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memory hole is
working.
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.

In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me, it appeared that you
were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to delete posts permanently,
without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you weren't really asking that,
I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase "don't understand" like
ten times.

Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the decision I am asked to
respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am just dumbfounded.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:28:45 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually, I thought you were playing dumb, which is
why my last few e-mails were rather aggressive, for
which I apologize deeply. I completely see how you are
confused and feel like you have been done an
injustice, for which again I apologize. But I can
assure you that everything that happened was a huge
misunderstanding. Let me see if I can make the series
of events clear to you, by quoting each of your
points:

- A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
- Bradford says he deleted it.

This is when the Memory Hole was not working, he
deleted because he was following my instructions, I
told all the bloggers to save a copy of any offending
comments and send them to me. In hindsight, this was
bad advice because of the impression it gave.

- Afterward, several of my posts which defend position
on the Davies quote and defend my position on
"non-theism" vs "anti-theism" disappear, without going
to the memory hole.

This was all me. I deleted them, as I said in the
thread, because I was reacting to what I saw as an
attempted circumvention of Bradford's initial decision
(I called it whining), that is, Bradford only deleted
1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the
rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile
reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I
apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the
deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were
my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile
attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his
decision. Really you just felt that your posts were
unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at
that as well.

Let me give you an idea of my thinking here. Our
policy is to move a comment to the memory hole, but
you can understand the frustration if someone takes
that comment, and reposts it *again* in the thread.
This is what I perceived as happening. However you had
no way of knowing that the memory hole was not
working, and my instructions to the crew, so I see now
that this was all just a really bad misunderstanding,
and it's completely my fault. I usually delete posts
as a deterent, if you attempt to circumvent the
decision of the blogger, you will see that you have
wasted your time, kind of deal, I hope you can
understand.

So like I said, you were not banned as a result of a
vote, which is usually how TT decides to ban people.
So I have no problem with you comming back. You also
understand though, that if a blogger asks you to stop
commenting in their thread, you should respect that.
If you see a comment of yours moved to the memory
hole, don't try to re-summarize it in an attempt to
restore it to the thread. I'm sure you aware of all
this I'm just letting you know so that this whole
schmiel doesn't happen again.

I will be more careful in the future with that delete
button. So, if we understand eachother now, I'll be
more than happy to lift your ban.





--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK we may be getting closer to understanding each
> > other.  Again I pledge
> > that I am acting in good faith, and I will assume
> > you are doing likewise.
> >
> > This was the series of observations which upon which
> > I drew my conclusions:
> >
> > - A post of mine is deleted without a trace.
> > - Bradford says he deleted it.
> > - You say the memory hole wasn't working, but it's
> > working now.
> > - I see two posts by you which say "test" and
> > "test2" in them memory hole.
> > This is evidence that the memory hole is working, as
> > your tests presumably
> > confirmed it to for you.
> > - Afterward, several of my posts which defend my
> > position on the Davies
> > quote and defend my position on "non-theism" vs
> > "anti-theism" disappear,
> > without going to the memory hole.
> > - I ask if the memory hole is really working.
> > - Bradford responds, "Frostman, you're wrong. The
> > memory hole works fine.
> > :grin:"
> > - I notice the last post in which I so asked is
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that
> > the memory hole is
> > working.
> > - Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I
> > defend my position on
> > the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational,
> > on-topic post.
> > - That post is deleted, without going to the memory
> > hole.
> > - I inquire again about these deletions.  Those
> > inquiries are deleted.
> > - Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is
> > deleted.
> > - Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my
> > position, or (2)
> > questions these deletions in light of the policy, is
> > deleted without being
> > moved to the memory hole.
> > - The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh
> > claims against me, with
> > all of my responses to those claims deleted.
> >
> > In your penultimate (I love that word) email to me,
> > it appeared that you
> > were asking me the respect Bradford's decision to
> > delete posts permanently,
> > without moving them the memory hole.  Surely you
> > weren't really asking that,
> > I thought.  Hence my last email mentioned the phrase
> > "don't understand" like
> > ten times.
> >
> > Actually I still don't understand.  What *is* the
> > decision I am asked to
> > respect?  I promise I am not playing dumb.  I am
> > just dumbfounded.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:00:34 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know how easily
misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.  Normally at this point I
would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would both have a laugh at
the confluence of coincidences which brought about the misunderstanding.

But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't been made on TT
explaining the situation.  You continue to stand mute in the face of all the
derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took place in the aftermath of
our ban.




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:28 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

I feel that this is justified given your false charge
of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
apologized for.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
> > how easily
> > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
> > Normally at this point I
> > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
> > both have a laugh at
> > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
> > the misunderstanding.
> >
> > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT
> > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
> > mute in the face of all the
> > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
> > place in the aftermath of
> > our ban.
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:23:24 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so quickly.  When I
pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I would assume you were
also, it appeared that we at last discovered the misunderstanding at root in
these events.

Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly viewed as a pariah again, for
some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in good faith, you
assume.  There is little I can do once that assumption is made, however I
will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.

On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was
clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would
agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing
"most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true..."

The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the final three-sentence
paragraph of his editorial?

In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides both are wrong, and says
something entirely antithetical in the third sentence.  He forgets to delete
the first two sentences on his word processor, a mistake which goes
unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New York Times.

In the second scenario, he writes the three disparate sentences
intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final paragraph as a whole is
meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is destroyed when just the
final sentence is taken without the preceding two.

Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is certainly no theist.
What are the chances that he meant his final paragraph to be used in the way
Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.

Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I still can't fathom how),
that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined an entirely reasonable
and rational position, and I expect all or most non-ID folks would agree
with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational discussion were people are
free to disagree, or not?

Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You have done several things
which were outright wrong, and you have apologized for them (thank you).
Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My posts were not saved, and
they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts outlined my position on
the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting those posts permanently,
you denied me the chance to defend myself against Bradford's accusations.

And now I am required to defend my position again.  Actually you did not ask
for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my position!  Moreover, my
renouncement is being held as a precondition for *you* to admit the mistakes
*you* made!

I am astonished.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I feel that this is justified given your false charge
> > of out of context quotation, which you have not yet
> > apologized for.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all know
>> > > how easily
>> > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>> > > Normally at this point I
>> > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we would
>> > > both have a laugh at
>> > > the confluence of coincidences which brought about
>> > > the misunderstanding.
>> > >
>> > > But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT
>> > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>> > > mute in the face of all the
>> > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>> > > place in the aftermath of
>> > > our ban.
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:53 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
at all.

But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
him of taking the quote out of context was
inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.

Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
Bradford before returning.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hi Frostman,

I am going to be very busy for the rest of the day,
but I'll have a chance to post your apology later this
evening, you can just send it to me whenever your
ready, no need to do it in Word, just as an e-mail
message is fine.

