Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months. started by Reciprocating Bill
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 29 2007,19:20
The Uncommonly Dense Nixplanatory Filter: the BLOG CZAR years. Er, months.
In January 2006 Uncommonly Dense was resurrected, with DaveTard pulling the cord on the moderation guillotine. He also introduced a new convention in these exchanges. If posting ALL CAPS is tantamount to shouting, DaveTard's boldface interjections directly into others' posts is tantamount to commentary from a loudspeaker in the ceiling.
< 4 > January 2006 The Resurrection of Uncommon Descent William Dembski
By popular demand this blog is back in operation, though with only limited participation in the future from me. Past contributors to this blog have decided they are willing to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining this blog, namely, DaveScot, Bombadill, Crandaddy, and Gumpngreen. Unlike in the past, when they were limited to commenting on my postings, they now have full posting privileges. They will be in charge of the day-to-day business of this blog, everything from keeping it interesting to approving comments to booting recalcitrant commenters. Of these four, DaveScot has been the designated blogczar - the buck stops with him.
First day on the job and DaveTard is already warming up:
< 38 > DaveScot 01/09/2006 7:05 am
KeithS I haven't seen any empirical evidence of the supernatural yet so I fail to see why it should come up in any discussion unless of course it's merely being used to further a personal/political agenda. When I do see empirical evidence of the supernatural I'll let you know. I expect you'll return the courtesy. Not a single thing yet discovered about the nature of life requires a designer to break any laws of physics in its design or implimentation. There are almost assuredly artificial structures in the machinery of life but no supernatural structures or supernatural mechanisms required to create said artifices.
You evidently acknowledge this but are unwilling to divorce the supernatural from ID and insist that ID must take on the question of who designed the designer. That question is a strawman. ID (at least Dembski's latest, most refined works) is about design detection, not designer characterization. Please either restrict your arguments to design detection and take your arguments about the nature of the designer somewhere else. This is your final warning about harping on supernatural designers.
And now, a Very Special Moment: DaveTard's first ban. He takes out Keiths, which arouses protests that would never make it to the light of day today:
40 DaveScot 01/09/2006 8:13 am
keiths is no longer with us.
43 johnnyb 01/09/2006 2:24 pm
Why was keiths kicked?
44 Feederbottom 01/09/2006 2:55 pm
Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!
45 Feederbottom 01/09/2006 2:59 pm
This blog is a sham.
Crandaddy to the rescue!
46 crandaddy 01/09/2006 3:39 pm
In Dave's defense, it does not logically follow that because nature bears marks which we recognize as being attributable to intelligence, a supernatural entity must be responsible for them. Keith was given a fair warning.
Couple days later, DaveTard sharpens his knives and pounds his chest:
< 7 > DaveScot 01/06/2006 1:35 pm Mr. Christopher Questioning Perry's motives as mere political maneuvering is dissing someone I respect. Your opinion is noted and if you insist on having the last word I'll make sure that was indeed your last word here. Consider yourself warned.
24 DaveScot 01/08/2006 11:05 am
I want this body count nonsense to stop. This is your final warning. If you try to get in a last word on this you're out of here. The same goes for Keith.
< 27 > DaveScot 01/08/2006 11:26 am Josh is no longer with us.
Yip, yip!
< 28 > Benjii 01/08/2006 11:30 am
What happened to Josh?
Grrrrrrrrrr:
< 30 > DaveScot 01/08/2006 12:20 pm
Josh wrote a flaming comment to me after being warned to drop the body count rhetoric. I deleted the flame and the flamer
And now time out for another classic:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 8 January 2006 Reminder to Stay On Message DaveScot
This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course.
The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion. I consider atheism to be a contrarian religion and ID offends them as one might expect of anything that pleases the faithful. If you want a soapbox for your favorite religion (including atheism) go somewhere else. I realize that it's hard to divorce our innermost faith from our writing and will try to tolerate a generous amount of spillage but the bottom line is if you're warned to ease up, ease up or the axe will fall. Professor Dembski advised me to be ruthless in policing this blog. I'd naively hoped it wouldn't come to that but as usual he was right. Stay on topic. Feel free to tell me I'm off topic if I wander but don't expect me to ban myself if I don't. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another innovation in conversation control:
< 12 > DaveScot 01/09/2006 3:11 am KeithS Comments are now closed on this thread.
And another. Mr. Christopher's banning, which occurred not for comments made on UD, but for comments made elsewhere on the intertubes, gets its OWN TOPIC. Jealous?
10 January 2006 (Off Topic) < Mr. Christopher is no longer with us > DaveScot
People writing things like this are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda's Thumb.
Time out for something special, as DaveTard reminds us that he is a moral relativist:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28 < DaveScot > 01/14/2006 7:09 am
I'm pretty confused by all this, DT. Morals are always going to be subject to agreement between individuals. Thus there's really no such thing as absolute morals. The closest you can get is unanimous consensus amongst some arbitrary number of agreeable individuals. They can claim their knowledge is absolute but it's still just a claim backed by nothing more than consensus. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A spelling lesson:
< 3 > DaveScot 01/13/2006 7:14 pm
Inoculated Mind Did you mean puerile? By the way, innoculated is spelled with two n's. How about if I go ahead and delete you so you can return using real words in your name and comments?
Something that never was true
< 10 > DaveScot 01/16/2006 7:05 am
Josh, you're out of here again. This is not a soapbox for Christian apologetics. -ds
Banning in secret code:
< 22 > DaveScot 01/16/2006 12:37 pm
Nice flames there Josh. Unfortunately they caught some bridges on fire
DaveTard is SO afraid of clowns.
< 10 > blipey 01/17/2006 2:18 am
DaveScot: I am assuming, then, that my questions above count as trolling? Some of them were okay but you're in time out until you stop flooding the blog with so many comments. Come back in a couple of days and slow it down. I promise the blog will still be here and evolution will still be the biggest hoax in the history of science.
(This is gonna get complicated because bannings may now occur in bold face, embedded in others' comments by means of the loudspeaker in the ceiling.)
Now to shape up those Newbies:
< 5 > DaveScot 01/19/2006 12:48 pm
space monkey
Maybe something to do with it only being up for 12 hours. Might also be that it's rubbish hardly worth a comment. In any case, that's your first comment to be approved on Uncommon Descent and if you don't have anything more constructive to say it's going to be your last.
Some defensive comments:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 19 January 2006 (Off Topic) < Reasonable Expectations > DaveScot
I'm a bit aghast that some people here and elsewhere are offended that I will moderate commenters based on their behavior outside the Uncommon Descent blog.
To wit, a number of commenters that have appeared here recently, while behaving reasonably here, are elsewhere gratuitously bashing Uncommon Descent, its founder Professor Dembski, Intelligent Design, and other sundry aspersions cast our way. Then these ill mannered children whose parents obviously were negligent in instilling basic manners into them are offended when I discover their extra-curricular activities and invite them to leave Uncommon Descent. In my opinion this is like someone in the real world that talks behind your back and then expects you to invite them into your home like cherished friends. I can't imagine that upon being disinvited for this they would come to you and say But I never said any bad things to your face! Why are you treating me this way??
Goodness gracious. Do we really have to refer this to Miss Manners for a definitive judgement? I think not. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jack Krebs gets his:
< 25 > Jack Krebs 01/20/2006 7:06 am
blah blah blah
Jack - since I'm banned on Panda's Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda's Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds
Stephen Elliot gets the Heave-Ho (but now he's with US! Yay!):
< 72 > DaveScot 01/21/2006 3:24 pm
Stephen Elliot is no longer with us.
Can't fool ole' DaveTard:
< 12 > DaveScot 01/21/2006 5:05 pm
puckSR is no longer with us. He was banned in December and snuck back in.
Banning as editorial
< 17 > Thunar 01/23/2006 11:50 pm
For some reason one of my posts keep being deleted. I don't think I am rude or something in the post, so I will try again. If the post is not acceptable, could the person deleting it please state his reasons? Thank you.
If you have something new it gets a hearing. If it's something old it's subject to deletion. Repeat it elsewhere. Also, nobody here needs to have the scientific method repeated to them like they're morons who never heard it before. As I recall the scientific method is introduced in the sixth grade. If that's the best you have to offer you should probably move along to Panda's Thumb where they never tire of hearing 6th grade science lectures. -ds
Another new innovation: The Quiz?:
< 9 > DaveScot 01/25/2006 7:00 pm
ftrp
ET itself does not promote atheism. Understanding it to be an unguided, unplanned process, as the Wiesel 38 wrote for posterity to the Kansas BoE, certainly DOES promote atheism. Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you don't understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner?
You're treading on thin ice. Answer correctly or I'm tossing you out.
Time out for a another classic. Remember DaveTard warning UD to stick with the science, and science unquestionably indicates common descent?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 31 January 2006 < Common Descent at Uncommon Descent > William Dembski
I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin's single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion. To open up Uncommon Descent in this way reflects not just the ID community's diversity of views on this topic but also the growing doubts about common descent outside that community. For instance, W. Ford Doolittle rejects a single Tree of Life? and argues instead for an intricate network of gene sharing events. Likewise, Carl Woese, a leader in molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.
In short, it is not just ID advocates who are suggesting that there is no universal common ancestor. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Holy shit. That was just January. February gets off with a bang: A one post banning:
< 2 > William Dembski 02/01/2006 9:01 am
Renier: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little community here. Go in peace, but go.
UD adds a time out room:
< 15 > DaveScot 02/05/2006 12:51 am
Saxe is in timeout while he thinks about why asking old people why they don't kill themselves is too insensitive for words.
And on it goes. It's "The Banning Fields"
< 30 > DaveScot 02/04/2006 5:17 am
Poisson I'm afraid you don't fit in very well here. It's time for you to take your rage elsewhere.
< 7 > DaveScot 02/03/2006 2:27 pm
M J has been awarded a time-out for failing to heed my warning to cease and desist with the man designed man nonsense.
< 10 > DaveScot 02/09/2006 3:13 am
Josh Rosenau's cowardly ducking of the question has earned him the right to take his bogus arguments elsewhere. That was easy. Thanks Josh!
Fitting in is very important:
< 8 > DaveScot 02/13/2006 8:14 pm
Scrivner...
So there.
And don't bother responding as I've decided you don't fit in here.
(The loudspeaker in the ceiling makes this project hell):
< 24 > Sparrowhawk 02/24/2006 12:52 am
Re: DS at comment #18 I might remind you that it WAS the DI that advocated the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ("Wedge" document)
You can make your future reminders at After The Bar Closes. I think you fit in better there. -ds
< 76 > Mercury 03/12/2006 6:10 pm
Hi Dave
Goodbye, Mercury.
< 42 > woody 03/08/2006 10:11 pm .
Now I have a question for you. Why did I have to give you this information when it's freely available on the internet with a simple google? I'm not here to do your homework for you. Next time you question me I expect you to have done a little reseach youself first or you'll be asking questions on a different blog.
Faid gets the axe:
< 4 > Phed 03/14/2006 5:13 pm
Comment deleted.
Phed, you're not fitting in well here. I think it's time for you to bother a different blog.
Thanks for all the fish. -ds
Note for Phed. I can see the email address you used to register at UD and knew you were Faid on ATBC since you began commenting here. Even knowing your duplicity I tried to give you a chance. You got the axe for being terminally stupid. Don't flatter yourself or your playmates into thinking it was because your arguments were too good. Thanks for laughs though! I'm glad you found a circus where you and clowns like you can feel good about yourselves through mutual back patting. -ds
Wouldn't want to educate anyone:
< 25 > JohnLiljegren 03/15/2006 8:49 pm
Comment deleted.
I'm sorry John, but this isn't an appropriate forum for you ask basic questions about evolution. Buy a book on evolutionary biology and read it. -ds
Jim Wynne gets the Axe by means of a personal banning by WAD (R. Bill beams at Jim):
< 3 > William Dembski 03/15/2006 8:37 pm
JimWynne, You don't have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD
Tina Brewer finally gets cut (but she seems eternal):
36 tinabrewer 03/30/2006 10:54 am
avocationist: hurray! thank you for your beautiful statement of the absolute blasphemy contained in the notion that God, in his majesty and justice, demanded the bloody torture and murder of his only Son in order to satisfy his bloodlust
I was unaware, but interested to read, that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. Thanks.
I think that's about it for you here, Tina. Hasta la vista, baby! -ds
Hamiltonn gets a theological scolding from DaveTard:
< 41 > Hamilton 03/29/2006 4:07 pm
You don't understand basic Christian theology if that's what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they'd be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you're not a stupid troll. -ds
And good old Tiax seems to have unlimited appetite for punishment:
< 8 > Tiax 03/31/2006 6:17 pm
"I rue the day that public opinion dictates science."
Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I'm surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn't live at the same time. Now go away and take both your brain cells with you. -ds
and a moment later
Three strikes you're out. Goodbye. -ds
Here's an invisible bannation:
< 54 > physicist 04/08/2006 6:55 am
Equivocation deleted. Answer the question. What examples do you put forward that RM+NS is working and what tests were performed to determine that the mutations were truly random? You will not be allowed further participation here until you provide answers. Negative answers along the lines of "I don't have any examples" and/or "No tests were performed" are fine. Then everyone here will know exactly how much real evidence your assertions are based upon. Good luck.
A moment later:
Physicist is no longer with us. -ds
TIAX seems to have slipped back in. Not for long:
< 7 > Tiax 04/04/2006 5:58 pm
Tony's wrong, you can't carbon date a dinosaur. Tony didn't say you could carbon date dinosaurs. Tony mentioned carbon dating to dispute the general claim that the earth is 6000 years old. You can certainly carbon date things a lot older than 6000 years. I seem to recall asking you to pack your ignorant trash and leave this blog. If I didn't, I did now. Go. Go back to ATBC with the rest of the ignoramuses. -ds
Great ape leaves no descendants (but he'll be back, too):
< 4 > great_ape 04/12/2006 12:12 am
I am unclear whether I should address the math/statistics applicable to biological diversity being generated by RM+NS, or, instead, those applicable to life ever having being initiated to begin with.
I don't see anything constructive to further discussion as you aren't fooling anyone here and I'm sure no one here is going to change your thinking. An hasta la byebye is in order. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.-ds
Mr. MusTard does in Dartos with the candlestick in the bedroom:
13 Dartos 04/12/2006 10:39 pm
Mr. Scot, If I understand correctly,
Get a clue. And don't show your face around here again until you found one. -ds
Time out for another classic:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 9 < DaveScot > 04/15/2006 1:55 am
I'm running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That's too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Holy smokes. The illustrated ban, as dhogaza bites the dust. I had missed that:
1 dhogaza 04/20/2006 10:13 am
Yeah, and ID has nothing to do with religion, uh-huh.
