RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (41) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2016,03:20   

Quote
Woodbine November 22, 2016 at 5:00 am
I have to say the ‘500 witnesses’ thing is one of the more amusing entries in the ‘It says so in the Bible therefore it’s true’ category.

Imagine pulling that shit in court –

“Your honour, the defendant was seen escaping in a time machine by 500 witnesses!”

“Who are these witnesses; can we can cross examine them?”

“We don’t know who they were and they’re all dead. But your honour….500! Seriously, how many more do you need?”
responding to VJ the idiot.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2016,10:10   

Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for the court?"

Defendant: "No, Your Honor, I'm trying to hide it."

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2016,15:43   

Noted smart person William J Murray is pushing the Podesta/Clinton child-abuse story.  This is definitely not fake news and was in no way dreamed up by the peyote-munching crack-addled love child of David Icke and Alex Jones.  

He is, of course, just asking questions.

linky

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2016,17:17   

You beat me to the punch, JohnW, but thank you for making your post. I had thought about, finally, registering and pointing out all the problems to be found in vjtorley's latest post, but Murray's made me pause enough to ask the following question:

WHAT THE FUCK IS FUCKING WRONG WITH THOSE FUCKING MODERATORS AT TSZ THAT THEY WOULD LET THAT ODIOUS FUCKING VILE PIECE OF SHIT WILLIAM J MURRAY POST THAT FUCKING MASTURBATORY CONSPIRACY THEORY OBVIOUS PILE OF LIES BULLSHIT???

William J Murray is, in my opinion, one sick fuck. What he posted is what he wants to be true, and, let us remember, he believes he makes the world. Therefore, he has created a world in which pedophile rings are run by those whose politics he doesn't like. He WANTS these pedophile rings to exist, therefore, for him, they do. He WANTS children to be repeatedly raped by Democrats...therefore, for him, they are. And the moderators at TSZ are Murray's enablers.  

I so used to enjoy The Skeptical Zone as a reader. In no way is it a total trash heap like UD, and I am honored to read what some of the commenters have to say, but what a pile of junk has been accumulating there of late in some of the original posts. Murray's is the cherry on top of that shit sundae.

(ETA: when I was talking about registering, I meant I intended to point out problems with FMM's most recent post, that silly "Turing Test" nonsense, not vjtorley's. I can only plead fury at WJM's continued privileged status.)

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2016,17:27   

Alan Fox just showed some guts, for which I thank him to the utmost. In the name of what TSZ has stood for, Murray's post should be removed and his original posting privileges revoked. Like what I say matters, but this is a bleak day for Lizzie's site.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2016,19:08   

And on the heels of Alan showing some guts, Neil steps in to close comments but keep the original post right at the head of the line. Can't have those icky commenters roughing up William J Murray's nice new post with their reality, can we?

No, wait. I apologize. This is (somewhat) new, poisonous territory, and I should not ascribe motive without information. It could well be that the moderators (even Patrick!) might be thinking that maybe there are boundaries to what constitutes a decent original post at TSZ. FroeK was blocked from posting his usual bile just recently, and even Lizzie stepped in to say, "Yeah, not so much." Murray's post was perfect for UD; as an appreciative and grateful reader of TSZ, I can only beg the mods to let that be the dunghill from which he crows.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2016,22:14   

I apologize for bogarting the site, but this is the point:

By letting Murray's post stand, Alan, Neil, and Patrick are participating in blood libel. I hope they will see that.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2016,09:05   

Thank you, Alan Fox, for having removed William J Murray's post, and suspending his posting privileges. Of course 24-hour moderation is impossible, so it makes sense that it took some time to address the problem.

I suppose I ought to also thank WJM for the opportunity for a Monday night meltdown. It was fun.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2016,11:25   

Quote (clamboy @ Nov. 29 2016,09:05)
Thank you, Alan Fox, for having removed William J Murray's post, and suspending his posting privileges. Of course 24-hour moderation is impossible, so it makes sense that it took some time to address the problem.

I suppose I ought to also thank WJM for the opportunity for a Monday night meltdown. It was fun.

Countdown until William "mindpowers" Murray shows up a UD whining about how he was the victim of censorship.

5...
4...
3...

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2016,11:48   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 29 2016,09:25)
Quote (clamboy @ Nov. 29 2016,09:05)
Thank you, Alan Fox, for having removed William J Murray's post, and suspending his posting privileges. Of course 24-hour moderation is impossible, so it makes sense that it took some time to address the problem.

I suppose I ought to also thank WJM for the opportunity for a Monday night meltdown. It was fun.

Countdown until William "mindpowers" Murray shows up a UD whining about how he was the victim of censorship.

5...
4...
3...