In the blog, I'll also include my apology to you, and
explaining the situation and then everything should be
ok.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
> > quickly.  When I
> > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
> > would assume you were
> > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
> > misunderstanding at root in
> > these events.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
> > viewed as a pariah again, for
> > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
> > good faith, you
> > assume.  There is little I can do once that
> > assumption is made, however I
> > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
> >
> > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
> > the Davies quote was
> > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
> > "anti-theists" alike would
> > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
> > clipped. There is nothing
> > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
> > true..."
> >
> > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
> > final three-sentence
> > paragraph of his editorial?
> >
> > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
> > both are wrong, and says
> > something entirely antithetical in the third
> > sentence.  He forgets to delete
> > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
> > mistake which goes
> > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
> > York Times.
> >
> > In the second scenario, he writes the three
> > disparate sentences
> > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
> > paragraph as a whole is
> > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
> > destroyed when just the
> > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
> >
> > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
> > certainly no theist.
> > What are the chances that he meant his final
> > paragraph to be used in the way
> > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
> >
> > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
> > still can't fathom how),
> > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
> > an entirely reasonable
> > and rational position, and I expect all or most
> > non-ID folks would agree
> > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
> > discussion were people are
> > free to disagree, or not?
> >
> > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
> > have done several things
> > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
> > for them (thank you).
> > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
> > posts were not saved, and
> > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
> > outlined my position on
> > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
> > those posts permanently,
> > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
> > Bradford's accusations.
> >
> > And now I am required to defend my position again.
> > Actually you did not ask
> > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
> > position!  Moreover, my
> > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
> > *you* to admit the mistakes
> > *you* made!
> >
> > I am astonished.
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> > charge
>> > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
> > yet
>> > > apologized for.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
> > know
>>> > > > how easily
>>> > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>> > > > Normally at this point I
>>> > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
> > would
>>> > > > both have a laugh at
>>> > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
> > about
>>> > > > the misunderstanding.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
> > hasn't
>>> > > > been made on TT
>>> > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>> > > > mute in the face of all the
>>> > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>> > > > place in the aftermath of
>>> > > > our ban.
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:33 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear with me again.  Again, I
am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I pledge once more that I am
acting in good faith.

I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been explained thoroughly
enough.  I also hope that, even though you may disagree with it, you see it
is as a position someone could take (albeit erroneously).  I know that
others agree with me.

It is my understanding that participants at Telic Thoughts are allowed to
disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago if this was not the
case, as would a slew of others.

You and Bradford disagree with my position on the Davies quote.  That is
fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get somewhere, but that is
not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that we should be allowed to
disagree.

Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my position.  It appears that I
am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement offends Bradford.  Surely
you can't mean that, so what do you mean?

It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of context!"  That certainly
would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.  Look at my post --- it
merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."

Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are quoted out of context on
Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny fraction of bloggers
actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no accusations of malicious
intent.

As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling that I am being asked
to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my renouncement in order
to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging those mistakes that you
have heretofore only privately acknowledged.

I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but I am still fumbling
around trying to understand your position.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a debate,
> > you should always offer your opponent the benefit of
> > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including the
> > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
> > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much, if
> > at all.
> >
> > But anyway, the details here don't matter. Accusing
> > him of taking the quote out of context was
> > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
> >
> > Actually this was part of my stipulation all along, I
> > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed yet
> > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize to
> > Bradford before returning.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour again so
>> > > quickly.  When I
>> > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and that I
>> > > would assume you were
>> > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>> > > misunderstanding at root in
>> > > these events.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>> > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>> > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer acting in
>> > > good faith, you
>> > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>> > > assumption is made, however I
>> > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>> > >
>> > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is that
>> > > the Davies quote was
>> > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>> > > "anti-theists" alike would
>> > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>> > > clipped. There is nothing
>> > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is
>> > > true..."
>> > >
>> > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>> > > final three-sentence
>> > > paragraph of his editorial?
>> > >
>> > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences, decides
>> > > both are wrong, and says
>> > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>> > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>> > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>> > > mistake which goes
>> > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the New
>> > > York Times.
>> > >
>> > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>> > > disparate sentences
>> > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The final
>> > > paragraph as a whole is
>> > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning is
>> > > destroyed when just the
>> > > final sentence is taken without the preceding two.
>> > >
>> > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies is
>> > > certainly no theist.
>> > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>> > > paragraph to be used in the way
>> > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>> > >
>> > > Though you personally disagree with me (and sorry I
>> > > still can't fathom how),
>> > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have outlined
>> > > an entirely reasonable
>> > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>> > > non-ID folks would agree
>> > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>> > > discussion were people are
>> > > free to disagree, or not?
>> > >
>> > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.  You
>> > > have done several things
>> > > which were outright wrong, and you have apologized
>> > > for them (thank you).
>> > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>> > > posts were not saved, and
>> > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those posts
>> > > outlined my position on
>> > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>> > > those posts permanently,
>> > > you denied me the chance to defend myself against
>> > > Bradford's accusations.
>> > >
>> > > And now I am required to defend my position again.
>> > > Actually you did not ask
>> > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>> > > position!  Moreover, my
>> > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>> > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>> > > *you* made!
>> > >
>> > > I am astonished.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > > charge
>>> > > > of out of context quotation, which you have not
>> > > yet
>>> > > > apologized for.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I appreciate the conciliatory tone, and we all
>> > > know
>>>> > > > > how easily
>>>> > > > > misunderstandings can happen on the Internet.
>>>> > > > > Normally at this point I
>>>> > > > > would try to be conciliatory in return, and we
>> > > would
>>>> > > > > both have a laugh at
>>>> > > > > the confluence of coincidences which brought
>> > > about
>>>> > > > > the misunderstanding.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > But what concerns me now is that a statement
>> > > hasn't
>>>> > > > > been made on TT
>>>> > > > > explaining the situation.  You continue to stand
>>>> > > > > mute in the face of all the
>>>> > > > > derogatory remarks and high-five-ing which took
>>>> > > > > place in the aftermath of
>>>> > > > > our ban.
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:17   

Part 3:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:37:23 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
to do about the broken memory hole).

For future reference, perhaps understanding that
telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
with various phrases from the Talmud.

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
one sentence.