In case anyone was wondering -ds
Holy shit, another one. This is starting to feel like The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins:
11 Jazmine 04/21/2006 6:13 pm
Flip. Flop. Flip
Flung -ds
I think this is a banning from the speaker in the ceiling. An ambiguous ban:
< 8 > cody 04/28/2006 6:59 pm
Pay attention. That's not what PZ said. He said he would vote against tenure for anyone who *claims* ID is science. They don't have to teach it, they only have to think it. Thanks for playing. You can go back to your own blog now -ds
Dave directs friendly fire at Sal:
< 8 > DaveScot 05/03/2006 6:37 am
This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It's comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I'm closing the comments on this thread.
WAD keeps his hand in:
< 9 > William Dembski 05/08/2006 7:01 pm
A comment by Chris_UK has been deleted from this thread (as has his user name). Chris chides our little community for surmising what this book is likely to contain only to interpret its content for us and then treat us to some chestnuts against ID. He is welcome to ply his wares elsewhere.
The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling is sometimes magnanimous:
< 17 > Jehu 05/15/2006 2:13 pm
There is no doubt that Darwin inspired the eugenics movement. Francis Galton the founder the British Eugenics Society, was heavely influenced by Darwin's book, the full title of which is The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Galton once wrote...
Excellent. You've earned your release from the moderation list. -ds
< 1 > jpadilla 05/15/2006 2:51 am Don't worry about making a decision to leave this forum. I made that decision for you when you wrote the original nastygram. -ds UpdateYou acted like a spoiled little kid with nasty little mouth so you got treated like one. Now go away, little kids throwing hissy fits aren't welcome here. -ds
And sometimes languorously sadistic:
< 1 > John H 05/16/2006 7:58 am
It's time for you move along to another blog, John. You've been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we've all heard a million times and don't care to waste our time refuting yet again. Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. You declined by saying you were not enough of an expert in evolutionary biology. Well, I'm an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don't even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds
Cute banning jokes:
< 12 > ajl 05/19/2006 9:24 pm
OK, I'll take the bait
You're SO banned for that! Just kidding. - ds
Still feeling magnanimous, this time about Bob OH!
< 12 > DaveScot 05/20/2006 12:33 pm
Hark! What's that sound I hear from the peanut gallery? I do believe it's the sound of crickets chirping!
You're not banned Bob, in case you thought that. Feel free to keep on playing if you think you have a move left.
But it doesn't last:
< 25 > Bob OH 05/23/2006 1:23 pm
...To answer your second question, organisms can't evolve (in a Darwinian sense). That sort of change within an organism is called development. Bob
No Bob, it's called evolution. This isn't an egg turning into a mature organism. It's a vegetative colony happily reproducing asexually. We'll have to agree to disagree. You can go home now. Come back again soon, but not too soon. -ds
Haven't we already heard this line?
< 15 > William Dembski 05/23/2006 10:17 pm
Shalini: You don't seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band. Go in peace, but go. -WmAD
I have no idea how Shalini escaped the moderation list. I reviewed his comment history and nothing in it warranted letting him off the leash. -ds
DaveTard has enough work on his hands:
< 11 > plunge 05/26/2006 11:05 am
I have no idea why you couldn't have looked these things up for yourself and posting uninformed crap is why you're banned. I made an exception to this comment just to make an example out of you. Don't bother responding. -ds
Not nice to fool with mother nature:
< 7 > SteveB 05/25/2006 3:43 pm
I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot's posts.
Dr Dembski: You're not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.
Thanks...
Well Steve, since you reviewed my articles I thought it fair I review your comments and upon so doing I decided you're not fitting in very well. I think it's time for you to move along. -ds
Secondclass gets it from WAD hisself:
< 9 > secondclass 06/07/2006 5:08 pm
This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information. And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information - I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak's calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you're out of here. -WmAD
Spelling continues to be crucial:
< 2 > Gary Hurd 06/21/2006 12:45 pm
PS: It is ironic that I have done archaeological work at both locations in the photos (the Olmec head was originally from La Venta, Tabasco Mex, and the first image was from Semmi Valley Ca, specifically part of the Corrigan Movie Ranch park. Bob Hope bought the Corrigan Ranch and subdivided most of it. Various parts were selected for parks based on their scenic and scientific features. The scientific features considered included archaeology.
Gary, you can't even spell Simi Valley much less figure out if you've been there or not. Get lost. -ds
Something newly twisted:backstage banning with disemvoweled bad language:
< 5 > DaveScot 06/08/2006 10:24 pm
Pi Guy Professor Dembski isn't the one deleting your trollish comments. That would be me. Take a hint and take a hike. Y r n sshl.
Sometimes just a touch of the riding crop to keep them in line:
13 ftrp11 06/09/2006 1:14 pm
DS?Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity? During the Middle Ages the Muslim world was far more advanced and prosperous than Europe.
Yes. It really is just that simple. This isn't the middle ages. And you're wrong about trade balance. And now you're back on moderation again for making me correct you twice. -ds
Oftentimes DaveTard invited departure without actually banning:
< 10 > Mark Frank 06/14/2006 8:37 am
I tolerate bright, thoughtful contrarians and you just don't fit that category. You had no knowledge whatsoever from which to base your statements but you made them anyway. That's not thoughtful. Move along now. -ds
< 32 > DWSUWF 06/14/2006 10:23 am
DS, My specious on-line poll reference was in response to turandot's specious on-line poll reference, which I note you did not feel needed any editorial comment. Wonder why?
Wonder no longer. Coulter's Godless is the top seller in non-fiction this week according to Nielsen's and is #3 in all categories. Given her well established popularity the poll Turandot quoted, while not reliable, is probably reasonably accurate. The one you quoted was not. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If so take it somewhere else. -ds
More hilliarious banning humor, reserved for the masochistic Tiax:
< 2 > Tiax 06/15/2006 11:42 pm
I notice that the news story uses the phrase "the missing link" and the scientist quoted uses "a missing link."
If you consider the use of a rather than the, I suspect your point of confusion will disappear.
I can make YOUR confusion disappear, pal. -dt
< 4 > Bob OH 06/16/2006 12:36 am
You're mis-construing the inportance. It's not "we've found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved", but rather "we've found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved". There's a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life. Bob
Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt
And now time out for yet another classic:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
33 wheatdogg 06/20/2006 9:34 pm
DaveScot - Given your obvious mastery of the finer aspects of gravitational physics, would you care to share with us your credentials and/or background in the field?
Certainly. I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled. Any more questions? -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveTard's errors are deliberate:
< 35 > jrockoford234 06/20/2006 10:57 pm
Hmm... DaveScot, you said you had broadband for 13 years, and while I'm nowhere as brilliant as you obviously are, I really don't think broadband was available until 1997 - at the extreme earliest - which is.. let me see only 9 years ago. Indeed, in practical terms, broadband wasn't commercially available 'till much later.
I'm certain your error was totally inadvertent.
P.S. Gravity continues to be the weakest force in the universe, with or without broadband availability.
Not inadvertant at all. 13 years ago I was a senior engineer at Dell Computer Corporation where we pioneered using the internet to manage the business, supply chain, and eventually much of our sales. I had a high speed internet connection there in 1993. A few years later, must've been around 1997, I was one of the first 500 people in the city of Austin to get RoadRunner broadband cable modem service in my home - it was their beta test program. Gravity is the strongest force in some situations and it's time for you to take a hike. See ya. -ds
Zachriel gets resurrected only to be crucified again:
< 17 > Zachriel 06/26/2006 1:08 pm
ds: in a hard science journal
Ho hum. Scientific American is not a "hard science journal". It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.
I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I'd rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds
18 Zachriel 06/26/2006 3:12 pm
I had assumed my comment was in your spam bin and not for general publication. It was meant for your personal edification so that you could quietly correct your misstatement.
There is a significant difference between the philosophical speculation suitable for a column in a magazine and the publication of original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That you conflate the two is telling.
ds: I'm not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got.
I take that as a retraction.
19 DaveScot 06/26/2006 6:43 pm
Zachriel You don't handle rejection well do you? I don't want your private correspondences. Leave me alone.
And on, and on, and on, and...
23 misanthrope101 06/24/2006 8:01 am
"You are supposing that design is an invalid answer." No, I'm only asking for more meat to the theory...
This is simply wrong and I'm sick of correcting you over and over about it. You are imagining chemical reactions that do not exist. Go find another blog. You're done here. -ds
< 11 > DarwinCatholic 06/27/2006 1:36 pm
Why do questions as to why theistic evolutionists are 'ashamed' of their faith constantly brought up if nearly everyone is not, at least implicitly, assuming that at one level or another God is the designer?
I warned you not to embellish the definition of ID on the sideboard. You did. Go now and find a different blog to bother. -ds
DaveTard has bandwidth concerns:
< 13 > SME 07/10/2006 1:24 am
So It looks like "it's designed" is not a robust rationale. At least not for the scientific community.
Maybe it looks designed to you but not to me. I use an example of a digitally programmed protein factory (DNA and ribosome) and you offer me a rock with a couple of square crystals in it as a rejoinder? You're out of here. Go waste someone else's time and bandwidth. -ds
Time out for another classic:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 7 DaveScot 07/10/2006 4:56 am
Speaking of Scientific American the peanut gallery at ATBC is raising some questions about why I've variously mentioned reading it for 20, 30, and 40 years.
Here is clarification.
The earliest I recall regularly reading SciAm was in the 7th grade. The school library subscribed to it and I spent a lot of my time at school in the library. That would make it at least 36 years ago that I started reading it every month. I've no doubt rounded that up to 40 years or down to 30 years just because I like round numbers and it doesn't really matter that much. From age 18 to 23 I might not have read it every month as I wasn't in a library much except when required for college assignments and bought it off the newstands. Shortly after I married (at age 24) I began subscribing to it. That was over 20 years ago and I've no doubt mentioned that I've been a subscriber for 20 or 25 years. I missed a few months of it last year in protest over John Rennie's crusade against ID. For the first time in decades I let my subscription lapse and promised to never subscribe to it again. So I told my wife it would make a nice Valentine gift and now she subscribes to it for me so I can have my cake and eat it too. After all, I didn't promise to stop reading it, I only promised to stop subscribing to it. So there. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now, quite abruptly, the end of an era:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 17 July 2006 Evolution's Idiot Stepchild - Evolutionary Psychology (this time without the gratuitous comments) William Dembski
Here's your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I've done it as has DaveScot. That's now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveTard's feelings are hurt. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
1 DaveScot 07/18/2006 2:10 am
I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.
Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I'm going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I'll just be a regular user once more.
Which I think begs the question: Was DaveTard EVER "regular" at anything?
Now its off to investigate the brain tumor that I've sprouted over the last couple days, reviewing this stuff. Bye!
Posted by: stevestory on July 29 2007,19:39
Wow. What an effort. Good job, Bill.
Posted by: someotherguy on July 29 2007,20:05
Free beers for Bill!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 29 2007,20:12
A masterpiece, again.
Careful, Bill: you're writing the complete Annotated History of Uncommon Descent.
stray comments:
* I hope Keiths feels special for being DT's first ban. That deserves to go on the resume.
* When did Dave switch from DS to DT? Shows he was reading ATBC and trying to show he had a 'sense of humor'.
* I never cease to chuckle at the fact that Josh Bozeman was banned for TOO MUCH god-bothering. Oy.
Splendid job!
Posted by: Lou FCD on July 29 2007,20:47
Bravo!
Posted by: stevestory on July 29 2007,23:42
Ordinarily I'd gripe that this should have gone on the existing UD thread, but the amount of work that went into this qualifies it for special status.
Posted by: Bob O'H on July 30 2007,03:54
Should we set up a fund to pay for Bill's psychotherapy?
Thanks for the hard work: somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it wasn't me.
Bob
Posted by: J-Dog on July 30 2007,10:56
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 30 2007,03:54) | Should we set up a fund to pay for Bill's psychotherapy?
Thanks for the hard work: somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it wasn't me.
Bob ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Outstanding! Thank you. You've already done more research and real work than all the DI Fellows combined.
Of course your reward for doing great work, is doing more great work.... I hope you can keep up with the bannings in the future. Fortunately, as interest in ID has waned, so have the posts and bannings at UD and the best case scenario is that you are out of posting material soon.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2007,16:41
Any Chance of getting this on PT?
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2007,19:09
Congrats, Bill:
< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....n_t.php >
No, not you, D*mbski.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 30 2007,20:16
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2007,19:09) | Congrats, Bill:
< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....n_t.php >
No, not you, D*mbski. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey, loco boy makes good!
Expect the peevish acknowledgement at UD any time now...
Can we expect Dave to miss the point utterly and say that RBill is motivated solely by 'sour grapes at not being allowed to post at such a cool blog as UD'?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 30 2007,20:20
Oy. You know UD is really thriving when the last six posts there are all from Grandma Bonehead.
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on July 30 2007,20:32
I am not 'de jure' banned at UD (as far as I know) but I am 'de facto' banned, probably for posting unflattering things about DaveScot.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 30 2007,20:36
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 30 2007,20:32) | I am not 'de jure' banned at UD (as far as I know) but I am 'de facto' banned, probably for posting unflattering things about DaveScot. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
R.O.B., Dave Heddle..we're like a sanctuary for wayward fundies...
Don't worry, your care is not contingent on you listening to our sermons...
Posted by: stevestory on July 30 2007,20:48
Heraclean though Bill was, he still only documented six months of UD moderation. Mental health professionals would probably advise him to discontinue the effort.
Posted by: stevestory on July 30 2007,21:09
Bill, I'm hoisting a shot of cheap gin in your honor.
Yours might be the greatest post in the history of AtBC.
Posted by: RBH on July 30 2007,21:14
Let me add the banning of Febble, a Ph.D. neuroscientist and theist, who argued that based on Dembski's definition of intelligence, the process of random mutations and natural selection is an intelligent process. DaveTard < banned her > saying
---------------------QUOTE------------------- febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesnt understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: stevestory on July 30 2007,21:17
I'm beginning to suspect that Reciprocating Bill is actually SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts. A day after Bill completes documenting six whole months of UD moderation, Roberts has a seizure, foams at the mouth, and takes a fall. Weird symptoms...unless one's just been exposed to a dangerous concentration of tard....
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 30 2007,21:25
Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2007,21:09) | Bill, I'm hoisting a shot of cheap gin in your honor.
Yours might be the greatest post in the history of AtBC. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the subject of cheap liquor, when I was a kid in the late 60's/early 70's in the SF Bay Area, there used to be a chain of grocery stores called 'Brentwood'. One day when I was there with my mom, I noticed that they had a store brand of vodka called, I kid you not, 'Brentnov'.
