RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (31) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months., Record of all the bans and threats at UD< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2010,07:50   

The Silent Ban Hammer has silenced Scot.David...

At Dembski's latest Buy My Book thread, the poor puppet's following comment was not allowed to see the light of day.  Or whatever passes for light of day at UD:

Quote
Dr. Dembski,

Congratulations on the success of your new testament, and I am looking forward to re-reading long passages, as I am sure they will quoted at length soon by bornagain77, and Gordon Mulllings in future posts.  


--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2010,18:18   

Clivebaby:

30
Clive Hayden
05/05/2010
3:17 pm

Truism is no longer a truism here.

Here's one that is:

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
-Robert Heinlein

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BillB



Posts: 373
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2010,02:57   

madbat089 is gone
Quote
165
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:26 am

madbat089,

Goodbye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2010,05:54   

Quote (BillB @ May 13 2010,03:57)
madbat089 is gone † †  
Quote
165
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:26 am

madbat089,

Goodbye.

BarryA:
†  
Quote
As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win ó and if we donít win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position.

Or, just ban you.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2010,08:21   

Makes you wonder how these folks can face their kids.

--------------
Ēletís not make a joke of ourselves.Ē

Pat Robertson

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1058
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2010,17:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 13 2010,08:21)
Makes you wonder how these folks can face their kids.

I see them banning the kid from the dinner table/room/house if they ask uncomfortable questions.  Then they keep talking to their wives and pretend the kid is still there but doesn't have anything to say.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 894
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2010,21:33   

didymos on the UD thread: †
Quote
Oops. †Thornton directly dissed the Dr. Dr. on his own thread:
Quote
Dr. Dembski, it certainly is a pity you are forced to grab at the coattails of tin-foil-hat wearing AGW deniers in a convoluted attempt to show how ĎBig Scienceí is holding back ID. The enemy of your enemy is your friend I suppose. But is it really worth flushing the remaining bit of your scientific integrity down the loo to try and score cheap points for the frankly flat-lining ID hypothesis? Wouldnít it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell ďConspiracy!! Oppression!!í without evidence so many times before people stop listening.


Batshit's got Bill's back(side kissed): †
Quote

Thorton your a pretty smug guy for a person living his life engulfed in a lie.


Well, Thornton's done.


Indeed. WAD: † †  
Quote
thornton: You seem to allow that I havenít lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.


--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2010,22:28   

Cross posted:

This interaction between Zolar Czakl and StephenB is worth perusing. Throughout, Mr. Bee resists the radical notion that theory must ultimately be testable in light of data, and therefore must specify entailments. For him, such a demand is an arbitrary, ad hoc imposition of "the Darwinist Academy." The exchange culminated in the following admission:
† † † † † †
Quote
Zolar Czakl:
05/20/2010
6:05 am

Scientific theories must be testable by means of empirical evidence. To be testable, they must specify predicted empirical findings that flow from the theory.

I gather from your responses that ID does not meet this standard. Hence your only move is to reject the standard.

† † † † † †
Quote
StephenB
05/20/2010
9:06 am

My how quickly you catch on. The entire debate is centered around the self-serving nature of that standard.

Zolar's follow-on post simply stated that he was content to leave the discussion right there, as Stephen's admission is all one could ask. Alas, he was silently banned, presumably by cowardly Clive.

(Clive, word: Next time ban me before you find Stephen stumbling with his pants around his ankles.)


--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2010,06:23   

6
William Dembski
05/20/2010
9:11 pm

thornton: You seem to allow that I havenít lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2010,10:20   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 21 2010,04:23)
6
William Dembski
05/20/2010
9:11 pm

thornton: You seem to allow that I havenít lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?

It means that thornton's behind the times, and Dr Dr D lost the last vestige of credibility years ago.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4368
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2010,10:35   

Quote (JohnW @ May 21 2010,10:20)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 21 2010,04:23)
6
William Dembski
05/20/2010
9:11 pm

thornton: You seem to allow that I havenít lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

What does that even mean?

It means that thornton's behind the times, and Dr Dr D lost the last vestige of credibility years ago.


Yes... †He lost it while tripping through the Bible Code Chapters and wandering the Faith Healer's tent. :)

pps onlookers - Is it really a forum, when dissent is discouraged?  Shouldn't UD be more properly called an echo chamber?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,08:23   

Quote
15

Clive Hayden

06/20/2010

3:11 am
Nakashima is not Asian, itís a sock puppet name, heís been banned from here many times, his handle at After The Bar Closes is dvunkannon. He part of those folks that watch us like hyenas, youíd think with all their bloviating about their ďscientific knowledgeĒ they would actually discuss science instead of watching us like hyenas. We discuss actual ideas and science here, they just discuss us. I wouldnít encourage anyone to mind their nonsenseóitís a sick internet culture thatís pervasive with them. To all of you at After the Asylum Closes, the gloves are off.


Exit Nakashima, stage left. Not followed by a bear, or even Clive in a bear suit.

