Joined: Jan. 2006
Hi, kairosfocus! Welcome back to AtBC.
I followed Zachriel's link to your latest comment at UD and found this:
|I did, however, see some remarks about failing to address Rib’s arguments.|
You presumably meant this:
|Quote (Maya @ Dec. 22 2008,03:53)|
I see that gpuccio and kf are already defending Clive, without ever addressing any of rib's points.
You responded at your usual prodigious length, arguing that you had addressed my points regarding compatibilism, but Maya was referring to a different set of points:
Clive Hayden wrote:
|I live in the reality-based world partner. I am a patient moderator with you rib, I expect some decency in return. When I first started moderating you complained that there was a double standard of moderation, so I apologized on behalf of all who gave you any undue disrespect, I expect an apology in return for your undue disrespect to me.|
I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Polite, on-topic comments from ID supporters don’t languish in the moderation queue for hours, and they certainly aren’t deleted. Stop doing this to polite, on-topic comments from ID critics.
2. ID supporters regularly insult critics with impunity at UD, so don’t object when a critic calls you ’smarmy’, particularly when…
3. …it happens outside of UD. You don’t police the off-blog activities of ID supporters, so don’t do it to ID critics.
4. Apologies aren’t demanded from ID supporters, so don’t demand them from critics.
One standard for all commenters. Is that so hard to understand?
You've remained uncharacteristically silent on these points, KF. Why is that?
Since I have your attention, I'm tempted to respond to some of the questionable claims you've made at UD since my banning. However, I think it's better if I use this opportunity to perform a public service for your fellow commenters at UD.
KF, your comments are way too long. I know you don't want to hear that, and I know you won't take my word for it, so don't. Ask your fellow ID supporters. (You might want to do so privately, so that they can respond honestly without being seen as publicly criticizing a fellow ID supporter or agreeing with the "enemy".)
You could easily cut your average comment by 80% with no appreciable loss of useful information. Your fellow commenters would be grateful, and they might actually start reading your comments from beginning to end. As it is, I guarantee you would be shocked and dismayed if you knew how many readers skip your comments altogether or skim them at best.
Can you blame them? Whose eyes wouldn't glaze over when reading this:
|Nor, that others and the undersigned have addressed the issues and concerns surrounding evo mat based determinism on mind, reasoning and moral responsibility in both significant details and with at least a modicum of sober and informed reflection; e.g GP at 21 and SB at 56 and 112, or VJT at 62 and 85.|
First of all, readers are not going to follow five references to earlier comments in the thread. The people who are interested have already read them. The same with links -- who's going to follow ten of them in a single comment? I know I'm not the only one who shuddered when you wrote this:
|PPS: Moderators, has the number of permissible links per post gone up, if so what is the new limit?|
As for the rest, you could have written:
|I and others have expressed serious concerns about the implications of determinism.|
Please, KF -- for the sake of all of us in the evo/ID debate, tighten up your prose. It will feel funny at first, but I tell you with all sincerity that it will make more people -- supporters and critics alike -- pay attention to what you write. That will make you a more effective voice in this debate.
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