Even when I was 8 years old, I knew that was horribly, horribly wrong.
Posted by: stevestory on July 30 2007,21:37
I'm just in awe of that post. I'm not surprised that we haven't heard much from Bill since he posted it. He's probably catatonic and disoriented. Bill, give us your address. We will send you cheap liquor and DVDs while you recouperate.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 30 2007,23:15
Thank you for your kind words. The bleeding from my ears has almost stopped, and I'm sitting and taking nourishment.
I mostly think we have WAD, DaveTard and the usual suspects to thank for creating such a massively dysfunctional and therefore deliciously entertaining forum. Distill the material a bit and it becomes self-ridiculing.
(Some things just kind of write themselves. That post wasn't one of them.)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on July 31 2007,00:26
Will there be a Part Three?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on July 31 2007,07:02
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,01:26) | Will there be a Part Three? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Same answer as DaveTard's Quiz-Koan:
Is there some part of unguided/unplanned that you dont understand specifically excludes guidance/planning and specifically excluding guidance/planning specifically excludes a guider/planner?
Yes. I mean, no. Yes. OK, alright, yes. NO. Yes...
Posted by: Rob on Aug. 01 2007,14:08
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 31 2007,07:02) | Same answer as DaveTard's Quiz-Koan: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL! Dave the Zen Master. Who knew?
Posted by: Amadan on Aug. 01 2007,15:48
* sniff *
After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways.
Expect to feature unfavourably in my next Snippette...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 01 2007,16:09
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 01 2007,16:48) | * sniff *
After all my hard-earned efforts to tardiculate UD and have myself banned there (de facto, de jure, and de Seven Dwarves), I now suffer the indignity of being overlooked in this Canon of the Castaways.
Expect to feature unfavourably in my next Snippette... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dry your eyes, and take note of the dates of the above hall of shame. Seems to me you worked your magical mischief somewhat later. ?
Report of your honorable deeds awaits a final installation of this project, which I plan to write forthwith. Which I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Which is near completion. Which I'd be insane to attempt...
To tide you over, I offer you < this >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 02 2007,22:26
The Uncommonly Dense Nixplanatory Filter: Second Childhood
A little over a year ago, DaveScot stepped down from his post as BlogCzar. He was seen cavorting in greener pastures - < Janie's > titillating blog, in particular.
A few hours later the New UD was born, the loudspeaker was torn from the ceiling, a brief moratorium on commenting was imposed, and the New Look UD ventured forth with the rededication of Lost in Space, season three. No more camp theater for us. Alas, the reform was equally durable.
< 7 > William Dembski 07/21/2006 8:42 pm
Stevie Steve is no longer with us. WmAD
Patrick found DaveScot's demotion amusing:
< 44 > Patrick 07/25/2006 4:20 pm
Be careful or I might go all DaveScot on you.
But he couldn't keep it up. Patrick understood that simply emulating DaveTard could be offensive.
46 Patrick 07/25/2006 6:14 pm
I also must apologize for the tone of my last couple messages.
But none of that Mr. Nice Guy stuff for WAD
< 12 > William Dembski 07/25/2006 7:52 am
TANSTAAFL appears to be blowing smoke, which he is welcome from now on to do elsewhere. WmAD
< 42 > William Dembski 07/26/2006 8:24 am
Max Kirk: I'm afraid I'm not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you're out of here. As for my reference to professed Christians, it was not meant as a slur. By professed Christians, I simply mean Christians who publicly/explicitly acknowledge that they are Christians, I am as much a professed Christian as is Ken Miller.
< 16 > William Dembski 08/08/2006 12:50 pm
This thread is now closed. I'm going to have Joel go through this thread and remove anyone who was getting out of line. Since, Farshad, you thought slowness in moderating was something to exploited, you'll be the first to go. WmAD
< 5 > William Dembski 08/07/2006 10:38 pm
Olegt: I'm not entirely happy with the spirit you bring to our discussion. I'm removing you from the user list. Good bye.
< 3 > William Dembski 08/08/2006 12:14 pm
Diegopig: Reach chapters 1 and 2 of THE DESIGN INFERENCE. Also, for my scholarly work, as opposed to cultural commentary, look at www.designinference.com Diegopig & Timcol: You're both out of here.
Scott tries something new: a Graphical User Interface:
19 Scott 08/03/2006 8:09 am MrsCogan
A particularly clear (and simultaneously surreal) instance of Agree with me or you're out of here, from Uncommonly Denyse. I think she is drawing upon personal experience:
< 20 > O'Leary 08/13/2006 10:29 pm
Houdin, you know perfectly well what a species is. If you can eat a pair of pantihose and live, that does not make you a new species. Also, you know as well as I do that many supercilious but badly informed persons assume that Darwin explained the origin of life. Quit twisting my words. My finger is close to the delete key, but I actually hate to use it. Don't force me.
Lest we forget, you must amuse, and never bore:
< 12 > William Dembski 08/17/2006 10:24 pm
Tiggy, you've become boring. Farewell. WmAD
Stripped of his dignity by his experience with Janie, (or was it just stripped?), DaveTard tiptoed back into UD:
< 5 > DaveScot 08/18/2006 5:54 pm
I wasn't aware there was anything in Wordpress that allowed you to relocate a comment from one thread to another.
Misery loves company:
7 William Dembski 08/18/2006 8:41 pm
DaveScot: Glad to see you again. You've done inestimable service for this blog, and your insights have been missed. I've upgraded the account under which you posted this comment to Author, same as Sal. I want to see you posting here again
and lets ban like it's 1999:
< 6 > William Dembski 08/22/2006 7:23 am
Sophophile: Two points before you are booted: (1) the burden of proof is on the chance worshippers to show that natural selection has the creative power attributed to it in building, say, molecular machines, we already know that intelligence can build machines, including nanomachines; (2) the issue is not the number of articles or books cited, but their quality and detail in demonstrating that Darwinian paths exist to such systems. Good bye.
7 William Dembski 08/22/2006 8:51 pm
Valkhorn & EJ Klone: GilDodgen got it. Apparently neither of you did. With Dennett and Dawkins hawking Darwinism and thoroughly alienating the unwashed middle, the comparison seems apt.
Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to www.designinference.com. As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I'll be booting all three of you.
Sal, OTOH, just isn't cut out for this kind of work:
< 33 > scordova 08/25/2006 4:38 pm
Leo, In the interest of keeping the peace, can you hold off on further comments on this thread? Thank you for your participation, even though I disagree. However, I will have to defer to Dr. Davison since this thread is about his work, and he should have some say as to what sort of dicsussion he wishes to entertain regarding his work.
So if you could hold off further comments here, I would appreciate it. thanks,?Salvador
Who is THIS guy? He won't last long:
< 13 > Reciprocating Bill 08/27/2006 1:11 pm
S. J. Gould addressed this specific argument vis Blyth in his 2002 masterwork The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. To wit, on page 137 and 139 (138 is entirely footnotes)
A Big Moment: DaveTard's first ban since returning. Better put your shithat on, because a shit storm is coming.
< 132 > DaveScot 08/31/2006 9:35 am
trrll Arms are not slings. Nematocysts are not blowguns. And I've grown weary of your silly replies. Adios.
< 73 > DaveScot 08/30/2006 8:51 pm
Flippantly talking about priests molesting altar boys is over the top, John. Yer outta here. Again.
< 7 > Scott 08/29/2006 7:19 am
Thanks for the tip, Davescot. Clowns have always creeped me out. He's outta here UHgain.
Take a break, and contemplate these:
?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 4 < DaveScot > 09/06/2006 7:57 am I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for all the music and art in the world.
18 DaveScot 09/07/2006 4:48 am Music doesn't give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It's not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveTard reaches for that tingling of the scalp:
< 71 > DaveScot 09/12/2006 1:02 am
Thought Provoker just doesn't have the right spirit for our little community and won't be with us any longer. Fare thee well, Thought Provoker.
This guy is a real pain in the ass:
< 1 > Reciprocating Bill 09/07/2006 7:32 pm Bring on the Poof model!
2 DaveScot 09/07/2006 8:33 pm Okay. POOF! You're now in the moderation sandbox.
(I thought DT's rejoinder was pretty funny)
WAD is very conflicted about that tingling in the scalp:
< 11 > William Dembski 09/10/2006 1:19 am
Carlos is no longer with this forum. [Updated 9.10.06] I don't know what I was thinking. He's back if he'll have us. WmAD
Can't fool ole' DaveTard:
< 26 > DaveScot 09/13/2006 4:31 am
... Strangelove and Cogzoid are the same person. Since Cogzoid was banned by Professer Dembski a year ago, and it's been my experience that Bill's decisions in these matters are sound ones, Cogzoid under his new name is no longer with us. Fare thee well, Cogzoid.
This is one of the weirder bans/unbans you'll ever see:
< 151 > DaveScot 09/14/2006 4:07 am
ofro If you had the first clue about pets people keep you'd know how popular small mammals are. Hamsters, guinea pigs, dwarf rabbits, hedgehogs, sugar gliders, chinchillas, and ferrets are a few that come to mind that my kids have had. One of my daughters had a chihuahua the weighed about 3 pounds full grown. You can take it to the bank that an even smaller dog would be very popular. All you have to do is google teacup puppies and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits. I never said anything about scaring away an intruder. I said a tiny dog would function as a home intrusion alarm while not being loud enough to be a nuisance to neighbors. It doesn't have to be any louder or lower pitched than a wrist watch alarm to perform that function. Pitch is dependent on the length of the vocal cords not the size of the animal. A young girl that masses as much as a large dog has a very high pitched scream in comparison. But that's beside the point as small mammals that have no practical use at all sell well as pets. Given your proclivity for making up facts out of thin air in a desperate attempt to defend your dogmatic chance worshipping worldview and wasting everyone's time in the continual process of correcting you, you're going to have to find another forum for it. Goodbye.
154 DaveScot 09/14/2006 5:34 am
On second thought I'm not going to restrict ofro but rather point out that he is an Associate Professor of Physiology at a well known U.S. medical college and obtained his PhD over 30 years ago in Germany. It's enlightening that I was able to box him into an indefensible position regarding the built-in size/weight limitations in the dog genome so easily and such that I had him making up things up like there being no market for tiny dogs and thus no one had tried to breach the 1 kilogram barrier. A simple google that takes just seconds reveals the huge market for the smallest possible dogs and anyone with any exposure to much of the real world knows how popular small mammals are as pets for children. Yet this esteemed professor couldn't be bothered to check the validity of the assertions underpinning his arguments. Why would an otherwise respectable professor do this? Hubris? Unaccustomed to being defied? I don't know. But I do no one thing, it's people like Ofro that have caused me, over the decades, to have no intellectual respect for any professor until they've demonstrated to me they deserve it. Titles unfortunately have come to mean nothing. Ofro has demonstrated just the opposite of deserving respect. His inability to concede a point and the lengths he went to to avoid doing so earned nothing but contempt. I'll let him stick around just so I can make an example of him again in the future. A bit of down home American advice, Ofro: People who get too big for their britches get exposed in the end. Is there a German equivalent to that meme?
Cjok is put out to pasture:
< 13 > DaveScot 09/14/2006 3:42 pm
cjok just doesn't get it and is no longer with us
And Alan Fox forgot! It's Dave's way or the highway (I told you to put on your shithat):
< 77 > DaveScot 09/20/2006 8:43 am
Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn't use Riesberg's article to do anything other than dispute trrll's assertion that evolution is unrepeatable. Alan knows this and purposely misrepresented what was in dispute.
< 20 > DaveScot 09/27/2006 7:37 am
You're not fitting in with the spirit of our little community here Hawks and your arguments have deteriorated from well constructed to frustrated rants. I'm afraid it's time for you find another blog.
David Heddle is unwelcomed by WAD hisself:
< 23 > William Dembski 09/27/2006 4:51 pm
David Heddle: I don't like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I'm now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.
You can't fire me, I quit:
< 11 > DaveScot 09/28/2006 1:51 pm
carl Your delicate flower remark earned you a place on the moderation list. A repeat and you're gone. Capisce?
14 Carl Sachs 09/28/2006 2:18 pm 11 Don't bother. I won't be back.
Tom English learns what happens if you make DaveTard cry:
< 139 > DaveScot 10/03/2006 5:44 am
Thanks for playing, Tom. There's a lovely consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. It's an Avida generated EQU instruction autographed by fellow chance worshipper/ professor-in-denial Richard Dawkins.
As does KarlFluger
< 161 > DaveScot 10/04/2006 9:12 am
Karl I never said anyone modeled microprocessors at the transistor level. That's a straw man. Tom English put those words in my mouth. He said modeling evolution at the protein level is like modeling processors at the transistor level. I replied with an article talking about modeling processors at the gate level. I presumed Tom knew that gates are just a few transistors each and wouldn't quibble. But of course to save your egos both of you did continue to quibble.
In point of fact electronics are modeled and understood even at the quantum scale as necessary. I suspect both you and English knew that but are simply too intellectually dishonest to admit that biological systems are not well enough understood to model them like a microprocessor. You're done here, Karl. I find your dishonesty offensive.
And yours truly:
< 190 > DaveScot 10/05/2006 2:28 pm
recip - ... And just so we are clear, that's the last bit of stupidity you're going to be posting here. Hasta la vista, baby.
JAD's immortal question
< 191 > John A. Davison 10/05/2006 6:57 pm
Who is left?
WAD is left:
< 7 > William Dembski 10/01/2006 2:37 pm
MikeFNQ: There's a phenomenon called a neighborhood effect, in which similar entities enhance and reinforce each other. I've removed you from the forum
The forces of whackery collide:
< 46 > DaveScot 10/11/2006 2:16 pm
John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him.
< 41 > DaveScot 10/23/2006 3:41 am
Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He's done wasting our time here.
Crandaddy is gonna hafta grow a pair if he expects to moderate here:
< 21 > crandaddy 10/24/2006 5:37 pm
Speaking of anger, mine is growing fast. To compare my silence with regard to the Wikipedia article to a bystander watching a woman being murdered is a low blow, and you should know that. I believe I have sufficiently justified my course of action, and if you don't like it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've never banned a commenter before, and really don't want to start now. I fear that one more comment from you will be enough for me to give you the boot; it is for this reason that I'm closing this thread.
< 4 > DaveScot 10/23/2006 10:17 am
DvK Eugenics is good science with repugnant ethical implications. Don't bother responding, DvK. I've reached the limit of how much time I'm willing to spend correcting your comments. You're history here.
No limit to the pseudoscience, but pseudotheology is another thing entirely.