The post is still on the site - it's just been thrown on the shit-heap.  Which is good.  Next time WJM gets sanctimonious (ETA: 3-5 minutes) we can link to it.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2016,20:36   

Patrick...oh, Patrick. Patrick thinks William J Murray's post was just dandy, and totally fit for TSZ. "Hey! Let's be skeptical, how do we *KNOW* Jews don't slaughter Christian babies to make their bread? Everything is up for discussion! More speech is good speech! If a person who has posting privileges says child pedophilia rings are rampant in the Democratic Party, and they know it's a dangerous violent lie, so what? If anyone is ever prevented from saying anything ever, in any space, then STALIN!"

Tuesday night meltdown.

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,12:11   

Quote (clamboy @ Nov. 29 2016,21:36)
Patrick...oh, Patrick. Patrick thinks William J Murray's post was just dandy, and totally fit for TSZ. "Hey! Let's be skeptical, how do we *KNOW* Jews don't slaughter Christian babies to make their bread? Everything is up for discussion! More speech is good speech! If a person who has posting privileges says child pedophilia rings are rampant in the Democratic Party, and they know it's a dangerous violent lie, so what? If anyone is ever prevented from saying anything ever, in any space, then STALIN!"

Tuesday night meltdown.

You have misrepresented my clearly stated position.  Here is what I wrote:

Quote
Normally I would object to this decision because I don’t think the admins should be exercising authority over the topics people choose to discuss here. It is possible to apply the tools of skepticism to claims like those that WJM posted. It could even be a valuable process.

However, this venue and our gracious hostess are resident in England, a country known for libel tourism. It appears that this is the kind of material that could cause harm to the site and to Lizzie personally. I reluctantly agree with your proposal to move it and the comments to Noyau.


If you have any objections, please raise them in the Moderation Issues thread at The Skeptical Zone.

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,13:41   

Patrick, thanks for your reply and invitation. I did say "meltdown," you know, which to me implies a certain hyperbole.

I notice you used the word "claims" in talking about what WJM posted. To me, a claim is a statement which the speaker believes reflects reality. WJM did not make claims, he posted dangerous lies. There is no reason to have a skeptical discussion about blatant falsehoods.

WJM posted patently and obviously false material, with the intent of inciting anger and hatred against a group of people. That is why I used the term "blood libel." Only this could well be worse, in that many people who spread the blood libel may well have believed it. I'm not sure that WJM even cares if what he posted was true or false.

I think I am right, that WJM's post had no place on TSZ, and it is my opinion that your expressed philosophy of moderation is not in keeping with what TSZ is about. UD is of course rife with censorship, but that does not mean your "just about anything goes" perspective, if it means WJM can post that kind of material as he so chooses, is conducive to the kind of discussion Dr. F. had in mind.

But let me thank you again for continuing to be a moderator at TSZ. While I may disagree with your philosophy, I am glad to see it expressed there so that debate may be had. In terms of my registering and posting in the Moderation thread, well, maybe, but I usually prefer to let others with greater facility speak.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,13:49   

skeptical zone has been better than UD lately.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,15:21   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2016,11:49)
skeptical zone has been better than UD lately.

LBOTW

(low bar of the week)

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,15:39   

Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.
Quote
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

I understand if Mr. Arrington needs to remove this post. I’ve done what I needed to do here. Thanks.

(post removed)

Barry:  Thank you for your understanding WJM.  This is not our focus here.


Other being against all things science, do they have a focus? Other than KairosFocus?

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,16:01   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2016,13:39)
Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.
Quote
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

I understand if Mr. Arrington needs to remove this post. I’ve done what I needed to do here. Thanks.

(post removed)

Barry:  Thank you for your understanding WJM.  This is not our focus here.


Other being against all things science, do they have a focus? Other than KairosFocus?

Well, back in the day, the focus was "make creationists look like scientists, in the hope that a school board somewhere will get its arse kicked in court."
Now, as you imply, the focus is "keep the village loonies off the streets and out of trouble, so the good people of Montserrat and Colorado Springs can go about their business without being hassled."

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2016,20:01   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 01 2016,16:01)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 01 2016,13:39)
Does anyone know what this removed post at UD was about. It appears that WJM has a problem.
 
Quote
Alt-Right? Fake News? Down The Rabbit Hole

I understand if Mr. Arrington needs to remove this post. I’ve done what I needed to do here. Thanks.

(post removed)

Barry:  Thank you for your understanding WJM.  This is not our focus here.


Other being against all things science, do they have a focus? Other than KairosFocus?

Well, back in the day, the focus was "make creationists look like scientists, in the hope that a school board somewhere will get its arse kicked in court."
Now, as you imply, the focus is "keep the village loonies off the streets and out of trouble, so the good people of Montserrat and Colorado Springs can go about their business without being hassled."

An example of cooption?

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

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2016,08:21   

[quote=clamboy,Dec. 01 2016,14:41][/quote]
Quote
I notice you used the word "claims" in talking about what WJM posted. To me, a claim is a statement which the speaker believes reflects reality. WJM did not make claims, he posted dangerous lies. There is no reason to have a skeptical discussion about blatant falsehoods.