I'm always a bit sad when this thread bumps back up to the top of the first page.

Post morteming this a bit, Nak's bannination clearly follows his outing of StephenB as the writer of such pleasantries as "psychotic Pharisee", and then the posting of Nak's deleted messages on AtBC. Nothing to do with the thread on which it appears, where Nak is having a mutually respectful discussion with niwrad.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
khan



Posts: 1484
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,10:19   

"watch us like hyenas"  ?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
rossum



Posts: 186
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,11:45   

Quote (khan @ June 20 2010,10:19)
"watch us like hyenas" †?

Yeah. †They sit around looking at members of the Hyaenidae saying, "I really like that hyena," to each other. †We watch them doing it.

:)

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Seversky



Posts: 416
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,19:24   

I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 894
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,20:38   

Clive (hi Clive!) is having a busy day. Ena Sharples correctly predicted she would be removed from the cast, and Clive confirms:
†  
Quote
Ena Sharples, also known as George L Farquhar, MikeKratch, PhilipBaxter, Blue Lotus, Mach Six, Mustela Nivalis, h.pesoj, Moseph, and Echidna-Levy,
† † †
Quote
Iíve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what Iíve seen here I wonít be around too long.

You say you just registered at this site? Sure thingÖÖYou suspect rightly about not being around too long.


--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,20:55   

Quote (Ptaylor @ June 20 2010,21:38)
Clive (hi Clive!) is having a busy day. Ena Sharples correctly predicted she would be removed from the cast, and Clive confirms:
† † † † †
Quote
Ena Sharples, also known as George L Farquhar, MikeKratch, PhilipBaxter, Blue Lotus, Mach Six, Mustela Nivalis, h.pesoj, Moseph, and Echidna-Levy,
† † † † † †  
Quote
Iíve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what Iíve seen here I wonít be around too long.

You say you just registered at this site? Sure thingÖÖYou suspect rightly about not being around too long.

Mach Six, who has no connection to the other socks listed in this post, informed me backchannel that he has been silently banned and his most recent post deleted. He hadn't posted at UD for a week, other than to briefly (and accurately) point out this evening that he is unconnected to the other listed names.

Before:



After:



You're loosing it Clive, swinging blindly. We like that.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,21:16   

Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

Seversky!

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2010,23:23   

Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Quack



Posts: 1785
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,00:27   

Quote
You suspect rightly about not being around too long

The predictive power of ID?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10310
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,01:08   



--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,14:48   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,22:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.

Sure, but apparently rational voices are against their lack of principle!

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,17:41   

Quote (Henry J @ June 21 2010,14:48)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,22:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.
That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.
Sure, but apparently rational voices are against their lack of principle!
I beg to differ. Apparently rational voices are UD's bread and butter! It's genuinely rational voices that they have trouble with...

  
Seversky



Posts: 416
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,22:10   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,23:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.

Thanks, although I always felt that the wily Nakashima was more effective.  Please pass on my congratulations on his marriage to the Czech supermodel, by the way.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2010,22:43   

Quote (Seversky @ June 21 2010,23:10)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,23:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned. †My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.

That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.

Thanks, although I always felt that the wily Nakashima was more effective. †Please pass on my congratulations on his marriage to the Czech supermodel, by the way.

Consider it done.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2010,20:10   

I've been remiss in updating UD's moderation rules. To previous lists add the following:

Don't, well. Wait. Gimme a minute to get this straight.

Don't suggest that Dembski and Wells lack the skills necessary to...

Wait.

Don't you dare on Dembski's blog suggest...no, that doesn't work.

Don't state that Dembski and Wells need additional education, training and experience in...wait. I'll get it. Wait.

Well, don't do this:
† †
Quote
You wrote as if you didnít know what the book says, and then criticized what the authors said as needing more schooling for clarity and brevity. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot criticize unless you know what youíre criticizing, or else it is not actually critical. I donít know what you know or donít know about any book at all, but this train of argument is incoherent and quite frankly rude, and my comment back to you, stating you needed more schooling was simply an illustration of that incivility, so you can see the error of employing it here. Thatís why youíre now in moderation.

Got that? That's why.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,04:24   

Recently I've been reading (and occasionally commenting) atBiologos blog. In response to my remarking that UD moderation  is arbitrary and biased, this comment by:

 Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!

Quote
I did a little research into your claims about bannings at UC.

In the last month, only two or three people were banned.  So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned.  Thatís nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym.  In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID.  Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned.  The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another.  Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned.  It wasnít for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year.  This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly.  Your case is hereby thrown out of court.


Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,09:03   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,04:24)
Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

Zachriel's reply is currently in moderation.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,09:08   

Quote (Alan Fox @ July 11 2010,05:24)
Recently I've been reading (and occasionally commenting) atBiologos blog. In response to my remarking that UD moderation †is arbitrary and biased, this comment by:

†Rich - #21297
July 11th 2010

appeared!