< 20 > William Dembski 10/25/2006 5:08 pm
JaredL: You are herewith limited to two theological posts on any thread. Your confidence in your theological position is out of keeping with its pedigree. Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Thomas were not slouches and did not derive the reductio ad absurdum that you do. Let's get this thread back on track, which is the connection between atheistic Darwinism, determinism, and the inability, as a matter of practical life, to live out the latter.
DaveTard doesn't get that you can't simultaneously be both good cop and bad cop:
< 4 > DaveScot 10/26/2006 11:03 am
PhilVaz There has been debate among the moderators whether to ban you. I defended you. However, given your uninformed comment that ID claims the designer is God I'm going to admit an error and correct it right now. You're history.
Waste not want not:
< 34 > DaveScot 10/26/2006 6:17 pm
bebbo In answer to your question, have you seen any posts by Phil here?
< 38 > DaveScot 10/26/2006 7:34 pm
Jerry PhilVaz wasn't just banned for this one comment. As I mentioned his banishment was debated among the moderators some time ago for badly misquoting Todd Norquist. I defended Phil at the time but I realize now I shouldn't have.
As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It's done.
And the shitstorm continues. Maybe this is that flood they've been talking about:
< 22 > DaveScot 10/29/2006 9:36 am
ScaryFacts is no longer with us. After looking at his blog I determined that he isn't the kind of person that belongs in our community.
< 37 > DaveScot 10/30/2006 1:55 am
Frisbee has been weeded out.
Kristine briefly shimmies through:
< 19 > Scott 11/04/2006 6:32 pm
kharley471: Adios o thou who art enomored with 19th century mystery religions. Thou shalt be greatly missed.
DaveScot sees an analogy:
< 36 > DaveScot 11/06/2006 4:20 am
cfrench I just threw up.
And I just banned you.
Zachriel gets banned AND censored yet again. He's gonna remember that.
< 37 > DaveScot 11/13/2006 4:12 am
Get lost Zachriel. I gave you a second chance to mend your ways but you're still running about on the net posting trash talk about our site here. I consider that duplicitous and don't want your two-faced kind around here. Hasta la vista. I'll be deleting your previous comments along with you. Call it taking out the trash.
< 21 > DaveScot 11/10/2006 8:50 pm
Touchstone
I've had it with you. Go find somewhere else to post your pap.
< 22 > DaveScot 11/13/2006 6:04 am
PaulM: .As a reward for your fabricated-on-the-fly stupidity about SETI you are hereby banished from this blog. Have a nice life.
Just the facts as PWE goes down by WAD's hand:
< 10 > William Dembski 11/29/2006 10:43 am
PWE is no longer with us. WmAD
< 13 > DaveScot 12/03/2006 9:20 pm
Three strikes and you're out, Robin. I've had quite enough of correcting your shabby comments.
< 80 > DaveScot 12/06/2006 6:31 am
KL is no longer with us. A new user flying off the handle because he was asked and failed to provide a better reference for the Templeton Foundation's supposed request for ID research proposals isn't acceptable here.
< 37 > DaveScot 12/07/2006 11:34 am
Ellis So if we say something can falsify ID and it happens you just know we'll somehow renege on what we said. You're out of here. Buh bye
Time out for a classic: Teach the controversy: ?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 15 < William Dembski > 12/12/2006 2:47 pm
Okay, I changed putz to schlemiel. Satisfied?
23 William Dembski 12/12/2006 4:12 pm Putz sounds better, so we're back to putz.
(This is the Isaac Newton of information theory speaking, mind you.)
50 DaveScot 12/13/2006 3:45 am Putz does have a better sound to it. No argument there. Absent a more complete single word descriptor I guess it'll have to do. Dickweed would be more hip. Beavis and Butthead really popularized it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 64 > William Dembski 12/13/2006 10:35 am
I'm beginning to find you tiresome, Raing Bee. Goodbye. WmAD
Hooligans begins his journey home:
< 75 > DaveScot 12/13/2006 1:56 pm
Hooligans is no longer with us. We fail to impress him and he fails to impress us.
How far have they fallen? A classic:
?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 16 December 2006 The voice in the Judge Jones School of Law < William Dembski >
Over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There's been a design inference made that it's my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it's true, it actually is me. But that's only temporary. We are inviting Judge Jones to do himself. Stay tuned.
17 December 2006 Flatulence removed from The Judge Jones School of Law William Dembski
The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance The Judge Jones School of Law. As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution's demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sucker punch ban:
< 7 > DaveScot 12/20/2006 10:59 am
Larry, why do Darwinists insist on calling ID creationism? You'll need to answer on your own blog because you're no longer welcome on this one.
Febble was way too smart to last at UD
< 66 > DaveScot 01/09/2007 3:17 am
febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn't understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble.
< 17 > DaveScot 01/18/2007 2:18 pm
Franky This is your last comment in this thread. You're just cluttering it up with nonsense and pedantry.
< 5 > William Dembski 01/20/2007 8:52 pm
Kengee is no longer with us. Denyse, longsuffering is a virtue, but not with the insufferable.
< 12 > DaveScot 01/21/2007 7:22 pm
steveh is no longer with us
< 12 > DaveScot 01/19/2007
6:28 am
ludwig That's so hopelessy wrong I hardly know where to begin. I think you need to find a different blog.
Now pay special attention. Amadan has been made not to exist. But we know he did in fact exist, because he was well liked as he set his hook:
< 5 > DaveScot 01/25/2007 6:30 am
amadan Great comment. Welcome.
Amadan can't be seen, but his silhouette in negative space can be felt:
< 1 > tribune7 01/26/2007 8:46 am Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who's time machine was called?
The TARDIS
< 9 > DaveScot 01/31/2007 9:44 am
amadan
...Intelligent people of all backgrounds experience the numinous which can be quite compelling, quite impossible to ignore, and thus resists discounting by rationalization.
< 11 > DaveScot 01/31/2007 2:04 pm
amadan That is not good evidence for a god'. Agree?
It's good evidence for the millions or billions of people who experience it. You have no evidence of self-awareness in anyone but yourself except for testimony from others that they too feel self-aware. What's the difference in kind or quality of evidence between that and the numinous?[/quote]
Dear Reader (did I just sound like O'Leary? Take me out back and shoot me), please appreciate that I am now wading through countless global warming, DCA, and the sound of some dumb thing or other exploding posts. On and on its dysfunctional way UD goes, and I stagger forward, shithat pulled hard down over my ears:
< 21 > DaveScot 03/08/2007 8:31 am
Tims .Inferring that something is designed does not require knowing how it was manufactured. You clearly can't accept that so there's really no reason for you to continue here.
We all need a break. Hell, I need a break: ?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 6 DaveScot 03/26/2007 3:55 pm
It just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We're reproductively isolated by geography and there isn't a snowball's chance in south central Texas I'd be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we're probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
shithat. Check.
< 14 > DaveScot 04/02/2007 12:27 am
Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won't be holding our collective breath in the interim.
< 7 > DaveScot 04/03/2007 6:30 pm
Anybody looking for Bilbo's comments if he hadn't been such an ass they would have stayed up. As a general rule any comment that starts out with the theme I don't expect this to get posted because disagreement isn't tolerated I consider to be a death wish and I grant the wish. So don't do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11 < William Dembski > 04/03/2007 9:19 am
Some time back I wrote that it can be used to advantage that the other side thinks we're such morons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 92 > William Dembski 04/26/2007 10:21 am
George Murphy: Your D&D comment merits a boot. I see subsequently that are claiming to remove yourself from the discussion here. That's a happy coincidence. Yet to ensure that you don't change your mind, I'm disabling your posting privileges.
< 19 > William Dembski 06/15/2007 7:05 pm
bdelloid is no longer with us.
< 8 > William Dembski 06/21/2007 11:32 am
Pixie is no longer with us.
< 151 > DaveScot 07/11/2007 5:54 pm
JAM is no longer with us. Patrick Caldon is no longer with us.
Attention must be paid:
< 19 > William Dembski 06/28/2007 2:56 pm
Hermagoras is no longer with us...
--------------------------------------------------------------
We come now, at last, to the most recent banning I detected at UD:
< 3 > William Dembski 07/25/2007 8:24 am
JT75 is no longer with us. There are other forums where his views will receive a much warmer embrace.
< 7 > William Dembski 07/25/2007 4:10 pm
JT75 emailed me, and I gave him the option to reregister. Perhaps I was hasty.
< 6 > William Dembski 07/25/2007 4:49 pm
JT75 has been invited back to the blog.
I find it fitting that this final entry depicts WAD, and UD, staggering in circles, because it beautifully characterizes the state of ID. Indeed, having scanned every post at UD (most very quickly) I was in the end struck by how empty it has become, relative to it's high points of dysfunctional vitality. Again, like ID itself.
Two more to close this post:
< 10 > scordova 07/10/2007 3:34 pm
...That's fine. I expect I'll get a lot of opinions on this topic.
Speak freely.
< 25 > DaveScot 08/01/2007 11:52 am
Someone should keep a compilation of dirty darwinist tricks. It'll be full time job needing frequent attention.
Bye!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 02 2007,22:38
Springer:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This should go in the dictionary as an illustration of "hypocrisy".
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 02 2007,22:46
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,22:38) | Springer:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This should go in the dictionary as an illustration of "hypocrisy". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, THAT reconciliation didn't last long, did it.
(snicker) (giggle)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Aug. 03 2007,01:21
Bloody hell R. Bill. You deserve a medal for delving so deep into the mess that is UD. That place gives me the creeps.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Aug. 03 2007,06:15
Bill
That is a herculean effort, mucking through the Augean stables of UD to find those gems. Thanks.
If we're ever in the same neighborhood, and you have recovered enough to be out of therapy, remind me to buy you a beer!
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 03 2007,06:22
Bill,
I'd like to echo the sentiments of thanks for your effort, amazement at the tard and hypocrisy of UD, and general awe at your tardproof abilities. Have you been uaing specialist equipment? Is there special training one has to undertake? Personally I very, very, VERY rarely look at UD. The tard aggravates mean and if over exposed I may end up going on ebola spreading and church burning sprees.
Louis
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 03 2007,07:00
Yes, well done Bill. Your posts read like a piece of history. (I guess that means UD is history.)
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on Aug. 03 2007,07:04
RB:
My goodness.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 03 2007,09:10
I vote RB for an hononary Knighthood.
YOU ARE SO BANNED HOMO, IN FACT COME BACK SO I CAN BAN YOU ALL OVER AGAIN!!! DT *froths at mouth, knuckles bleed from dragging*
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 03 2007,16:19
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 03 2007,07:22) | Bill,
...Have you been using specialist equipment? Is there special training one has to undertake? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My equipment requirements are minimal:
- a durable shit-hat - a strong drink - mouse with scroll wheel - a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on. - another strong drink
Training? I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I've continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I've had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven't been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled.
Any more questions?
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 03 2007,16:30
Yes I do have some more questions:
1) Do you know Michael Dell personally? 2) Do women practically or metaphorically break their pelvises in half opening their legs so that they can be impregnated by you and hopefuly then go on to bear your children? 3) Are you afraid of clowns? 4) Do you live in fear of visits and have large dogs and lots of guns? 5) Are you fond of cheesy poofs? 6) Are you an agnostic? 7) Extra bonus question: Are you REALLY an agnostic or do you just play one on the net to make it look like IDC has nothing to do with religion?
Thanks
Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Aug. 03 2007,16:32
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 03 2007,16:19) | - a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's asking for trouble. Ever read A Clockwork Orange? After this trauma, you might never be able to listen to them again without your lunch taking an encore.
I'd recommend stocking up on Pat Boone before the next shift at the shitmine.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 03 2007,18:08
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 03 2007,17:32) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 03 2007,16:19) | - a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's asking for trouble. Ever read A Clockwork Orange? After this trauma, you might never be able to listen to them again without your lunch taking an encore.
I'd recommend stocking up on Pat Boone before the next shift at the shitmine. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great minds... I had "A Clockwork Orange" inserted in exactly that way, but cut it. Brevity the soul of wit, an' all.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Aug. 03 2007,18:17
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 03 2007,18:08) | Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 03 2007,17:32) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 03 2007,16:19) | - a collection of pristine vinyl: Brahms clarinet sonatas, Bach Partitas, Schubert's beautiful Sonata for Arpeggione (sort of a super cello) and piano, and so on. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's asking for trouble. Ever read A Clockwork Orange? After this trauma, you might never be able to listen to them again without your lunch taking an encore.
I'd recommend stocking up on Pat Boone before the next shift at the shitmine. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great minds... I had "A Clockwork Orange" inserted in exactly that way, but cut it. Brevity the soul of wit, an' all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's been a few years, but wasn't "A Clockwork Orange" all about the "Ludwig Van" . . . . . ?
So what's all this Bach and Schubert stuff . . . . ?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 03 2007,18:29
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 03 2007,17:30) | Yes I do have some more questions: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Do you know Michael Dell personally?
I don't personally know anyone. I have my people know them and report back. Particularly the biblical knowing, which produces a kind of tingling in the scalp that I've heard is not entirely unpleasant.
2) Do women practically or metaphorically break their pelvises in half opening their legs so that they can be impregnated by you and hopefuly then go on to bear your children?
Only Inuit women, but I'm just not interested, although theoretically we are of the same species.
3) Are you afraid of clowns?
Clowns who don't fear the awesome maw of my chain saw must be deranged, may be dangerous and should be feared.
4) Do you live in fear of visits and have large dogs and lots of guns?
My mother threatened to visit once, but, yes, I do have lots of dogs and large guns. She backed down. (But my scalp was tingling.)
5) Are you fond of cheesy poofs?
Cheesy frontloading with massive error correction is my thing.
6) Are you an agnostic?
Hell if I know.
7) Extra bonus question: Are you REALLY an agnostic or do you just play one on the net to make it look like IDC has nothing to do with religion?
Truth be told, I don't give a rat's ass about any of the topics I address on UD, one way or the other.
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 04 2007,00:36
OK SMARTYPANTS IF YOU CHANCE WORSHIPPERS DON'T BELIEVE IN THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, EXPLAIN HOW COME I'M NOT RANDOM AND WHY DID THE HAND OF JESUS GUIDE MY DADDY'S SINGLE SPERM THAT MADE ME ONTO MY MOMMY'S EGG THAT MADE ME?
OR DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY!!! D.T. * sucks thumb*
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 08 2007,23:21
I'm thinking future bannorariums should be recorded here. I don't follow most of the comments at UD so if you spot one, quote it here with a link.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Aug. 09 2007,09:02
OMG He noticed! < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-at-ud >
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 09 2007,09:09
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 09 2007,09:02) | OMG He noticed! < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-at-ud > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Praise Jebus! It's a miracle! Peter Olaffson has been disappeared!