So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
least for using sloppy language and then accusing
Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
language). It would go a long way in putting this
situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
a civil manner.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
> > with me again.  Again, I
> > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
> > pledge once more that I am
> > acting in good faith.
> >
> > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
> > explained thoroughly
> > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
> > disagree with it, you see it
> > is as a position someone could take (albeit
> > erroneously).  I know that
> > others agree with me.
> >
> > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
> > Thoughts are allowed to
> > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
> > if this was not the
> > case, as would a slew of others.
> >
> > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
> > Davies quote.  That is
> > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
> > somewhere, but that is
> > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
> > we should be allowed to
> > disagree.
> >
> > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
> > position.  It appears that I
> > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
> > offends Bradford.  Surely
> > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
> >
> > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
> > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
> > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
> > context!"  That certainly
> > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
> > Look at my post --- it
> > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
> >
> > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
> > quoted out of context on
> > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
> > fraction of bloggers
> > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
> > accusations of malicious
> > intent.
> >
> > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
> > that I am being asked
> > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
> > renouncement in order
> > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
> > those mistakes that you
> > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
> >
> > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
> > I am still fumbling
> > around trying to understand your position.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
> > debate,
>> > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
> > of
>> > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
> > the
>> > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>> > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
> > if
>> > > at all.
>> > >
>> > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
> > Accusing
>> > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>> > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>> > >
>> > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
> > along, I
>> > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
> > yet
>> > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
> > to
>> > > Bradford before returning.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
> > again so
>>> > > > quickly.  When I
>>> > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
> > that I
>>> > > > would assume you were
>>> > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>> > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>> > > > these events.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>> > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>> > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
> > acting in
>>> > > > good faith, you
>>> > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>> > > > assumption is made, however I
>>> > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
> > that
>>> > > > the Davies quote was
>>> > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>> > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>> > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>> > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>> > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
> > contrary is
>>> > > > true..."
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>> > > > final three-sentence
>>> > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
> > decides
>>> > > > both are wrong, and says
>>> > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>> > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>> > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>> > > > mistake which goes
>>> > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
> > New
>>> > > > York Times.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>> > > > disparate sentences
>>> > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
> > final
>>> > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>> > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
> > is
>>> > > > destroyed when just the
>>> > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
> > two.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
> > is
>>> > > > certainly no theist.
>>> > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>> > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>> > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
> > sorry I
>>> > > > still can't fathom how),
>>> > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
> > outlined
>>> > > > an entirely reasonable
>>> > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>> > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>> > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>> > > > discussion were people are
>>> > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
> > You
>>> > > > have done several things
>>> > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
> > apologized
>>> > > > for them (thank you).
>>> > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>> > > > posts were not saved, and
>>> > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
> > posts
>>> > > > outlined my position on
>>> > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>> > > > those posts permanently,
>>> > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
> > against
>>> > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And now I am required to defend my position
> > again.
>>> > > > Actually you did not ask
>>> > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>> > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>> > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>> > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>> > > > *you* made!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I am astonished.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
> >
=== message truncated ===



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:55:17 -0500
To:
"Nelson Alonso" <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies quote again.  In short, I
believe it was a mistake to use only the final sentence of that
three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part of any quoting is to be
faithful to the author's intention.  As you said, Bradford was not talking
about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by definition an out of context
quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You have reinforced my
position on this.

Calling attention to an out of context quote is not inherently offensive or
derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more often than you believe
it does --- and the reason for it happening is well-known.  It does not
involve malicious intent.

All you have to do is put yourself in the position of the blogger.  Imagine
you are reading an article, and a particular sentence or passage gives you a
jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is possible that you may not
take the surrounding text sufficiently into account --- you just love that
passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.  And in your focusing, you
may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing conniving about it.
It's just part of the package of human emotions, which is our greatest
asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead us into logical troubles.

This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally be taken out of
context, but you see the gist of it.

And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed once again!

This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a digression from the original
issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is that a statement hasn't
been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is the number one issue.
My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of which I
have no concern at the moment.

When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you wrote a very contrite email
to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am grateful that we both stuck
it out long enough to figure out what really happened.  That in itself may
be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a little less tolerant, one
party may have stomped away, and the problem would be left unsolved.

The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It took genuine honor to
write that email, but there was no public display of that honor.  I waited
for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear on the TT thread, but
none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a false impression of my
actions there.  And they still do.  With all the dignity you showed in your
email, you could not muster the strength to clear my name.

And then came the email which bowled me over: that you would disclose the
misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon certain conditions which
I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return you will admit your
mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the unintentional consequence of
wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that, and we both know what it
is.

It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is to tell a lie.  You want
me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a position which I firmly
believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended this position.
(Remember, my position is that the quote is simply out of context, not that
Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow that, I would be lying.