† † † † † † † † †
Quote
I did a little research into your claims about bannings at UC.

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. †So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. †Thatís nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. †In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. †Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. †The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. †Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. †It wasnít for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. †This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. †Your case is hereby thrown out of court.


Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

I've brought some sophisticated mathematical tools to bear on the question (known as "counting.")

Rich:
† † † † † † † †  
Quote
In the last month, only two or three people were banned. †So much for your daily bannings.

I count four. Yes, "daily" is hyperbole.

Rich:
† † † † † † † †  
Quote
In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned.

I count 31 bannings in the last year. To wit:

Seversky
Nakashima
Mach Six
Ena Sharples
Thorton
Zolar Czakl
madbat
truism
scot.david
merthin builder
cranium
Hans Fritzsche
Mustela Nivali
composer
David Kellogg
h.pesoj
voice coil
Zachriel
waterbear
hazel
Dave Whisker
God's iPod (ID friendly and subsequently unbanned)
DNA_Jock
steve_h
Quaggy
BGOG
Learned Hand
MeganC
Diffaxial
Nymphaea caerulea
Blue Lotus

Undoubtedly we missed some. Rich thinks this is OK.

Rich:
† † † †  
Quote
In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. †In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings

That is absolutely true. What fails in this argument is the assumption that either the original or subsequent banninations were remotely justified in light of UD's moderation policy. It is a flat fact that many were not. And it is a flat fact that many serious, effective and reasonably polite anti-ID contributors have been banned mid-thread, oftentimes as (I say because) they were pressing their points effectively. †

Moreover, anti-ID contributors have sometimes been characterized as liars, cowards, incapable of rationality, etc. by ID proponents without consequence. As Diffaxial, whose posts were serious, articulate and often pointed but never personal, I was repeatedly called a liar and a coward both by Unpleasant Blowhard and StephenB, neither of whom endured any consequences. ID-critical contributors, having just been so characterized, have sometimes been shortly thereafter banned on the flimsiest of pretexts, or for reasons that directly contradict moderation policies that BarryA has articulated. That was certainly Diffaxial's fate.

And, of course, it would not be necessary for critics to "sneak back" were UD to enforce its stated moderation standards, rather than the arbitrary, moody, and obviously biased decisions that are typical.

I will certainly gather links to several examples of each if Rich would like to attempt to defend UD, or explain them away.

ETA: it is worth noting that StephenB once apologized for questioning my (and RoB's) honesty. Here was my (Diffaxial's) response:

Quote
StephenB: "That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty."

I accept that.

It is worth noting that I have made close to zero personal comments about you or anyone else in this discussion (other than ďget some therapyĒ and addressing you as ďdummyĒ). You and yours, however, have frequently characterized me as dishonest, irrational, as a liar, as lacking intellectual honesty and courage, as a coward, as displaying weakness, and so forth, with similar remarks directed to R0b. I think you embarrass yourselves with those remarks, which is why I pass over them without comment and decline to be baited into responding in kind. Fair to say that similar restraint characterizes R0bís superior contributions. I gather the purpose of these personal characterizations is to spin ďonlookerísĒ impressions of the flow of the debate, but Iíd be willing to bet they often have a very different impact than you imagine.

You offered a sort of exchange:
Quote
if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments.

I donít care about retraction of personal comments. Readers can judge for themselves the honesty (etc.) of my contributions. The exchange that interests me is that you cease repeating misleading characterizations of prior conversations to score rhetorical points. In exchange I will drop that issue, as well as questions surrounding the interpretation of your ambiguous statement vis necessary versus sufficient causes. I canít stop believing what I believe about your statement (and to say otherwise would be dishonest), but I can certainly stop commenting upon it. Iíll allow you the same slack: You neednít concede anything about your prior statements. Just agree to stop making them.

Of course, StephenB should have retracted his personal comments unconditionally, not as part of an exchange.

Diffaxial was silently banned not long after that.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2010,13:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 07 2010,20:10)
I've been remiss in updating UD's moderation rules. To previous lists add the following:

Don't, well. Wait. Gimme a minute to get this straight.

Don't suggest that Dembski and Wells lack the skills necessary to...

Wait.

Don't you dare on Dembski's blog suggest...no, that doesn't work.

Don't state that Dembski and Wells need additional education, training and experience in...wait. I'll get it. Wait.

Well, don't do this:
† † †
Quote
You wrote as if you didnít know what the book says, and then criticized what the authors said as needing more schooling for clarity and brevity. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot criticize unless you know what youíre criticizing, or else it is not actually critical. I donít know what you know or donít know about any book at all, but this train of argument is incoherent and quite frankly rude, and my comment back to you, stating you needed more schooling was simply an illustration of that incivility, so you can see the error of employing it here. Thatís why youíre now in moderation.

Got that? That's why.

I could really use a link to the original quote.

ETA: Argghh... there it is, at the "this".

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on July 11 2010,14:05

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

    
  910 replies since July 29 2007,19:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (31) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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