Unless it's all street theater...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 14 2007,14:18
< 20 > DaveScot 08/14/2007 10:53 am
mg
falsifying the ID hypothesis requires observation of a process
Observation of processes are now somehow off limits in scientific investigation? Right. You're about to observe the process of banishment from UD for polluting threads with nonsense.
Posted by: clamboy on Aug. 14 2007,20:41
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 09 2007,09:02) | OMG He noticed! < http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-at-ud > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
*sigh*
Error 404 - Not Found
Not surprised.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 23 2007,21:37
He's WAD to the bone...
< 19 > William Dembski 08/23/2007 12:34 pm
Rocket is no longer with us. -WmAD
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 30 2007,06:55
So art DOES give DaveTard that tingle in the scalp as he delivers triple banorariums:
< 58 > DaveScot 08/30/2007 6:09 am art (and art2) is no longer with us
erv can also take her sarcastic mouth elsewhere
factician has also been included in the housecleaning
Posted by: k.e on Aug. 30 2007,07:31
With aplogies to the bard:-
Alas, poor erv! I knew him, D.T.: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how Abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favor she must come; make her laugh at that.
Tell me D.T. When you admire a man with a small moustache who with an effete wave of the arm can call an entire theatre to their feet in an adolescent miasma of modernist crapulence, where does that leave morality?....oh wait you hang out with creationists..Say no more.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 01 2007,09:22
For easy reference, I've decided to copy my first installation in the series (which I originally posted in the Uncommonly Dense thread) to this thread. Apologies for the double post.
The Nixplanatory Filter 2005: The First Year
This compilation was relatively easy, because from its inception in early 2005 to its closure following Dover in December, 2005, UD was moderated exclusively by WAD, and Bandora's Box was opened less often than nowadays.
WAD acknowledges early silent banning and censorship:
About This Blog William Dembski 15 May 2005
It seems that some of my readers are disgruntled because their comments are not appearing on this blog and, in some cases, because I'm removing them as users. Please have a look at my Comments about Comments from last month. One of the things I stressed there is don't bore me. Darwinists tend to think that simply by telling an evolutionary story about some phenomenon that they have achieved remarkable insight. I don't.
There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.
THE FIRST REAL BANNING: A special moment.
< 27 > William Dembski 06/16/2005 9:16 am
Duke York: You are off this blog for good. I've made some adjustments to your account which should keep you off. If you find a way around it, I'll delete you entirely, which, given the way WordPress works, means that all your posts will be gone too. -WmAD
Notice the clumsy, beginners verbosity. ?This gets better with practice. ?But not immediately:
< 1 > William Dembski 06/26/2005 10:27 pm I deleted Doran's comment because it was yet another instance of the trite and easy dismissals of ID that I find elsewhere and that I've answered in my writings. If you want to be critical of ID on this blog, tell me something I haven't seen before. I spent the last three months as an expert witness in the Dover case pouring over the expert witness reports of all the usual suspects on the other side (Miller, Forrest, Pennock, etc.) and responding to them at length. I expect I'll be posting these reports on my designinference.com website soon. Try to imagine that I might be well informed about what the other side is saying. Try also to imagine that I'm easily bored by what they are saying. ?-WmAD
Familiar forms begin to appear...
< 12 > William Dembski 07/24/2005 8:51 pm
Rubble: Your criticisms are shopworn. Please take them elsewhere.
Benji got a warning, because he's a dog:
< 5 > William Dembski 07/28/2005 8:11 am
Benji: You are herewith limited to one post per day per thread. Also, keep the tone respectful and make the contribution substantive. I'm getting tired of your off-hand comments. ?-WmAD
But it didn't help:
< 7 > William Dembski 07/28/2005 9:28 am
Benji: You are not listening. You are herewith banned from this blog. ?-WmAD
DaveScot is already itching to get into the act:
< 30 > DaveScot 08/13/2005 9:45 am
Sartre - will you leave and never come back if I provide my design engineering credentials?
And now for an off topic break from these dreary executions, courtesy of a classic:
?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 37 DaveScot 08/13/2005 7:56 pm Sartre Biologists have no training in engineering. How can they recognize design? You aren't going to win this argument. I'm an autodidact. My knowledge of biology is extensive as is my knowledge of computers and machinery of all kinds. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On it goes...
< 9 > William Dembski 08/14/2005 8:58 pm
Vax, you are repeating the party line. I have no patience for it here. You are out of here. ?-WmAD
Something new...Demski bans himself!
19 August 2005 My Retirement from Intelligent Design William Dembski
The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I've done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can't endure it any longer. I've therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love ?- playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it's possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell. ?-WmAD
OK, so he was back the same day. One can see where FTK learned her chops. ?But now Benji's back, still chewing WAD's slippers:
< 3 > William Dembski 09/28/2005 3:25 pm
Benjii: Stay on topic. This is a warning. ?-WmAD
Pope WAD:
< 27 > William Dembski 10/21/2005 3:54 pm
Get this thread back on topic or else excommunications will follow. ?-WmAD
More infalibility:
< 14 > William Dembski 11/04/2005 10:21 am
2perfection: You are herewith formally disinvited from this forum. ?-WmAD
WAD foreshadows Judge Jones as he bans an entire THREAD:
< 47 > William Dembski 11/08/2005 9:53 am
The gavel has fallen. This thread is closed. ?-WmAD
A rare find: WAD threatens to ban DaveTard:
< 11 > William Dembski 11/11/2005 2:14 pm
DaveScot: hlwarren is right. Behave yourself. ?-WmAD
Getting pretty lazy now...
< 23 > William Dembski 11/30/2005 8:38 am
PuckSR is no longer with this blog. ?-WmAD
A break for some bitter explanation:
?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- < 30 November 2005 > Why I ruthlessly edit comments on this blog William Dembski
Here's an email from someone I banned from this blog. If you can't see why I've lost all patience with people like this, then you need to be spending your time elsewhere in cyberspace.
William,
Is there the slightest possibility you might ?'open' your ID forum to dissenting views?
You have some very dedicated apostles stroking your online ego, and insulating these young scientists from the ?'Borg' is very Christian of you indeed; however, to many of us on the ?'outside' your questionable editing practices suggest little more than self-aggrandizing censorship. You are a curiosity, your theory a religious oddity, and your ?'designer' is wearing your hat.
Respectfully,
[snip] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More of his bile, same thread:
< William Dembski > 12/01/2005 9:41 am
Darwinists have long regarded freedom of censorship as an inalienable right. I do to. But not because I don't like criticism of my views. Informed criticism is fine. Stupid, contemptuous, repetitive criticism is where I've lost patience. ?-WmAD
WAD courteously helps us with our bibliographic chores:
< 11 > William Dembski 12/01/2005 1:32 pm
For your reference, jimpressario is a name of the past on this blogsite. ?-WmAD[/quote]
And on and on...
< 10 > William Dembski 12/10/2005 8:41 pm
steve_h is no longer with this blog. ?-WmAD[/quote]
< 121 > William Dembski 12/19/2005 8:12 am
I was debating when to lower the boom on Renard. It seems that this is an appropriate time. ?-WmAD
A close shave:
< 12 > William Dembski 12/23/2005 2:10 pm
Mr. Christopher: You are fast becoming boring and in danger of getting booted from this forum. Who do you think sent me the copy of the check? And in the email he himself remarked that ?Intelligent Design is werry, werry good to me. Lighten up and chill out. As for my cashing in on ID, I've admitted as much before and in the same terms: < http://www.idthefuture.com/200.....o_id.html. > Think of ID and evolution as an arms race in which the arms manufacturers on both sides cash in. Let that thought cheer you this holiday season.
-WmAD
The following post was WAD's momentary dissolution of UD following Dover. Having skimmed the first year of UD, I could feel the kick to the stomach myself.
Posted by: Patrick Caldon on Sep. 03 2007,12:13
And here's some Telic Thoughts on bannination:
< http://telicthoughts.com/dave-scott-strikes-again/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Sep. 03 2007,12:26
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ Sep. 03 2007,12:13) | And here's some Telic Thoughts on bannination:
< http://telicthoughts.com/dave-scott-strikes-again/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, Sal, I hope you begin to understand the sort of people you call your friends. If not, maybe a few more invitations to the opposition, along with their banning for minor infractions will open your eyes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What where the "minor infractions"? Damned if I managed to see any. My POV was ERV got banned for being correct.
Oh, I know the "official" line lie. But ERV (although a tad sarcastic) was better behaved than her detractors.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 03 2007,15:31
Re "What where the "minor infractions"? Damned if I managed to see any. My POV was ERV got banned for being correct."
A mortal sin if ever there was one!!
Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 07 2007,10:26
Please add one more to the list- Dr. Dr. Demsbksi goes on Rampage - Bans poster "Seek and Find"
SeekAndFind: It?s evident that you haven?t read any of the papers produced by the EIL. If you had, you would realize that they fall squarely within the field of evolutionary computing, WHICH IS PROF. MARKS?S AREA OF EXPERTISE. I?m therefore giving you the boot. Goodbye. ?WmAD
ps:[I] I'm betting that Dembski is dumb enough to claim the "boot" he gave SeekAndFind on his Taxes. ?Hey, St. Hovind would have wanted it that way.
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-136168 >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 07 2007,10:50
SeekAndFind was subject to resurrection by < WAD >, so this doesn't count as an official bannination. One does see fear in the eyes of sycophants who face the banning stick.
I see that < the loudspeaker in the ceiling > is still working. They should rip that thing out by the wires.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 07 2007,11:24
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2007,18:50) | SeekAndFind was subject to resurrection by < WAD >, so this doesn't count as an official bannination. One does see fear in the eyes of sycophants who face the banning stick.
I see that < the speaker in the ceiling > is still working. They should rip that thing out by the wires. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent. Speaker in the wires? They have those in the PRK as well; each apartment has a loudspeaker wired back to party headquarters that broadcasts propaganda for several hours per day. You can turn the volume down but not off. Think of it as being in a fundy church for most of the week. The great paradox, of unbridled power is that in the hands of those that vaingloriously seek it, the audience must ideally be captive. ?The great secret is to create the perception that those on the inside would lose something if they were banished to the outside.
In Dr.Wads case that moment has long gone.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 07 2007,11:39
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 07 2007,11:24) | ? Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2007,18:50) | I see that < the speaker in the ceiling > is still working. They should rip that thing out by the wires. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This made me think of the NK News website, which has a < random insult generator >. WmAD and his merry band definitely need to get themselves one.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 07 2007,12:02
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2007,19:39) | Quote (k.e @ Sep. 07 2007,11:24) | ? Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2007,18:50) | I see that < the speaker in the ceiling > is still working. They should rip that thing out by the wires. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe Bill should move to North Korea. He would fit right in. Everyone there fears the Dear Leader and must endure being force fed propaganda without the slightest murmur of descent....er I mean dissent. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This made me think of the NK News website, which has a < random insult generator >. WmAD and his merry band definitely need to get themselves one. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Classic!!!
Dembski's hedgemony over running dog anti-materialism demands immediate psychopathological belly button fluff examination.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 20 2007,06:47
An interesting baseball variant, in which one player gets the first two strikes and another gets the third.
< 11 > William Dembski 9/19/2007
Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and youre out. WmAD
< 23 > William Dembski 9/20/2007 5:49 am
Grayman: That quote has been so overused and so used out of context against me that Im going to boot you for bringing it up here three strikes. To the rest, that quote comes from a book with a theological press in which I explore the theological implications of ID. The theological implications of a scientific theory or a theological reframing or interpretation of a scientific theory is not identical with it just as theres quantum mechanics and there are lots of interpretations of it (e.g., many minds or many worlds). WmAD
(Edit: Added links. So far as I can tell using the search function at UD, Grayman had received no prior admonitions. Rather, he made the mistake of posting during a very bad week for WAD.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 21 2007,19:02
This deserves, and herein receives, enshrinement among the other banoraria. Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2007,18:46) | Quote (hooligans @ Sep. 21 2007,17:30) | Had to save this gem from Rob before it gets deleted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 8 > Rob 09/21/2007 5:18 pm
[Peter Irons] forwards to me their response confirming that I am indeed an execrable character
But John Lilley doesnt describe you as, nor even imply you to be, an execrable character. Perhaps this description is in other e-mails not yet published here. Or will soon be revealed to us in the form of an animated cartoon replete with farting noises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
..and then it was gone. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 01 2007,14:17
DaveTard as environmentalist by proxy...
< 35 > DaveScot 10/01/2007 1:47 pm
Borne
I dont know about the others here but it seems obvious to me that our timothee is a young naive and pretentious student. Correct me if Im wrong.
Agreed. Hes gone. He can enlighten anyone interested from his own blog instead of further polluting ours.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 01 2007,15:32
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 01 2007,14:17) | DaveTard as environmentalist by proxy...
< 35 > DaveScot 10/01/2007 1:47 pm
Borne
I dont know about the others here but it seems obvious to me that our timothee is a young naive and pretentious student. Correct me if Im wrong.
Agreed. Hes gone. He can enlighten anyone interested from his own blog instead of further polluting ours. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not sure this one counts... he had one strike against him, as he writes his blog in French, and I am sure that DaveScot still eats Freedom Fries rather than French Fries with his cheesburgers.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 07 2007,17:20
An old banning that was missed in my original compilation because the entire < thread > in which it appeared was subsequently deleted. < Albatrossity2 > found it in the facile record back on 9/21, but I didn't happen to see his post until today. The thread itself is a true classic.
Qualitative January 30, 2006 10:16 pm
Even if ID gets pushed into the realm of philosophy perhaps it can take Darwinism with it.
Qualiatative is no longer with us. Who is next?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 13 2007,15:27
Not Czar - Pope! That would explain those abdominal wounds. But, seriously, some you see coming from a mile away:
< 25 > DaveScot 10/13/2007 11:33 am
ex-xian is now an ex-member and all his comments were ex-communicated.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 18 2007,22:16
DaveTard demonstrates that multiverses are real. Lotf is sucked out of one universe (UD) and into another (AtBC).
< 66 > DaveScot 10/18/2007 9:24 am
lotf is no longer with us
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 22 2007,21:02
WAD thinks Playboy Channel and imagines Ben Stein. Somehow, that explains a lot.
< 13 > William Dembski 10/22/2007 7:51 pm
David B: If Ben Stein were to appear tonight on the Playboy Channel, I would have announced it here as well. You, on the other hand, will no longer be appearing at UD.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 23 2007,00:52
And even the David B bannination was banned: < DaveScot: >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DavidBrennan is no longer with us. His comments and responses to his comments were disappeared along with him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 27 2007,23:09
Do true dichotomy and false dichotomy make a true dichotomy or a false dichotomy? Only DaveTard knows for sure.