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
> > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the quote
> > out of context". You were clearly making it out to be
> > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking quotes
> > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.  If
> > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you can
> > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
> > should apologize for such sloppy use of language (as I
> > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding what
> > to do about the broken memory hole).
> >
> > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
> > telling someone that they have taken a quote out of
> > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is not
> > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
> > selectively choose sentences that would clearly alter
> > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do it
> > with various phrases from the Talmud.
> >
> > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to
> > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
> > reaction from various atheists on the internet to the
> > one sentence.
> >
> > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
> > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
> > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts because he
> > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
> > language). It would go a long way in putting this
> > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
> > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
> > rationally disagree but still engage with eachother in
> > a civil manner.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please bear
>> > > with me again.  Again, I
>> > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.  I
>> > > pledge once more that I am
>> > > acting in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has been
>> > > explained thoroughly
>> > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>> > > disagree with it, you see it
>> > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>> > > erroneously).  I know that
>> > > others agree with me.
>> > >
>> > > It is my understanding that participants at Telic
>> > > Thoughts are allowed to
>> > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long ago
>> > > if this was not the
>> > > case, as would a slew of others.
>> > >
>> > > You and Bradford disagree with my position on the
>> > > Davies quote.  That is
>> > > fine.  We could debate it more, and we may even get
>> > > somewhere, but that is
>> > > not relevant right now.  What *is* relevant is that
>> > > we should be allowed to
>> > > disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Again you appear to be asking me to renounce my
>> > > position.  It appears that I
>> > > am not allowed to disagree because my disagreement
>> > > offends Bradford.  Surely
>> > > you can't mean that, so what do you mean?
>> > >
>> > > It would be one thing if I said, "Bradford, you
>> > > <bleep> <bleep>, I hereby
>> > > accuse you of maliciously taking a quote out of
>> > > context!"  That certainly
>> > > would require an apology.  But I did no such thing.
>> > > Look at my post --- it
>> > > merely says "Davies was quoted out of context."
>> > >
>> > > Every day scores of people (probably hundreds) are
>> > > quoted out of context on
>> > > Internet blogs.  It is commonplace.  Only a tiny
>> > > fraction of bloggers
>> > > actually do it on purpose, maliciously.  I made no
>> > > accusations of malicious
>> > > intent.
>> > >
>> > > As I said in my last email, not only is it troubling
>> > > that I am being asked
>> > > to renounce my position, but that you must obtain my
>> > > renouncement in order
>> > > to do the honorable thing of publicly acknowledging
>> > > those mistakes that you
>> > > have heretofore only privately acknowledged.
>> > >
>> > > I regret that I am mostly repeating myself here, but
>> > > I am still fumbling
>> > > around trying to understand your position.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 5:07 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is just more misunderstanding, but in a
>> > > debate,
>>> > > > you should always offer your opponent the benefit
>> > > of
>>> > > > the doubt. He disagreed with you that including
>> > > the
>>> > > > preceding sentences you accused him of purposely
>>> > > > leaving out changed the meaning of his post much,
>> > > if
>>> > > > at all.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > But anyway, the details here don't matter.
>> > > Accusing
>>> > > > him of taking the quote out of context was
>>> > > > inappropriate. He just disagrees with you.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Actually this was part of my stipulation all
>> > > along, I
>>> > > > just didn't mention it because you had not agreed
>> > > yet
>>> > > > to have your banishment lifted, that you apologize
>> > > to
>>> > > > Bradford before returning.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I am sorry our conversation has turned sour
>> > > again so
>>>> > > > > quickly.  When I
>>>> > > > > pledged that I was acting in good faith, and
>> > > that I
>>>> > > > > would assume you were
>>>> > > > > also, it appeared that we at last discovered the
>>>> > > > > misunderstanding at root in
>>>> > > > > these events.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Unfortunately it would seem that I am suddenly
>>>> > > > > viewed as a pariah again, for
>>>> > > > > some reason I do not know.  I am no longer
>> > > acting in
>>>> > > > > good faith, you
>>>> > > > > assume.  There is little I can do once that
>>>> > > > > assumption is made, however I
>>>> > > > > will do my part in explaining the Davies quote.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On TT I said this: "The fact of the matter is
>> > > that
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote was
>>>> > > > > clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and
>>>> > > > > "anti-theists" alike would
>>>> > > > > agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you
>>>> > > > > clipped. There is nothing
>>>> > > > > "most discordant" about them; indeed the
>> > > contrary is
>>>> > > > > true..."
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > The issue is: what was Davies' intention in the
>>>> > > > > final three-sentence
>>>> > > > > paragraph of his editorial?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In one scenario, he writes two sentences,
>> > > decides
>>>> > > > > both are wrong, and says
>>>> > > > > something entirely antithetical in the third
>>>> > > > > sentence.  He forgets to delete
>>>> > > > > the first two sentences on his word processor, a
>>>> > > > > mistake which goes
>>>> > > > > unnoticed until he sends the final draft to the
>> > > New
>>>> > > > > York Times.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the second scenario, he writes the three
>>>> > > > > disparate sentences
>>>> > > > > intentionally with a common goal in mind.  The
>> > > final
>>>> > > > > paragraph as a whole is
>>>> > > > > meant to conclude his editorial, and its meaning
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > destroyed when just the
>>>> > > > > final sentence is taken without the preceding
>> > > two.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Now, which scenario is more likely?  Paul Davies
>> > > is
>>>> > > > > certainly no theist.
>>>> > > > > What are the chances that he meant his final
>>>> > > > > paragraph to be used in the way
>>>> > > > > Bradford uses it?  Effectively zero.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Though you personally disagree with me (and
>> > > sorry I
>>>> > > > > still can't fathom how),
>>>> > > > > that is not exactly relevant here.  I have
>> > > outlined
>>>> > > > > an entirely reasonable
>>>> > > > > and rational position, and I expect all or most
>>>> > > > > non-ID folks would agree
>>>> > > > > with me.  Is Telic Thoughts a place for rational
>>>> > > > > discussion were people are
>>>> > > > > free to disagree, or not?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Your last email concerns me on so many levels.
>> > > You
>>>> > > > > have done several things
>>>> > > > > which were outright wrong, and you have
>> > > apologized
>>>> > > > > for them (thank you).
>>>> > > > > Among them, you violated TT deletion policy.  My
>>>> > > > > posts were not saved, and
>>>> > > > > they were not added to the memory hole.  Those
>> > > posts
>>>> > > > > outlined my position on
>>>> > > > > the Davies quote, summarized above.  By deleting
>>>> > > > > those posts permanently,
>>>> > > > > you denied me the chance to defend myself
>> > > against
>>>> > > > > Bradford's accusations.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > And now I am required to defend my position
>> > > again.
>>>> > > > > Actually you did not ask
>>>> > > > > for my defense --- you asked me to renounce my
>>>> > > > > position!  Moreover, my
>>>> > > > > renouncement is being held as a precondition for
>>>> > > > > *you* to admit the mistakes
>>>> > > > > *you* made!
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I am astonished.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:00 PM, Nelson Alonso
>>>> > > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > I feel that this is justified given your false
>> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:16:32 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Hello again Frostman,

Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
That the last sentence in question makes atheists
uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
in that none of the critics that have been confronted
with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
context).

You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
either way, which means you are willing to do it again
even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.

So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.

Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.

Sincerely,
Guts


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
> > quote again.  In short, I
> > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
> > sentence of that
> > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
> > of any quoting is to be
> > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
> > Bradford was not talking
> > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
> > definition an out of context
> > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
> > have reinforced my
> > position on this.
> >
> > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
> > inherently offensive or
> > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
> > often than you believe
> > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
> > well-known.  It does not
> > involve malicious intent.
> >
> > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
> > of the blogger.  Imagine
> > you are reading an article, and a particular
> > sentence or passage gives you a
> > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
> > possible that you may not
> > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
> > --- you just love that
> > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
> > And in your focusing, you
> > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
> > conniving about it.
> > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
> > which is our greatest
> > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
> > us into logical troubles.
> >
> > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
> > be taken out of
> > context, but you see the gist of it.
> >
> > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
> > once again!
> >
> > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
> > digression from the original
> > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
> > that a statement hasn't
> > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
> > the number one issue.
> > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
> > separate issue, of which I
> > have no concern at the moment.
> >
> > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
> > wrote a very contrite email
> > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
> > grateful that we both stuck
> > it out long enough to figure out what really
> > happened.  That in itself may
> > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
> > little less tolerant, one
> > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
> > be left unsolved.
> >
> > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
> > took genuine honor to
> > write that email, but there was no public display of
> > that honor.  I waited
> > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
> > on the TT thread, but
> > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
> > false impression of my
> > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
> > dignity you showed in your
> > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
> > name.
> >
> > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
> > you would disclose the
> > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
> > certain conditions which
> > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
> > you will admit your
> > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
> > unintentional consequence of
> > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
> > and we both know what it
> > is.
> >
> > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
> > to tell a lie.  You want
> > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
> > position which I firmly
> > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
> > this position.
> > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
> > out of context, not that
> > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
> > that, I would be lying.
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>> > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
> > quote
>> > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
> > be
>> > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
> > quotes
>> > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
> >  If
>> > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
> > can
>> > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>> > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
> > (as I
>> > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
> > what
>> > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>> > >
>> > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>> > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
> > of
>> > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
> > not
>> > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>> > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
> > alter
>> > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
> > it
>> > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>> > >
>> > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
> > to
>> > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>> > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
> > the
>> > > one sentence.
>> > >
>> > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>> > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>> > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
> > because he
>> > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>> > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>> > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>> > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>> > > rationally disagree but still engage with
> > eachother in
>> > > a civil manner.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
> > bear
>>> > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>> > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
> > I
>>> > > > pledge once more that I am
>>> > > > acting in good faith.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
> > been
>>> > > > explained thoroughly
>>> > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>> > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>> > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>> > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>> > > > others agree with me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It is my understanding that participants at
> > Telic
>>> > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>> > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
> > ago
>>> > > > if this was not the
>>> > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>> > > >
> >
=== message truncated ===



Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:17   

Part 4:

Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:03:25 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

You have misunderstood.  In my last email I made clear, or I thought I made
clear, that I am unconcerned about the state of my banning.  That's not the
issue here.