On the contrary, the only way to demonstrate that a statement is false is to apply the tools of skepticism.  I don't trust anyone to decide a priori what is acceptable speech and what is not, including myself.

Quote
WJM posted patently and obviously false material, with the intent of inciting anger and hatred against a group of people. That is why I used the term "blood libel." Only this could well be worse, in that many people who spread the blood libel may well have believed it. I'm not sure that WJM even cares if what he posted was true or false.


He posted links to a conspiracy theory.  While only he can speak to his purpose in doing so, it is still simply speech, however offensive some may find it.  The solution to bad speech is good speech, not censorship.

I suspect that some of the theists posting on The Skeptical Zone consider criticism of their beliefs to be "patently and obviously false".  Just as I would not have them censor me, I would not censor them.

Quote
I think I am right, that WJM's post had no place on TSZ, and it is my opinion that your expressed philosophy of moderation is not in keeping with what TSZ is about. UD is of course rife with censorship, but that does not mean your "just about anything goes" perspective, if it means WJM can post that kind of material as he so chooses, is conducive to the kind of discussion Dr. F. had in mind.


I'm a free speech absolutist, in the sense that I don't believe any expression should be pre-emptively blocked (although there may be consequences for some content such as slander and libel).  No one should have the ability to prevent another from expressing himself or herself.  I value fora that share this ethos.

That being said, I also respect the right of people to choose what they read.  I'd like to see forum software that enables each participant to curate their own experience, without impacting others.

Lizzie is not as absolutist as I am, but she tends to support freedom of expression far more than some at The Skeptical Zone would like.  As long as she continues to do so, I'll be happy to help out however I can there.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2016,10:38   

JohnnyB has simultaneously posted an OP at UD and TSZ. He linked to a presentation he is devoloping about CSI, and has asked both sites critique it so he can improve it and make sure the math/stats is sound. At present, there are 19 comments at TSZ, most of them being critical, but generally constructively so. At UD there are two comments. Both along this line:
Quote
Excellent video! Totally worth watching all the way through to the end.


TSZ

UDderly pointless

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2016,21:50   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 03 2016,10:38)
JohnnyB has simultaneously posted an OP at UD and TSZ. He linked to a presentation he is devoloping about CSI, and has asked both sites critique it so he can improve it and make sure the math/stats is sound. At present, there are 19 comments at TSZ, most of them being critical, but generally constructively so. At UD there are two comments. Both along this line:
 
Quote
Excellent video! Totally worth watching all the way through to the end.


TSZ

UDderly pointless

JohnnyB dismisses the paper Jeff Shallit and I co-authored. He promises to comment on it later.

Typical IDC reactions are (1) simple dismissal, (2) responses that demonstrate nil comprehension of the material (e.g., the Luskin thing on the DI blog), and (3) unfilled promises to respond to the material.

The notion that there is any difference in using the phrases "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" is a non-starter.

Anything that someone claims CSI does, if it is an actual application, can be done more simply and rigorously with our Specified Anti-Information (SAI) framework applying the Universal Distribution. (One could state this somewhat more strongly, that CSI has proved resistant to empirical application, and SAI is trivially applicable.) But SAI doesn't permit making unwarranted rarefied design inferences.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2016,21:49   

Quote
It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

-FifthMonarchyMan


Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: linky

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 13 2016,22:50

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,10:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,19:49)
Quote
It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

-FifthMonarchyMan


Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: linky

If only god would show me a sign.  Like having FMM make an argument which isn't fucking stupid.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,12:39   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 14 2016,10:47)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,19:49)
 
Quote
It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

-FifthMonarchyMan


Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: linky

If only god would show me a sign.  Like having FMM make an argument which isn't fucking stupid.


  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,12:45   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 13 2016,21:49)
Quote
It seems to me that a universe in which the unusual only happens in very rare instances is a little odd especially given the inherent weirdness of Quantum Mechanics.

-FifthMonarchyMan


Wow. That is just stunning.

ETA: linky

Unusual:  adjective: not habitually or commonly occurring or done.

Rare: adjective: coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon.

Used in a sentence: FMM is an individual of rare and unusual intelligence.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,14:18   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 14 2016,11:45)
Used in a sentence: FMM is an individual of rare and unusual intelligence.

Meaning his intelligence has a body to control?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,14:56   

Intelligent Design is down to some real winners.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,16:55   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 14 2016,14:18)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 14 2016,11:45)
Used in a sentence: FMM is an individual of rare and unusual intelligence.

Meaning his intelligence has a body to control?

With the help of Depends it is almost working perfectly.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2016,17:05   

That's not exactly what I meant, but I guess it'll do. :p

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2016,01:35   

fifthmonarchyman (who else?):
Quote
By the time Constantine converted the overthrow of the old “heathen” world order was pretty much a feta complete.

What a friend we have in cheeses.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
  1224 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (41) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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