< 12 > DaveScot 10/27/2007 10:05 pm
Having demonstrated an inability to discriminate between a true dicotomy and a false dichotomy, terminiki has been terminated.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 31 2007,20:15
Donald has had it up to here from Mickey.
< 26 > BarryA 10/31/2007 7:49 pm
Mickey, thats it. If you have not been convinced so far your ignorance has been proven to be invincible. Please move along.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 31 2007,21:06
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 31 2007,20:15) | Donald has had it up to here from Mickey.
< 26 > BarryA 10/31/2007 7:49 pm
Mickey, thats it. If you have not been convinced so far your ignorance has been proven to be invincible. Please move along. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think this might be premature; It looks to me like BarryA was just trying to get Bitsko out of his thread. Bitsko < posted a response. >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 01 2007,10:27
Davetard pulls the < trigger >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 30
DaveScot
11/01/2007
7:16 am ReligionProf is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two bans in one thread. That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 01 2007,10:39
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,10:27) | Davetard pulls the < trigger >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 30
DaveScot
11/01/2007
7:16 am ReligionProf is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two bans in one thread. That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am surprised Religion Prof lasted as long as he did - he wasn't backing down from their usual nonsense from day 1, but I suspect that his moniker held back his bannation to an extent.
Religion Prof - Come visit us again.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 02 2007,13:00
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 01 2007,10:39) | Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,10:27) | Davetard pulls the < trigger >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 30
DaveScot
11/01/2007
7:16 am ReligionProf is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two bans in one thread. That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am surprised Religion Prof lasted as long as he did - he wasn't backing down from their usual nonsense from day 1, but I suspect that his moniker held back his bannation to an extent.
Religion Prof - Come visit us again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2007,13:02
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 02 2007,18:00) | Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 01 2007,10:39) | Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,10:27) | Davetard pulls the < trigger >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 30
DaveScot
11/01/2007
7:16 am ReligionProf is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two bans in one thread. That's pretty good shooting even though they're firing from close range. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am surprised Religion Prof lasted as long as he did - he wasn't backing down from their usual nonsense from day 1, but I suspect that his moniker held back his bannation to an extent.
Religion Prof - Come visit us again. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was wondering how long it would be before someone used this. Damn you Chatfield you beat me to it.
{shakes fist}
Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 03 2007,09:52
The Committee on Nixplanatory Accuracy convened an emergency session overnight, attorneys present, and after many heated exchanges ruled that Mickey Bitsko's second bannination will enter the archives with an Asterix:
< 68 > DaveScot 11/02/2007 8:00 pm
MickeyBitsko is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 04 2007,08:51
When ID advocates "teaching the controversy," they don't mean at Uncommon Descent, for God's sake.
< 5 > DaveScot 11/04/2007 2:44 am rrf
Teaching the controversy is about the scientific dissent from Darwinism which is separate from ID.
And by the way, youre outta here.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 05 2007,10:11
Have they ever banned more than two people in a single day? What's the UD record for banning people in one day so far?
All this wholesale banning has got me thinking about getting a new UD account.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Nov. 05 2007,20:07
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2007,08:51) | When ID advocates "teaching the controversy," they don't mean at Uncommon Descent, for God's sake.
< 5 > DaveScot 11/04/2007 2:44 am rrf
Teaching the controversy is about the scientific dissent from Darwinism which is separate from ID.
And by the way, youre outta here. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Too funny! >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I wish we had rrfs post so we could understand all of the responses to him. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This too may end up being flushed down the memory hole...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 07 2007,17:33
< Zachriel > demonstrates inference to the best explanation at its most effective. Here we infer that temmenicki2 posted on UD, but was made to disappear. "Silent but deadly" refers to more than one UD phenomenon:
< 2 > Tim 11/07/2007 5:12 pm
Speaking of survival of the fittest, I wonder how fit temmenicki2s comment will be judged? ((I suspect that that least natural of selecters, a certain davescot, will soon swoop in and notify us that both temmenicki2, and his memetic offspring are no longer with us.))
temmenicki2, it is indeed possible that Denyse does not understand evolution, but Id like to suggest that you simply dont understand Denyse.
You gave yourself away whatever that means.
< 4 > bornagain77 11/07/2007 5:36 pm
temminicki2,
Id watch your step, evolution is debated on this site daily, when Ms. OLeary makes her comments she does so with a thorough understanding of the intricacies of evolution to the molecular level!
My I show you her book?
< 5 > interested 11/07/2007 5:48 pm
so temminicki
.how well do you understand ID?
you said: survival of the fittest simply means that those critters that make more babies have a better chance of getting their genes into the next generation.
johnson rightly pointed out in darwin on trial that this is merely a tautology. whoever survives
.survives. whoever survives also is able to bring their genes to the next generation. wow
.that is brilliant! thanks for the deep insights into evolution. it is truly a complex theory eh?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 12 2007,11:13
Over on my blog, a reader suggests that a running count be kept of bannings at UD.
I think a graphical counter might be just the thing.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 12 2007,11:16
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 12 2007,12:13) | Over on my blog, a reader suggests that a running count be kept of bannings at UD.
I think a graphical counter might be just the thing. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If it were made into an updating .gif (like the SitPS headlines one in JanieBelle's sidebar), I bet it would find its way onto quite a few blogs.
(Javascript isn't allowed on WP blogs, but the updating .gif thing from feedburner works everywhere, afaik.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2007,21:02
Hermagoras has done valuable fieldwork, and made an astounding discovery:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Yo yo yo peeps! Nixplanatory filter in da House!
Remember that horrid little thread by Galapagos Finch? The one with the cheese grater toilet paper? The one where getawitness continued his crusade to get an explanation on the EV paper? And maybe was getting somewhere?
The whole thread is gone: < 404 For Yourself > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There can be only one explanation. The Nixplanatory Filter has mutated and evolved. We've witnessed the emergence of a new function for the Nixplanatory filter. Exapted from its previous function - blanking inconveniently truthful commenters - it has acquired a new function: obliviating entire threads. This may only occur when those threads explicitly embarrass the lead smathematiciannakeoilsalesman - but that remains to be seen.
This is a rare and exciting moment in Rescienceligion. Hats off to Hermagoras.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 16 2007,10:32
---------------------QUOTE------------------- but that remains to be seen. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not if the thread was obliviated it doesn't!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 16 2007,20:49
In the bizarre World of WADcraft, virtual persons emerge from the quantum vacuum, live, speak the truth, then fall back into the nothingness from which they came. But the Nixplanatory Filter can't distinguish between that which is and that which might be, and therefore spasms and flails reflexively. Such phantom banninations of virtual persons will henceforth be recorded here, with this solemn incantation:
Stanton Rockwell never was true, and always will be.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2007,18:30
The Nixplanatory Filter continues to evolve, acquiring new modes of functioning. Gone is the loudspeaker in ceiling, and MIA is DaveTard and his arrogant declamations. New to WOW is the art of obliviation, whereby comments and even entire threads are dispatched to oblivion by The Ministry of Truth.
A particularly entertaining example (by way of cross-post) of a post being quietly shorn of commentary:
Quote (lkeithlu @ Nov. 19 2007,19:07) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 19 2007,15:50) | Ftk craves moderation in all things. Plus she has a cold.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- < 1 > Glarson24 11/19/2007 3:55 pm I bet this will be just as successful as Pan^das! Born^again 77, what do you think?
2 Forthekids 11/19/2007 4:30 pm Cough
um, are there any moderators around here anymore? Just curious.
3
raunala
11/19/2007
4:37 pm
Forthekids is right. Im usually lurker, but I now have to say I cant stand all these darwinian trolls anymore. I think I will stop reading this blog if something is not done about that.
4
bornagain77
11/19/2007
4:45 pm
Glarson24, Mine is already on order.
5
RTurner
11/19/2007
5:19 pm
I cant stand all these darwinian trolls anymore.
Seriously!
Only commitable, knowledgeless Philistines (undoubtedly Panda People) enjoy trolling. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey-all but one comment on this thread has been taken out??!?
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-des....-market > ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ftk: You've got the answer to your question, courtesy of the losers you count among your friends.
[edit] Added entire obliviated thread - thanks to BopDiddy
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Nov. 19 2007,19:13
Before...
after!
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 19 2007,21:21
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 19 2007,19:13) | Before...
after!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ID dialectic predicted this. I have been disappeared, but "I vill be bock".
RIP GLarson24 / aka J-Dog.
The puppet is dead. Long live the new puppet.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 21 2007,11:20
Once again the emphermal meets the uneducable...
Dear Solon never was true, and always will be.
Brave Glarson24 never was true, and always will be.
[Edit - I'm thinking I'll accumulate the virtual casualties in this post...]
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Nov. 29 2007,14:08
In some cases they are not banning anymore, just quietly removing the ability for them to post. Think of it as a private execution.
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 29 2007,15:22
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 21 2007,11:20) | Once again the emphermal meets the uneducable...
Dear Solon never was true, and always will be.
Brave Glarson24 never was true, and always will be.
[Edit - I'm thinking I'll accumulate the virtual casualties in this post...] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think that Lazarus has been disapeared also.
Long may he not rest in peace, but summon the dark angels to make DaveScot allergic to cowboy hats and boots, BA^77 to ramble on in meaningless rants, and Dembski to act as if he were above the law and get caught...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 29 2007,20:41
The paranoia grows, and the good die young:
37 Patrick 11/29/2007 1:22 pm
After watching the actions of Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists for a while I decided to block them. I cannot tell if they legitimately believe what they are saying but they are not here to reasonably discuss issues, they are here to accuse people based upon a disagreement on priorities. Besides, some terminology they used made me suspect they were frauds. If theyre not going to have any positive contribution to UD I dont see why they should stay.
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 04 2007,16:53
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 2
Bugsy
12/04/20073:46 pm I agree wholeheartedly.
Not only should atheists be disallowed for teaching any subject related to the bible, non-Nazis should be disallowed from teaching about Nazism, and capitalists should be disallowed from teaching about Communism.
Only true believers get to talk about given beliefs. Its the only way to give everyone a fair shake. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 3
digdug24
12/04/2007
3:47 pm
Indeed. All the so-called scientists who discredit the evidence for Bigfoot should not be allowed to teach a cryptozoology class. Someone like the new DI fellow Michael Medved would be infinitely better at such instruction because he believes it. Anyone else will just show their preconceived biases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 4
Bugsy
12/04/2007
4:02 pm
The literal existence of angels and of psi havent been given fair shakes in mainstream academia, either. We need to put more enthusiastic people in the chairs currently occupied by materialist scientists, to make sure that our experiments turn out the right way. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here, < BA77 strikes back >.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 8
Bugsy
12/04/2007
5:10 pm
What gives you the audacity to say that God definitely did not have a hand in creating such stunning complexity we see in life?
Ive said no such thing. In fact, you seem to be toeing the materialist line by denying the existence of angels and psi. Id think someone interested in quantum mechanics and ID would know better than to lump entire fields into the rubbish bin because they dont comply with orthodoxy, but thats exactly what youve done.
I ask you to reevaluate your incorrect, materialistic premises before you go over what Ive written. Only then can it become apparent that what I mean is not at all what you think it is, and that Im asserting a legitimate place for ID while decrying the canning of a distinguished astrophysicist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 9
digdug24
12/04/2007
5:12 pm
Hear hear bugsy.
Born^Again, why are you discrediting the work of honest scholars in the field of cryptozoology? There are lots of these folks out there and academia pooh-poohs their hard evidence and says it is not scientific. i see lots of interesting parallels between cryptozoology and ID. As far as angels go, I think we can make a design inference about their existence. Dembski certainly agrees. A question I have often considered is how much CSI would an angel have? Certainly it must be much more than a human being. This would give us a first order approximation at how much has been lost since the Fall.
I for one am glad that you are standing up for God and the argument regarding design. ID stands to gain immeasurably from not being wishywashy about the identity of the designer. This is a problem around here, for sure. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 10
Bugsy
12/04/2007
5:22 pm
To deny angels and psi is to deny the bible and the holy spirit. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nullasalus < disagrees ... >
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 12
Bugsy
12/04/2007
5:37 pm
I dont think you belong here at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And then Luskin < intervenes >, deleting all posts by both Bugsy and Digdug.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 6
Casey Luskin
12/04/2007
5:38 pm
The evidence released yesterday shows undeniable evidence that Dr. Gonzalez faced a hostile work environment and was denied academic freedom becuase he supports intelligent design. Regardless of whether you agree with ID, open minded people should be abhorred at what took place at ISU.
Bugsy and Digdug24 provide us with excellent examples of how Darwinists cope with evidence of their academic intolerance towards ID: they change the subject and make comments about angels and cryptozoology, etc. To see a discussion of the issue of ID and the identity of the designer, see [URL=http://www.discovery.org/a/4306. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 04 2007,17:47
Bugsy and DigDug again exemplify the newest Nixplanatory function evident at UD: Hidden Obliviation. Banninnation and Hidden Obliviation differ, although are not mutually exclusive.
Banninnation: Usually performed by WAD or DaveTard (although occasionally by others), and typically announced to the world by means of Arrogant Dismissive Aphorism. Old Banninnation is the archaic form typically administered through The Loudspeaker in the Ceiling. New Banninnation is the current, clearly endangered form implemented by means of Aphoristic Comment. Typically the banninnator identifies him or herself by means of initials, e.g., - WmAD
Hidden Obliviation: The removal of a series of posts, and sometimes entire threads, by Hidden Nixmasters. Hidden Nixmasters never announce their actions, yet the obliviated commenters remain detectable by means of their presence in negative space, as shadows cast across the continuing blithering commentary of other, as yet to be banned or obliviated participants.
The emergence of Hidden Obliviation and Hidden Nixmasters reflects the operation of a new form of evolutionary causation: Ridiculative Selection. Ridiculative selection is evident when the behavioral topology of a blog is modified by the consistent application of ridiculative pressures, in the face of which new behaviors that have yet to be ridiculed emerge while old behaviors that have been targeted by ridiculative selection drop from sight. Work is going forward to test the hypothesis that novel nixplanatory behaviors now emerging at UD are doing so response to the very ridiculative pressures applied by this thread.
Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 05 2007,09:42
Re "Ridiculative Selection"
For some reason, those various mutated phrases remind me of the "ludicrous speed" thing in Spaceballs.
Henry
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 05 2007,10:08
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2007,17:47) | Work is going forward to test the hypothesis that novel nixplanatory behaviors now emerging at UD are doing so response to the very ridiculative pressures applied by this thread.[/i] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, you're saying that ID is actually contributing to science???!!!
Just so you know, I edited this for a correction.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 10 2007,11:14
Getawitness protection:
< 14 > DaveScot 12/10/2007 9:21 am
Getawitness is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 10 2007,11:27
And SallyT. She's now an obliviated bloviating methodological materialist ideolog. Yet still winning the argument.