The issue is that you have not done the right thing by publicly explaining
the mistakes you made to those at TT, and the unfortunate consequences of
those mistakes.  Like I said in my last email, "This is the number one
issue.  My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a separate issue, of
which I have no concern at the moment."

Previously you said to me, among other things, "...I deleted the rest
because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's
initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of
the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because
of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to
circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly
deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well."

Why would you continue to hold that information to yourself?  When you
realized the misunderstanding, why didn't you rush to correct it?  Why have
you still not corrected it?  You may not like me, but obviously that is no
excuse.  We both know what is right and what is wrong here.  Why have you
not done the right thing?

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:16 AM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Hello again Frostman,
> >
> > Unfortunately on this point, I see no out for you.
> > That the last sentence in question makes atheists
> > uncomfortable is an irrefutable fact. You can see this
> > in that none of the critics that have been confronted
> > with this lone quote have taken your position (out of
> > context).
> >
> > You also don't see how disingenuous it is to accuse
> > someone of such a thing, when the evidence can point
> > either way, which means you are willing to do it again
> > even if I let you back in. I cannot allow that.
> >
> > So in conclusion, I must say once again, farewell
> > Frostman. It's a shame, you had potential.
> >
> > Soon banning at TT will become a thing of the past,
> > because I've programmed an alternative to the memory
> > hole. It's too bad you were not part of this new era.
> > Still, I frequently visit anti-ID forums, so perhaps
> > this is not goodbye, just a farewell, for now.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Guts
> >
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > I need not argue in depth my stance on the Davies
>> > > quote again.  In short, I
>> > > believe it was a mistake to use only the final
>> > > sentence of that
>> > > three-sentence paragraph.  The most important part
>> > > of any quoting is to be
>> > > faithful to the author's intention.  As you said,
>> > > Bradford was not talking
>> > > about Davies' intended meaning.  That is by
>> > > definition an out of context
>> > > quote.  And that is exactly the problem here.  You
>> > > have reinforced my
>> > > position on this.
>> > >
>> > > Calling attention to an out of context quote is not
>> > > inherently offensive or
>> > > derogatory.  It does happen often --- at least more
>> > > often than you believe
>> > > it does --- and the reason for it happening is
>> > > well-known.  It does not
>> > > involve malicious intent.
>> > >
>> > > All you have to do is put yourself in the position
>> > > of the blogger.  Imagine
>> > > you are reading an article, and a particular
>> > > sentence or passage gives you a
>> > > jolt of excitement.  In your enthusiasm, it is
>> > > possible that you may not
>> > > take the surrounding text sufficiently into account
>> > > --- you just love that
>> > > passage!  You are focusing hard on that passage.
>> > > And in your focusing, you
>> > > may forget about the other stuff.  There is nothing
>> > > conniving about it.
>> > > It's just part of the package of human emotions,
>> > > which is our greatest
>> > > asset.  Unfortunately, emotions can sometimes lead
>> > > us into logical troubles.
>> > >
>> > > This is not the only way a quote can unintentionally
>> > > be taken out of
>> > > context, but you see the gist of it.
>> > >
>> > > And on a lighter note, Godwin's Law is confirmed
>> > > once again!
>> > >
>> > > This whole discussion of the Davies quote is a
>> > > digression from the original
>> > > issue I brought up: "But what concerns me now is
>> > > that a statement hasn't
>> > > been made on TT explaining the situation."  This is
>> > > the number one issue.
>> > > My reinstatement or non-reinstatement at TT is a
>> > > separate issue, of which I
>> > > have no concern at the moment.
>> > >
>> > > When you realized the huge misunderstanding, you
>> > > wrote a very contrite email
>> > > to me, for which you deserve much credit.  I am
>> > > grateful that we both stuck
>> > > it out long enough to figure out what really
>> > > happened.  That in itself may
>> > > be somewhat rare.  If either one of us had been a
>> > > little less tolerant, one
>> > > party may have stomped away, and the problem would
>> > > be left unsolved.
>> > >
>> > > The thing that bothers me is what happened next.  It
>> > > took genuine honor to
>> > > write that email, but there was no public display of
>> > > that honor.  I waited
>> > > for an explanation of the misunderstanding to appear
>> > > on the TT thread, but
>> > > none did.  Meanwhile, everyone continued to have a
>> > > false impression of my
>> > > actions there.  And they still do.  With all the
>> > > dignity you showed in your
>> > > email, you could not muster the strength to clear my
>> > > name.
>> > >
>> > > And then came the email which bowled me over: that
>> > > you would disclose the
>> > > misunderstanding to the TT community, but only upon
>> > > certain conditions which
>> > > I must fulfill.  I will do something, and in return
>> > > you will admit your
>> > > mistakes publicly --- mistakes which had the
>> > > unintentional consequence of
>> > > wrongfully defaming me.  There is a name for that,
>> > > and we both know what it
>> > > is.
>> > >
>> > > It gets worse: the "something" you want me to do is
>> > > to tell a lie.  You want
>> > > me to renounce my position on the Davies quote, a
>> > > position which I firmly
>> > > believe.  I have squarely and successfully defended
>> > > this position.
>> > > (Remember, my position is that the quote is simply
>> > > out of context, not that
>> > > Bradford willfully did it.)  If I were to disavow
>> > > that, I would be lying.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
>> > > What is stopping you from
>> > > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
>> > > it contingent upon *my*
>> > > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
>> > > Davies quote is totally
>> > > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
>> > > right thing.
>> > >
>> > > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
>> > > situation.  Why am I
>> > > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
>> > > right thing?  Why don't
>> > > you just do it?
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 28, 2007 7:37 PM, Nelson Alonso
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > You used words like "you clipped" and "setting the
>>> > > > stage" when referring to Bradford "*taking* the
>> > > quote
>>> > > > out of context". You were clearly making it out to
>> > > be
>>> > > > a malicious act on the part of Bradford. Taking
>> > > quotes
>>> > > > out of context can rarely be acheived by accident.
>> > >  If
>>> > > > that was in fact, not what you meant, surely you
>> > > can
>>> > > > see how one can take offense nonetheless, and you
>>> > > > should apologize for such sloppy use of language
>> > > (as I
>>> > > > apologized to you for sloppy judgement regarding
>> > > what
>>> > > > to do about the broken memory hole).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For future reference, perhaps understanding that
>>> > > > telling someone that they have taken a quote out
>> > > of
>>> > > > context is extremely offensive, and in fact, is
>> > > not
>>> > > > commonplace. It actaully takes a lot of work to
>>> > > > selectively choose sentences that would clearly
>> > > alter
>>> > > > the meaning of the paragraph. The Nazis used to do
>> > > it
>>> > > > with various phrases from the Talmud.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation
>> > > to
>>> > > > say he took it out of context, Bradford was not
>>> > > > talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the
>>> > > > reaction from various atheists on the internet to
>> > > the
>>> > > > one sentence.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So again, I truly hope that you will apologize at
>>> > > > least for using sloppy language and then accusing
>>> > > > Bradford of unethically deleting your posts
>> > > because he
>>> > > > was avoiding your arguments (in reality, sloppy
>>> > > > language). It would go a long way in putting this
>>> > > > situation behind us, and ultimately, serve as an
>>> > > > excellent example of how two opposing "camps" can
>>> > > > rationally disagree but still engage with
>> > > eachother in
>>> > > > a civil manner.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > We clearly have trouble communicating.  Please
>> > > bear
>>>> > > > > with me again.  Again, I
>>>> > > > > am not playing dumb --- I am just dumbfounded.
>> > > I
>>>> > > > > pledge once more that I am
>>>> > > > > acting in good faith.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I hope that my position on the Davies quote has
>> > > been
>>>> > > > > explained thoroughly
>>>> > > > > enough.  I also hope that, even though you may
>>>> > > > > disagree with it, you see it
>>>> > > > > is as a position someone could take (albeit
>>>> > > > > erroneously).  I know that
>>>> > > > > others agree with me.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > It is my understanding that participants at
>> > > Telic
>>>> > > > > Thoughts are allowed to
>>>> > > > > disagree.  Surely I would have been banned long
>> > > ago
>>>> > > > > if this was not the
>>>> > > > > case, as would a slew of others.
>>>> > > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:28 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