< 336 > DaveScot 12/10/2007 9:29 am
Sally_T is no longer with us.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 14 2007,12:06
Patrick endeavors to be very helpful in reporting ellazimm's bannination. He failed to take note of el's hidden obliviation, however.
41 Patrick 12/14/2007 10:20 am
Just so everyone knows, I just checked the banned list and ellazimm was added to it by one of the other moderators.
(*Cups hands over mouth to shout*) Hey, Pat, can I have a copy of that list?!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 16 2007,08:05
WAD instructs: No insults. *Cups hands as if to yell* HEY WAD, doesn't insulting our intelligence count? (A double WAD bannination that almost got away. I must be slipping.)
< 7 > William Dembski 12/04/2007 12:08 pm
Carl Sachs and Tedsenough are no longer with us. Word to the wise: Watch tone and dont insult others on this blog, even if provoked.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 16 2007,08:22
This isn't a banning. But it belongs here:
< 21 > jerry 12/05/2007 9:42 pm
BarryA,
The moderators here should read your analysis. People are banned too frequently, merely for intransigence...
22 BarryA 12/05/2007 11:14 pm
jerry, Im not sure I agree. I think you have to be pretty bad to get banned from this site. Throwing out insults, impugning integrity, etc. I dont think mere intransigence gets you kicked off. Witness getawitnesss continued presence. He never admits hes wrong even when everyone (including him, I suspect) knows it. But at least hes civil and kicks an occasional joke into the mix.
Getawitness was banned five days later.
< 5 > getawitness 12/10/2007 12:13 am
StuartHarris, it seems to be the medical community was pretty optimistic about antibiotics. Thats why they prescribed them all the time.
But then the bacteria kept developing resistance to even the toughest antibiotics. It seems to me were reaching something more like the edge of antibiotic technology.
6 russ 12/10/2007 1:04 am
...Falsification of his edge of evolution, or simply adjusting where the edge lies? If bacteria successfully adapt to each and every antibiotic, theres no evidence that that will lead to anything more than an altered bacterium.
7 getawitness 12/10/2007 1:11 am
Falsification of that edge, yes. He would be free to move the goalposts and draw another line in the sand.
13 DaveScot 12/10/2007 9:21 am
Getawitness is no longer with us.
BarryA?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 29 2007,07:36
Might makes wrong:
< 63 > DaveScot 12/28/2007 5:43 pm
dcost is no longer with us. He asserted that the fossil record is incomplete because (I kid you not) it is incomplete. I guess he is certain he is right because he is certain he is right. In the meantime Im certain that arguments of that nature are not welcome here.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 08 2008,06:40
Xcdesignproponentsists, too searching, is replaced:
< 37 > DaveScot 01/08/2008 7:19 am
xcdesignwhatever is no longer with us. Anyone wanting to criticize Behes Edge of Evolution without bothering to read it first can do it elsewhere.
Posted by: Mister DNA on Jan. 08 2008,11:33
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 08 2008,06:40) | Xcdesignproponentsists, too searching, is replaced:
< 37 > DaveScot 01/08/2008 7:19 am
xcdesignwhatever is no longer with us. Anyone wanting to criticize Behes Edge of Evolution without bothering to read it first can do it elsewhere. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe he can come back as xcdsuddenemergencesists.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 12 2008,14:01
Father O'DaveTard protects the tender feelings of his flock with angelic sincerity:
< 14 > DaveScot 01/12/2008 12:54 pm
undesigned is no longer with us for the any minute now remark. Sarcastic disrespect for the sincerely held religious beliefs of the majority of our members is uncalled for and unwelcome.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 17 2008,11:01
Here we have a Networked Hidden Obliviation, as Shoghi was summarily disappeared from UD AND comments caught in his web were obliviated as well. And all this happened in a computer on a post in WAD's backyard: Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 17 2008,10:55) | Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 15 2008,16:48) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- < Shoghi >: I designed a controlled experiment that would test the hypothesis that organisms are frontloaded with information that allows them to survive in a totally unique environment that could not have possibly been an evolutionary adaptation. ... My procedures (short version): Find spider hatchlings that have been born in the wild outdoors. Place them inside a broken computer (I choose a computer because they havent been around long enough for spiders to evolve any adaptations to living with). Next, place the computer on top of a pole outdoors. Wait and observe to see if they can build a web and then successfully reproduce.
< jerry >: A very clever experiment and one that offers prospects for the future. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shoghi, put jerry down. You've had your fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shoghi, I told you to put jerry down. Now, jerry's comments about spiders are gone too. No more spiders anywhere! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 17 2008,20:33
---------------------QUOTE------------------- No more spiders anywhere! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds like they might have been afraid of the tangled webs those octopods might weave...
Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 19 2008,08:06
A crosspost from the Uncommonly Dense thread documenting the science of obliviology. Unseen by the public are many hours of hot, dusty and arduous fieldwork conducted under primitive conditions. This refers to the < ID's Predictive Prowess > thread:
Obliviated comments may be detected as comment references fail to align. For example, in comment 159 (01/18/2008, 4:57 am) Clarence quoted PaV in 153 - but PaV's comment appears in 152 (01/17/2008, 6:31 pm). So one message prior to the original 153 was deleted after 4:57 am of 1/18.
Similarly, the wonderer in 143 (01/17/2008 9:01 am) addresses DLH in 100 - but the DLH comment to which he is responding appears in 98 (01/16/2008, 9:29 am). So some time after the (now) 143 was posted two comments were obliviated that appeared prior to DLH's (now) 98.
We can narrow this down a bit: in 147 Larry Fafarman (01/17/2008 2:17 pm) quoted DaveTard in #48 (01/15/2008 11:28 am), and the reference aligns. That means that nothing was deleted prior to 48 during that period, and hence the two deletions above occurred between comments 48 and 98. Prior to that Shoghi and his comments were obliviated, as was at least one of Jerry's comments. (I know: who cares?)
Of course, these numbers are likely to changes as further obliviations occur.
I think they're conducting a knockout experiment. Here they've knocked out a number of comments, yet the thread makes no less sense than before. It follows that the entire thread may be junk commentary.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 19 2008,09:41
DRat07 and all his (or her) comments have been Hidden Obliviated (although are still indexed by the UD search function). DRat's comments have disappeared from UD, across a number of threads, including WAD's < The World as Evolving Information >.
(WAD appears to have a point.)
HT: Zachriel
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 19 2008,19:01
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 19 2008,09:41) | DRat07 and all his (or her) comments have been Hidden Obliviated (although are still indexed by the UD search function). DRat's comments have disappeared from UD, across a number of threads, including WAD's < The World as Evolving Information >.
(WAD appears to have a point.)
HT: Zachriel ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Drat was me - I am surprised it took them this long to realize that Drat is Tard spelled backward.
The Nixplanatory Filter must have been not working again.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 01 2008,06:49
A Hidden Nixmaster has oblivated an entire thread at UD, demonstrating the operation of the Nixplanatory Filter in yet another new mode: Self-Ridiculative Selection. CeilingCat captured the entire spectacle < here >.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 02 2008,17:37
If this doesnt make clear the claims of ID to you then nothing will:
< 85 > DaveScot 02/02/2008 5:53 pm
Q
applying the claim that intelligent agency must precede intelligent living agency
Nowhere in the definition does it say this. No more warnings. Adios.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 09 2008,08:53
He won't be fooled again:
< 2 > DaveScot 02/08/2008
4:09 pm Drat,
Of course theres a reason. Im using his full name because hes black. I see using Hillarys middle name too didnt fool you any.
By the way, tard spelled backward isnt fooling me any either. Hasta la vista, baby!
(DaveDrat meant to say "anymore." Ok, back to your racism and ethnic slurs, Dave.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 13 2008,06:47
DaveTard stutters:
< 114 > DaveScot 02/13/2008
3:29 am aaron
You produced no study linking teaching ID with any reduction of science literacy. You ignore the definition of ID posted on our sideboard which makes no reference to anything supernatural.
Your trolling days here are over. Troll elsewhere.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 14 2008,19:07
WAD throws down. Find another way in:
< 10 > William Dembski 02/14/2008 7:57 pm
Semprini: Let me encourage you to start by looking at the later chapters of The Design of Life and follow the references there (go to www.thedesignoflife.net). That said, I dont like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you wont be posting at UD any longer.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 15 2008,13:10
What the hell is going on over there? I can't keep up. WAD is oblivating threads as fast as DaveTard can create them.
HT to PTET for snagging < Colson Praises PETA - Darwin Worldview >. And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?
The Days of PegLeg stands as a beacon of reason and stability as the Gaffe Zeppelin burns.
Posted by: PTET on Feb. 15 2008,13:43
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10) | And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .
< DaveScot Apologises >
* [Edited for hit whorage.] ** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above]
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 15 2008,14:36
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,13:43) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10) | And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .
< DaveScot Apologises >
* [Edited for hit whorage.] ** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it was a Notpology, forced on old Davey by Mr. Bill.
Something tells me (his long-term body of work)that Davey is not normally the apologizing kind...
Has to be Billy Boy forcing the Davester. I wonder if he liked it?
Posted by: PTET on Feb. 15 2008,14:45
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,14:36) | Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,13:43) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10) | And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .
< DaveScot Apologises >
* [Edited for hit whorage.] ** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it was a Notpology, forced on old Davey by Mr. Bill.
Something tells me (his long-term body of work)that Davey is not normally the apologizing kind...
Has to be Billy Boy forcing the Davester. I wonder if he liked it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this all show that Dembski is < DaveScot's bitch >?
If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 15 2008,15:03
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,14:45) | Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,14:36) | Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,13:43) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10) | And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .
< DaveScot Apologises >
* [Edited for hit whorage.] ** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it was a Notpology, forced on old Davey by Mr. Bill.
Something tells me (his long-term body of work)that Davey is not normally the apologizing kind...
Has to be Billy Boy forcing the Davester. I wonder if he liked it? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't this all show that Dembski is < DaveScot's bitch >?
If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you may be right... I apologize!
For some reason, I forgot about Denyse, but she is the forgotten, wronged "woman" (allegedly) in all this.
Denyse - The Face That Launched 1,000 Posts
Ha!
Posted by: PTET on Feb. 15 2008,15:26
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,15:03) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you may be right... I apologize!
For some reason, I forgot about Denyse, but she is the forgotten, wronged "woman" (allegedly) in all this.
Denyse - The Face That Launched 1,000 Posts
Ha! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we having the same conversation twice? :)
Is DaveScot really some sort of evil genius? Or is he just more evil and more of a Genius than WmAD?
I should probably apologize to the good doctor for distracting him from his important work overthrowing Darwinism, polishing up his Nobel acceptance speech, and picking up his laundry...
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 15 2008,18:45
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,15:26) | Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,15:03) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you may be right... I apologize!
For some reason, I forgot about Denyse, but she is the forgotten, wronged "woman" (allegedly) in all this.
Denyse - The Face That Launched 1,000 Posts
Ha! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are we having the same conversation twice? :)
Is DaveScot really some sort of evil genius? Or is he just more evil and more of a Genius than WmAD?
I should probably apologize to the good doctor for distracting him from his important work overthrowing Darwinism, polishing up his Nobel acceptance speech, and picking up his laundry... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot Evil Genius - no.
Fat Tard-Thrower - yes
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 25 2008,18:57
A rare fully intact specimen of a UD thread that succumbed to hidden obliviation. This and several similar threads are thought to have blundered into the Le Brea Tard Pits from which there was no escape. As can be seen below, struggle only hastened it's demise. (HT: oldman)
Posted by: Jkrebs on Feb. 25 2008,21:57
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Le Brea Tard Pits ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wonderful - is there an award for phrase of the week?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 25 2008,23:10
Quote (Jkrebs @ Feb. 25 2008,22:57) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Le Brea Tard Pits ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wonderful - is there an award for phrase of the week? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, we have a Post of the Week. We don't really concern ourselves much with the actual time frame, though.
A nomination is usually sufficient if I see it.
So RB, this one's on Jack.
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 28 2008,03:34
Deletion without comment is the Czar's sincerest form of flattery. Formerly, and ever so briefly, at < Wanted: More Greenhouse Gases >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- DaveScot and GilDodgen,
Like most guys who know a lot about computing, you know precious little about statistical inference. A downward spike in the latest sample of a time series that has shown a long-term upward trend is no basis for saying that you are "proven right." This is not to say that you are not right -- it's just to say that it's foolish to trumpet on the basis of so little information. It's obvious that neither of you has ever worked in prediction of nonlinear, nonstationary time series.
I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.
Nothing forces us to do everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions or to ignore them totally. Only simpletons and blow-hards insist on giving all-or-nothing responses to ambiguous scientific information. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A funny aspect of my head-butting with Dave is that he doesn't know, and seems incapable of discerning, that my IQ is identical to his. Of course, I have four degrees that he does not, and a bunch of teaching, research, reviewing, etc., to boot. And unlike him, I can allow that some of you outclass me.
It happens that I once published results in prediction of annual sunspots numbers (a classical problem in statistics) that improved greatly on all in the literature. When I tell Dave he's an IDiot to claim "proof" that global temperatures are not rising when temperatures dip sharply for a year, he really should listen. But I think we all agree that Davie's wee-wee would have shriveled and fallen off if he had left my comment on the blog.
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 28 2008,03:43
I forgot to mention that I've been "Expelled" yet again.
I would love to see some of Dembski's old expulsion notices released to the media right after the film opens. Wes, are you reading this? Have you saved stuff going back that far?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 28 2008,05:55
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,04:34) | Deletion without comment is the Czar's sincerest form of flattery. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, no, no. The sincerest form of flattery from Tardicus < is with boldface commentary > and homoerotic homophobic insult.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 28 2008,06:35
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,04:43) | I forgot to mention that I've been "Expelled" yet again.
I would love to see some of Dembski's old expulsion notices released to the media right after the film opens. Wes, are you reading this? Have you saved stuff going back that far? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turncoat -
You called out Dave's NAME and that's why you and your message were obliviated: "Only simpletons and blow-hards..."
Who were you at UD this time?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 28 2008,14:56
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,03:34) | Deletion without comment is the Czar's sincerest form of flattery. Formerly, and ever so briefly, at < Wanted: More Greenhouse Gases >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- DaveScot and GilDodgen,
Like most guys who know a lot about computing, you know precious little about statistical inference. A downward spike in the latest sample of a time series that has shown a long-term upward trend is no basis for saying that you are "proven right." This is not to say that you are not right -- it's just to say that it's foolish to trumpet on the basis of so little information. It's obvious that neither of you has ever worked in prediction of nonlinear, nonstationary time series.
I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy.
Nothing forces us to do everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions or to ignore them totally. Only simpletons and blow-hards insist on giving all-or-nothing responses to ambiguous scientific information. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A funny aspect of my head-butting with Dave is that he doesn't know, and seems incapable of discerning, that my IQ is identical to his. Of course, I have four degrees that he does not, and a bunch of teaching, research, reviewing, etc., to boot. And unlike him, I can allow that some of you outclass me.
It happens that I once published results in prediction of annual sunspots numbers (a classical problem in statistics) that improved greatly on all in the literature. When I tell Dave he's an IDiot to claim "proof" that global temperatures are not rising when temperatures dip sharply for a year, he really should listen. But I think we all agree that Davie's wee-wee would have shriveled and fallen off if he had left my comment on the blog. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turncoat -
AL RITE - LISTEN UP HOMO, CUZ I'M TALKING HERE AND ONLY GONNA TELL THIS TO YOU 1 TIME. YEAH, I'M TALKING TO YOU - I'M THE ONLY REAL MAN HERE.
MY IQ IS BASED ON THE 100 I GOT ON THE WRITTEN PART OF THE DRIVING TEST, AND I SCORED A PERFECT 100, SO THAT MEANS I'M SMARTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE, CUZ NO ONE CAN BEAT THAT SCORE!
PUT THAT IN YER DARWINIST PIPES AND SMOKE IT.
SO THERE, PDQ, AND QED, ETC. YOU CAN NOT BE SMARTER THAN MY AUTODICK THINKING.
HOMO
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 28 2008,18:44
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 28 2008,06:35) | Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,04:43) | I forgot to mention that I've been "Expelled" yet again.
I would love to see some of Dembski's old expulsion notices released to the media right after the film opens. Wes, are you reading this? Have you saved stuff going back that far? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turncoat -
You called out Dave's NAME and that's why you and your message were obliviated: "Only simpletons and blow-hards..."
Who were you at UD this time? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cloud of Unknowing.
I've been expelled many times, but deleted only once before. That was after I challenged the Gish-galloping Gordon E. Mullings, by name, to a $25,000 wager regarding "free lunch" in optimization. (I'd have actually gone through with the bet, were he fool enough to take it, but I intended simply to jerk his chain.) He signed his comments "GEM of TKI" and linked to web pages giving his name, so I didn't think he had left himself privacy I could infringe upon. But DaveTard decided otherwise. I suppose homely cusses like < Mr. Springer > (barefoot and pregnant) and < Msr. Mullings > (3rd and 5th thumbnails) have to stick together.
I love it when the Czar gives me the boot and leaves his "rationale" on the blog. Perhaps he's finally caught on to the fact that I've been playing him against himself. He is, of course, his own worst enemy. But I suspect he's conscious that evidence of UD's hypocrisy is a bad thing when "Expelled" is about to be released.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 28 2008,18:48
Turncoat, here is cheers to you!
I've often admired your work, glad to meet you my friend.
Why I have wondered is that seminal douche Kairosfocus not here anymore. Perhaps you have answered the question. I have suffered that fool, gladly, several occasions (so have Hermagoras and others). Fight the power!!!!
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 28 2008,20:55
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2008,18:48) | Why I have wondered is that seminal douche Kairosfocus not here anymore. Perhaps you have answered the question. I have suffered that fool, gladly, several occasions (so have Hermagoras and others). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't hang diagnoses on everyone at UD, but KF gives strong signs of bipolar disorder (and Gil Dodgen has essentially tagged himself as the narcissistic son of a narcissistic father). I predicted that he would swing into depression and disappear for a while, and I was right about that. We'll have to wait and see if he returns galloping.
I think there's some justification for getting the UDers to parade their... issues. But I don't want to be out-and-out cruel to Mullings. David Scott Springer is a different matter. The IDists think evolutionary theory has caused people to disavow moral responsibility for their actions. Well, I hold DaveScot morally responsible for his polymorphously unconscionable behavior.
Having worked on a psychiatric ward, I know just how pernicious mania is. If I'm right about Mullings, I sincerely hope he takes the psychotropics Denyse O'Leary says no ensouled body needs and gets better.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 28 2008,21:58
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,19:44) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 28 2008,06:35) | Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,04:43) | I forgot to mention that I've been "Expelled" yet again.
I would love to see some of Dembski's old expulsion notices released to the media right after the film opens. Wes, are you reading this? Have you saved stuff going back that far? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turncoat -
You called out Dave's NAME and that's why you and your message were obliviated: "Only simpletons and blow-hards..."
Who were you at UD this time? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cloud of Unknowing.
I've been expelled many times, but deleted only once before. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cloud! And your other incarnations? Rewiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 28 2008,23:48
Turncoat
I am surprised that you might think that Kairosfocus is somehow not all there. I mean, not really, because ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect, but on the other hand this cat has all sorts of posted tard at the always linked discussion. And that kind of shit is hard to argue about, clearly it is the product of a warped but focused mind.
Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favorite all time tards because of the swallowing of the baby-puke colored pill, but at the very least his highly systematic and seemingly ennumerated scheme for epistemology indicated that he was more than your average turettes syndrome basketcase pubic hair filer.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 29 2008,05:23
[Voluntarily ported to BW as it was wildly off topic. Apologies for any incontinence caused]
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,07:39
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 28 2008,21:58) | Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 28 2008,19:44) | Cloud! And your other incarnations? Rewiring minds want to know. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I really can't remember most of them. I used to be Semiotic 007. Some time before that, I went by my own name, and Our YEC Savior went to some length to make sure THE WORLD (he clearly believed that THE WORLD was reading UD) did not mistake me for the creationist by the same name. The funny thing is that the notion of creation is central to my belief system, but I have absolutely no use for the -ism. Gil Dodgen opened a thread addressing me directly when I pointed out that he had made absolutely moronic comments about simulation. And DaveScot also opened a thread addressing me directly -- if I recall correctly, he was responding to my observation that lay "science skeptics" are sorry substitutes for practicing researchers with PhD's. (I've actually insisted this in 4-5 incarnations now. It's a sure-fire way of getting the IDiots to demonstrate their circle jerk.)
You'll know me when I post again at UD.
Posted by: Raevmo on Feb. 29 2008,08:26
Turncoat = Tom English
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 29 2008,08:51
ohhhhh, an expelled member of the lab, eh?
that's working from the inside out, huh.
how big was that broom closet, anyway?
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,09:27
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2008,23:48) | Turncoat
I am surprised that you might think that Kairosfocus is somehow not all there. I mean, not really, because ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect, but on the other hand this cat has all sorts of posted tard at the always linked discussion. And that kind of shit is hard to argue about, clearly it is the product of a warped but focused mind.
Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favorite all time tards because of the swallowing of the baby-puke colored pill, but at the very least his highly systematic and seemingly ennumerated scheme for epistemology indicated that he was more than your average turettes syndrome basketcase pubic hair filer. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When someone with bipolar I disorder is on the upswing, but not yet in a psychotic state, he is "all there," and may be highly focused, sleeping little and working long hours on something that seems tremendously important at the time. I don't think the Kairosfocus who responded to Semiotic 007 at UD was in as good shape as the Mullings who wrote the documents on the web. Manics are big-time systematizers. They are often grandiose. They may speak rapidly and tangentially. Sound familiar?
ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect? The vast majority of IDists are "liars for God." They're creationists trying to circumvent federal law by obfuscating their theory that intelligence creates complex specified information. Beyond that, the notion of winning back science for Jesus, closely akin to the notion of winning back America for Jesus, is friggin' looney-tunes.
Posted by: Louis on Feb. 29 2008,09:49
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 29 2008,15:27) | [SNIP] ....Manics are big-time systematizers. They are often grandiose. They may speak rapidly and tangentially. Sound familiar?.... [/SNIP] ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Erm, no, not at all. Ahahaha {coughs} why do you ask?
;-)
Louis
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,09:56
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 29 2008,08:51) | ohhhhh, an expelled member of the lab, eh?
that's working from the inside out, huh.
how big was that broom closet, anyway? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wasn't expelled. I was willing to stand up for Marks and his right to push evolutionary informatics and notions like active information. But when the names "Dodgen" and "Sewell" turned up next to mine, I was appalled. And I excused myself politely. Bob Marks is a decent guy, as best I can tell.
About thirty years ago, I was expelled from, and subsequently readmitted to, a Baptist college. My sin was to agitate for equality of women and men in education. My salvation was the many students and faculty members who spoke out on my behalf. Last year, I felt it was my turn to speak out for someone. I interacted behind the scenes, obviously to no avail, with regents and the executive vice president and provost of Baylor.
Fun facts to know and tell: I exchanged notes with a regent on the 51st anniversary of my birth in Waco. The site of my first home is now part of the Baylor campus.
Another important aspect of the story is that when I signed on with the EvoInfo Lab, I thought I had some solid "free lunch" results for optimization forthcoming. Bob Marks agreed up front not to censor my work, so my plan was to post at his site a research paper contradicting much of what he and Dembski have to say.
As things stand, I do have some "free lunch" results, but I consider them somewhat trivial. I'm giving that line of research a rest at the moment, and will return to it after revisiting some work in evolution of time series predictors.
All in all, the experience with the EvoInfo lab was embarrassing for me. But I feel I did what was right for me to do.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 29 2008,09:59
Turncoat, were you on the top-secret ID list-serve?
edit? Yes.
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,09:59
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 29 2008,08:26) | Turncoat = Tom English ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered.
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,10:17
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 29 2008,09:59) | Turncoat, were you on the top-secret ID list-serve?
edit? Yes. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, I did not wind my way into the Heart of Darkness.
Dembski suggested that Semiotic 007 (what a big secret my real identity was!) contact Marks. I did. Marks reviewed my web site, complimented me on some of my poems, asked for comments on his and Dembski's papers, and linked me into the EvoInfo web site. I never commented on the papers. Eventually I asked Marks to remove me from the site. Marks agreed, sent his best wishes, and completed the job the same day. That's the full extent of our interaction.
I have more email text from regents and the EVPP of Baylor than I do Marks and Dembski.
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 29 2008,10:20
Quote (Turncoat @ Feb. 29 2008,09:59) | Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 29 2008,08:26) | Turncoat = Tom English ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is probably the ONLY time that Dembski's Nixplanatory Filter actually functioned correctly!
You should feel flattered!
ps: Can you tell us all about some of the Secret Squirrel ID List Serve Stuff?
Is it true that the Secret Squirrel List Serve people have ALL the DaVinci Code, Bible Code and Zip Code Information for the entire USA?
added in edit: I guess Dembski's Nixplanatory Filter is "working as per usual".
added in edit II: Cross-posted - Missed it by this much! (3 minutes). Of course that is better than getting caught cross-dressing! Right Arden, Louis, Lou?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 29 2008,10:36
Holey moley. I didn't quite follow all of this very well back when it happened. Congrats! By the way I thought I was being clever about being 'expelled' since there are two of y'all running around. Figured that when you said the other one was a creationist that the other one was the one working with Marks.
Again, fine work.
Posted by: Raevmo on Feb. 29 2008,10:59
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Turncoat: Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was your remark concerning sunspots that gave it away for me. I recalled you saying something about predicting sunspots with genetic algorithms on UD at the time, and I looked up your paper back then.
Posted by: Turncoat on Feb. 29 2008,12:43
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 29 2008,10:59) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Turncoat: Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It was your remark concerning sunspots that gave it away for me. I recalled you saying something about predicting sunspots with genetic algorithms on UD at the time, and I looked up your paper back then. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My writing style is distinctive, as is the combination of topics I comment on. It's never a secret who I am. The game is that as long as I don't say who I am and don't cross DaveScot, everyone pretends he doesn't know who I am.
Posted by: hooligans on Feb. 29 2008,21:45
Turncoat,
Did you actually step foot into the lab? Did you see photos of the equipment? What kind of staff does the lab employ?
Posted by: Turncoat on Mar. 04 2008,02:15
Quote (hooligans @ Feb. 29 2008,21:45) | Turncoat,
Did you actually step foot into the lab? Did you see photos of the equipment? What kind of staff does the lab employ? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I virtually set foot in the EvoInfo lab, just as I've virtually quaffed a few at PT. The inside dope is that Galapagos Finch handles development and testing of MATLAB programs.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 04 2008,03:02
Ouch. Unkind.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Mar. 04 2008,06:00
Tom wrote:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I genuinely do not know what to believe about anthropogenic global warming. But I do know that there is so much scientific uncertainty in the matter that any layperson who claims to have resolved it absolutely is pure bluster. And I know also that there are hugely different costs associated with different errors in inference. If CO2 emissions are in fact causing global warming, and we do nothing about them, then the cost of the error is astounding. If the emissions are not responsible for global warming, and we reduce them needlessly, the cost of the error is relatively low. Given the present scientific uncertainty, and the possibility that severe cost is associated with allowing CO2 emissions to rise, a prudent course would be to look for approaches to reducing emissions that are a) relatively high in efficacy and b) relatively low in impact on the economy. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great minds think < alike >!
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 04 2008,06:14
Quote (Turncoat @ Mar. 04 2008,02:15) | Quote (hooligans @ Feb. 29 2008,21:45) | Turncoat,
Did you actually step foot into the lab? Did you see photos of the equipment? What kind of staff does the lab employ? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I virtually set foot in the EvoInfo lab, just as I've virtually quaffed a few at PT. The inside dope is that Galapagos Finch handles development and testing of MATLAB programs. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The funniest thing, Turncoat, is that you're exactly right.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2008,12:35
< Aaron stops by BadAstronomy > and mentions his being Expelled from Uncommonly Dense.
Did we get him documented here? (I'm in a bit of a crunch and can't locate my Dawkins.net password just at the moment.)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 18 2008,13:28
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2008,13:35) | < Aaron stops by BadAstronomy > and mentions his being Expelled from Uncommonly Dense.
Did we get him documented here? (I'm in a bit of a crunch and can't locate my Dawkins.net password just at the moment.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aaron's demise was recorded < here >.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2008,14:21
Thank you Bill.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 29 2008,08:46
Moderation in all things:
< 35 > DaveScot 03/29/2008 5:22 am Allen
Due to disrupting threads with continued denialism youre now in moderation. If you want to quote Mein Kampf at length do it on your own blog.
ETA: I think we can promote this to bannination, as DaveTard subsequently descended to pure ad hominem.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 31 2008,06:50
Oh, Hell.
< 19 > DaveScot 03/30/2008 8:33 pm
In case anyone is wondering where 30 comments disappeared to they can be found at www.offtopicpurgatory.org.
Says carlsonjok: "I would note that the comments that were deleted were all the comments discussing Sal's dishonest use of the Darwin puppy quote. Sal's original comment is still there, though. You are one classy guy, Dave.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 31 2008,07:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|