Though you have not answered yet (been very little time), I feel obligated
to address what I suspect your response will be.

You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first, and then I will do the
right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused this misunderstanding at
TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from
doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task alone: to candidly say
publicly what you have candidly said to me privately.

I regret to simply restate what I said in my penultimate (I love that word!)
email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored it:

Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?  What is stopping you from
explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is it contingent upon *my*
actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the Davies quote is totally
unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the right thing.

We both know what is right and what is wrong in this situation.  Why am I
even put in a position of persuading you to do the right thing?  Why don't
you just do it?

Sincerely,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
although there were many insults flung at TT, they
moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
you won't protest that).

Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
occured. However, the fact remains that your
accusation of out of context quotation was
inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
it.



--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:01:41 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Actually one last thing,

The offer still stands as to lifting your ban. You can
send me an apology to Bradford, which I will post as a
Blog Entry, along with my apology to you. I think two
paragraphs is enough.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Though you have not answered yet (been very little
> > time), I feel obligated
> > to address what I suspect your response will be.
> >
> > You will say again, in effect, "do this thing first,
> > and then I will do the
> > right thing and disclose my mistakes which caused
> > this misunderstanding at
> > TT."  Let me emphasize that there is nothing
> > whatsoever preventing you from
> > doing the latter.  That is your task, and your task
> > alone: to candidly say
> > publicly what you have candidly said to me
> > privately.
> >
> > I regret to simply restate what I said in my
> > penultimate (I love that word!)
> > email, but the fact remains that you totally ignored
> > it:
> >
> > Why is it so hard for you to do the right thing?
> > What is stopping you from
> > explaining the situation to the folks at TT?  Why is
> > it contingent upon *my*
> > actions?  My renouncement or affirmation of the
> > Davies quote is totally
> > unrelated.  As if you need my permission to do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > We both know what is right and what is wrong in this
> > situation.  Why am I
> > even put in a position of persuading you to do the
> > right thing?  Why don't
> > you just do it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Frostman
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:23 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

This is an ethical question for you to ponder on your own time.  You have
wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not set the record straight
in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.  You know what is right,
and you know that you have not done what is right.  It's really that simple.

You have already agreed with me that the Davies quote was taken out of
context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not talking about Davies'
intended meaning."  The most important part of any quoting is to be faithful
to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that simple.

Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue. First,
> > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
> > publically, check out your thread on AE (ironically,
> > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
> > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I bet
> > you won't protest that).
> >
> > Second, in that thread , I have *already* explained
> > what happened with numerous posts indicating what had
> > occured. However, the fact remains that your
> > accusation of out of context quotation was
> > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened. Thats
> > it.
> >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:46 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
make where I do it.

I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
context, I said your position that it was taken out of
context was irrational.

I've wasted enough time with you.

--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
> > your own time.  You have
> > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
> > set the record straight
> > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
> > You know what is right,
> > and you know that you have not done what is right.
> > It's really that simple.
> >
> > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
> > quote was taken out of
> > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
> > talking about Davies'
> > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
> > quoting is to be faithful
> > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
> > simple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
> > First,
>> > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>> > > publically, check out your thread on AE
> > (ironically,
>> > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>> > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
> > bet
>> > > you won't protest that).
>> > >
>> > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
> > explained
>> > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
> > had
>> > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>> > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>> > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
> > Thats
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:07 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

It makes a difference because the persons you inform of the wrongdoing
should be the same persons who witnessed the wrongdoing.  TT readers should
be informed, not AE readers.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does it
> > make where I do it.
> >
> > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
> > context, I said your position that it was taken out of
> > context was irrational.
> >
> > I've wasted enough time with you.
> >
> > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>> > > your own time.  You have
>> > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will not
>> > > set the record straight
>> > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing occurred.
>> > > You know what is right,
>> > > and you know that you have not done what is right.
>> > > It's really that simple.
>> > >
>> > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>> > > quote was taken out of
>> > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was not
>> > > talking about Davies'
>> > > intended meaning."  The most important part of any
>> > > quoting is to be faithful
>> > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really that
>> > > simple.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>> > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>> > > First,
>>> > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>> > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>> > > (ironically,
>>> > > > although there were many insults flung at TT, they
>>> > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but I
>> > > bet
>>> > > > you won't protest that).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>> > > explained
>>> > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating what
>> > > had
>>> > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>> > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>> > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>> > > Thats
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To:
Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com>

TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
what truly occured. All is well.


--- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It makes a difference because the persons you inform
> > of the wrongdoing
> > should be the same persons who witnessed the
> > wrongdoing.  TT readers should
> > be informed, not AE readers.
> >
> > Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to
> > the ethical obligation
> > in front of you.  You require nothing from me in
> > order to fulfill that
> > obligation.
> >
> > You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you
> > will not do it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 5:55 PM, Guts
> > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Now you're just being stupid. What difference does
> > it
>> > > make where I do it.
>> > >
>> > > I did not agree that Davies quote was taken out of
>> > > context, I said your position that it was taken
> > out of
>> > > context was irrational.
>> > >
>> > > I've wasted enough time with you.
>> > >
>> > > --- Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>>> > > > This is an ethical question for you to ponder on
>>> > > > your own time.  You have
>>> > > > wronged me, by your own admission, yet you will
> > not
>>> > > > set the record straight
>>> > > > in the same forum in which the wrongdoing
> > occurred.
>>> > > > You know what is right,
>>> > > > and you know that you have not done what is
> > right.
>>> > > > It's really that simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > You have already agreed with me that the Davies
>>> > > > quote was taken out of
>>> > > > context.  You have already said, "Bradford was
> > not
>>> > > > talking about Davies'
>>> > > > intended meaning."  The most important part of
> > any
>>> > > > quoting is to be faithful
>>> > > > to the author's intended meaning.  It's really
> > that
>>> > > > simple.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Frostman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Nov 29, 2007 3:57 PM, Guts
>>> > > > <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > This is my last e-mail to you on this issue.
>>> > > > First,
>>>> > > > > unlike you, I have noted my error in judgement
>>>> > > > > publically, check out your thread on AE
>>> > > > (ironically,
>>>> > > > > although there were many insults flung at TT,
> > they
>>>> > > > > moved the comments to threw it right back, but
> > I
>>> > > > bet
>>>> > > > > you won't protest that).
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Second, in that thread , I have *already*
>>> > > > explained
>>>> > > > > what happened with numerous posts indicating
> > what
>>> > > > had
>>>> > > > > occured. However, the fact remains that your
>>>> > > > > accusation of out of context quotation was
>>>> > > > > inappropriate, so , you deserve what happened.
>>> > > > Thats
>>>> > > > > it.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:53 -0500
To:
Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com>

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred.  Some TT readers
may also read AE, but many do not.  The honest course of action is to tell
them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation
in front of you.  You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that
obligation.

You know what the right thing to do is.  Yet you will not do it.

Sincerely,
Frostman

On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Guts <nanosoliton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > TT readers were already informed by my multiple posts
> > in the thread in question. Any moderate lurkers
> > reading the AE forum now have a clear indication of
> > what truly occured. All is well.
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:49:34 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com, nucacids@wowway.com

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=86519

Kind Regards from the Realm of the Banished,
Frostman




Subject:
Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:52:15 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding my
banishment from TT.

Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
however.

A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90


My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
me.

At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a particular
quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of context.  This
view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for my banning.

Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of a
free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not support
such a free exchange.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:21:31 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Hello Mike,

Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic Thoughts
can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.

With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.

Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I am
prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you may
read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This will
provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.

That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
significant.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120

Kind Regards,
Frostman

On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions surrounding
> > my banishment from TT.
> >
> > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
> > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
> > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
> > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
> > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
> > however.
> >
> > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90
> >
> >
> > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has told
> > me.
> >
> > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
> > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
> > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
> > my banning.
> >
> > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit of
> > a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
> > support such a free exchange.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 04:39:51 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Still no comment?  Curious  :)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466

On Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > Your failure to address or acknowledge unethical behavior at Telic
> > Thoughts can only be damaging to the blog's reputation.
> >
> > With the new year upon us, will make a new commitment to allow a free and
> > open exchange of rational ideas at Telic Thoughts?  As I have outlined
> > previously, such a free exchange currently absent at TT.
> >
> > Perhaps you believe nothing unethical actually happened, in which case I
> > am prepared to hand over this temporary email account to you, so that you
> > may read in full detail Guts' threats and subsequent apology to me.  This
> > will provide ample evidence for all statements I have made on this matter.
> >
> > That this situation has not been mentioned anywhere at TT is quite
> > significant.
> >
> > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=120
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Frostman
> >
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007 6:52 PM, Furtive Clown <furtive.clown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> > > Hi Mike,
>> > >
>> > > I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of the conditions
>> > > surrounding my banishment from TT.
>> > >
>> > > Not long ago there was a bit of confusion when Guts began deleting my
>> > > comments permanently, against TT policy.  These comments were not saved for
>> > > later additions to the memory hole, as was once suggested.  Guts has
>> > > apologized for this publicly at antievolution.org, and privately (rather
>> > > profusely) to me in email.  Guts has not apologized to the TT community,
>> > > however.
>> > >
>> > > A brief explanation of what happened, along with Guts' apology, is here:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....5;st=90
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My banishment was not approved by the majority of TTers, as Guts has
>> > > told me.
>> > >
>> > > At the present moment, I am banned because I hold the view that a
>> > > particular quote by Paul Davies which appeared on TT was taken out of
>> > > context.  This view is unacceptable to Guts, and remains the sole reason for
>> > > my banning.
>> > >
>> > > Each of my comments at TT has been rationally presented, in the spirit
>> > > of a free exchange of ideas.  You should be fully aware that TT does not
>> > > support such a free exchange.
>> > >
>> > > Kind Regards,
>> > > Frostman
>> > >
>> > >
> >



Subject:
Re: Hello again from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:16:42 -0500
To:
nucacids@wowway.com

Perhaps it will be easier if I simply ask you a direct question:

Guts offered to lift my ban if, in exchange, I would renounce my position
that a certain quote which appeared on TT was taken out of context.

Do you believe Guts' behavior here is ethical?

And do you want Telic Thoughts to be the sort of place where particular
rational positions are not allowed to be expressed?

As I have mentioned, I am prepared to give you this email account so that
you may view the correspondence with Guts yourself.

You have a clear ethical problem in front of you.

Kind Regards,
Frostman




Subject:
Re: farewell from Frostman
From:
"Furtive Clown" <furtive.clown@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 03:57:39 -0500
To:
nanosoliton@yahoo.com

Checkmate.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry92466

Regards,
Frostman

  
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,15:48   

Quote (keiths @ July 05 2008,03:57)
Joy is a veritable fountain of what I call 'blowtard'.  Designed to impress the rubes as deep erudition, it elicits hysterical laughter from people who actually understand the subjects that Joy pretends to discuss.

The thing I noticed about Joy is her tendency to proclaim victory. In her imaginary world, materialism is over, ID was a success, etc. Really twisted, the way she lies to herself.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,16:12   

I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,17:04   

Holy crap:

http://www.amazon.com/Design-....&sr=1-1

The Design Matrix, by Mike Gene:

Quote
# Paperback: 316 pages
# Publisher: Arbor Vitae Press; 1st edition (November 30, 2007)

# Amazon.com Sales Rank: #322,907 in Books


Nobody is reading Mike Gene's book. It makes The Edge of Evolution look like a best seller.

My faith in humanity just went up a notch.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,17:35   

Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,17:39   

What's up with Allen MacNeill?  Or is this old news?  From the "apology thread" at TT  
Quote
#  Allen_MacNeill Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am

If I may chime in, I learned long ago (from my mentor, Will Provine) that one has two responsibilities when considering the kinds of questions posed here: never to attack the person making assertions with which one disagrees, and always to attack their assertions, with all the evidence and vigor at one's disposal. This, to me, is the primary ethic of the academy: we cherish those with whom we disagree, for in our disagreement we both come to clarity about our own attitudes, beliefs, positions, and understanding.

This is precisely why Will and I always invite people with whom we disagree to make presentations and stand for questions in our evolution courses at Cornell. In many cases our students become even more confirmed in their opposition to the ideas presented by such presenters, as a result of formulating their own telling questions and following up on the answers. And, of course, sometimes the presenters surprise us all, and our own positions must be modified as a result.

Hence, my deep regard for the folks here (and my general disdain for the average commentators at both Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb). May a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, eh?


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,17:50   

I disagree with MacNeill that one should hand moderation control of a course forum over to an unaffiliated student not taking the course. I noticed that MacNeill wasn't terribly "cherishing" of the commenter on PT that pointed that out.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,18:10   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,18:13   

If he's mad that someone on PT pointed out that handing over moderation to Hannah Maxson was a boneheaded move, well, tough. It was.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,19:38   

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "barred".

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,20:04   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,17:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

Why am I not surprised?  (That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions.)

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,20:29   

I've never read much at TT in the past, but after reading this comment by Joy (is she FtK's sister? DT's mom?), I think I'll stop now. A commenter named Mesk wrote  
Quote
   During genome reconstruction you hit all sorts of crazy artefacts, mainly due to rearrangements caused by the bacteria used to grow up the chunks of chromosome for sequencing. There's no way researchers could tell the difference between a true CNV and a random artefact - so given that everything we knew about chromosomes and human health suggested that CNVs were rare, and the genome reconstruction algorithms were designed to filter out artefacts that looked exactly like CNVs, it's no wonder these things were missed.

Joy replied
Quote
Are you saying that the bacteria have human genes? What kind of bacteria is this, anyway? Regardless, it's nice that they've finally taken a step out of the stone age technologically. There are several human projects - medicine primary among them - that would greatly benefit from real knowledge. As opposed to slash-and-burn kill-em-all. I predicted that too.

Classic! Complete ignorance of molecular biology methods, coupled with the hubris to brag about some biological science prediction from your past.

Zach, it might be a good thing that you have been barred from some of those threads. That's fairly stunning stuff.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,22:49   

Joy is unique among the TT denizens.  She combines ignorance with arrogance that results in comments like this one:
Quote
Just an aside to let the groupies (as opposed to practicing scientists) know that in addition to the fact that no model of organic evolution that ignores physical theoretics can ever explain 'reality' as we perceive and experience it, I'd just like to add the scientific FACT that…

…if there are more than 3+1 dimensions in reality, we can't rule out the existence of intelligent life in any or all of them, or circumscribe the capabilities of such conscious existence according to the provisional [ignoring anomalies] 'rules' here in 3+1. Really.

Keep in mind that she is (or was at the time) herself a groupie of one Matti Pitkänen, a crackpot mathematical physicist.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,23:06   

Oleg,

You'll love this one if you haven't seen it already.

You're right. It's the combination of ignorance and arrogance (with a dollop of pure batshit insanity) that makes Joy so special.

Top-heavy ego-to-ability ratios, like hers and DaveScot's, have a special zest that is lacking in ordinary tard.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2008,23:43   

Dave *really* doesn't understand probability:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-291993

Quote
24

DaveScot

07/05/2008

10:59 pm
Frost

So every event that has happened is indeed 1/1 retrospectively

No. Probabilities don’t change just because an outcome fell one way or another in the past. If a given flip of a fair coin turned up heads it doesn’t change the fact that the odds were 50/50 and will forever remain 50/50 for that fair coin.


So, Dave what are the odds of tossing 5 heads in a row, given that you've already tossed 5 heads?


ETA: crap, wrong thread.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,00:58   

Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,14:42)
It has come to my attention that Mike Gene and Bradford have recently been engaging in historical revisionism with respect to their dishonest behavior surrounding the banning of myself and keiths.

Buddy, their penchant for historical revisionism should have been obvious from reading virtually anything either of them has written.

In addition to both of them being dishonest and hypocritical, Bradford is a first-class moron.

Relax. Just let the tard wash over you...

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,01:47   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,19:38)
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:10)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2008,18:35)
Very interesting. Guts blogged  on "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. I posted some clearly pertinent information about the author, the codiscoverer of Tiktaalik roseae, an intermediate organism between fish and tetrapods. I provided a link to the official Tiktaalik website for those who might be interested in finding out more. The website has pictures of the expedition team, including Neil. Apparently, my comment was so controversial it was deleted, and I can no longer post on the thread.

By the way, for the benefit of Telic Thoughters, this is what scientists look like:



(Neil Shubin is in front.)

That's a damn shame, Zach. You're the best commenter there.

BTW, I can't even speculate on what MacNeill's problem is. In the beginning, I thought TT was better than it is, because they're better at covering up their misbehavior, but the posts there are junk compared to PT.

Whaddaya know. Guts says I wasn't banned. I was "barred".

You weren't banned, you were barred from a specific thread. You can post freely in any thread you wish. You just can't continue to derail mine

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,01:48   

Art writes:
Quote

That's my last comment on TT - the crew there are so on edge that they cannot stand any probing questions


I  don't get it. How is posting a redundant link a "probing question"?

  
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:02   

Frostman writes:
Quote

Incidentally, anon9 is me.  I'd have spoken sooner had I been following things.  I made the comment way-back-when and then promptly forgot about it.  I follow neither Telic Thoughts nor this site.  I did not have any reservations about attempting to raise consciousness at what has proven to be an unethical blog.  Nor did I try to disguise myself or my intentions, since I mentioned the name Frostman and gave links to my posts here.


This is quite false. In fact anon9/frostman posted this on TT:

Quote

Many have been banned for this kind of confrontational style. One banned participant named Frostman documented his experience at Telic Thoughts


A clear attempt at disguising himself.

Quote

In fact anon9 sent a coded message to the site administrator, Guts, saying that he was Frostman.


In fact, I received no such "coded message". I did receive an e-mail from Frostman posing as JackT, who was using proxies to try to prove that he was not anon9/frostman, but still begged me to lift the ban.

This willingness to be deceptive speaks volumes. It shows the one who lacks ethics is frostman, not me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:04   

Hey Guts. Sorry if you're disoriented: we're a science blog, so there's no arbitrary censorship here. You'll get used to it. How's the ID journal coming? Oh, sorry.

   
Guts



Posts: 226
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2008,02:10   

How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.

  
  3492 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]